Despite supposedly having the same amount of so called "Eurasian" mixture, Somalis are darker with wavy/curly hair, but Ethiopians are lighter with a higher incidence of kinky/spiral hair. I guess "Eurasian" mixture supposedly works differently on both of them, right? Or what do yall think accounts for this difference?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
you are making a lot of claims here with no sources
Somalia is a lot less diverse than Ethiopia. Somalis are considered of one Cushitic tribe of various clans Comparatively a list of Ethiopians groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_Ethiopia Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Somalis have less Eurasian, but also less Sub-Saharan and more (insert non-SSA component [Natufian-like, Ethiosomali, take your pick]) than Ethiopians.
This IAC is colored dark green on the figure and is referenced here as “Ethio-Somali”. This Ethio-Somali IAC is found at its highest frequencies in Cushitic speaking Somali populations and at high frequencies in neighboring Cushitic and Semitic speaking Afar, Amhara, Oromo, and Tygray populations. This IAC was not identified in the source study for the HOA SNP data [16], but Tishkoff and colleagues [59], in an analysis of an independent autosomal microsatellite dataset, did recover an equivalent IAC (calling it “Cushitic”). While this Ethio-Somali IAC is found primarily in Africa, it has clear non-African affinities (Text S1). Early Back-to-Africa Migration into the Horn of Africa (2014) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4055572/
Should not be a mystery in 2023 after countless discussions on African components that are neither SSA nor Eurasian.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Right. It should be apparent by now that the 'Sub-Saharan vs. Eurasian' is a FALSE dialectic. Both Africa and Eurasia are too diverse to make such ridiculous reductionist assumptions. The idea that Eurasia means "caucasoid" features for example is hilarious considering that black skinned, spiral haired Andamanese are more (pristine) Eurasians compared to African admixed Western Eurasians. Even the label Sub-Saharan is a misnomer since both Hadza and southernmost Khoisan also lack this marker most label as "Sub-Saharan".
But as Lioness pointed out Ethiopians, and Eritreans especially have much higher percentages of actual Eurasian admixture than Somalis yet the former not only being lighter skinned have higher incidence of kinky hair while the latter while darker have loose wavy hair. Which again shows that such traits are not associated with one ancestry over another.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
IF you look at the original Herto paper (not the media coverage, but the actual paper) you will see the report includes photographs of the remains of a young boy that anthropologists generally don't talk about (presumably because it looks much more 'modern' than Herto Man at this early date of 160ky, a discrepancy that is too much for their confirmation bias to handle). But you can already see the extreme difference at that Herto site at 160ky ago, as the boy's skull cap looks much more like UP Europeans, possibly presenting an even better morphological 'bridge' to OOA populations than Hofmyer. Although this hasn't been clarified yet with multivariate analysis.
Though this diversity at Herto obviously doesn't exist anymore in Ethiopia, this still shows that Omotic, Cushitic and Nilo-Saharan physical distinctiveness had its own parallels in the Palaeolithic. Remove the Eurasian ancestry from Ethiopia and you're still left with Africans showing tendencies towards different populations, African and non-African.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I think I remember seeing something like that in the subsequent reports on the Herto site, but I recall the explanation (excuse) made that due to the young age of the remains conclusions cannot be made since the features are paedomorphic while adult features are more reliable.
What do you think of the craniometric data by language grouping from Parahu?
Craniometric chart from Froment 1998 showing generalized speakers from different language groups
Ike & Hayama 1982
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
But as Lioness pointed out Ethiopians, and Eritreans especially have much higher percentages of actual Eurasian admixture than Somalis yet the former not only being lighter skinned have higher incidence of kinky hair while the latter while darker have loose wavy hair. Which again shows that such traits are not associated with one ancestry over another.
I only pointed out the percentage of haplogroup J in Ethiopia is said to be around 30% and the have more separate ethnic groups than Somalia. Not this other stuff about one country over the other having lighter skin or kinky hair. We should not be assuming these phenotypical claims without some kind of statistical data
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I've seen the Somali population in Ethiopia estimated to be 7.6 to over 15 million
Comparatively with Somalia, Ethiopia can be broken down into various groups
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ I think I remember seeing something like that in the subsequent reports on the Herto site, but I recall the explanation (excuse) made that due to the young age of the remains conclusions cannot be made since the features are paedomorphic while adult features are more reliable
Must have been a rare report then, because there is almost no discussion on this child in the literature. Almost everything in the literature focuses on the adult Herto male. As a result the photographs of child's remains are far more difficult to find than the photographs of the adult male, even though both photographs come from the same paper. This is what it was like when I looked into this years ago. Situation might have improved in google, but I doubt it, because I know why it's like this in the first place.
quote:What do you think of the craniometric data by language grouping from Parahu?
Although I have not read any of Froment's work, I like the other Froment graph better than this one. IMO the most successful morphometric studies have the first axis documenting most of the African vs Eurasian variations, as shown in the Froment graph I've just linked to. The Froment graph you've posted, on the other hand, has some populations cluster in a big group. IMO such analyses come out like that because they typically fail to capture most of the morphological variation.
An example of the former is that Froment paper on Egyptians, while an example of the latter is Sereno. This is what Sereno et al have to say about most of their Palaeolithic samples forming a big cluster:
quote:
Three of the loadings from the principal components analysis returned eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Table 7). Factor loadings transparently reflect anatomical or functional units. The first principal component appears to most closely approximate a size vector, but the loadings are not uniformly positive. The pattern of positive and negative loadings for principal components 2 and 3 are not interpretable.
In other words, the first axis relates to large cranial size. Palaeolithic populations are generally larger than holocene populations. We see mainly differentiation between large Upper Palaeolithics, and the even larger Aterians, but it's based on size. So, the Palaeolithic populatons for whatever reason were not properly differentiated according to their actual population affinity. If they were, the Kiffians (negroid) would have been apart from the Iberomaurusians (e.g. Taza I negroid, Taforalt & Afalou generally not negroid). Something similar (failure to capture some of the population affinity) may have happened with the Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo speakers in your Froment graph.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Must have been a rare report then, because there is almost no discussion on this child in the literature. Almost everything in the literature focuses on the adult Herto male. As a result the photographs of child's remains are far more difficult to find than the photographs of the adult male, even though both photographs come from the same paper. This is what it was like when I looked into this years ago. Situation might have improved in google, but I doubt it, because I know why it's like this in the first place.
I'm trying to find the paper I read years back when I was in high school, but I can only find recent papers like these:
African paleoanthropology has long been influenced by eurocentricframes of reference in geology, paleontology, and archaeology. Indeed, the “Middle Stone Age” of Africa is often equated with the “Middle Pale-olithic” as defined and manifested in Europe. Even the ill-defined “Homo heidelbergensis” is still applied to African fossils. More broadly, notions that technological “cultures” arose unilineally via “transitions” persist among Paleolithic archaeologists. On the other hand, and ironically, the strict application of cladistic classification disallows nomenclatural recognition of phyletic evolution along evolving species lineages. Combined with an under-appreciation of intraspecific skeletal variation, the approach has produced species inflation and a consequently confusing jungle of phylogenetic diagrams and labels applied to hominid fossils of all antiquities (White 2009, 2014). Scerri et al. represent a recent manifestation of this when they write of “...morphologically varied populations pertaining to the H. sapiens clade” living “throughout Africa”(2018: 582). Left unspecified is what they mean by “pertaining to.” The inability of rigid biological classificatory labels to adequately express dynamic change continues to plague the depiction and under-standing of how our species lineage evolved through the Middle Pleistocene. However convenient static Linnean labels may be to claims about the “earliest” whatever taxon, such labels often work in opposition to expressing and understanding the mode and tempo of evolutionary change (White 2000, 2009, 2014).
For example, in biological anthropology a classificatory scheme based exclusively on branching speciation (cladistic classification, see below) would identify Homo sapiens based on an inferred “Homo sapiens clade” that reaches back >500,000 years ago, to a point at which African (Homo sapiens) and European (Homo neanderthalensis) biological species lineages diverged (apparently with minor subsequent introgression between them). In this scheme, anatomies as disparate as Bodo and Herto must both be classified cladistically as Homo sapiens.
Others adopt an anatomical approach, classifying as Homo sapiens only those fossils that display a specific suite of derived anatomical characters shared exclusively with anatomically modern humans. We prefer the latter approach, and nomenclaturally recognize those fossils (such as Bodo) interpreted to be the direct lineal ancestors of Homo sapiens as different chrono species, pending finer resolution of the paleontological record.
quote:Although I have not read any of Froment's work, I like the other Froment graph better than this one. IMO the most successful morphometric studies have the first axis documenting most of the African vs Eurasian variations, as shown in the Froment graph I've just linked to. The Froment graph you've posted, on the other hand, has some populations cluster in a big group. IMO such analyses come out like that because they typically fail to capture most of the morphological variation.
Yes I agree that his ancient Nile Valley graph is more clear cut and not as sloppy as his language grouping one.
quote:An example of the former is that Froment paper on Egyptians, while an example of the latter is Sereno. This is what Sereno et al have to say about most of their Palaeolithic samples forming a big cluster:
quote:
Three of the loadings from the principal components analysis returned eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Table 7). Factor loadings transparently reflect anatomical or functional units. The first principal component appears to most closely approximate a size vector, but the loadings are not uniformly positive. The pattern of positive and negative loadings for principal components 2 and 3 are not interpretable.
In other words, the first axis relates to large cranial size. Palaeolithic populations are generally larger than Holocene populations. We see mainly differentiation between large Upper Palaeolithics, and the even larger Aterians, but it's based on size. So, the Paleolithic populations for whatever reason were not properly differentiated according to their actual population affinity. If they were, the Kiffians (negroid) would have been apart from the Iberomaurusians (e.g. Taza I negroid, Taforalt & Afalou generally not negroid). Something similar (failure to capture some of the population affinity) may have happened with the Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo speakers in your Froment graph.
Yes, I concur but do you agree with the general idea that Niger-Congo speakers and (southern)Nilo-Saharan speakers tend to cluster together metrically while northern (Nubian) Nilo-Saharans, Afroasiatics and some Niger-Congo (Tutsi) speakers cluster together?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Did you notice that your paper has the Herto boy with recent humans, while the Herto adult is with so-called 'archaics'? That's exactly the evidence I wanted to see confirmed (see my second post where I said I'm waiting for clarification).
Will have to go over it closely, to make sure I get everything from it. I also want to see if they elaborate on this massive morphological distance between these two Herto fossils and the fact that this means that adult Herto isn't in our lineage, at all. (imagine if Oase I is not ancestral to later Europeans/Eurasians, how far removed Herto must be given how similar he looks to the photographs of Kabwe in the 2003 White et al paper. [In the White et al paper the Herto adult, to me, looks like a cross/hybrid between the photographs of Qafzeh 9 and Kabwe, while Herto boy looks like neither and closer to us living humans]).
quote:Yes, I concur but do you agree with the general idea that Niger-Congo speakers and (southern)Nilo-Saharan speakers tend to cluster together metrically while northern (Nubian) Nilo-Saharans, Afroasiatics and some Niger-Congo (Tutsi) speakers cluster together?
The way I see it, some groups out of the language groups you mention, are the most distinctive (physically) out of the other members in their language groups. Nilotes are the most distinctive out of Nilo-Saharans, southern African Bantu speakers are the most distinctive out of Bantu speakers in certain ways, and so on. I can't think of a good group among West/Central Africans right now, that is distinctive among non-Bantu Niger-Congo speakers, but I'm pretty sure West Africans have such a standout group as well (standout defined as morphologically unique to some degree, like Nilotes, but not due to Eurasian ancestry, as the case of some Sahelian groups).
But the point is, if you look at it like this, you shouldn't get anything resembling that Froment graphic where populations are close. But you might get that if you don't have a representative sample of language groups and leave out the distinctive members of each language group. For instance, based on their genetics it wouldn't surprise me if Luo representatives of Nilo-Saharan speakers would group close to Niger-Congo speakers.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Did you notice that your paper has the Herto boy with recent humans, while the Herto adult is with so-called 'archaics'? That's exactly the evidence I wanted to see confirmed (see my second post where I said I'm waiting for clarification).
Yes! His juvenile morphometric pattern is similar to contemporary Sapiens juveniles. I was trying to find another study that came out right after the Herto discovery saying how because it's a child it is uncertain due to paedomorphic features showing similarity between different species of a genus or even family.
quote:Will have to go over it closely, to make sure I get everything from it. I also want to see if they elaborate on this massive morphological distance between these two Herto fossils and the fact that this means that adult Herto isn't in our lineage, at all. (imagine if Oase I is not ancestral to later Europeans/Eurasians, how far removed Herto must be given how similar he looks to the photographs of Kabwe in the 2003 White et al paper. [In the White et al paper the Herto adult, to me, looks like a cross/hybrid between the photographs of Qafzeh 9 and Kabwe, while Herto boy looks like neither and closer to us living humans]).
Yes, I have read that because of Herto's features he was deemed to probably come from a different line or subspecies of Sapiens hence his name Homo sapiens idaltu as opposed to Homo sapiens sapiens. However, I personally hesitate to make any conclusions without say conclusive genetic evidence. Recall the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave Series. All three skulls are contemporary to each other yet all three look very different from each other as to suggest different population origins yet the late Dr. Christy Turner and others have shown that all three skulls possess sinodont teeth. If there was that much craniometric variation among early East Asians at that time there is no telling what kind of variation existed in Africa that far back. If according to Turner the UC Zhoukoudian skulls belong to the same population despite their difference in facial features, who's to say that Herto Man and Child don't belong to the same family??!
quote:The way I see it, some groups out of the language groups you mention, are the most distinctive (physically) out of the other members in their language groups. Nilotes are the most distinctive out of Nilo-Saharans, southern African Bantu speakers are the most distinctive out of Bantu speakers in certain ways, and so on. I can't think of a good group among West/Central Africans right now, that is distinctive among non-Bantu Niger-Congo speakers, but I'm pretty sure West Africans have such a standout group as well (standout defined as morphologically unique to some degree, like Nilotes, but not due to Eurasian ancestry, as the case of some Sahelian groups).
But the point is, if you look at it like this, you shouldn't get anything resembling that Froment graphic where populations are close. But you might get that if you don't have a representative sample of language groups and leave out the distinctive members of each language group. For instance, based on their genetics it wouldn't surprise me if Luo representatives of Nilo-Saharan speakers would group close to Niger-Congo speakers.
I believe linguistically the Kordofanian group of Niger-Congo shows the most affinity to Nilo-Saharan. But as far as more accurate craniometric charts how about these?
Rightmire 1975
Brauer 1980 Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
In regards to Ethiopians, note Mota's genomic distance to modern Ethiopians compared to other population comparisons.
^ Note the great geographic distance between Natufians of Israel and the Moroccan populations yet the Biaka pygmies of Cameroon are genetically closer to the Ethiopian Hadza than they are to Nigerians, and Mota inhabited the same vicinity as modern Ethiopians.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yes, I have read that because of Herto's features he was deemed to probably come from a different line or subspecies of Sapiens hence his name Homo sapiens idaltu as opposed to Homo sapiens sapiens. However, I personally hesitate to make any conclusions without say conclusive genetic evidence. Recall the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave Series. All three skulls are contemporary to each other yet all three look very different from each other as to suggest different population origins yet the late Dr. Christy Turner and others have shown that all three skulls are possess sinodont teeth. If there was that much craniometric variation among early East Asians at that time there is no telling what kind of variation existed in Africa that far back. If according to Turner the UC Zhoukoudian skulls belong to the same population despite their difference in facial features, who's to say that Herto Man and Child don't belong to the same family??!
Upper Palaeolithic sapiens skeletal remains at the same site often seem to belong to different 'races', either races we can recognize today (e.g. so-called 'Australoid' fossils), or they show variation large enough to be consistent with different races. You've mentioned the Upper Cave skeletal remains, and we also see it at Herto, Kostenki, Cro Magnon, Predmost, Qafzeh/Skhul, among other examples. Then there is the related finding that individual fossils separated by distance can have more of a resemblance than individuals at the same site. An example of this is Upper Cave 101 having its closest match in Ohalo I from the Levant, as opposed to anything at the Upper Cave site or the rest of China. Or you can have something like Mladec I showing more of a resemblance to Cro Magnon I than either does to Mladec II. Only at the latest phase of the Upper Palaeolithic we begin to see large samples that are homogeneous in a sense, in that they have a population affinity that is found more or less consistently throughout the population (e.g. Taforalt and Afalou, Jebel Sahaba, pre-Mesolithic al Khiday).
Scientists have never been able to explain this and I find it telling that some palaeontologists are going so far as to circulate new fossils amongst themselves before publishing so as to not get caught off guard by new fossils. You can't have it both ways. Either you're an expert and your predictions work and you're deserving of the trust the public vests in you, or you're not and you're losing control of the narrative with all these so-called archaics being found that don't match their predictions of human origins.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Right! And by 'human' origins we should read racial origins. I noticed the more archaic fossils that are discovered, the less sense racial models make. I remember years ago in college anthropologists were figuring out that modern 'racial' groups as we know them today only formed during the Holocene and that before that phenotype varied much more widely.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Despite supposedly having the same amount of so called "Eurasian" mixture, Somalis are darker with wavy/curly hair, but Ethiopians are lighter with a higher incidence of kinky/spiral hair. I guess "Eurasian" mixture supposedly works differently on both of them, right? Or what do yall think accounts for this difference?
Mulatto Madness... however, if you have ever been around enough mixed people i.e. AA mixed or Afro Caribbean mixed there ae patterns of phenotypic display/expression that do show up. Now I don't know how it works I only observe and know the effects I see
Mixed person A. Dark skin will tend to have straighter hair.
Mixed Person B. lighter skin will have wholly hair.
Why this is? I have know idea but I am sure one of these days a geneticist will figure this out.
Kamala and her younger sister are a perfect example of this
I am sure there are exceptions here and there but I am talking about a general pattern that is noticeable if you have enough cultural exposure and are either are a mixed person yourself or related to mixed people
I don't understand the obsession, IMHO Somalis/Ethiopians are nothing special... it's all MULATTO MADNESS..
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed. Obama who is half-black and half-white still has kinky hair from his father. Yet Somalis unmixed have loose wavy hair. What's interesting is that years ago a Somali created this thread asking why it is the vast majority of Horn-African biracial people look like non-African.
By the way, what's also funny is that despite Kamala Harris's claim identifying as 'black', she has no actual African ancestry. Not only is her mother South Indian (Brahmin) but her father Donald Harris is of Irish and Brhamin Indian descent himself despite being Jamaican. So the only 'black' ancestry she has is Asian.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed. Obama who is half-black and half-white still has kinky hair from his father. Yet Somalis unmixed have loose wavy hair. What's interesting is that years ago a Somali created this thread asking why it is the vast majority of Horn-African biracial people look like non-African.
By the way, what's also funny is that despite Kamala Harris's claim identifying as 'black', she has no actual African ancestry. Not only is her mother South Indian (Brahmin) but her father Donald Harris is of Irish and Brhamin Indian descent himself despite being Jamaican. So the only 'black' ancestry she has is Asian.
Yeah, you lost the plot... Kamala's dad is black, he is a typical Caribbean mulatto, probably some Irish, Scottish, Welsh or English, with a South Asian ancestor but is mostly black.
Kamala's Dad
Kam and her paternal grandmother Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Somalis are not UNMIXED... they are East African MULATTOES who practice ENDOGAMY
quote: indicate that the subjects of this study constitute a homogeneous and representative sample of Somalis having approximately 60% East-African and 40% West Eurasian gene components. The K3 factor in Fig. 1A corresponds to the ADMIXTURE K10 in Fig. 1A of Hodgson et al.16 and shows approximately 60% East African and 40% West Eurasian (25% West Asian and 15% North African)
Somali film producer Ali Said Hassan
Michael Steele Afro American Republican Governor
Whats all that different between an admixed Somali and an admixed AA?
Speaking of Obama, his daughters display the darker skin = softer hair vs lighter skin tougher hair.
These beautiful young women have some of the same essential ingredients that somali's have. 25% Nilotic ancestry, 25% Eurasian/Irish/Iberian from their father. From their mother, it's not all Yoruba even though racists would love it if AA's were all Yoruba, but I am betting Michelle has a goodly portion 15 to 20% European herself. From her father's formidable height she could have Senegalese/ Fulani ancestry. Many AA's have Hausa ancestry so some more Nilo Saharan in there etc etc. Both of these young ladies could pass for Ethiopian Amharic or Somali...
So the question is what did the Nilo-Saharan/East African component phenotype in Somali's actually looked like?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Warsame Yonis, 24 yrs, Isaaq, Habar Awal, Sa'ad Muuse.
Ali Gaboose, Isaaq, Habar Awal, Sa'ad Muuse, 20 yrs.
But as Lioness pointed out Ethiopians, and Eritreans especially have much higher percentages of actual Eurasian admixture than Somalis yet the former not only being lighter skinned have higher incidence of kinky hair while the latter while darker have loose wavy hair. Which again shows that such traits are not associated with one ancestry over another.
Talking about Ethiopians is a bit tricky because they are not as homogenous as Somalis are.
Ethiopia, in fact, is a multiethnic country. Oromo or Oromos make up half of Ethiopia's population. Oromos grew in number as a result of oromization, assimilation, and forced assimilation of other ethnic groups, as well as the inclusion of mixed peoples. Many Oromos are Omotic Ethiopians with a lower proportion of Eurasian ancestry than Somalis, for example. Individually, there are more Somalis with soft or loosely curly, silky Caucasian hair than Ethiopians, but I also saw plenty of Eritreans and Ethiopians with Caucasian-type hair. Furthermore, certain ethnic groups in Northern Sudan appear to have a higher rate of Caucasian-type hair than Somalis. With that being said, the hair textures of Somalis, Eritreans, and Ethiopians are generally similar.
Once again, millions of Ethiopians have less Eurasian ancestry than Somalis. Even Amahara, who are not as heterogeneous as Oromos, have subgroups that are not (or not entirely) ethnically Ethiosemite or Amahara. As a result, Amahara people vary in appearance, Eurasian, and Mota admixture depending on region. Somalis and Eritreans, for example, have low Mota ancestry, whereas many Oromos, Woytala, and certain Amaharas have two digs of Mota ancestry. It seems that when it comes to phenotype, not only the Eurasian admixture ratio, but also the Mota input, play a role. Horners with a high Mota admixture have broader and less refined features than those with little or no Mota admixture. So the minor phenotypic difference between Somalis and many Ethiopians is the Mota ancestry and not solely the Eurasian genetic input.
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Right. It should be apparent by now that the 'Sub-Saharan vs. Eurasian' is a FALSE dialectic. Both Africa and Eurasia are too diverse to make such ridiculous reductionist assumptions. The idea that Eurasia means "caucasoid" features.
Of course, Eurasians can't be equated with "caucasiod," since Eastern Eurasians, for instance, developed the so-called "mongoloid" morphology, and Eurasians like Melanesians or Adamanese resemble Africans.
However, caucasiod morphology definitely arose from Western Eurasians. The thing is, "caucasiod" is more politely referred to as "Western Eurasian" these days.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Talking about Ethiopians is a bit tricky because they are not as homogenous as Somalis are.
Ethiopia, in fact, is a multiethnic country. Oromo or Oromos make up half of Ethiopia's population. Oromos grew in number as a result of oromization, assimilation, and forced assimilation of other ethnic groups, as well as the inclusion of mixed peoples. Many Oromos are Omotic Ethiopians with a lower proportion of Eurasian ancestry than Somalis, for example. Individually, there are more Somalis with soft or loosely curly, silky Caucasian hair than Ethiopians, but I also saw plenty of Eritreans and Ethiopians with Caucasian-type hair. Furthermore, certain ethnic groups in Northern Sudan appear to have a higher rate of Caucasian-type hair than Somalis. With that being said, the hair textures of Somalis, Eritreans, and Ethiopians are generally similar.
Once again, millions of Ethiopians have less Eurasian ancestry than Somalis. Even Amahara, who are not as heterogeneous as Oromos, have subgroups that are not (or not entirely) ethnically Ethiosemite or Amahara. As a result, Amahara people vary in appearance, Eurasian, and Mota admixture depending on region. Somalis and Eritreans, for example, have low Mota ancestry, whereas many Oromos, Woytala, and certain Amaharas have two digs of Mota ancestry. It seems that when it comes to phenotype, not only the Eurasian admixture ratio, but also the Mota input, play a role. Horners with a high Mota admixture have broader and less refined features than those with little or no Mota admixture. So the minor phenotypic difference between Somalis and many Ethiopians is the Mota ancestry and not solely the Eurasian genetic input.
You are correct. I was speaking of Ethiopia as as whole. Of course there are different ethnic groups and even within an ethnic group there are tribal or clan divisions. Most of the admixture in Ethiopians is found in the Habeshas (Ethio-Semites) with the highest concentrations being found in Eritrea. What's funny is that there was a 2004 Tishkoff study that showed Amhara to be 40% Eurasian and the Euronuts spun that to mean all Ethiopians are 40% Eurasian and then some took it further to say all Horn Africans are! LOL
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Somalis are not UNMIXED... they are East African MULATTOES who practice ENDOGAMY
quote: indicate that the subjects of this study constitute a homogeneous and representative sample of Somalis having approximately 60% East-African and 40% West Eurasian gene components. The K3 factor in Fig. 1A corresponds to the ADMIXTURE K10 in Fig. 1A of Hodgson et al.16 and shows approximately 60% East African and 40% West Eurasian (25% West Asian and 15% North African)
Somali film producer Ali Said Hassan
So the question is what did the Nilo-Saharan/East African component phenotype in Somali's actually looked like?
I never said Somalis were "unmixed" they do have some Eurasian admixture but it's not as high as Ethiopians in general. I don't know where you got that study from but I think those results are called into question since some of those "Eurasian" markers could in fact be African since a lot of African markers get mistakenly called 'Eurasian' since Eurasian originated somewhere in Northeast Africa.
As an example of how this Eurasian admixture is false. stereotypical Sub-Saharans i.e. "negroid" types have metrically large megadont tooth crowns while West Eurasian "caucasoid" types from Europe have metrically small microdont crowns. People who are biracial or populations who are a result of crossbreeding between Sub-Saharans and Europeans like the Cape Coloured populace have intermediate mesodont tooth sizes. Yet you have have North Africans like Egyptians and Nubians whose crown sizes are totally microdont like other Eurasians.
When it comes to nonmetric traits Irish states: Characteristic North African Dental Traits As described by others (Hiernaux, 1975; Excoffier et al., 1987; Roychoudhhury and Nei, 1988; Lipschultz, 1996; among others) and as noted in this and previous studies (Irish, 1993b, 1997, 1998a), North Africans are genetically and phenetically allied with Europeans and Western Asians. North African dental frequencies are similar to those of Europeans, except for some traits that show apparent Sub-Saharan influence. Such a North/Sub-Saharan combination is also evident in many genetic systems (e.g. Roychoudhhury and Nei, 1988) Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which *parallels that of Europeans*, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans.
^ So North Africans possess 6 of the 11 traits that characterize Sub-Saharans but other than that parallel Europeans and West Asians, yet they are totally microdont.
Somalis according to Hanihara are metrically intermediate between mesodonty and microdonty while non-metrically West Eurasian. By the way, Scott Haddows study show his Ethiopian and Eritrean samples to be nonmetrically identical to Egyptians.
This is why admixture models don't work
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
There were some youtube videos i and others posted in other threads showing some Somalis and ethiopians that have little or no Eurasian admixture at all.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Here is a somali who is 100% somali(100% african). DNA-GAYGA MAXUU SHEYGAYA | WHAT IS MY DNA RESULTS | DNA & ME | Naz Ahmed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOCSpWbwCuk
___________________________________________
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: 23&Me DNA Test Results | Te Golden #23&Me #dnatest
^ The problem comes from what exactly is meant by "Eurasian". Because ancestral Eurasians originated in Northeast Africa, some genetic markers in that region can be confused as Eurasian back-migration. Hence why Elijah asked the question here: What is the true amount of authentic "Eurasian" mix in Horners?
quote:Originally posted by Ibis: While this thread has provided me a lot of insights on Ethiopia's artistic conventions. I still have questions regarding the genetic component of Tigrayan populations. If we assume that Arabians, specifically south Arabians were phenotypically and genetically indistinguishable from SSA populations how is it that this study was able to find up to 50% non African DNA among them? I like 50% is composed of middle eastern and European populations.
Since individual differences haven't been found amoung Tigrayan populations(unlike Oromo) isn't it safe to say that their ancestors were initially Northern/Central Asian semites that back migrated to the horn and mixed with Cushitics resulting in their African admixture?
The genetic position of East Africans has been discussed many times before including here in regards to the Tishkoff et al. 2000 study: ..these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) *that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe.*
This explains much of the genetic affinities.
The coward Antalas would parade this autosomal data but run away when asked for clarifications about it.
According to the table the Wolayta are 34% 'Eurasian'.
Here are some Wolayta
Yet according to Ethiohelix's data in regards to their uniparental lineages..
The Wolayta have 0% Eurasian paternal lineages
And whatever Eurasian maternal lineages they have does not even reach 20%.
What's more is that the Dogon of West Africa look no different from other West Africans yet their autosomal data shows that they are over 60% Eurasian!
So there is something more to their Eurasian affinity than mere "admixture" or back-migration.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Here's the results of genetic distance runs on Somalis (vahaduo?)
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Djehuti. Vahaduo genetic distances are gobbledygook. Please leave the Miro.Cisms on twitter. That aside you hit the nail on the head here and such results can easily be reflected in the Genetic data we have available. Vahaduo ain't it.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Djehuti. Vahaduo genetic distances are gobbledygook. Please leave the Miro.Cisms on twitter. That aside you hit the nail on the head here and such results can easily be reflected in the Genetic data we have available. Vahaduo ain't it.
What issues would you say that program has?
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
I dated Horners(mainly Somalis, yes its possible ) and I have Ethiopians in my family thru marriage. I agree Ethiopian hair is much more "kinkier" though still not full blown kinky(4 type) like Niger-Congo speakers. Whereas Somalis have more wavy hair including the men. Somali women also braid their hair less compared to Afro-Asiatic speaking Ethiopian women.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Somalis have less Eurasian, but also less Sub-Saharan and more (insert non-SSA component [Natufian-like, Ethiosomali, take your pick]) than Ethiopians.
This IAC is colored dark green on the figure and is referenced here as “Ethio-Somali”. This Ethio-Somali IAC is found at its highest frequencies in Cushitic speaking Somali populations and at high frequencies in neighboring Cushitic and Semitic speaking Afar, Amhara, Oromo, and Tygray populations. This IAC was not identified in the source study for the HOA SNP data [16], but Tishkoff and colleagues [59], in an analysis of an independent autosomal microsatellite dataset, did recover an equivalent IAC (calling it “Cushitic”). While this Ethio-Somali IAC is found primarily in Africa, it has clear non-African affinities (Text S1). Early Back-to-Africa Migration into the Horn of Africa (2014) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4055572/
Should not be a mystery in 2023 after countless discussions on African components that are neither SSA nor Eurasian.
This makes a lot of sense especially when you take into account the geography. Using history... The Oromos for example were absorbing A LOT of ethnic groups including non-AA speakers.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed. Obama who is half-black and half-white still has kinky hair from his father. Yet Somalis unmixed have loose wavy hair. What's interesting is that years ago a Somali created this thread asking why it is the vast majority of Horn-African biracial people look like non-African.
By the way, what's also funny is that despite Kamala Harris's claim identifying as 'black', she has no actual African ancestry. Not only is her mother South Indian (Brahmin) but her father Donald Harris is of Irish and Brhamin Indian descent himself despite being Jamaican. So the only 'black' ancestry she has is Asian.
Ehhh... Kamala DOES have African ancestry. Her father is clearly mixed. Not sure where you got she doesn't have any African ancestry? To me she has visible African ancestry.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@Yatunde Lisa Bey
Somalis are NOT "mulattos" because mulatto=Black/White offspring which Somalis are not. Either way "mixed" to me can mean anything.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
By the way I was using the term ironically... because of the obsession with Ethiopian/Somalis dna ancestry as if it is somehow special or different from anyone other mixed race person
quote:he Real Academia Española traces its origin to mulo in the sense of hybridity;originally used to refer to any mixed race person .[26] The term is now generally considered outdated and offensive in non-Spanish and non-Portuguese speaking countries,[27] and was considered offensive even in the 19th century.[28]
Jack D. Forbes suggests it originated in the Arabic term muwallad, which means 'a person of mixed ancestry'.[29] Muwallad literally means 'born, begotten, produced, generated; brought up', with the implication of being born and raised among Arabs, but not of Arab blood.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The problem comes from what exactly is meant by "Eurasian". Because ancestral Eurasians originated in Northeast Africa, some genetic markers in that region can be confused as Eurasian back-migration. Hence why Elijah asked the question here: What is the true amount of authentic "Eurasian" mix in Horners?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ibis: [qb]
What's more is that the Dogon of West Africa look no different from other West Africans yet their autosomal data shows that they are over 60% Eurasian!
So there is something more to their Eurasian affinity than mere "admixture" or back-migration.
And what do their teeth show? Do teeth always match one to one on DNA ancestry?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
C-Span video see time 1:17:43
Donald Harris, father of Kamala
MAY 26, 1989 Alternative Perspectives on International Economy
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: I dated Horners(mainly Somalis, yes its possible ) and I have Ethiopians in my family thru marriage. I agree Ethiopian hair is much more "kinkier" though still not full blown kinky(4 type) like Niger-Congo speakers.[/QB]
No luck for me so far, as far as opportunities presenting themselves. But as far as African ladies in general, I did date a Liberian + Algerian girl, as well as one from Ghana. But the one from Ghana was just flirting (nothing really got off the ground), so the count is still on 1 for Africans, 0 for East Africans .
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: This makes a lot of sense especially when you take into account the geography. Using history... The Oromos for example were absorbing A LOT of ethnic groups including non-AA speakers.
Yeah, geography could be a big factor, especially for groups like Afar who seem to have retained their Ethio-Somali better than others. Afar have 43% Ethio-Somali, while other Ethiopians have it in the range of 20s and 30s (e.g. Wolayta have 27%, Oromo have 31%, Amhara have 35%).
But these figures, to me, seem to hint at more than just good conservation of pastoralist ancestry. Somalis for instance have ~56% Ethio-Somali. That figure is on par with, if not more than ancient Kenyan pastoralist populations. Definitely a figure consistent with admixture with an older (pre-pastoralist) group, which is also supported by mtDNA M1, which seems to have had a presence there before pastoralists, already in the LGM.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: I dated Horners(mainly Somalis, yes its possible ) and I have Ethiopians in my family thru marriage. I agree Ethiopian hair is much more "kinkier" though still not full blown kinky(4 type) like Niger-Congo speakers. Whereas Somalis have more wavy hair including the men. Somali women also braid their hair less compared to Afro-Asiatic speaking Ethiopian women.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Somalis have less Eurasian, but also less Sub-Saharan and more (insert non-SSA component [Natufian-like, Ethiosomali, take your pick]) than Ethiopians.
This IAC is colored dark green on the figure and is referenced here as “Ethio-Somali”. This Ethio-Somali IAC is found at its highest frequencies in Cushitic speaking Somali populations and at high frequencies in neighboring Cushitic and Semitic speaking Afar, Amhara, Oromo, and Tygray populations. This IAC was not identified in the source study for the HOA SNP data [16], but Tishkoff and colleagues [59], in an analysis of an independent autosomal microsatellite dataset, did recover an equivalent IAC (calling it “Cushitic”). While this Ethio-Somali IAC is found primarily in Africa, it has clear non-African affinities (Text S1). Early Back-to-Africa Migration into the Horn of Africa (2014) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4055572/
Should not be a mystery in 2023 after countless discussions on African components that are neither SSA nor Eurasian.
This makes a lot of sense especially when you take into account the geography. Using history... The Oromos for example were absorbing A LOT of ethnic groups including non-AA speakers.
Hiernaux on Galla(Oromo):
Physically, the Galla resemble the Tutsi in face and nose shape but they are shorter in stature and head length. Their hair form falls most often in the curly to kinky class; a few individuals show the peppercorn type, but nearly 9% of them have hair with long, broad waves, which speaks for a moderate Arab influence in their gene pool
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa p145
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Djehuti. Vahaduo genetic distances are gobbledygook. Please leave the Miro.Cisms on twitter. That aside you hit the nail on the head here and such results can easily be reflected in the Genetic data we have available. Vahaduo ain't it.
Look, I'm not saying these genetic distance programs are the be-all end-all, but they do offer some value. If you look at the results for East Eurasians especially Australasians, they parallel the results for Africans and West Eurasians which is why Euronuts avoid bringing it up.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: I dated Horners(mainly Somalis, yes its possible ) and I have Ethiopians in my family thru marriage. I agree Ethiopian hair is much more "kinkier" though still not full blown kinky(4 type) like Niger-Congo speakers. Whereas Somalis have more wavy hair including the men. Somali women also braid their hair less compared to Afro-Asiatic speaking Ethiopian women.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Somalis have less Eurasian, but also less Sub-Saharan and more (insert non-SSA component [Natufian-like, Ethiosomali, take your pick]) than Ethiopians.
This IAC is colored dark green on the figure and is referenced here as “Ethio-Somali”. This Ethio-Somali IAC is found at its highest frequencies in Cushitic speaking Somali populations and at high frequencies in neighboring Cushitic and Semitic speaking Afar, Amhara, Oromo, and Tygray populations. This IAC was not identified in the source study for the HOA SNP data [16], but Tishkoff and colleagues [59], in an analysis of an independent autosomal microsatellite dataset, did recover an equivalent IAC (calling it “Cushitic”). While this Ethio-Somali IAC is found primarily in Africa, it has clear non-African affinities (Text S1). Early Back-to-Africa Migration into the Horn of Africa (2014) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4055572/
Should not be a mystery in 2023 after countless discussions on African components that are neither SSA nor Eurasian.
This makes a lot of sense especially when you take into account the geography. Using history... The Oromos for example were absorbing A LOT of ethnic groups including non-AA speakers.
The autosomal data shows the presence of a substrata, perhaps several that were absorbed by Neolithic (Afroasiatic speakers) such as the Hadza, Mota, etc. There is even a Dinka-like marker not necessarily Dinka found in many Somali.
The relevant point Swenet makes is that these markers differ from those labeled as "Sub-Saharan" even though they may very well originate in Sub-Sahara.
But you are correct about the Oromo. The Oromo ethnicity is further subdivided into tribes and clans with the 2 biggest divisions being the Borana and Barento. The same with the Somali with the 2 largest divisions being Samaal and Sab. Both peoples use the same segmented patrilineal system with certain clans being labeled as "vassals" or subserviant clans adopted into the ethnos. The same system is seen in Berbers of the Sahara except theirs is matrilineal.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: And what do their teeth show? Do teeth always match one to one on DNA ancestry?
Who? The Dogon?? I have no idea. As far as I'm aware of the Dogon exhibit typical "Sub-Saharan" i.e. "negroid" morphology so I assume it's the same with their odontics though I don't know of any odontic study on them. But in regards to your second question, I created this thread-- Odontics Same as Genetics, which shows a strong correlation between nonmetric odontic traits and genetic relations.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
For all the talk about Eurocentric biases look at this thread, it has that same mentality, focus on phenotypic differences between ethnic groups "admixture" , "sub-Saharan" etc, hair type, darker, lighter
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The relevant point Swenet makes is that these markers differ from those labeled as "Sub-Saharan" even though they may very well originate in Sub-Sahara.
I can't take credit for that. It has been discussed too many times as I stated in my first post. (The boredom just now made me take the segue to dating experiences in my last post). But I will definitely take credit for those Herto positions I took earlier on in this thread. (Or the L, in the off chance that I'm wrong, which I don't see happening).
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No luck for me so far, as far as opportunities presenting themselves. But as far as African ladies in general, I did date a Liberian + Algerian girl, as well as one from Ghana. But the one from Ghana was just flirting (nothing really got off the ground), so the count is still on 1 for Africans, 0 for East Africans .
I've dated Horners and other Africans here in the USA and on the continent. Horners in general are very insular which can be tough but.... If you have your shit together, not a bum, come correct and no hating ass man(especially for Somalis) you definitely have a chance. And I don't care what these weirdo Hamitic supremacists(THEM not ALL Horners especially Somalis) online say but Somali women are definitely "curious" about men of "West African descent." To be honest I find them(Somali women) easier than Ethiopian women specifically when their men aren't mateguarding hard. Now marriage is a totally different story...
As for me? I dated a lot of East Africans(not just Horners), only 1 West African(Ivory Coast), a Moroccan when I was a teenager(she was Americanized/nonreligious) and lots of South Africans in South Africa. I can also show pics. lol.
But Liberian/Algerian is an interesting ass mix. And don't you live in Europe? I heard that African women there are very "standoffish" and that's putting it politely.
Edit: We can take it to the PMs if you want.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yeah, geography could be a big factor, especially for groups like Afar who seem to have retained their Ethio-Somali better than others. Afar have 43% Ethio-Somali, while other Ethiopians have it in the range of 20s and 30s (e.g. Wolayta have 27%, Oromo have 31%, Amhara have 35%).
Not to ask a dumb question but I assume "Ethio-Somali" is basically another word for "indigenous Northeast African" I assume? But yea the Afar region is more isolated especially compared to the Oromo region which borders "non-Ethio-Somali" areas. My brother in law's father who is Oromo(his mother is Amhara) looks more Nilo-Saharan than Cushite in my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
But these figures, to me, seem to hint at more than just good conservation of pastoralist ancestry. Somalis for instance have ~56% Ethio-Somali. That figure is on par with, if not more than ancient Kenyan pastoralist populations. Definitely a figure consistent with admixture with an older (pre-pastoralist) group, which is also supported by mtDNA M1, which seems to have had a presence there before pastoralists, already in the LGM.
I've constantly read that Somalis are the best representation of "Cushite" speakers in the region when it comes to samples. And yea M1 is a very ancient lineage in that region and one of the best hints for indigenous Northeast African imo. Correct me.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: For all the talk about Eurocentric biases look at this thread, it has that same mentality, focus on phenotypic differences between ethnic groups "admixture" , "sub-Saharan" etc, hair type, darker, lighter
Talking about different features and how diverse African phenotypes are is NOT adhering to Eurocentricism. Which is what ES has been doing for a long time.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@Elijah The Tishbite
Agreed. Like I said to Swenet, my brother in law's father is Oromo and he looks mixed with some Nilo-Saharan. A lot of people on his father's side look Nilo-Saharan admixed. When I was in Ethiopia, Oromos had the most varied phenotypes imo.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@Djehuti
If I'm reading the discussion right the marker not labeled SSA which I assume is "Ethio-Somali" could be Indigenous North African and could've arrived to the Horn via a more northern migration. I'm just playing devils advocate.
But agreed on the Oromos.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I can't take credit for that. It has been discussed too many times as I stated in my first post. (The boredom just now made me take the segue to dating experiences in my last post). But I will definitely take credit for those Herto positions I took earlier on in this thread. (Or the L, in the off chance that I'm wrong, which I don't see happening).
Sure thing. As it comes to more recent skeletal remains, I've been looking into the Neolithic and Bronze Age remains in Yemen and Oman but I don't see any anthropological assessment. The few sources I've seen only briefly describe them as "Mediterranean".
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: For all the talk about Eurocentric biases look at this thread, it has that same mentality, focus on phenotypic differences between ethnic groups "admixture" , "sub-Saharan" etc, hair type, darker, lighter
You can take it up with Elijah but I'm pretty sure his query is based on the Eurocentric notion of mixed Horners. By the way Elijah, you should check out Ethio-helix's blog Anthromadness, he has a lot of info on Horn African populations considering that he's of that heritage.
Here's one good article he wrote-- "Ethio-Somali" is a farce.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Sure thing. As it comes to more recent skeletal remains, I've been looking into the Neolithic and Bronze Age remains in Yemen and Oman but I don't see any anthropological assessment. The few sources I've seen only briefly describe them as "Mediterranean".
While looking into Arabian skeletal remains, be prepared to find lots of references to "Mediterranean" as well as reports/announcements of excavations that 'somehow' have no anthro assessments.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: I've dated Horners and other Africans here in the USA and on the continent. Horners in general are very insular which can be tough but.... If you have your shit together, not a bum, come correct and no hating ass man(especially for Somalis) you definitely have a chance. And I don't care what these weirdo Hamitic supremacists(THEM not ALL Horners especially Somalis) online say but Somali women are definitely "curious" about men of "West African descent." To be honest I find them(Somali women) easier than Ethiopian women specifically when their men aren't mateguarding hard. Now marriage is a totally different story...
As for me? I dated a lot of East Africans(not just Horners), only 1 West African(Ivory Coast), a Moroccan when I was a teenager(she was Americanized/nonreligious) and lots of South Africans in South Africa. I can also show pics. lol.
Yes, the bolded makes all the difference in the world.
Here in western Europe, to get involved in those situations you have to know how to move or you might as well avoid those situations. Google 'honor killings' to see what I mean. There was one case in the US as well with an Egyptian girl and a black kid. Her father killed her and her sister and the black kid had to go into hiding). Of course, it's mostly not that dangerous, but in my experience interference is always a lurking problem. As I told my friend who is into those "off limits" girls, you can't approach this like a normal date situation because people can come up to you out of nowhere, and they may not even know her. All they know is she looks MENA and that's enough for them.
With the mixed girl there was no such issue in public because she looked like a mulatta (she looked a bit like Veil from Into the Badlands, if you want to know). This made it so I could let my guard down in public.
If you feel this is going too off topic, you can PM me your response back. I do want to know how you deal with the part about outsiders interfering.
quote:Not to ask a dumb question but I assume "Ethio-Somali" is basically another word for "indigenous Northeast African" I assume? But yea the Afar region is more isolated especially compared to the Oromo region which borders "non-Ethio-Somali" areas. My brother in law's father who is Oromo(his mother is Amhara) looks more Nilo-Saharan than Cushite in my opinion.
Correct. It's the NE African in Horners. Probably to get the true NE African you would have to include samples like Nuerat and Natufians and you'd also get a component that is slightly different in affinity (for instance, in the fst table, Ethio-Somali is pretty interemdiate, but I don't think the properly captured NE African component would be so intermediate).
quote:I've constantly read that Somalis are the best representation of "Cushite" speakers in the region when it comes to samples. And yea M1 is a very ancient lineage in that region and one of the best hints for indigenous Northeast African imo. Correct me.
I still have yet to put the pieces of the puzzle together regarding early mtDNA M1 (ie where it went after splitting frrom mtDNA L3 and M). But after the LGM/during postglacial times, I think it's safe to say that lineages like mtDNA M1 were part of the mtDNA pool of the populations from the Maghreb to the Rift Valley. The East African portion of this metapopulation that Horners, but especially Somalis seem to have mixed with, seem to have included populations that used backed blades (note: not backed bladelets as in Egypt and the Maghreb). See quotes below of the blade (but not microlithic) industries, and note the timing coincides with the LGM and later, much like certain mtDNA M1a haplogroups:
In the Ethiopian section of the Rift Valley, the beginnings of the local blade tradition using obsidian probably go back to more than 27,000 B.P. (Gase and Street 1978: 290) and certainly to 22,675 ‡ 500 B.P. on the evidence of excavations at Lake Besaka (Clark, in press). At Laga Oda in the escarpment hills south- west of Dire Dawa, the microlithic industry, using most- ly chert, is 15.000 years old (Clark and Prince 1978).
In East Africa, there are dates in the 20,000*s B.P. for the fully microlithic industry using chert, quartz and obsidian, of backed blades, lunates and fan-shaped scrapers at Lukenya Hill (S.F. Miller, pers, com.) (Fig. 3, nos. 1-5). This locality, overlooking the Athi Plains near Nairobi in Kenya, also yielded, with a simi- lar industry, a fragmentary cranium of Modern Man dating to c. 17,700 B.P. (Gramly 1976). At Nasera, in northern Tanzania, the earliest blade industry (Layer 4) has many backed blades and outils esquillés in chert and quartz and there is an amino acid racemisation date on bone of 18,000 B.P. The same industry occurs also in Layer 5 which must, ipso facto, be even earlier (Mehlman 1977). What is probably the same industry in obsidian and chert is present in the Naisiusiu beds at the Olduvai The Microlithic Industries of Africa: Their Antiquity and Possible Economic Implications https://brill.com/edcollchap/book/9789004644472/B9789004644472_s020.xml Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
This might be off-topic, but since you guys mentioned mate-guarding as a phenomenon...
I think "mate-guarding" is something a lot of heterosexual men across ethnic lines do. The White supremacist male paranoia about Black or other men of color preying on White women is the most infamous example, and it remains pervasive enough for the porn industry to pander to it with all the "cuck" porn out there, but I also know from personal experience that Black separatist men can be the same way toward White men and Black women. Trying posting a picture of a White male/Black female couple in a Black speculative-fiction fan community and you will see what I mean. Not all or even most of the Black male posters in those groups are separatists, yes, but you can't deny pro-Black spaces attract Black nationalists like meat attracts flies.
Sometimes it's not even "their" women whose honor these mate-guarding men claim to defend. I've seen Black women post comments about how some of the Black men who talk shit about Black women nonetheless target White men who date Black women, as well as Black men commenting about White men in Asian countries getting angry at them for dating Asian women, as if those White dudes thought that only they had the right to date Asian women. It's like these dudes have no qualms about dating across ethnic lines themselves but won't tolerate other dudes doing the same.
In fact, you could make an argument that some of the White supremacist men who made such a big deal about Black men preying on White women after Emancipation were inspired by White male slaveholders' treatment of their Black female slaves.
Regardless of ethnicity or culture, too many straight men in this world absolutely have a problem with being possessive toward women and territorial towards male competition, as if they were stags locking antlers and chasing each other off. It brings to mind the evolutionary psychologist claim that it's in the reproductive interest of male animals to impregnate as many females as they can while keeping away any competition. Regardless of how much credence you place in evolutionary psychology, it is an uncanny resemblance of how a lot of straight men in patriarchal cultures think.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ "Mate-guarding" as one may put it is a practice associated with intense endogamy. In patriarchal cultures especially where women weren't necessarily property but viewed as commodities of familial exchange, the men of that culture would make sure 'their' women would only marry (let alone fornicate with) men they find suitable. And unfortunately 'racializing' of other populations would bring about xenophobic views even to the point of say viewing blacks as subhuman and thus the disgusting view that sexual relations with them is tantamount to beastiality. It depends on the psychological degree to how the men view men of outside groups as the "other".
To Swenet, one main reason why I've been looking into the early cultures of South Arabia is because I remember reading many years ago in my college library (not to mention Dana's references) that prehistoric cultures in that region share affinities to those in the Horn. The Doian Culture of Somalia with Rub al-Khali, the Gash Culture with the Tihama Culture of Yemen, and Eritrean Dʿmt with the Sabir Culture. Apparently this has been going on since the Middle Stone Age. Funny how anthropologists always talk about OOA and the southern route through southern Arabia but that very region seems to be neglected in many academic journals.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: This might be off-topic, but since you guys mentioned mate-guarding as a phenomenon...
I think "mate-guarding" is something a lot of heterosexual men across ethnic lines do. The White supremacist male paranoia about Black or other men of color preying on White women is the most infamous example, and it remains pervasive enough for the porn industry to pander to it with all the "cuck" porn out there, but I also know from personal experience that Black separatist men can be the same way toward White men and Black women. Trying posting a picture of a White male/Black female couple in a Black speculative-fiction fan community and you will see what I mean. Not all or even most of the Black male posters in those groups are separatists, yes, but you can't deny pro-Black spaces attract Black nationalists like meat attracts flies.
Sometimes it's not even "their" women whose honor these mate-guarding men claim to defend. I've seen Black women post comments about how some of the Black men who talk shit about Black women nonetheless target White men who date Black women, as well as Black men commenting about White men in Asian countries getting angry at them for dating Asian women, as if those White dudes thought that only they had the right to date Asian women. It's like these dudes have no qualms about dating across ethnic lines themselves but won't tolerate other dudes doing the same.
In fact, you could make an argument that some of the White supremacist men who made such a big deal about Black men preying on White women after Emancipation were inspired by White male slaveholders' treatment of their Black female slaves.
Regardless of ethnicity or culture, too many straight men in this world absolutely have a problem with being possessive toward women and territorial towards male competition, as if they were stags locking antlers and chasing each other off. It brings to mind the evolutionary psychologist claim that it's in the reproductive interest of male animals to impregnate as many females as they can while keeping away any competition. Regardless of how much credence you place in evolutionary psychology, it is an uncanny resemblance of how a lot of straight men in patriarchal cultures think.
You can't expect complete repression of innate human tendencies. And if that was possible you'd have to ask what we'd lose in doing do. Building what we consider "Societies" isn't particularly necessarily but we tend towards doing so for same reasons we tend to mate-guard. There's no sociological way to wash it away without sacrificing something we conventionally view as healthy. Not a justification for honor-killing or anything. However, honor-killing (as a result of failure to mate-guard or to prevent interracial or cultural relations by eliciting fear) within itself is a biproduct of failure to reconcile with human tendencies.
--anywho, this point is a bit off topic. I'll respond to you question about G25 in a bit. It's just that I posted about it quite a few times on this site. I want to reference my previous postings.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ "Mate-guarding" as one may put it is a practice associated with intense endogamy. In patriarchal cultures especially where women weren't necessarily property but viewed as commodities of familial exchange, the men of that culture would make sure 'their' women would only marry (let alone fornicate with) men they find suitable. And unfortunately 'racializing' of other populations would bring about xenophobic views even to the point of say viewing blacks as subhuman and thus the disgusting view that sexual relations with them is tantamount to beastiality. It depends on the psychological degree to how the men view men of outside groups as the "other".
I agree that patriarchal norms have a lot to do with it. I don't know if it is correlated with endogamy by itself, given my observation that guys like these can be possessive even of women from ethnic outgroups, but I wouldn't put it past them to demand endogamy more of women than men.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I agree that patriarchal norms have a lot to do with it. I don't know if it is correlated with endogamy by itself, given my observation that guys like these can be possessive even of women from ethnic outgroups, but I wouldn't put it past them to demand endogamy more of women than men.
I saw a documentary once about how white American officers and soldiers mate guarded British women (in England) against Black American soldiers. Seems many white Americans could not even stand to see Black American soldiers dating foreign women in a foreign land. Even British men protested against such blatant racism and at least at one occasion they helped Black soldiers to fight against the American military police.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ What's funny is that in any given population there is generally greater diversity of maternal lineages than paternal indicating that sexual competition between males was much more intense than that between females. Speaking of which..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I still have yet to put the pieces of the puzzle together regarding early mtDNA M1 (i.e. where it went after splitting frrom mtDNA L3 and M). But after the LGM/during postglacial times, I think it's safe to say that lineages like mtDNA M1 were part of the mtDNA pool of the populations from the Maghreb to the Rift Valley. The East African portion of this metapopulation that Horners, but especially Somalis seem to have mixed with, seem to have included populations that used backed blades (note: not backed bladelets as in Egypt and the Maghreb). See quotes below of the blade (but not microlithic) industries, and note the timing coincides with the LGM and later, much like certain mtDNA M1a haplogroups:
In the Ethiopian section of the Rift Valley, the beginnings of the local blade tradition using obsidian probably go back to more than 27,000 B.P. (Gase and Street 1978: 290) and certainly to 22,675 ‡ 500 B.P. on the evidence of excavations at Lake Besaka (Clark, in press). At Laga Oda in the escarpment hills south- west of Dire Dawa, the microlithic industry, using most- ly chert, is 15.000 years old (Clark and Prince 1978).
In East Africa, there are dates in the 20,000*s B.P. for the fully microlithic industry using chert, quartz and obsidian, of backed blades, lunates and fan-shaped scrapers at Lukenya Hill (S.F. Miller, pers, com.) (Fig. 3, nos. 1-5). This locality, overlooking the Athi Plains near Nairobi in Kenya, also yielded, with a simi- lar industry, a fragmentary cranium of Modern Man dating to c. 17,700 B.P. (Gramly 1976). At Nasera, in northern Tanzania, the earliest blade industry (Layer 4) has many backed blades and outils esquillés in chert and quartz and there is an amino acid racemisation date on bone of 18,000 B.P. The same industry occurs also in Layer 5 which must, ipso facto, be even earlier (Mehlman 1977). What is probably the same industry in obsidian and chert is present in the Naisiusiu beds at the Olduvai The Microlithic Industries of Africa: Their Antiquity and Possible Economic Implications https://brill.com/edcollchap/book/9789004644472/B9789004644472_s020.xml
What I find curious is that that the clade M* has its locus in South Asia (India) whereas M1 is in East Africa (both Northeast and the Horn). Yet N1 also has a high frequency in North Africa and upstream N1 was found in the Sahara. So either M and N both originated in North Africa OR they are back-migrations from somewhere close by like Levant and Arabia. And in the Horn the second most common maternal clade there is R, especially R0.
If I recall R is derived from N, same as U with U1 also being found from North Africa to India and U6 predominantly in the Maghreb. So I am curious as to what prehistoric cultures are to be associated with these maternal founders.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What I find curious is that that the clade M* has its locus in South Asia (India) whereas M1 is in East Africa (both Northeast and the Horn). Yet N1 also has a high frequency in North Africa and upstream N1 was found in the Sahara. So either M and N both originated in North Africa OR they are back-migrations from somewhere close by like Levant and Arabia. And in the Horn the second most common maternal clade there is R, especially R0.
Insofar as M and N are descended from the African L3, it seems very probable to me that those lineages differentiated before OOA.
Right now, U6 in North Africa is what I have questions about. Would it have arrived from western Asia, southern Europe, or both, and which archaeological cultures could we correlate it with?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
a diversity of of mitochondrial DNA even going back to the Epipalaeolithic in Morocco and Algeria, a couple of R0s at Taforalt
M1 here also
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Insofar as M and N are descended from the African L3, it seems very probable to me that those lineages differentiated before OOA.
Right now, U6 in North Africa is what I have questions about. Would it have arrived from western Asia, southern Europe, or both, and which archaeological cultures could we correlate it with?
That's the question I have. According to Tukuler and our old poster Explorer, U6 has a motif that makes it unique to North Africa and that other U6 haplotypes found outside that region are downstream markers at least in today's populations, but underived U6* was found in one of the 35,000 year old Peștera cu Oase remains. Similarly U1 is found from North Africa, Europe, and India. Also, Mal'ta boy was found to carry a basal form of U that has yet to be resolved.
I am just as interested in hg R.
As I recall original R* is found in around the Bab al-Mandab Straits in both Yemen and the Horn but it's highest frequency is in Soqotri.
But more to Swenet's point.
M1 (left) and U6 (right) Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Orihinally posted by Djehuti: What I find curious is that that the clade M* has its locus in South Asia (India) whereas M1 is in East Africa (both Northeast and the Horn). Yet N1 also has a high frequency in North Africa and upstream N1 was found in the Sahara. So either M and N both originated in North Africa OR they are back-migrations from somewhere close by like Levant and Arabia. And in the Horn the second most common maternal clade there is R, especially R0.
In this paper the age difference is slight but also considering other papers (e.g. the "Copernican reassessment" paper by Behar et al) the difference is pretty consistent.
mtDNA M is also not seen in European aDNA with some exceptions (see map) that can be explained via influence from Asia.
From these two peculiarities (age difference and distribution) some scenarios can be thought of where mtDNA M left Africa later with some (but not all) of its M diversity, and with a distinctly African culture (unlike mtDNA N, which seems to have left with/picked up cultures that may have been more or less indistinguishable from older OOA migrations).
In such scenarios mtDNA M1 would be African, like any other L3 mtDNAs, albeit with extreme substructure, as it's mainly found from the Maghreb to the Rift Valley and in Eurasia.
In archaeological terms, the most remarkable feature of this model lies in the claims for a rapid and abrupt evolution from these initial “Indian Middle Paleolithic” industries into the im- mediately ensuing “Indian microlithic tradition”, which appears over effectively all regions of India from at least 35–40 ka onward [in calibrated radiocarbon terms (19)]—a transformation that, according to the recently dated industrial sequences at Jwala- puram, occurred within a space of ∼3,000 y, between ∼38 and 35 ka (1–3) (Fig. 1 and Archaeology). Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Asia https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1306043110
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: This might be off-topic, but since you guys mentioned mate-guarding as a phenomenon...
I think "mate-guarding" is something a lot of heterosexual men across ethnic lines do. The White supremacist male paranoia about Black or other men of color preying on White women is the most infamous example, and it remains pervasive enough for the porn industry to pander to it with all the "cuck" porn out there, but I also know from personal experience that Black separatist men can be the same way toward White men and Black women. Trying posting a picture of a White male/Black female couple in a Black speculative-fiction fan community and you will see what I mean. Not all or even most of the Black male posters in those groups are separatists, yes, but you can't deny pro-Black spaces attract Black nationalists like meat attracts flies.
Sometimes it's not even "their" women whose honor these mate-guarding men claim to defend. I've seen Black women post comments about how some of the Black men who talk shit about Black women nonetheless target White men who date Black women, as well as Black men commenting about White men in Asian countries getting angry at them for dating Asian women, as if those White dudes thought that only they had the right to date Asian women. It's like these dudes have no qualms about dating across ethnic lines themselves but won't tolerate other dudes doing the same.
In fact, you could make an argument that some of the White supremacist men who made such a big deal about Black men preying on White women after Emancipation were inspired by White male slaveholders' treatment of their Black female slaves.
Regardless of ethnicity or culture, too many straight men in this world absolutely have a problem with being possessive toward women and territorial towards male competition, as if they were stags locking antlers and chasing each other off. It brings to mind the evolutionary psychologist claim that it's in the reproductive interest of male animals to impregnate as many females as they can while keeping away any competition. Regardless of how much credence you place in evolutionary psychology, it is an uncanny resemblance of how a lot of straight men in patriarchal cultures think.
It is something of all cultures. But it's still different in some cultures where the whole community can become involved and turn against it (and against you). I've actually been there, but I was protected because I don't live there anymore and I have family members there. So there was not going to be any funny business of ambushing me or things like that.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
a diversity of of mitochondrial DNA even going back to the Epipalaeolithic in Morocco and Algeria, a couple of R0s at Taforalt
Which Eurasian Y dna haplogroups did these Eurasian mtdna's back migrate to Africa with
quote:Primary and secondary radiations of U6 branches with different coalescence ages were tentatively correlated with different North African lithic cultures, such as the Aterian, Dabban, Iberomaurusian or Capsian; and perhaps more speculatively, with the spread of the Afroasiatic language family. The Aterian was thought to have existed between 40–20 kya but recent archaeological age determinations, based on thermal luminescence, have pushed back this period, to 90–40 kya [14-16]. As the estimated age for the whole of haplogroup U6 is around 35 kya, this removes the Aterian from consideration for association with the genetic signal for dispersal in North Africa [8,9]. However, as U6 persists in modern day African populations we can assume a maternal continuity since around 35 kya, the age of this haplogroup. This continuity has received some support from ancient DNA studies on Iberomaurusian remains, with an age around 12 kya, exhumed from the archaeological site of Taforalt in Morocco [17]. In this analysis, haplotypes tentatively assignable to haplogroups H, JT, U6 and V were identified, pointing to a local evolution of this population and a genetic continuity in North Africa. On the other hand, only one haplotype harbored the 16223 mutation, which if assigned to an L haplogroup would represent a sub-Saharan African influence of about 4%. This would equate to a frequency five times lower than that found in current Moroccan populations (20%) and would support the proposal that the penetration of sub-Saharan mtDNA lineages to North Africa mainly occurred since the beginning of the Holocene onwards
quote:The U6 haplogroup is the only sub-haplogroup within the U clade currently present in Africa, showing an increasing frequency gradient from Eastern (1.09–1.57% in Egypt) to Western North Africa (8.89% in the Magreb). A similar longitudinal gradient is present in the Southern European populations (from 0.19% in Eastern Mediterranean to 1.12% in South Spain)29,30 (Fig. 2B). The U6 haplotypes found in present-day Europeans have been attributed to African sources, mainly to the historic Moorish expansion, but also to prehistoric influence since Neolithic times29,30. Hence, PM1 is the first basal U6 haplogroup found in Europe that is not connected to recent migration from Africa.
quote:• Peştera Muierii woman is related to Europeans, but she is not a direct ancestor • Reduced diversity in Europe caused by Last Glaciation, not out-of-Africa bottleneck; no evidence for a strong affinity between Pestera Muierii 1 and Iberomaurusian. the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 (37–42 ky cal BP) also displays haplogroup N.
In this paper the age difference is slight but also considering other papers (e.g. the "Copernican reassessment" paper by Behar et al) the difference is pretty consistent.
mtDNA M is also not seen in European aDNA with some exceptions (see map) that can be explained via influence from Asia.
From these two peculiarities (age difference and distribution) some scenarios can be thought of where mtDNA M left Africa later with some (but not all) of its M diversity, and with a distinctly African culture (unlike mtDNA N, which seems to have left with/picked up cultures that may have been more or less indistinguishable from older OOA migrations).
In such scenarios mtDNA M1 would be African, like any other L3 mtDNAs, albeit with extreme substructure, as it's mainly found from the Maghreb to the Rift Valley and in Eurasia.
In archaeological terms, the most remarkable feature of this model lies in the claims for a rapid and abrupt evolution from these initial “Indian Middle Paleolithic” industries into the im- mediately ensuing “Indian microlithic tradition”, which appears over effectively all regions of India from at least 35–40 ka onward [in calibrated radiocarbon terms (19)]—a transformation that, according to the recently dated industrial sequences at Jwala- puram, occurred within a space of ∼3,000 y, between ∼38 and 35 ka (1–3) (Fig. 1 and Archaeology). Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Asia https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1306043110
Yeah, I remember this from your PM. I often get TMRCA of M and N confused due to alphabetical order. LOL
That N is older explains why it is more diverse than M. Also, what do you make of the hypothetical assumption on the distribution of L3 subclades?
There are some geneticists who are claiming that L3* itself originated outside of Africa-- right next door in Arabia.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: There are some geneticists who are claiming that L3* itself originated outside of Africa-- right next door in Arabia.
Those geneticists entire argument rests on fossils like Qafzeh/Skhul and cultures like Nubian complex with Middle Palaeolithic/Middle Stone Age techology.
For reasons I've mentioned before, I don't consider them to be in our lineage. During that time before the Upper Palaeolithic, Herto child (160ky), the Daoxin teeth from southern China (80-120ky) and Howiesonspoort (70ky) are examples of what I would consider to be in our lineage.
Omo I Omo 2 Irhoud Qafzeh Skhul Aterians Nubian Complex etc.
I would consider all to fall outside of our lineage. Though I'm sure, on testing, their descendants may carry L3. But to me, that would merely be a situation like Neanderthals being on our mtDNA tree, instead of the European (Sima de los Huesos) mtDNA tree. They aren't in our lineage, all things considered, yet these fossils are exactly what those geneticists are using. Kind of weird that they aren't even pointing to anything modern looking in Eurasia, to match with mtDNA L3, even though such modern cultures/fossils exist in Eurasia in the time period they're talking about. But what else is new with these scholars...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ This reminds me of Ethiohelix's article The Mother of Mothers which is based on a time sequence of MRCAs.
Do you think that there were OOA migrations involving African clades older than L3 that did not survive?
That's what those Neanderthal mtDNAs are. Neanderthals do not belong where they are in the mtDNA tree. They belong where Deniovan and Sima de los Huesos are in the mtDNA tree. So those mtDNAs preserved in Neanderthal fossils, were AMH, if not fully modern humans, who migrated OOA in the last 410ky. The Neanderthal mtDNAs preserve signs of their presence and movements in West Eurasia, much better than the archaeological artifacts they made, could ever do.
... the upper bound for the time of this putative gene flow event would be the divergence time between Neanderthal and modern human mtDNAs, here dated to 413 ka ... Deeply divergent archaic mitochondrial genome provides lower time boundary for African gene flow into Neanderthals (2017) https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16046
Unlike AMH cultural artifacts sometimes falsely attributed to Neanderthals, scholars cannot deny these mtDNAs come from a population foreign to Europe/Neanderthals. The mtDNA situation is therefore a blessing in the sense that it gives clarity on its own/speaks for itself, without needing approval or consensus from the scientific establishment dragging its feet to get the AMH story right.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: [QB] Somalis are not UNMIXED... they are East African MULATTOES who practice ENDOGAMY
A mulatto implies mixing with modern white people. The ancestry that Somali share with Eurasians largely predates white people.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
Sorry for the late reply.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yes, the bolded makes all the difference in the world.
Here in western Europe, to get involved in those situations you have to know how to move or you might as well avoid those situations. Google 'honor killings' to see what I mean. There was one case in the US as well with an Egyptian girl and a black kid. Her father killed her and her sister and the black kid had to go into hiding). Of course, it's mostly not that dangerous, but in my experience interference is always a lurking problem. As I told my friend who is into those "off limits" girls, you can't approach this like a normal date situation because people can come up to you out of nowhere, and they may not even know her. All they know is she looks MENA and that's enough for them.
With the mixed girl there was no such issue in public because she looked like a mulatta (she looked a bit like Veil from Into the Badlands, if you want to know). This made it so I could let my guard down in public.
If you feel this is going too off topic, you can PM me your response back. I do want to know how you deal with the part about outsiders interfering.
Yea we can continue this in the PMs if you want.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Correct. It's the NE African in Horners. Probably to get the true NE African you would have to include samples like Nuerat and Natufians and you'd also get a component that is slightly different in affinity (for instance, in the fst table, Ethio-Somali is pretty interemdiate, but I don't think the properly captured NE African component would be so intermediate).
Yea I had this feeling.it was indignous Northeast African. I feel with more ancient DNA we are going to get a much clearer understanding of this ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
I still have yet to put the pieces of the puzzle together regarding early mtDNA M1 (ie where it went after splitting frrom mtDNA L3 and M). But after the LGM/during postglacial times, I think it's safe to say that lineages like mtDNA M1 were part of the mtDNA pool of the populations from the Maghreb to the Rift Valley. The East African portion of this metapopulation that Horners, but especially Somalis seem to have mixed with, seem to have included populations that used backed blades (note: not backed bladelets as in Egypt and the Maghreb). See quotes below of the blade (but not microlithic) industries, and note the timing coincides with the LGM and later, much like certain mtDNA M1a haplogroups:
In the Ethiopian section of the Rift Valley, the beginnings of the local blade tradition using obsidian probably go back to more than 27,000 B.P. (Gase and Street 1978: 290) and certainly to 22,675 ‡ 500 B.P. on the evidence of excavations at Lake Besaka (Clark, in press). At Laga Oda in the escarpment hills south- west of Dire Dawa, the microlithic industry, using most- ly chert, is 15.000 years old (Clark and Prince 1978).
In East Africa, there are dates in the 20,000*s B.P. for the fully microlithic industry using chert, quartz and obsidian, of backed blades, lunates and fan-shaped scrapers at Lukenya Hill (S.F. Miller, pers, com.) (Fig. 3, nos. 1-5). This locality, overlooking the Athi Plains near Nairobi in Kenya, also yielded, with a simi- lar industry, a fragmentary cranium of Modern Man dating to c. 17,700 B.P. (Gramly 1976). At Nasera, in northern Tanzania, the earliest blade industry (Layer 4) has many backed blades and outils esquillés in chert and quartz and there is an amino acid racemisation date on bone of 18,000 B.P. The same industry occurs also in Layer 5 which must, ipso facto, be even earlier (Mehlman 1977). What is probably the same industry in obsidian and chert is present in the Naisiusiu beds at the Olduvai The Microlithic Industries of Africa: Their Antiquity and Possible Economic Implications https://brill.com/edcollchap/book/9789004644472/B9789004644472_s020.xml
Do you have additional sources for this because I wanna do more digging on my free time.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^The problem is that a lot of this information is all over the place, and cannot be found in one paper. That paper I posted has some really nice observations, like this one:
Although some 60,000 years separate them, the backed tool forms of the Howicson's Poort Complex are the proto-types for the fully microlithic backed bladelet forms that are widely distributed in the conti- nent by 20,000 ycars ago. The Microlithic Industries of Africa: Their Antiquity and Possible Economic Implications https://brill.com/edcollchap/book/9789004644472/B9789004644472_s020.xml
which shows that Egyptian and Maghrebi Late Palaeolithic industries, seem to originate ultimately with southern African industries, just like various Sub-Saharan African industries do.
Aside from the fact that this gives a much needed backstory on Egyptian industries like the Silsilian that are of interest for other reasons (ie finding the ancestors of predynastic Egyptians), this is also ironic because the Horn industries I mentioned as possibly causing differentiation of Somalis compared to Cushitic Ethiopians (see earlier comments), seem part of a different tradition.
So, where you might expect the industries of this older (pre Luxmanda, pre Kenya pastoralists) Horn and Rift Valley population to group with Paleolithic North Africans, they don't. But they do show links with Capsian North Africans who are early holocene populations who also had important frequencies of backed blades. So Capsians could have a more direct link with East Africa, while Silsilian has links with industries from parts of Sub-Saharan Africa that never quite got established in Ethiopia and Somalia, until very late. See absence of red dots in most of what is now Ethiopia:
We see this link with Sub-Saharan Africa that apparently skipped Ethiopia, even in predynastic Egyptians using stone arrowheads that Khoisan hunter gatherers still use today (note: triangle shaped 'lunate' transverse flint arrow tip, supposedly used for concussion effect as opposed to piercing the skin).
^I read that article earlier this year after having it on my reading list for years. The article basically says (or, I remember it saying) that the original classification of Kenya Capsian was overturned by later generations of researchers with different agendas (read: more PC) who lumped different and more recently excavated Kenyan LSA industries together and paid no attention to the distinguishing characteristics of the industries that originally were thought to show an increased resemblance to the Capsian.
This is part of the decline of anthropology that I've talked about many times in different threads. If you remember, I've also mentioned elsewhere that I don't pay attention to what scholars say about the Rift Valley population, as it's just another population whose affinities they've botched starting with Rightmire who claimed they resemble Bantu populations--a result he got partly because he ignored the Palaeolithic samples and studied the later holocene ones with obvious admixture. Hence my comment elsewhere that I only read Bauer and a couple of other sources when it comes to this population.
Note obvious change from the Palaeolithic to the Holocene, with the last two Holocene examples showing SSA and Eurasian (see nasal bone) influence that wasn't there during the Palaeolithic. The Elmenteita A individual is also noticeable different from the oldest samples (more negroid and other influences, although it's still recognizable as a member of this population, from this angle, while the bottom two look like they just as easily could have come from areas further north [e.g. Mesolithic Nubia and dynastic Egypt, respectively]). Despite these simple common sense observations, Rightmire thinks they fit best with Bantu population.
Compare Mesolithic Nubian below with the holocene female (Elmenteita F1) above. Compare Willey's Kopje with dynastic Egyptian (alleged descendant of Ramses II, KV5), below:
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yeah, I got the same conclusion from the paper. I know that for decades there was a sort of controversy or debate on the term Kenyan 'Capsian' but now they're applying the term Kenyan 'Aurignacian' even though that label describes a European Paleolithic industry. I mean talk about bias, these guys have the nerve to apply a European name to an African industry and one that occurred in Sub-Sahara no less. But you're right, their grouping of different LSA cultures with later ones is what often got me confused about the whole thing.
As for Rightmire, his theory was that these people were related to Bantu speaking types like the Tutsi who have narrow, leptoprosopic faces. Though I find odd why he chose them as representative over say Cushitic or even Nilotic example like the Hema or Maasai. Those are some very interesting cranial comparisons. From memory I think the Elmenteita F1 female looks most like the Qarunian Woman, though for some reason I can no longer find the 1989 Wendorf & Schild paper with the photo of her remains.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^If that's true, that would be better than how I remembered it. From what I remember, Rightmire was talking about southern African Bantu speakers and Nilotes, and he was saying that Bantu speakers are a better match than his Egyptian sample, while at the same time making excuses for leaving out the Palaeolithic Naivasha and Olduvai samples. The Egyptian samples in the PCAs also weren't nearly as distant from the Rift Valley samples as he's making it seem in the abstract.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Rightmire 1975 is one of the more blatant examples of anthropologists pursuing pet theories and wishful thinking, and botching the reconstruction of the population affinity of important foundational populations that are relevant to ongoing issues in anthropology.
Another example where they did this, is with the Boskop population from South Africa that most people don't know about because they've been dismissed as "large Khoisan" populations and effectively wiped from the modern anthropology literature by 'anthropologists' who can't tolerate anomalous populations or findings that complicate their narratives and agendas.
Natufians are another example where the anthro assessments were botched by later generations of anthropologists, with people either saying they resembled Eurasians or Sub-Saharan Africans, even though all the early reports clearly stated that the Natufian population varied by site/region, as well as by date (e.g. the latest hunters at some sites like el Wad were more African than the older ones at the same site, as pointed out by Lawrence Angel and Coon).
Now look how Rightmire is fast talking himself out doing his job as a scientist. He can't tolerate an anomalous population, so he sees the Rift Valley population as a pesky/inconvenient wrinkle that has to be smoothed out, even if he has to do some unprecedented bs to push his own agenda through.
Rightmire outright disqualified and sidelined the 3 oldest and most important sites from consideration and from providing ANY clues about this population. His excuse is that the crania were partly warped and had missing data, but this is relatively common for fossils, and the first step is to try to reconstruct the fossils and salvage what can be salvaged. He then goes a step further and claims that these samples are "not particularly useful", even though it's really the Holocene samples he's using, that aren't particularly useful to studying this population, because they have ancestry foreign to this population.
How convenient for Rightmire that the samples he claims are "not particularly useful", are exactly the ones that are most distant to his Bantu sample, while the ones he did use, that he claims support a Bantu affinity, are all Holocene, a time we know coincides with the arrival of pastoralists from the north and farmers from the west. And even then fig 1, 2 and 3 don't support his conclusions of a lack of affinity with Egyptians, and a closer affinity with 'negro' samples, as he puts it (see fig 2, below).
Considering the fact that his own data shows that the Holocene Rift samples he uses, consistently have longer faces than Bantu samples (see table 2), and since the Holocene Rift samples do, in fact, cluster with Egyptians in fig 1, 2, and 3, Rightmire's position is basically his own word against most of the available data, including his own data.
From the Rightmire paper.
In addition to the Gamble’s Cave I1 as- semblage, there are the broken parts of a complete individual found by H. Reck at Olduvai in 1913 and also the remains from the Naivasha Railway Site described by Leakey (’42). Both skeletons are associated with Kenya Capsian tools, and the famous “Oldoway Man” from Bed V may be con- temporary with the Gamble’s Cave occu- pation, But neither find has proved par- ticularly useful, though resemblances of both to the Gamble’s Cave people have been claimed; the Olduvai burial is badly crushed, while the Naivasha skull lacks fully half its face. So, of this earlier material, the Gamble’s Cave skeletons are the best preserved, and unfortunately even these reconstructions are far from perfect. Skull number 4 has been warped somewhat, and nearly all of the base as well as a substantial portion of the facial skeleton are present only in plaster. Distortion renders this specimen quite unfit for measurement. Number 5 also lacks much of the occiput, and the missing parts have been filled in with plaster. Proper alignment of the face is thus quite difficult, and apparently one half of the maxilla has been warped back- ward toward the foramen magnum. Surely some distortion of this sort has produced the curious vertical facial profile, and the nose is also suspect. On the whole, there is rather less deformation of the vault than with number 4, but measurements of either specimen would be unreliable. Although both skulls have been called non-Negro in morphology, the evidence is certainly far from clear cut; any pronouncement of this sort is questionable by virtue of the state of the material alone. New Studies of Post-Pleistocene Human Skeletal Remains from the Rift Valley, Kenya https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330420304
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I first became familiar with Rightmire years ago in both in this forum and other blogs discussing "caucasoid" morphology in East Africa. I've read excerpts of his work in the internet and in old library books. From what I recall his theory was that leptoprospy evolved in some Sub-Saharans as essentially negroids with elongated face forms. However, the metric and especially nonmetric evidence negates this view that elongated Africans are a mere variation of "negroid". I don't doubt what you say in regards to his examples of Bantu but I've only seen the ones where he uses Tutsi types.
quote: Tutsi of Rwanda:
Head length: 198 mm
Head breadth: 147 mm
Face height: 125 mm
Face breadth: 134 mm
Nose height: 56 mm
Nose breadth: 39 mm
Relative trunk length: 49.7
Cephalic Index: 74.5
Facial Index: 92.8
Nasal Index: 69.5
Masai:
Stature: 173 cm
Head length: 194 mm
Head Breadth: 140 mm
Face Height: 121 mm
Face Breadth: 137 mm
Nose Height: 54 mm
Nose Breadth: 39 mm
Relative Trunk length: 47.7
Cephalic Index: 72.8
Facial Index: 89.0
Nasal Index: 72.0
Galla(Oromo):
Stature: 171 cm
Head length: 190 mm
Head Breadth: 147 mm
Face Height: 122 mm
Face Breadth: 133 mm
Nose Height: 53 mm
Nose Breadth: 37 mm
Relative Trunk length: 50.3
Cephalic Index: 77.6
Facial Index: 91.5
Nasal Index: 69.0
Sab Somali:
Stature: 173 cm
Head length: 194 mm
Head Breadth: 145 mm
Face Height: 119 mm
Face Breadth: 134 mm
Nose Height: 49 mm
Nose Breadth: 36 mm
Relative Trunk length: 49.7
Cephalic Index: 74.7
Facial Index: 88.5
Nasal Index: 72.8
Warsingali Somali:
Stature: 168 cm
Head length: 192 mm
Head Breadth: 143 mm
Face Height: 123 mm
Face Breadth: 131 mm
Nose Height: 52 mm
Nose Breadth: 34 mm
Relative Trunk length: 50.7
Cephalic Index: 74.5
Facial Index: 94.1
Nasal Index: 66.0
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
It sounds like you're describing Hiernaux, not Rightmire. The only sample that comes close to matching your description of Tutsis is the sample listed only as 'Rwanda'. Is this the sample you were talking about?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL You're right. I must be more sleepy than I thought. The measurements come from Hiernaux, but the theory of 'Elongated Africans' does come from Rightmire.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Ok...
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL You're right. I must be more sleepy than I thought. The measurements come from Hiernaux, but the theory of 'Elongated Africans' does come from Rightmire.
Hiernaux coined the term Elongated African and he just didn't limit it to East and Northeast Africans but also to Saharans like the Fulani who show the same tendency.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I read that article earlier this year after having it on my reading list for years. The article basically says (or, I remember it saying) that the original classification of Kenya Capsian was overturned by later generations of researchers with different agendas (read: more PC) who lumped different and more recently excavated Kenyan LSA industries together and paid no attention to the distinguishing characteristics of the industries that originally were thought to show an increased resemblance to the Capsian.
This is part of the decline of anthropology that I've talked about many times in different threads. If you remember, I've also mentioned elsewhere that I don't pay attention to what scholars say about the Rift Valley population, as it's just another population whose affinities they've botched starting with Rightmire who claimed they resemble Bantu populations--a result he got partly because he ignored the Palaeolithic samples and studied the later holocene ones with obvious admixture. Hence my comment elsewhere that I only read Bauer and a couple of other sources when it comes to this population.
Note obvious change from the Palaeolithic to the Holocene, with the last two Holocene examples showing SSA and Eurasian (see nasal bone) influence that wasn't there during the Palaeolithic. The Elmenteita A individual is also noticeable different from the oldest samples (more negroid and other influences, although it's still recognizable as a member of this population, from this angle, while the bottom two look like they just as easily could have come from areas further north [e.g. Mesolithic Nubia and dynastic Egypt, respectively]). Despite these simple common sense observations, Rightmire thinks they fit best with Bantu population.
Compare Mesolithic Nubian below with the holocene female (Elmenteita F1) above. Compare Willey's Kopje with dynastic Egyptian (alleged descendant of Ramses II, KV5), below:
You have to remember that at one point in time "Bantus" were considered to have expanded from somewhere in Northern/Northeastern Africa, so it isn't contradictory to label such features that way in that line of thinking.
And most of the issues with African cranial morphology have to do with Europeans racialist approaches to human history. In that line of thinking, "races" have unique characteristics and features and any combinations of features in any population is a result of "racial mixture". It is complete nonsense, however that is where the study of crania originated in European scholarship, which is the study of race.
For example, the nasal bone you mentioned as an outlier is a perfect example of how unexpected findings become associated with racial characteristics in this case Eurasian vs African features. But this isn't unique to East Africa.
quote: Bräuer (1984) also included Iwo Eleru in a comprehensive analysis of African fossil specimens, although the calvaria was not discussed explicitly. Using principal components analysis (PCA) based on six frontal bone measurements (including arcs, chords, and subtenses), Iwo Eleru plotted closest to a cranium from Taforalt and was also similar to Jebel Ihroud 2, Naivasha and Lukenya Hill. The analysis included five individuals each from Taforalt and Afalou and a single skull from Jebel Sahaba. Bräuer and Rimbach (1990) included Iwo Eleru as part of a large series of Late Pleistocene and Early-Middle Holocene Africans for the purposes of descriptive statistical testing comparing cranial vault shape among Africans, Upper Paleolithic Europeans, and Neanderthals. However, the calvaria was not discussed explicitly and does not appear in any of the PCA output they presented.
In the same year, de Villiers and Fatti (1990) used craniometric data from a number of fossil sites throughout Africa to address questions of ‘negro’ origins. These authors used discriminant function analysis and inferential statistics to compare each fossil specimen with a series of modern African samples representing ‘negro’ and San populations. Iwo Eleru was compared with these modern samples using eight craniometric variables, and was significantly different from both male and female subsets of both modern comparative samples. Based on this result, the authors question the supposed ‘negro’ affinity of Iwo Eleru. They did not directly compare Iwo Eleru with other fossil or archaeological specimens, however.
Of course, as more and more crania have come to light in Africa going further and further back, scholars have revised their approach but those older racialist models still persist.
quote: We challenge the view that our species, Homo sapiens, evolved within a single population and/or region of Africa. The chronology and physical diversity of Pleistocene human fossils suggest that morphologically varied populations pertaining to the H. sapiens clade lived throughout Africa. Similarly, the African archaeological record demonstrates the polycentric origin and persistence of regionally distinct Pleistocene material culture in a variety of paleoecological settings. Genetic studies also indicate that present-day population structure within Africa extends to deep times, paralleling a paleoenvironmental record of shifting and fractured habitable zones. We argue that these fields support an emerging view of a highly structured African prehistory that should be considered in human evolutionary inferences, prompting new interpretations, questions, and interdisciplinary research directions.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I read that article earlier this year after having it on my reading list for years. The article basically says (or, I remember it saying) that the original classification of Kenya Capsian was overturned by later generations of researchers with different agendas (read: more PC) who lumped different and more recently excavated Kenyan LSA industries together and paid no attention to the distinguishing characteristics of the industries that originally were thought to show an increased resemblance to the Capsian.
This is part of the decline of anthropology that I've talked about many times in different threads. If you remember, I've also mentioned elsewhere that I don't pay attention to what scholars say about the Rift Valley population, as it's just another population whose affinities they've botched starting with Rightmire who claimed they resemble Bantu populations--a result he got partly because he ignored the Palaeolithic samples and studied the later holocene ones with obvious admixture. Hence my comment elsewhere that I only read Bauer and a couple of other sources when it comes to this population.
Note obvious change from the Palaeolithic to the Holocene, with the last two Holocene examples showing SSA and Eurasian (see nasal bone) influence that wasn't there during the Palaeolithic. The Elmenteita A individual is also noticeable different from the oldest samples (more negroid and other influences, although it's still recognizable as a member of this population, from this angle, while the bottom two look like they just as easily could have come from areas further north [e.g. Mesolithic Nubia and dynastic Egypt, respectively]). Despite these simple common sense observations, Rightmire thinks they fit best with Bantu population.
Compare Mesolithic Nubian below with the holocene female (Elmenteita F1) above. Compare Willey's Kopje with dynastic Egyptian (alleged descendant of Ramses II, KV5), below:
You have to remember that at one point in time "Bantus" were considered to have expanded from somewhere in Northern/Northeastern Africa, so it isn't contradictory to label such features that way in that line of thinking.
And most of the issues with African cranial morphology have to do with Europeans racialist approaches to human history. In that line of thinking, "races" have unique characteristics and features and any combinations of features in any population is a result of "racial mixture". It is complete nonsense, however that is where the study of crania originated in European scholarship, which is the study of race.
For example, the nasal bone you mentioned as an outlier is a perfect example of how unexpected findings become associated with racial characteristics in this case Eurasian vs African features. But this isn't unique to East Africa.
quote: Bräuer (1984) also included Iwo Eleru in a comprehensive analysis of African fossil specimens, although the calvaria was not discussed explicitly. Using principal components analysis (PCA) based on six frontal bone measurements (including arcs, chords, and subtenses), Iwo Eleru plotted closest to a cranium from Taforalt and was also similar to Jebel Ihroud 2, Naivasha and Lukenya Hill. The analysis included five individuals each from Taforalt and Afalou and a single skull from Jebel Sahaba. Bräuer and Rimbach (1990) included Iwo Eleru as part of a large series of Late Pleistocene and Early-Middle Holocene Africans for the purposes of descriptive statistical testing comparing cranial vault shape among Africans, Upper Paleolithic Europeans, and Neanderthals. However, the calvaria was not discussed explicitly and does not appear in any of the PCA output they presented.
In the same year, de Villiers and Fatti (1990) used craniometric data from a number of fossil sites throughout Africa to address questions of ‘negro’ origins. These authors used discriminant function analysis and inferential statistics to compare each fossil specimen with a series of modern African samples representing ‘negro’ and San populations. Iwo Eleru was compared with these modern samples using eight craniometric variables, and was significantly different from both male and female subsets of both modern comparative samples. Based on this result, the authors question the supposed ‘negro’ affinity of Iwo Eleru. They did not directly compare Iwo Eleru with other fossil or archaeological specimens, however.
Of course, as more and more crania have come to light in Africa going further and further back, scholars have revised their approach but those older racialist models still persist.
quote: We challenge the view that our species, Homo sapiens, evolved within a single population and/or region of Africa. The chronology and physical diversity of Pleistocene human fossils suggest that morphologically varied populations pertaining to the H. sapiens clade lived throughout Africa. Similarly, the African archaeological record demonstrates the polycentric origin and persistence of regionally distinct Pleistocene material culture in a variety of paleoecological settings. Genetic studies also indicate that present-day population structure within Africa extends to deep times, paralleling a paleoenvironmental record of shifting and fractured habitable zones. We argue that these fields support an emerging view of a highly structured African prehistory that should be considered in human evolutionary inferences, prompting new interpretations, questions, and interdisciplinary research directions.
What is it that you are really arguing? Are you saying the Rift Valley population dated to at least 17ky, but probably older, were Bantu? Lol. The same young Bantu population they're having difficulty finding in aDNA and bones from West Africa? And these difficult to find Bantus speakers should now be considered over Palaeolithic populations (e.g. Mesolithic Nubians, Type B, etc.) that have been confirmed as actually being dominant or at least detectable, in the palaeolithic? Keep it real please.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I read that article earlier this year after having it on my reading list for years. The article basically says (or, I remember it saying) that the original classification of Kenya Capsian was overturned by later generations of researchers with different agendas (read: more PC) who lumped different and more recently excavated Kenyan LSA industries together and paid no attention to the distinguishing characteristics of the industries that originally were thought to show an increased resemblance to the Capsian.
This is part of the decline of anthropology that I've talked about many times in different threads. If you remember, I've also mentioned elsewhere that I don't pay attention to what scholars say about the Rift Valley population, as it's just another population whose affinities they've botched starting with Rightmire who claimed they resemble Bantu populations--a result he got partly because he ignored the Palaeolithic samples and studied the later holocene ones with obvious admixture. Hence my comment elsewhere that I only read Bauer and a couple of other sources when it comes to this population.
Note obvious change from the Palaeolithic to the Holocene, with the last two Holocene examples showing SSA and Eurasian (see nasal bone) influence that wasn't there during the Palaeolithic. The Elmenteita A individual is also noticeable different from the oldest samples (more negroid and other influences, although it's still recognizable as a member of this population, from this angle, while the bottom two look like they just as easily could have come from areas further north [e.g. Mesolithic Nubia and dynastic Egypt, respectively]). Despite these simple common sense observations, Rightmire thinks they fit best with Bantu population.
Compare Mesolithic Nubian below with the holocene female (Elmenteita F1) above. Compare Willey's Kopje with dynastic Egyptian (alleged descendant of Ramses II, KV5), below:
You have to remember that at one point in time "Bantus" were considered to have expanded from somewhere in Northern/Northeastern Africa, so it isn't contradictory to label such features that way in that line of thinking.
And most of the issues with African cranial morphology have to do with Europeans racialist approaches to human history. In that line of thinking, "races" have unique characteristics and features and any combinations of features in any population is a result of "racial mixture". It is complete nonsense, however that is where the study of crania originated in European scholarship, which is the study of race.
For example, the nasal bone you mentioned as an outlier is a perfect example of how unexpected findings become associated with racial characteristics in this case Eurasian vs African features. But this isn't unique to East Africa.
quote: Bräuer (1984) also included Iwo Eleru in a comprehensive analysis of African fossil specimens, although the calvaria was not discussed explicitly. Using principal components analysis (PCA) based on six frontal bone measurements (including arcs, chords, and subtenses), Iwo Eleru plotted closest to a cranium from Taforalt and was also similar to Jebel Ihroud 2, Naivasha and Lukenya Hill. The analysis included five individuals each from Taforalt and Afalou and a single skull from Jebel Sahaba. Bräuer and Rimbach (1990) included Iwo Eleru as part of a large series of Late Pleistocene and Early-Middle Holocene Africans for the purposes of descriptive statistical testing comparing cranial vault shape among Africans, Upper Paleolithic Europeans, and Neanderthals. However, the calvaria was not discussed explicitly and does not appear in any of the PCA output they presented.
In the same year, de Villiers and Fatti (1990) used craniometric data from a number of fossil sites throughout Africa to address questions of ‘negro’ origins. These authors used discriminant function analysis and inferential statistics to compare each fossil specimen with a series of modern African samples representing ‘negro’ and San populations. Iwo Eleru was compared with these modern samples using eight craniometric variables, and was significantly different from both male and female subsets of both modern comparative samples. Based on this result, the authors question the supposed ‘negro’ affinity of Iwo Eleru. They did not directly compare Iwo Eleru with other fossil or archaeological specimens, however.
Of course, as more and more crania have come to light in Africa going further and further back, scholars have revised their approach but those older racialist models still persist.
quote: We challenge the view that our species, Homo sapiens, evolved within a single population and/or region of Africa. The chronology and physical diversity of Pleistocene human fossils suggest that morphologically varied populations pertaining to the H. sapiens clade lived throughout Africa. Similarly, the African archaeological record demonstrates the polycentric origin and persistence of regionally distinct Pleistocene material culture in a variety of paleoecological settings. Genetic studies also indicate that present-day population structure within Africa extends to deep times, paralleling a paleoenvironmental record of shifting and fractured habitable zones. We argue that these fields support an emerging view of a highly structured African prehistory that should be considered in human evolutionary inferences, prompting new interpretations, questions, and interdisciplinary research directions.
What is it that you are really arguing? Are you saying the Rift Valley population dated to at least 17ky, but probably older, were Bantu? Lol. The same young Bantu population they're having difficulty finding in aDNA and bones from West Africa? And these difficult to find Bantus speakers should now be considered over Palaeolithic populations (e.g. Mesolithic Nubians, Type B, etc.) that have been confirmed as actually being dominant or at least detectable, in the palaeolithic? Keep it real please.
I am not arguing anything other than Bantus were always presumed to originate from northern migrations into the South. Not sure how you don't know that given your knowledge of Rightmire.
quote: Palaeoanthropological evidence in Africa, especially in Western and Central Africa is very scarce and difficult to obtain. Therefore, in order to try to understand present sub-Saharan African diversity and infer past evolutionary processes, most studies in Biological Anthropology have focused on historical populations (Hiernaux 1976; Rightmire 1976; Froment 1992a; Irish 1997). However, so far, Hiernaux (1976) and Rightmire (1976) are the only ones to have attempted to address the consequences of the Bantu-speakers expansion from a biological perspective. They viewed this dispersal not only as a simple linguistic and “cultural” homogenization, but they argued that various biological and ecological parameters were probably involved in this process. In fact, they considered that this complex phenomenon initially triggered by over-population and climate change, probably proceeded irregularly with advances and reverses, assimilating partially or completely native populations. According to results suggesting a clinal variation within sub-Saharan Africa, Hiernaux (1968) viewed the Bantu-speakers expansion as a continuous wave, spread over time and space. The latter although involving several populations, resulted in a homogenization with differences left mainly due to selective pressures.
I agree that those East African crania may not cluster with Bantus, but they do cluster with Bantu populations like Tutsi, and with Nilotics who both have faces that are have little to no prognathism and straight noses. These East African remains also have tropically adapted limb ratios. Where do yall say this look came from?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am not arguing anything other than Bantus were always presumed to originate from northern migrations into the South. Not sure how you don't know that given your knowledge of Rightmire.
quote: Palaeoanthropological evidence in Africa, especially in Western and Central Africa is very scarce and difficult to obtain. Therefore, in order to try to understand present sub-Saharan African diversity and infer past evolutionary processes, most studies in Biological Anthropology have focused on historical populations (Hiernaux 1976; Rightmire 1976; Froment 1992a; Irish 1997). However, so far, Hiernaux (1976) and Rightmire (1976) are the only ones to have attempted to address the consequences of the Bantu-speakers expansion from a biological perspective. They viewed this dispersal not only as a simple linguistic and “cultural” homogenization, but they argued that various biological and ecological parameters were probably involved in this process. In fact, they considered that this complex phenomenon initially triggered by over-population and climate change, probably proceeded irregularly with advances and reverses, assimilating partially or completely native populations. According to results suggesting a clinal variation within sub-Saharan Africa, Hiernaux (1968) viewed the Bantu-speakers expansion as a continuous wave, spread over time and space. The latter although involving several populations, resulted in a homogenization with differences left mainly due to selective pressures.
I'm not familiar with Rightmire's work (that's DJ who said that). As I said to DJ, I don't read Rightmire as I consider him part of the 1970s decline of anthropology.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: I agree that those East African crania may night cluster with Bantus, but they do cluster with Bantu populations like Tutsi, and with Nilotics who both have faces that are have little to no prognathism and straight noses. These East African remains also have tropically adapted limb ratios. Where do yall say this look came from?
The problem with the anthro literature's notions about Tutsis is that it's not clear to what extent European scholars have been carefully handpicking Tutsi for anthro studies. Europeans were, after all, accused of doing exactly that (drawing attention to 'racial' differences and getting in their ear, telling them that they're part of another race).
I do agree that there is a substratum in the Tutsi population that is non-Bantu and could easily have entered not just Somalis but also Tutsis from the Rift Valley right next door. But I have seen no evidence that Tutsis as a whole can be easily distinguished from Hutu, so I'm not sure about Hiernaux measurements on living Tutsis, which seem to imply the population general looks like Paul Kagame.
As far as Nilotes, according to Becker, they seem to be in the lineage of Mesolithic Nubians.
Thirdly, the group of pre-Leiterband individuals approached the Late Pleistocene sample from Jebel Sahaba/Tushka under certain circumstances. A theory offering explanations for these findings was developed. According to this theory, the entire prehistoric population of the Wadi Howar belonged to a Saharo-Nilotic population complex. The Jebel Sahaba/Tushka population constituted an old Nilotic and the early population of the Malian Sahara a younger Saharan part of this complex. The pre-Leiterband groups probably colonised the Wadi Howar from the east, either during or soon after the original Saharo-Nilotic expansion. Unlike the pre-Leiterband groups, the Leiterband people originated somewhere west of the Wadi Howar. They entered the region in the context of a later, secondary Saharo-Nilotic expansion. In the process, the incoming Leiterband groups absorbed many members of the Wadi Howar’s older pre-Leiterband population. The increasing aridification of the Wadi Howar region ultimately forced its prehistoric inhabitants to abandon the wadi. Most of them migrated south and west. They, or groups closely related to them, probably were the ancestors of the majority of the Nilo-Saharan-speaking pastoralists of modern-day Southern Sudan and Eastern Chad. The prehistoric inhabitants of the Wadi Howar : an anthropological study of human skeletal remains from the Sudanese part of the Eastern Sahara https://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/handle/20.500.12030/2112
So, the conclusion seems unavoidable that palaeolithic Africa was very different from modern Africa, and that the Rift Valley populations don't resemble any population closely. Although it seems likely that populations related to them become widespread in NE Africa in the holocene, but after modifications, including a loss of some of their tall stature. See pic of Nabta Playa E-91-1 remains, and compare to the three Rift Valley samples that date to the palaeolithic.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@Swenet
Seriously the whole thing with the Tutsis stays con confusing. I read years ago that the "Cushite ancestry" is a racist Hamitic myth and they mostly Bantu. Then I read they are mostly Nilotic which explains their tall structure. And then a few years ago I read the Cushite ancestry is in fact true and that ANA has penetrated deep in that region.
Also regarding their features and ancestry.... It seems what you are saying now in that post is a bit different from our PM convo years ago. Apologies and not sure if you are comfortable addressing the convo we had about North African influenced populations. Its nothing serious but PMS are PMs for a reason and want your permission first.
Anyhow, me? I use to mostly see the Tutsis as a Great Rift Nilotic group who absorbed some Bantu admixture and was assimilated into Bantu culture. Now on Forumbiodiversity I did see some Tutsis score Cushite admixture using this DNA site. Forgot name.
And lastly can't Tutsis being "indistinguishable" from Hutu be due to the two mixing for centuries?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The Tutsi ARE Bantu in that they speak a Bantu language-- the same one as the Hutu-- to whom are they are closest related to. That said, language and culture are different from physical population. The last time the Tutsi genomics was discussed was here. The tragic irony is that the attempted genocide of the Tutsi was based on the lie of their foreign "Hamitic" origins.
By the way
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: I agree that those East African crania may not cluster with Bantus, but they do cluster with Bantu populations like Tutsi, and with Nilotics who both have faces that are have little to no prognathism and straight noses. These East African remains also have tropically adapted limb ratios. Where do y'all say this look came from?
I think if one wants to properly assess genetic relations via crania, then nonmetric traits are the best way to go.
Speaking of which, getting back to the issue of Ethiopians and Somalis, at least for the latter case we have dental non-metric data from Irish 2020 showing the following:
The Somali position is intermediate between Southern Africans and North Africans, with the latter having more "Eurasian" autosomal affinities. The Kikuyu are intermediate between the South African samples and the West African samples, while Senegambians as a West African sample is intermediate to North African samples and other West African samples which confirm Irish’s past analyses. Past studies show that in contrast to Ethiopians, Somalis do not cluster as closely with North Africans but are marginal to them, yet their intermediate position to South Africans makes me think of a genetic study showing how many Somalis carry a substratum of hunter-gatherer ancestry associated with click-speaking groups like the Hadza.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
^I know Tutsis are "Bantu" in terms of language and culture. That's completely irrelevant to my point no offense. A mixed Swahili is also "Bantu." I'm talking about genomes, which many people even on this site correlate language groups with ancestry. Hence we talk about "Cushite ancestry."
My point is that the discussions on Tutsi genome has been all over the damn place from being "no different from Hutus", " partially Nilotic stock", or a significant part of their genome being Cushite stock.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am not arguing anything other than Bantus were always presumed to originate from northern migrations into the South. Not sure how you don't know that given your knowledge of Rightmire.
quote: Palaeoanthropological evidence in Africa, especially in Western and Central Africa is very scarce and difficult to obtain. Therefore, in order to try to understand present sub-Saharan African diversity and infer past evolutionary processes, most studies in Biological Anthropology have focused on historical populations (Hiernaux 1976; Rightmire 1976; Froment 1992a; Irish 1997). However, so far, Hiernaux (1976) and Rightmire (1976) are the only ones to have attempted to address the consequences of the Bantu-speakers expansion from a biological perspective. They viewed this dispersal not only as a simple linguistic and “cultural” homogenization, but they argued that various biological and ecological parameters were probably involved in this process. In fact, they considered that this complex phenomenon initially triggered by over-population and climate change, probably proceeded irregularly with advances and reverses, assimilating partially or completely native populations. According to results suggesting a clinal variation within sub-Saharan Africa, Hiernaux (1968) viewed the Bantu-speakers expansion as a continuous wave, spread over time and space. The latter although involving several populations, resulted in a homogenization with differences left mainly due to selective pressures.
I'm not familiar with Rightmire's work (that's DJ who said that). As I said to DJ, I don't read Rightmire as I consider him part of the 1970s decline of anthropology.
My mistake. I actually say the problem goes back to the foundations of cranial anthropology itself which was based on 'racial models'. As such, they model of African ancestry is based on the movements of racial types such as bantus, hamites, negroes, bushmen, etc. In this case, bantus basicall being nilotic pastoralists moving south. None of which actually holds up to serious studies and only worked in an insular environment of preordained notions and dogma, which began to erode after the 1970s. The bantu migration theory is something that I have never subscribed to in terms of african feature diversity.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Personally, I don't see there being any problem. Rightmire is the problem. But some of his colleagues (see Coon in the quote below) got it right as far as the descriptive part where Rightmire totally failed. Coon correctly identifies the Rift population as being its own population, both with respect to modern Africans, palaeolithic Europeans, and with respect to what seems to be a hybrid European - N. African population (the Afalou sample). So, for me the 'racial' models work well, after taking what is useful and discarding what is not useful.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @Swenet
Seriously the whole thing with the Tutsis stays con confusing. I read years ago that the "Cushite ancestry" is a racist Hamitic myth and they mostly Bantu. Then I read they are mostly Nilotic which explains their tall structure. And then a few years ago I read the Cushite ancestry is in fact true and that ANA has penetrated deep in that region.
Also regarding their features and ancestry.... It seems what you are saying now in that post is a bit different from our PM convo years ago. Apologies and not sure if you are comfortable addressing the convo we had about North African influenced populations. Its nothing serious but PMS are PMs for a reason and want your permission first.
Anyhow, me? I use to mostly see the Tutsis as a Great Rift Nilotic group who absorbed some Bantu admixture and was assimilated into Bantu culture. Now on Forumbiodiversity I did see some Tutsis score Cushite admixture using this DNA site. Forgot name.
And lastly can't Tutsis being "indistinguishable" from Hutu be due to the two mixing for centuries?
I appreciate asking me first about private convos, but yes, you can bring it up.
In my last post I was mainly talking about not believing that Tutsis generally look like Kagame, because this is implied in the Hiernaux data. So there may have been some handpicking going on of taller Tutsis who look more like Kagame.
But my old views about Tutsis (that they have non-Bantu, Cushitic ancestry), still remains. Although today I would not ascribe it to Cushitic speakers, bc Cushitic speakers, Egyptians, Nubians, etc emerged out of holocene admixture events that reduced the stature (and facial height), that is maxed out in the Palaeolithic Rift Valley skeletal remains.
The remains of six Upper Aurignacian men have been discovered in the two colonies named. Five of these were exhumed by Leakey at Gamble’s Cave, Elementitia,*4 and the sixth is the famous Oldoway skull discovered by Reck in 1914.5° Two of the Gamble’s Cave specimens, and Oldoway, which are all masculine, consist of nearly complete skulls and long bones. The others from Gamble’s Cave are too fragmentary to be of much value.
In general, these specimens belong in the purely sapiens category, as represented by Galley Hill, Kanjera, Grimaldi, Combe Capelle, and Afalou #28. At the same time, however, they differ from all named in one important respect—they are extremely tall, with statures of 177, 179, and 180 cm., which even exceeds the Cré-Magnon and later Afalou figures, but the great stature is unaccompanied by the broad shoulders and bodily bulk of the hybrid Europeans and North Africans. The long bones are very slender, and the hands and feet small and narrow. The races of Europe https://archive.org/details/racesofeurope00coon
So, since Cushitic speakers generally not particularly tall, and since this substratum in the Tutsi population does seem to come with tall stature, direct input from the Rift Valley populations, would make more sense to me than admixture with Ethiopians.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Personally, I don't see there being any problem. Rightmire is the problem. But some of his colleagues (see Coon in the quote below) got it right as far as the descriptive part where Rightmire totally failed. Coon correctly identifies the Rift population as being its own population, both with respect to modern Africans, palaeolithic Europeans, and with respect to what seems to be a hybrid European - N. African population (the Afalou sample). So, for me the 'racial' models work well, after taking what is useful and discarding what is not useful.
I don't subscribe to those racial models, including bantu, sub saharan, negro, cushitic, hamitic, etc, because they are arbitrary and come with baggage that have nothing to do with biology. However, metric clustering of populations on a regional, global and temporal scale absolutely makes sense, but that is not 'race'. It is just plotting relationships over time of various human biological characteristics to see patterns and trends based on local evolution and migration. As such, biological functioning involving mutations and emergence of various traits cannot be subscribed to any one population at one time or any particular place, which is the problem with what I am calling the 'racial' model of anthropology, which has always caused more problems than it solved in my book. The issue is in separating the wheat from the chaff when in reality the underlying ideology and mentality leading to models of human biology is the core problem. And partly because of this reinterpretation of these models over time the other problem becomes language as when you say "bantu" it may have different meanings to different people.
But that is neither here nor there I am not trying to bog down this thread with that side discussion, other than to say you must frame those older works in the context of the time and models they were working under.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Personally, I don't see there being any problem. Rightmire is the problem. But some of his colleagues (see Coon in the quote below) got it right as far as the descriptive part where Rightmire totally failed. Coon correctly identifies the Rift population as being its own population, both with respect to modern Africans, palaeolithic Europeans, and with respect to what seems to be a hybrid European - N. African population (the Afalou sample). So, for me the 'racial' models work well, after taking what is useful and discarding what is not useful.
When you said Coon got it right, what do you mean by that? Explain
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
Swenet Thanks for answering. And yes based on seeing many Rwandans irl whether here in the states or on the continent the average does NOT look like Paul Kagame. But yea I remember on Forumbiodiverity you arguing against a Somali troll the the indignous Cushites in the Horn were NOT tall... I forgot how the argument went.
But on another note, Tutsis aren't really unique as many people make them because this type of non-Bantu ancestry can be found across different "Bantu" ethnic groups in East Africa including the Kikuyu in Kenya.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Elijah The Tishbite
What I mean is I agree with his descriptive statements, but not necessarily his interpretations of what they mean in the bigger scheme of population affinity. (Although Coon said the "Mediterranean race" originated in the Levant or Africa, so I might be in agreement with him in some of his interpretations as well [although for the record, I do not believe this population originated in the Levant]).
What do you want me to say. You want me to apologize for agreeing with Coon on this population?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Swenet Thanks for answering. And yes based on seeing many Rwandans irl whether here in the states or on the continent the average does NOT look like Paul Kagame. But yea I remember on Forumbiodiverity you arguing against a Somali troll the the indignous Cushites in the Horn were NOT tall... I forgot how the argument went.
But on another note, Tutsis aren't really unique as many people make them because this type of non-Bantu ancestry can be found across different "Bantu" ethnic groups in East Africa including the Kikuyu in Kenya.
I know because I have seen some rare genetic work on Tutsis. A related population, the Hema, was also included in some DNA Tribes reports. Their non-Bantu is too small IMO to give the measurements Hiernaux listed. So I suspect he may have handpicked Tutsis to make a point about this African phenotype.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Swenet Thanks for answering. And yes based on seeing many Rwandans irl whether here in the states or on the continent the average does NOT look like Paul Kagame. But yea I remember on Forumbiodiverity you arguing against a Somali troll the the indignous Cushites in the Horn were NOT tall... I forgot how the argument went.
But on another note, Tutsis aren't really unique as many people make them because this type of non-Bantu ancestry can be found across different "Bantu" ethnic groups in East Africa including the Kikuyu in Kenya.
I know because I have seen some rare genetic work on Tutsis. A related population, the Hema, was also included in some DNA Tribes reports. Their non-Bantu is too small IMO to give the measurements Hiernaux listed. So I suspect he may have handpicked Tutsis to make a point about this African phenotype.
He handpicked Tutsis? Thats a stretch and there's no evidence for that.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I said he MAY have handpicked Tutsis.
What do you think this is. You think this is not handpicking (for illustrative purposes)? I hope you're not the only one who thought these were picked at random, all these years...
And yes, we have some evidence that handpicking has been going on in anthropology. Nothing new.
Nagada crania were most similar to Nubian and Tigrean (Ethiopian) series. Nutter (19581, using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Na- gada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nu- bian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded “clear negro” crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Mo- rant (19251, implying that they were for- eign. Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa https://www.academia.edu/29592422/Studies_of_ancient_crania_from_northern_Africa
This is not necessarily unethical, but they need to acknowledge that they did it, and explain how it benefits the analysis.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Personally, I don't see there being any problem. Rightmire is the problem. But some of his colleagues (see Coon in the quote below) got it right as far as the descriptive part where Rightmire totally failed. Coon correctly identifies the Rift population as being its own population, both with respect to modern Africans, palaeolithic Europeans, and with respect to what seems to be a hybrid European - N. African population (the Afalou sample). So, for me the 'racial' models work well, after taking what is useful and discarding what is not useful.
I don't subscribe to those racial models, including bantu, sub saharan, negro, cushitic, hamitic, etc, because they are arbitrary and come with baggage that have nothing to do with biology. However, metric clustering of populations on a regional, global and temporal scale absolutely makes sense, but that is not 'race'. It is just plotting relationships over time of various human biological characteristics to see patterns and trends based on local evolution and migration. As such, biological functioning involving mutations and emergence of various traits cannot be subscribed to any one population at one time or any particular place, which is the problem with what I am calling the 'racial' model of anthropology, which has always caused more problems than it solved in my book. The issue is in separating the wheat from the chaff when in reality the underlying ideology and mentality leading to models of human biology is the core problem. And partly because of this reinterpretation of these models over time the other problem becomes language as when you say "bantu" it may have different meanings to different people.
But that is neither here nor there I am not trying to bog down this thread with that side discussion, other than to say you must frame those older works in the context of the time and models they were working under.
The loose racial categorization served it's purpose as being a short hand way to describe in detail what people were observing. Retroactively characterizing modern populations via relatedness as pigeon holing their affinities are separate issues. "Just because he/she is black doesn't mean they're negroid" -isms are newer problems which was unnecessarily conflated with anthro-terminology. With that being said, I don't fully see how the Bantu become relevant in these contexts as they weren't even a part of the Archaeological record dating that far back and the majority of their markers are quite recent in founding and distribution. See E-V3224 Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
It sounds to me like Rightmire couldn't imagine a population with non-"Negroid" morphology living in East Africa during the Pleistocene. I noticed that, in the excerpt Swenet posted, he dismisses the Paleolithic specimens' "curious vertical facial profile" and "suspect noses" as the product of post-mortem warping, as if populations with that morphology could not have been living in that part of Africa then. I wonder what he would have made of the Hofmeyr specimen when it turned out to show stronger affinities to UP Europeans than to modern SSA?
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Swenet Thanks for answering. And yes based on seeing many Rwandans irl whether here in the states or on the continent the average does NOT look like Paul Kagame. But yea I remember on Forumbiodiverity you arguing against a Somali troll the the indignous Cushites in the Horn were NOT tall... I forgot how the argument went.
But on another note, Tutsis aren't really unique as many people make them because this type of non-Bantu ancestry can be found across different "Bantu" ethnic groups in East Africa including the Kikuyu in Kenya.
I know because I have seen some rare genetic work on Tutsis. A related population, the Hema, was also included in some DNA Tribes reports. Their non-Bantu is too small IMO to give the measurements Hiernaux listed. So I suspect he may have handpicked Tutsis to make a point about this African phenotype.
Do you think he could've had an agenda? Especially considering the "Hamitic" controversy surrounding the Tutsi origins? And yea I know about the Hema and many like them. Like I said many non-Horn East Africans(not all) from the Lake Kivu region all the way to Tanzania have that pseudo look. Heck not all Bantus in general look the same.
But yea I don't think it was Cushites(especially Ethiopians) who bought this diversity directly to the Kivu region. You can correct me.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^If Hiernaux had a bias, I don't think it was an anti-African bias, because he's known for correcting his colleagues about African variation.
If you look at Kagame's family members, they do have that standout look that some people think all Tutsis have. In the same way that Obama's family members (ie his daughters) look more East African than African Americans do. So maybe Hiernaux sampled a group of Tutsi families like Kagame's family.
Kagame and his wife in the middle.
I don't know how else to explain why the Tutsi sample gives bigger values compared to the Horners and Masai (bigger head measurements implies the Tutsi individuals measured were a bit on the taller side), and why the Tutsi measurements don't seem intermediate. This would only make sense if Hiernaux picked individuals who are throwbacks to the non-Bantu phenotypes that are elevated in Tutsis.
But I'm no expert on Tutsis. It just seems suspect.
EDIT Fixed measurements link
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: It sounds to me like Rightmire couldn't imagine a population with non-"Negroid" morphology living in East Africa during the Pleistocene. I noticed that, in the excerpt Swenet posted, he dismisses the Paleolithic specimens' "curious vertical facial profile" and "suspect noses" as the product of post-mortem warping, as if populations with that morphology could not have been living in that part of Africa then. I wonder what he would have made of the Hofmeyr specimen when it turned out to show stronger affinities to UP Europeans than to modern SSA?
That's exactly what I think he's doing. Even the Kenya Capsian industry has been relegated to the local LSA/Eburran as part of this 1970s revisionism that Rightmire was a part of.
Then you have people like blogger Perahu who claim the Rift Valley populations are Cushitic arrivals, even though Olduvai is 17ky old. It's funny how some archaeological cultures are targeted by hordes of ignorant people who spread so much misinformation that laypeople can't find their way anymore. It's the Kenyan equivalent of Egyptomania.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yeah, at least Dienekes was more accurate and honest about 'prehistoric East African Caucasoids' and that they had dark skin instead of the 'fair & lovely' types that Perahu likes to pass off as original or proto-Cushitic types! LOL Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^What level of pigmentation do you think they could have had?
---------------
I just reread the paper. Earlier I said this
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I read that article earlier this year after having it on my reading list for years. The article basically says (or, I remember it saying) that the original classification of Kenya Capsian was overturned by later generations of researchers with different agendas (read: more PC) who lumped different and more recently excavated Kenyan LSA industries together and paid no attention to the distinguishing characteristics of the industries that originally were thought to show an increased resemblance to the Capsian.
This is still mostly correct, but the emphasis is wrong. It's true that the Eburran is the work of later generations with PC agendas in which there was no place for linking cultures separated by great distance (ie in the 1970s and 1980s it became unacceptable to link the Capsian with the Kenya Capsian industries and only local relationships were considered):
The aims of the researchers had also changed by this time, and, unlike Leakey, they took a microevolutionary approach to studying LSA industries: not broadly within East Africa as a whole, but specifically within localised areas. The Current Status of the Kenya Capsian https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10437-016-9211-5
Following the claims of many, including bloggers and academics, I thought that the name change reflected more precision and a move away from considering Capsian affinities. Based on this, I thought that the Eburran portion of what used to be Kenya Capsian, is now considered to be closer to LSA industries elsewhere in Africa, while the remaining industries, like the Kenya Capsian C found with Olduvai in Tanzania, where there is no Eburran, would still be Kenya Capsian, by default:
In some cases it is possible to identify a corresponding Eburran phase for a Kenya Capsian site – particularly for those that lie within the Nakuru- Naivasha Basin, but the reality is that the majority of Kenya Capsian sites do not equate with a phase within the Eburran. The two industries are not comparable, as the Eburran industry is only a portion of the Kenya Capsian. In essence, Ambrose and colleagues recognised that Leakey’s classification system could not encapsulate the variation observed in LSA stone tools across East Africa, but instead of addressing and redefining the Kenya Capsian as a whole, they dealt only with a small portion of it. The Current Status of the Kenya Capsian https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10437-016-9211-5
But, contrary to the claims of various commentators, the name change of some of the industries, from Kenya Capsian to Eburran, doesn't seem to be material to the question of whether the links with the N. African Capsian are still valid. Somehow I missed this before (or I forgot), but both the Eburran and the Kenya Capsian are mode 4 + 5, with a strong backed blade component.
The Kenya Aurignacian was the name given by Louis Leakey to a Late Pleistocene-Holocene, East African Mode 4-5 blade-based microlithic technology. The in- dustry, amongst others, was outlined as part of a frame- work for Kenyan stone-tool technologies in The Stone Age Cultures of Kenya Colony (Leakey 1931). The Current Status of the Kenya Capsian https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10437-016-9211-5
So, I allowed myself to be taken for a ride, buying into a distinction that is immaterial to the relationships. After all, why would this mode 4 + 5 affinity change, with different internal organizations within the Kenya Capsian, created by different research groups with different agendas? That would be like saying water is fundamentally different from water vapor because its molecules are organized differently.
What these studies did was to identify and define a single industrial entity, one strand of many that were encapsulated within the Kenya Capsian name, and to recognise it as an industry in its own right, different from other tool technologies that had previously been included ensemble under the Kenya (East African) Capsian umbrella. The situation is further exacerbated because the entity that was chosen as the basis for the Eburran definition had previously formed the original core of the Kenya Capsian: the obsidian industries of the Nakuru-Naivasha Basin, which include all of the type sites for the phases of the Kenya Capsian The Current Status of the Kenya Capsian https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10437-016-9211-5
Not sure why it took me this long to realize that this is basically a cosmetic change. These changing tides in the academic establishment and differences in agendas between different generations who choose to ignore or accept wider regional relationships, doesn't have anything to do with me, nor does it change anything about the affinities between these mode 4 + 5 industries and their counterparts elsewhere in Africa.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Personally, I don't see there being any problem. Rightmire is the problem. But some of his colleagues (see Coon in the quote below) got it right as far as the descriptive part where Rightmire totally failed. Coon correctly identifies the Rift population as being its own population, both with respect to modern Africans, palaeolithic Europeans, and with respect to what seems to be a hybrid European - N. African population (the Afalou sample). So, for me the 'racial' models work well, after taking what is useful and discarding what is not useful.
I don't subscribe to those racial models, including bantu, sub saharan, negro, cushitic, hamitic, etc, because they are arbitrary and come with baggage that have nothing to do with biology. However, metric clustering of populations on a regional, global and temporal scale absolutely makes sense, but that is not 'race'. It is just plotting relationships over time of various human biological characteristics to see patterns and trends based on local evolution and migration. As such, biological functioning involving mutations and emergence of various traits cannot be subscribed to any one population at one time or any particular place, which is the problem with what I am calling the 'racial' model of anthropology, which has always caused more problems than it solved in my book. The issue is in separating the wheat from the chaff when in reality the underlying ideology and mentality leading to models of human biology is the core problem. And partly because of this reinterpretation of these models over time the other problem becomes language as when you say "bantu" it may have different meanings to different people.
But that is neither here nor there I am not trying to bog down this thread with that side discussion, other than to say you must frame those older works in the context of the time and models they were working under.
The loose racial categorization served it's purpose as being a short hand way to describe in detail what people were observing. Retroactively characterizing modern populations via relatedness as pigeon holing their affinities are separate issues. "Just because he/she is black doesn't mean they're negroid" -isms are newer problems which was unnecessarily conflated with anthro-terminology. With that being said, I don't fully see how the Bantu become relevant in these contexts as they weren't even a part of the Archaeological record dating that far back and the majority of their markers are quite recent in founding and distribution. See E-V3224
Unfortunately I cant agree with that. Any look at the works of the early 19th century on African crania shows the overt racialist tone and ideology behind how these crania were categorized. So it is impossible to claim that those studies had merit and the problems of classification arose later. If anything, later scholars after the 70s had to change their approach to be less overt due to the social upheavals and independence movements in the wider world.
quote: But the distinction is based on social, linguistic, and cultural, as well as on physical grounds, so that, as at present constituted, the Sudanese and Bantu really constitute two tolerably well-defined branches of the Negro family. Thanks to Muhammadan influences, the former have attained a much higher level of culture. They cultivate not only the alimentary but also the economic plants, such as cotton and indigo ; they build stone dwellings, walled towns, substantial mosques and minarets ; they have founded powerful states, such as those of the Hausa and Songhai, of Ghana and Bornu, with written records going back a thousand years, although these historical peoples are all without exception half-breeds, often with more Semitic and Hamitic than Negro blood in their veins.
........
But in Negroland the case is reversed, and here the less cultured Bantu populations all, without any known exception, speak dialects of a single mother-tongue, while the greatest linguistic confusion prevails amongst the semi-civilised as well as the savage peoples of Sudan.
Although the Bantu language may, as some suppose ^ have originated in the north and spread southwards to the Congo, Zambesi, and Limpopo basins, it cannot now be even remotely affiliated to any one of the numerous distinct forms of speech current in the Sudanese domain. Hence to allow time for its diffusion over half the continent, the initial movement must be assigned to an extremely remote epoch, and a corresponding period of great duration must be postulated for the profound linguistic disintegration that is everywhere witnessed in the region between the Atlantic and Abyssinia. Here agglutination, both with prefixed and postfixed particles, is the prevailing morphological order, as in the Mandingan, Fulah, Nubian, Dinkan, and Mangbattu groups. But every shade of transition is also presented between true agglutination and inflection of the Hamito-Semitic types, as in Hausa, Kanuri, Kanem, Dasa or Southern and Teda or Northern Tibu.
Those prehistoric East African remains are the ancestors of the modern Tutsi and Bahima, not outside invaders. Cranial diversity at that time was more diverse in Africa than it is now.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I don't know what evidence you have that they were the direct ancestors of the Tutsi and Hema, but we can be certain they were indigenous. There is no evidence that these people were aliens from outside the continent which was the popular (Hamitic) hypothesis.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^What level of pigmentation do you think they could have had?
Who? The Proto-Cushites? I'm sure they were melanoderms and not the light-skinned or 'red bone' or even bleached skin types that Perahu tries to pass off as pure Cushites. Even people in the Hamitic Union forum especially actual Custhitic speakers have called out Perahu's beach-washed nonsense. As to what actual level of pigmention. I don't know but if they weren't the ebony dark or blue-black types then they would have at least been the so-called "brun" types similar to ancient Egyptians and Libyans that mahogany type complexions. The paper I cited from Dienekes merely states that ebony type complexions may not necessarily have been the original skin tone for original Sapiens in Africa but they were still melanated people as in still 'black'.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The paper I cited from Dienekes merely states that ebony type complexions may not necessarily have been the original skin tone for original Sapiens in Africa but they were still melanated people as in still 'black'.
I believe the date for the MFSD12 mutation is 500 kya, which predates the the current 200-300 MRCA for Y-DNA "Adam" by quite a bit of time. Of course, that doesn't mean there wouldn't have been variety in how dark Homo sapiens populations were by that date (and, of course, MRCA Y-DNA Adam being estimated to date back 200-300 kya doesn't mean what we call AMH morphology couldn't have been older).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I agree. Either way, these earliest humans did not have the SLC24A5 gene that modern Khoisan have so attempted re-enactments of yellow-brown early Sapiens is not correct. If you ask me, I think these Euronuts are just being nitpicky as to how black the early Sapiens were. The point is that they were still black, so what if they didn't have the exact same complexions as South Sudanese or Andamanese. LOL Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I don't know what evidence you have that they were the direct ancestors of the Tutsi and Hema, but we can be certain they were indigenous. There is no evidence that these people were aliens from outside the continent which was the popular (Hamitic) hypothesis.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
^What level of pigmentation do you think they could have had?
Who? The Proto-Cushites? I'm sure they were melanoderms and not the light-skinned or 'red bone' or even bleached skin types that Perahu tries to pass off as pure Cushites. Even people in the Hamitic Union forum especially actual Custhitic speakers have called out Perahu's beach-washed nonsense. As to what actual level of pigmention. I don't know but if they weren't the ebony dark or blue-black types then they would have at least been the so-called "brun" types similar to ancient Egyptians and Libyans that mahogany type complexions. The paper I cited from Dienekes merely states that ebony type complexions may not necessarily have been the original skin tone for original Sapiens in Africa but they were still melanated people as in still 'black'.
I had the Rift Valley people in mind with that question (not proto-Cushitic speakers).
One possible depiction of people of this type could be this Acacus rock art scene. The body type and face profile seem to be a good fit. Although the skin pigmentation could already have been lightened (or darkened) by this time. (The date of this rock art scene is probably far removed from 17ky Olduvai, the earliest attestation of this population in the form we find it in, in the Rift Valley).
^ So you agree then that it was the opposite scenario-- Rift Valley populations expanding north??
So what do you think was their original skin color or complexion??
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The way I see it, we are talking about an ancient morphotype/population of which the Rift Valley could just be one local group, with the oldest attestation so far. Yes, we can point to movements from the Rift Valley to the north (Capsians?), but we can also point movements from the north to the south by holocene populations partly derived from this morphotype (Kenya Pastoralists/Cushitic speakers).
I think by the time of Olduvai we are already far removed from the origin of this population, so movements north/south do not indicate the place of origin.
The mode 4+5 industries linked to the Rift Valley population don't seem to have lots of antiquity in Sub-Saharan Africa (so far). Sub-Saharan African industries are generally mode 5 (or something else, but generally not mode 4). So, even though they or population like them expanded from the south at some point during postglacial times, there were populations already there, already bearing this phenotype.
See the bolded.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: I've constantly read that Somalis are the best representation of "Cushite" speakers in the region when it comes to samples. And yea M1 is a very ancient lineage in that region and one of the best hints for indigenous Northeast African imo. Correct me.
I still have yet to put the pieces of the puzzle together regarding early mtDNA M1 (ie where it went after splitting frrom mtDNA L3 and M). But after the LGM/during postglacial times, I think it's safe to say that lineages like mtDNA M1 were part of the mtDNA pool of the populations from the Maghreb to the Rift Valley. The East African portion of this metapopulation that Horners, but especially Somalis seem to have mixed with, seem to have included populations that used backed blades (note: not backed bladelets as in Egypt and the Maghreb). See quotes below of the blade (but not microlithic) industries, and note the timing coincides with the LGM and later, much like certain mtDNA M1a haplogroups:
In the Ethiopian section of the Rift Valley, the beginnings of the local blade tradition using obsidian probably go back to more than 27,000 B.P. (Gase and Street 1978: 290) and certainly to 22,675 ‡ 500 B.P. on the evidence of excavations at Lake Besaka (Clark, in press). At Laga Oda in the escarpment hills south- west of Dire Dawa, the microlithic industry, using most- ly chert, is 15.000 years old (Clark and Prince 1978).
In East Africa, there are dates in the 20,000*s B.P. for the fully microlithic industry using chert, quartz and obsidian, of backed blades, lunates and fan-shaped scrapers at Lukenya Hill (S.F. Miller, pers, com.) (Fig. 3, nos. 1-5). This locality, overlooking the Athi Plains near Nairobi in Kenya, also yielded, with a simi- lar industry, a fragmentary cranium of Modern Man dating to c. 17,700 B.P. (Gramly 1976). At Nasera, in northern Tanzania, the earliest blade industry (Layer 4) has many backed blades and outils esquillés in chert and quartz and there is an amino acid racemisation date on bone of 18,000 B.P. The same industry occurs also in Layer 5 which must, ipso facto, be even earlier (Mehlman 1977). What is probably the same industry in obsidian and chert is present in the Naisiusiu beds at the Olduvai The Microlithic Industries of Africa: Their Antiquity and Possible Economic Implications https://brill.com/edcollchap/book/9789004644472/B9789004644472_s020.xml [/QB]
By the way, the profile of the Libyan above bears a striking resemblance to this Amratian depiction of Tjehenu.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Unfortunately I cant agree with that. Any look at the works of the early 19th century on African crania shows the overt racialist tone and ideology behind how these crania were categorized. So it is impossible to claim that those studies had merit and the problems of classification arose later. If anything, later scholars after the 70s had to change their approach to be less overt due to the social upheavals and independence movements in the wider world.
quote: But the distinction is based on social, linguistic, and cultural, as well as on physical grounds, so that, as at present constituted, the Sudanese and Bantu really constitute two tolerably well-defined branches of the Negro family. Thanks to Muhammadan influences, the former have attained a much higher level of culture. They cultivate not only the alimentary but also the economic plants, such as cotton and indigo ; they build stone dwellings, walled towns, substantial mosques and minarets ; they have founded powerful states, such as those of the Hausa and Songhai, of Ghana and Bornu, with written records going back a thousand years, although these historical peoples are all without exception half-breeds, often with more Semitic and Hamitic than Negro blood in their veins.
........
But in Negroland the case is reversed, and here the less cultured Bantu populations all, without any known exception, speak dialects of a single mother-tongue, while the greatest linguistic confusion prevails amongst the semi-civilised as well as the savage peoples of Sudan.
Although the Bantu language may, as some suppose ^ have originated in the north and spread southwards to the Congo, Zambesi, and Limpopo basins, it cannot now be even remotely affiliated to any one of the numerous distinct forms of speech current in the Sudanese domain. Hence to allow time for its diffusion over half the continent, the initial movement must be assigned to an extremely remote epoch, and a corresponding period of great duration must be postulated for the profound linguistic disintegration that is everywhere witnessed in the region between the Atlantic and Abyssinia. Here agglutination, both with prefixed and postfixed particles, is the prevailing morphological order, as in the Mandingan, Fulah, Nubian, Dinkan, and Mangbattu groups. But every shade of transition is also presented between true agglutination and inflection of the Hamito-Semitic types, as in Hausa, Kanuri, Kanem, Dasa or Southern and Teda or Northern Tibu.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they weren't racist tones or academic racism predating the 90's etc. I'm just saying that the criteria built at the time served our purpose better whether racist or not. Simply describing what you see and using racialist terms is better than disguising racialist terms under inclusionary models.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
By the way, the profile of the Libyan above bears a striking resemblance to this Amratian depiction of Tjehenu.
Good catch.
There is a resemblance in face profile, but notice the stature of the Egyptian figures compared to the body proportions of the Libyan figures. This is consistent with the holocene change in stature in populations with this ancestry (e.g. especially in Badarians).
Just centuries ago, East/Southeast Africa apparently still had these populations in a bit more of an unmixed form compared to populations today (although probably still very mixed compared to the palaeolithic Rift Valley samples). See the Gishimangeda, Sechikuencho and so-called "Masai grave" samples' position near predynastics and Gizeh, although the use of only 8 measurements makes these results less reliable.
In table 11 of the paper below we see that the populations there were also shorter than the Palaeolithic Rift Valley samples. So it seems like a change across the board.
Brauer (l976), for the following reasons, used the term "Masai grave" skeletal series for the human remains which were excavated by Kohl-Larsen. All the graves, except one, contain men who generally died between 50 and 60 years of age. . .. A possible explanation for this remarkable sex and age distribution could be found in the practice of the Masai to bury only older men and medicine men. The extraction of the lower medial incisors, which was very common and which is known as 'Masai-deformation'. can also serve as an indication of the relationship to the Masai. . .. The skeletal material shows the strongest affinities to Jebel Moya, Gamble's Cave and Gizeh, which indicates a hybrid population with Mediterranid as well as Negrid elements. The assumed indications of the relationship of these skeletons to the Masai are more probable since these people have arrived in this region by the 17th or 18th century". The ablation of the lower medial incisors. however. is prevalent in the Masai as well as in the lraqw and Datoga, all of whom are more of less hybrid popu la tons between the Mediterraneans and the Negroes. Accordingly. for all that the "Mas ai-grave" and Sechikuencho cranial series are characterised by the removal of the same teeth and that they craniometrically approach to the Masai, it would be premature to put the Masai up for the only candidate for the tribe most closely related to these skeletal populations. The Gishimangeda skeletal series represent the Mangola Villagers who died several centuries ago[. They are quite different from the "Masai-grave" series in showing neither unbalance of sex and age distribution nor practice of tooth removal, while these two series show common crani al morphology. Burial cairns are widely distributed in East Africa and are still made by some tribes today. Some crania whose lower medial incisors were extracted were unearthed from the prehistoric cairns in northern Tanzania and southern Kenya. A human skeleton was excavated from the cairn at Engaruka, located at the foot of the Rift scarp south of Lake Natron. The date of this cairn is believed to be around the 16th century. Prof. P. Tobias, who examined this skull briefly. expressed an interim opinion that it belongs to a young adult male with negriform features and that the lower medial incisors had been ablated (Sasoon, 1966). At the Makalia Burial Site and Willey' Hadza and Iraqw in Tanzania 23 Kopje, the same type of burial mound and the practice of extracting the lower medial incisors link the burial with that of Engaruka. The grave" at the Makalia Burial Site and Willey's Kopje, which yield the skulls with "Europid" morphology (Brauer. 1978a). can be dated probably back to the beginning of the 1st millenium of the Christian Era. On the other hand, a skull from the Nakuru Burial Site, which may be dated to the 2nd millenium of the Christian Era. has not had the lower medial incisors extracted. It is essentially non-negroid, although the forehead does show the negro characteristic of a single central frontal boss (Leakey, 1931). Therefore, it does not always follow that the burial cairns, the practice of removing the lower medial incisors and the cranial features characteristic of the Mediterraneans link together. The analysis which used 8 cranial measurements shows that the Gishimangeda series are close to the "Masai-grave" series, Gizeh and Nagada, all of which are very far from the Khoisan group and also different from the Bantu group. It should be noted, however, that among the Gishimangeda series there are indi vidua Is showing the Negro characteristic of prognathism and frontal boss. They are essentially hybrid population between the Mediterraneans and the Negroes, but are more close to the latter compared with the "Masai-grave" series. The populations with mixed physical traits of the Mediterranean and Negro are the Hamitic and Nilotic peoples in Mangola. The Iraqw investigated as a representative for the Hamitic bear a close resemblance in an thropometrical and odontometrical comparison to the other members of the Hamitic or Caucasians as well as to the Bantu speakers. This accords well with the s ta tement by Allison et al. (1954) that. so far as blood group frequencies show, the Iraqw are neither the typical Bantu nor the typical Hamitic people. In dermatoglyphics and physical measurements, on the other hand, the Datoga of the Nilotic occupy an intermediate position between the Caucas ians and Negroes, but they a re closer to the latter, while the Datoga represent one cluster with the Hadza and differ significantly from the Iraqw-Caucasian-Negro group in size of teeth and of dent al arches. Based on reexamination of human crania from the prehistoric sites in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya, Rightmire (1975) assumed that many of these skulls can certainly be exculuded from probable member of the Egyptian population and that much firmer ties can be established with one of the several African Negro groups. es?ecially with Nilotid Negrid. From linguistic evidence, he has drawn inferences that early Southern Nilotic as well as other language such as Cushitic was obViously spoken in this region for a long time, perhaps several thousand years before the Christian Era. He has given further attention to the pre-Masai people in oral history of the living Masai. According to Jacobs's study quoted by Rightmire, the pre-Masai people refered to as "llumbua" by the Masai, said to have been dispersed during the 1st millenium of the Christian Era by a later people called "lltatua" who were in turn driven out of the area before 1960 A.D. by the Masai. Jacobs considered either the Datoga or the Iraqw speakers of northern Tanzania to be the likeliest living representa- tives of pre-Masai people. Putting our results and these studies together, we can suggest that the occupant of the Gishimangeda cave several centuries ago were the Nil otic or the Cushitic peoples, probably the former because of the morphological features of Gishimangeda skeletal series. The history of occupation in Mangola village can be traced back to an early stage of Later Stone Age by human remains from the Mumba Rock Shelter and even further to the Upper Pleistocene by "Eyasi skull" (Fig. 1 ). Reviewing the Mumba Rock Shelter crania which were collected by Kohl-Larsen in 1934/38, Brauer 0978b. 1980) found that they have Negroid Size and shape characteristics. He concluded that "during long period of the Later Stone Age, not only Caucasoid but also Negroid populations may have been present in East Africa, and the wide dispersion of Khoisanoid populations, until recently assumed to have reached as far as Tanzania and Kenya at that time, is on the whole uncertain, even improbable." . The Hadza and the Iraqw in northern Tanzania: Dermatographical, Anthropological, Odontometrical and Osteological Approaches https://web.archive.org/web/20181104182552id_/https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/67986/1/ASM_2_1.pdf
Notice that the mean position of the Gishimangeda sample ('GX' in fig 11) and the position of the individual best resembling this population (G1 in fig 11) are inconsistent with typical Nilotic population. What Nilotic population did the author have in mind considering the measurements of the most typical individual, G1? Same goes for the so-called "Masai Grave" sample. If the "Masai Grave" were Nilotes or Nilo-Saharan speakers, and if the "Masai Grave" cluster with Egyptians, then we should have modern samples of Nilo-Saharan ancestry that do the same. But I've never seen this in any paper.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That's a rather astute assessment you have especially in regard to bodily proportions, assuming the artwork is that accurate.
"Nilotes" are themselves a diverse group, but certain generalizations can be made.
Recall the craniometric data from Froment.
By the way, about frontal bossing being a "negroid" trait, recall that even Coon said "Mediterraneans" are noted for "slight negroid tendencies", forehead bossing-- a pedomorphic trait, being one of them.
..The skull is distinguished in all of these people [Egyptians] by being long, narrow, ill-filled, pentagonoid (coffin-shaped) or ovoid, eyebrow ridges poorly developed or absent; the forehead is narrow, vertical, smooth, and often slightly bulging; the occiput is bulged out into marked prominence of the back of the head; the orbits usually horizontal ellipses or ovoids with thin margins; nose moderately developed, small, and relatively broad and flattened at its bridge; chin pointed (downwards); jaws feeble; face short and narrow, ovoid, usually orthognathous; teeth of moderate size or small; whole skeleton of slight build and suggestive of effeminacy.--(Grafton E. Smith, 1911)
The same principle of attenuation applies to the faces. In all of them, and especially in Oldoway, the faces are extremely narrow, and very long, especially in the upper segments. The brow-ridges are weak, the zygomatic arches feebly developed, the mandibles light and slender, with narrow bigonial diameters, and weak, although positive, chins. The orbits are high and narrow, and the noses likewise. The Gamble’s Cave skulls are leptorrhine, leptene, and leptoprosopic; Oldoway is mesorrhine, and hyperleptoprosopic. The two Gamble’s Cave skulls are orthognathous, but Oldoway possesses considerable alveolar prognathism. In vault size, these crania resemble Combe Capelle and Afalou #28, rather than the European and North African crania of later Aurignacian and Oranian date. Oldoway and Gamble’s Cave #4 are higher and narrower than the European Upper Palaeolithic mean; Gamble’s Cave #5, which is the skull of an adolescent, is shorter, higher, and nearly as broad. The foreheads are gently sloping and rounded; the occiputs projecting, but without the lamboidal flattening which characterizes the European crania. The total impression is one of thinness and delicacy.-- (C. S. Coon, Races of Europe)
The skull of the Nilotid is long and narrow, with bulging occiput, and the brow-ridges are feebly marked; but in most respects the face is very unlike that of Sudanids. The Nilotid is not prognathous, the chin is well developed, and the nose has quite an up-standing bridge, so that it is not altogether unlike that of Europids except that the alae are widely spread and more sharply marked off from the rest of the nose and from the cheeks...-- (John R. Baker)
The eastern Arabo-Berbers, Libya, and the oases: ..One of the most characteristic features of the nose of the Siwans, and of the Awjila people, is a considerable nasion depression. The browridges, however, are usually absent or slight, and the forehead slightly sloping to straight; in some cases bulbous.
And I remember reading somewhere that "gracile Mediterranean" Berbers like the above had frontal prominence also.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ That's a rather astute assessment you have especially in regard to bodily proportions, assuming the artwork is that accurate.
It's too bad we don't get much body proportions data in anthro literature. But in Trenton Holliday's work there has been a consistent tendency for Egyptian, Christian Nubian (but not Kerma, interestingly) and Capsian (Ain Dokkara), skeletal remains to have Pygmies as their closest African population in terms of body proportions. So, for me this is pretty much proved. The only question is, what happened in the holocene period, that caused this change in body proportions/stature while leaving little evidence behind.
The cranio-facial bones also weren't affected nearly as much as the stature of these populations. Shuqbah males for instance were 1.5-1.6m, which is not far from the Pygmy range. But cranio-facially they resembled predynastic Egyptians and other, taller, Type B populations.
What kind of people were the Natufians? They were people of short stature; a comparison of the various parts of limb bones with the corresponding parts of ancient Egyptians makes me confident that the stature of the men varied between 5ft and 5ft 3in (1525-1600mm.) New discoveries relating to the antiquity of man https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015002696519&view=1up&seq=1 Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ What's funny is that most data I've read on ancient Egyptian body proportions comes from examination of their artwork. Egyptologist Gay Robins was one of the few to tie the accuracy of the artwork to the skeletal material.
As for reduction in stature by Holocene times, so far I've only found Larry Angel who addressed this. He attributes this pedomorphic body size reduction, which also reduced sexual dimorphy, to environmental conditions namely food shortage and disease.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
I wish people would stop saying populations are mixed or hybrid just because they fall intermediate between two different populations, thats the crap of antiquated anthropology.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QUOTE]Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they weren't racist tones or academic racism predating the 90's etc. I'm just saying that the criteria built at the time served our purpose better whether racist or not. Simply describing what you see and using racialist terms is better than disguising racialist terms under inclusionary models.
I understand where he's coming from, today's geneticists and some anthropologists read those old anthropology books and are still influenced by it, how many modern geneticists claim they don't believe in biological race but still do their studies in such a way that still shows they believe in race? Take the Abusir study for example.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: I wish people would stop saying populations are mixed or hybrid just because they fall intermediate between two different populations, that's the crap of antiquated anthropology.
There are ignoramuses like Antalas who don't even realize that North Africans are metrically intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians.
"Miss Fawcett believes the Naqada crania to be sufficiently homogeneous to justify speaking of a Naqada race. By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the cephalic and facial indices, this race presents affinities with Negroes. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans...." ---Dr. Emile Massoulard, Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt (1949)
^ Note that not only are North Africans intermediate but so too are Horn Africans and look who comes closest to the origin-- Proto-Mediterraneans as well as Nubian D-group and Somali-Galla.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ What's funny is that most data I've read on ancient Egyptian body proportions comes from examination of their artwork. Egyptologist Gay Robins was one of the few to tie the accuracy of the artwork to the skeletal material.
As for reduction in stature by Holocene times, so far I've only found Larry Angel who addressed this. He attributes this pedomorphic body size reduction, which also reduced sexual dimorphy, to environmental conditions namely food shortage and disease.
Thanks for reminding me (I know there have been studies done of this kind). Will look into it.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
And let's not forget Robins' 1983 work The Physical Proportions and Living Stature of New Kingdom Pharaohs: Another method for estimating living stature that has been applied to Ancient Egyptian and Nubian remains, involves relating total height to the lengths of individual long bones through equations obtained from measurements made on modern populations (Pearson,1899; Dupertuis & Hadden, 1951; Harrison, 1966; Masali et al., 1966; Nielsen, 1970; Masali, 1972; Derry, 1972). Such equations only yield acceptable values for stature if the unknown population group to which they are applied had similar physical proportions (limbs to trunk, distal limb bones to proximal limb bones) to the population group from which the equations have been derived. Equations are now available for negroes and whites (Dupertuis & Hadden, 1951; Trotter & Gleser, 1952, 1958). It has been recognized by Warren (1897) and others (e.g. Dupertuis & Hadden, 1951; Masali, 1972) that the physical proportions of Ancient Egyptians had negroid affinities; nevertheless since they were certainly not negroes, the use of negro equations to estimate their stature has generally been avoided. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Unfortunately I cant agree with that. Any look at the works of the early 19th century on African crania shows the overt racialist tone and ideology behind how these crania were categorized. So it is impossible to claim that those studies had merit and the problems of classification arose later. If anything, later scholars after the 70s had to change their approach to be less overt due to the social upheavals and independence movements in the wider world.
quote: But the distinction is based on social, linguistic, and cultural, as well as on physical grounds, so that, as at present constituted, the Sudanese and Bantu really constitute two tolerably well-defined branches of the Negro family. Thanks to Muhammadan influences, the former have attained a much higher level of culture. They cultivate not only the alimentary but also the economic plants, such as cotton and indigo ; they build stone dwellings, walled towns, substantial mosques and minarets ; they have founded powerful states, such as those of the Hausa and Songhai, of Ghana and Bornu, with written records going back a thousand years, although these historical peoples are all without exception half-breeds, often with more Semitic and Hamitic than Negro blood in their veins.
........
But in Negroland the case is reversed, and here the less cultured Bantu populations all, without any known exception, speak dialects of a single mother-tongue, while the greatest linguistic confusion prevails amongst the semi-civilised as well as the savage peoples of Sudan.
Although the Bantu language may, as some suppose ^ have originated in the north and spread southwards to the Congo, Zambesi, and Limpopo basins, it cannot now be even remotely affiliated to any one of the numerous distinct forms of speech current in the Sudanese domain. Hence to allow time for its diffusion over half the continent, the initial movement must be assigned to an extremely remote epoch, and a corresponding period of great duration must be postulated for the profound linguistic disintegration that is everywhere witnessed in the region between the Atlantic and Abyssinia. Here agglutination, both with prefixed and postfixed particles, is the prevailing morphological order, as in the Mandingan, Fulah, Nubian, Dinkan, and Mangbattu groups. But every shade of transition is also presented between true agglutination and inflection of the Hamito-Semitic types, as in Hausa, Kanuri, Kanem, Dasa or Southern and Teda or Northern Tibu.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they weren't racist tones or academic racism predating the 90's etc. I'm just saying that the criteria built at the time served our purpose better whether racist or not. Simply describing what you see and using racialist terms is better than disguising racialist terms under inclusionary models. [/QB]
I am talking about the idea that human features originated in features unique to specific "racial groups" and that any presence of said features represents evidence of "racial mixture" in a population. That is simply nonsense pseudoscience and what the old models of cranial studies and anthropology are based on. Human features are the result of evolution and adaptation to environmental conditions and vary all over the planet and are not the result of ancient "racial mixture".
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) and I have Ethiopians in my family thru marriage. I agree Ethiopian hair is much more "kinkier" though still not full blown kinky(4 type) like Niger-Congo speakers. Whereas Somalis have more wavy hair including the men. Somali women also braid their hair less compared to Afro-Asiatic speaking Ethiopian women. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
