posted
As for, "modern European skeleten associated with this population".... I can't answer this question because it is nonsensical.
How would I find and ancient skeleten of a modern European?
And what would this have to do with the question about skin color?
We can find evidence that the original population to settle Europe was tropically adapted in terms of skeletal form - limb to torso ratio.
These adaptations were lost over time and most particularly by the Mesolithic accordinging to Holliday, and Trinkhous.
quote:REPORTS Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites, Science 11 November 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1016 - 1018.
By: Wolfgang Haak,1* Peter Forster,2 Barbara Bramanti,1 Shuichi Matsumura,2 Guido Brandt,1 Marc Tänzer,1 Richard Villems,3 Colin Renfrew,2 Detlef Gronenborn,4 Kurt Werner Alt,1 Joachim Burger1 The ancestry of modern Europeans is a subject of debate among geneticists, archaeologists, and anthropologists. A crucial question is the extent to which Europeans are descended from the first European farmers in the Neolithic Age 7500 years ago or from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who were present in Europe since 40,000 years ago. Here we present an analysis of ancient DNA from early European farmers.
We successfully extracted and sequenced intact stretches of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 24 out of 57 Neolithic skeletons from various locations in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. We found that 25% of the Neolithic farmers had one characteristic mtDNA type and that this type formerly was widespread among Neolithic farmers in Central Europe. Europeans today have a 150-times lower frequency (0.2%) of this mtDNA type, revealing that these *first Neolithic farmers did not have a strong genetic influence on modern European female lineages."*
^ Exactly, this concords with Brace: "Qustionable contribution of the Neolithic to European cranial form"... although I submit that Brace study is really a polite way of asking about -> The questionable contribution of Europe to the Neolithic.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the Europeans turned white during the Mesolithic where is evidence of modern European skeletons associated with this population found dating to this period? I don't want any more of your opinions, please cite a source.
Ok, let's break it down shall we?
When did Europeans turn white, based on scientific sources?
Proto-Type White Berber/Tibesman Peoples of the Sea
[IMG]
. That's right we just don't know. But what we do know is that the first evidence of the European type, that agrees with the "white Berbers" came to Africa around 1200 BC. Given this reality the "white Berbers" can not be representative of the ancient North Africans.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: As for, "modern European skeleten associated with this population".... I can't answer this question because it is nonsensical.
How would I find and ancient skeleten of a modern European?
And what would this have to do with the question about skin color?
We can find evidence that the original population to settle Europe was tropically adapted in terms of skeletal form - limb to torso ratio.
These adaptations were lost over time and most particularly by the Mesolithic accordinging to Holliday, and Trinkhous.
quote:REPORTS Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites, Science 11 November 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1016 - 1018.
By: Wolfgang Haak,1* Peter Forster,2 Barbara Bramanti,1 Shuichi Matsumura,2 Guido Brandt,1 Marc Tänzer,1 Richard Villems,3 Colin Renfrew,2 Detlef Gronenborn,4 Kurt Werner Alt,1 Joachim Burger1 The ancestry of modern Europeans is a subject of debate among geneticists, archaeologists, and anthropologists. A crucial question is the extent to which Europeans are descended from the first European farmers in the Neolithic Age 7500 years ago or from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who were present in Europe since 40,000 years ago. Here we present an analysis of ancient DNA from early European farmers.
We successfully extracted and sequenced intact stretches of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 24 out of 57 Neolithic skeletons from various locations in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. We found that 25% of the Neolithic farmers had one characteristic mtDNA type and that this type formerly was widespread among Neolithic farmers in Central Europe. Europeans today have a 150-times lower frequency (0.2%) of this mtDNA type, revealing that these *first Neolithic farmers did not have a strong genetic influence on modern European female lineages."*
^ Exactly, this concords with Brace: "Qustionable contribution of the Neolithic to European cranial form"... although I submit that Brace study is really a polite way of asking about -> The questionable contribution of Europe to the Neolithic.
This is just the point, we can find ancient skeletons of Blacks but no skeletons of these imagined whites in ancient Africa, or Eurasia.
But we do know that they appear in Africa around 1200 BC. This suggest that the origin of the "white Berbers" probably goes back to this period of time.
quote:Moreover, if the Europeans turned white in Europe--when did they arrive in Europe?
We already know this, based on anthropology and genetics, per Peter Underhill:
About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about *40,000 years ago*, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.
Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.
This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived by hunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.
"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine. [this is time period during which Europeans lost tropical adaptations and leucoderm melanocortin mutations begin to emerge]
"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.
[And then the Neolithic is introduced into Europe via demic diffusion]
"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.
"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, Europeans lived by gathering and hunting.
After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Moreover, if the Europeans turned white in Europe--when did they arrive in Europe?
We already know this, based on anthropology and genetics, per Peter Underhill:
About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about *40,000 years ago*, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows. Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.
"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine. [this is time period during which Europeans lost tropical adaptations and leucoderm melanocortin mutations begin to emerge]
"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.
[And then the Neolithic is introduced into Europe via demic diffusion]
"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.
"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, Europeans lived by gathering and hunting.
After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products.
Why are you posting this information. The research of Haak et al and Brace et al contradict all these dates which were hypothesized in the first place. These advanced people from the Levant moving into Europe 8000 years ago were probably Blacks.
quote:This is just the point, we can find ancient skeletons of Blacks but no skeletons of these imagined whites in ancient Africa, or Eurasia.
Did you simply ignore the article posted above?
White skin is a recent evolutionary development.
There are no *ancient whites.*
You ask me for proof of this, I present it, and then you ignore it.
This is why you fail to progress in terms of your understandings of modern bioanthropology.
You still have not answered my question. If the original Berbers were Black. How did they turn into the white Berbers, who you claim represent the ancient population of North Africa.
posted
Clyde, Rasol answered your question. YOU YOURSELF posted information showing that the original populations of North Africa were NOT whites. These people came much later than the original Northern Africans. Also, it has been shown on another thread that the Berber language arose in East Africa. Therefore, like I said before, you are dealing with a series of migrations and expansions into Northern Africa over the last 4,000 years which has introduced foreign ancestry into Northern African populations, Berber speakers included.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
He simply does not want to let go of a view of history where skin color defines race, and everything else can only be understood in terms of race.
The exciting moral to this story is that modern scholarship, including linguistics and genetics have deconstructed the race[ist] discourse in history.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:winters: Moreover, if the Europeans turned white in Europe--when did they arrive in Europe?
quote: rasol: we already know this, based on anthropology and genetics, per Peter Underhill:
About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about *40,000 years ago*, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows. Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.
"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine. [this is time period during which Europeans lost tropical adaptations and leucoderm melanocortin mutations begin to emerge]
"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.
[And then the Neolithic is introduced into Europe via demic diffusion]
"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.
"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, Europeans lived by gathering and hunting.
After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products.
quote:winters: Why are you posting this information. The research of Haak et al and Brace et al contradict all these dates
No, they don't.
Brace and Underhill are essentially saying the same thing which is why Brace references the genetic work of Underhill et. al as evidence.
1) Europe settled during the Upper Paleolithic.
2) UP Europeans were still somewhat tropical in adaptation [ie - non white].
3) Europeans, cave dwelling hunter-gatherers lose tropical adaptations [ie - turn white] during the mesolithic Ice age.
4) Neolithic introduced by Afro-Asians via demic diffusion. [not white]
5) Europeans [white] adopt cattle and agro-CULTURE from the Neolithic Afro-Asian [non white].
6) Europeans are descendant primarily from white [hunter gatherers] who adopted the culture of non white Afro-Asians.
As to why I'm posting this....apparently you don't understand it, and that's good reason, wouldn't you say?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:winters: Moreover, if the Europeans turned white in Europe--when did they arrive in Europe?
quote: rasol: we already know this, based on anthropology and genetics, per Peter Underhill:
About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about *40,000 years ago*, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows. Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.
"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine. [this is time period during which Europeans lost tropical adaptations and leucoderm melanocortin mutations begin to emerge]
"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.
[And then the Neolithic is introduced into Europe via demic diffusion]
"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.
"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, Europeans lived by gathering and hunting.
After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products.
quote:winters: Why are you posting this information. The research of Haak et al and Brace et al contradict all these dates
No, they don't.
Brace and Underhill are essentially saying the same thing which is why Brace references the genetic work of Underhill et. al as evidence.
1) Europe settled during the Upper Paleolithic.True 2) UP Europeans were still somewhat tropical in adaptation [ie - non white]. True 3) Europeans, cave dwelling lose tropical adaptations [ie - turn white] during the mesolithic Ice age. True the Blacks who fled into the Anatolian caves probably became depigmented because of the absence of sun light.But these "whites" probably remained in these caves until after 2000 BC 4) Neolithic introduced by Afro-Asians via demic diffusion. [not white] True
5) Europeans [white] adopt cattle and agro-CULTURE from the Neolithic Afro-Asian [non white]. Ture but this probably took place in Anatolia, not Europe. The writing civilization and culture of the Old Europeans, represented a matriarchial society--truely disimilar to the paternalistic culture associated with Indo-European peoples.
6 Europeans are descendant primarily from white [hunter gatherers] who adopted the culture of non white Afro-Asians. There were no white hunter-gatherers in Europe. The jury is still out on where Europeans originated but they did not originate in Europe proper--but they may have exited their cave homes in Anatolia. Rasol
quote: As to why I'm posting this....apparently you don't understand it, and that's good reason, wouldn't you say?
How can modern Europeans be the decendants of hunter gathers in Europe, when the ancient Europeans were haplogroup N, and the Natufians were probably carriers of E3b to Europe since they originated in East Africa.
It is my opinion the nomadic Indo-European speaking population of Europe simply wiped out the settle Black Agro-Pastoral people, and replaced them much the same way they did the Native Americans of the United States. The genocide that accounted for the disappearence of the Native Americans, is an example of an historical event, that was probably earlier perpetuated in Europe.
The linguistic data makes it clear they descended from a nomadic people--not hunter gatherers.
.
.
Aren't Europeans R ? Today there is no evidence of hunter gathers in Europe carrying the R gene.
No, Europeans have no R. They have no R1*. They have only R1b and to a lesser degree R1a.
R1a and R1b split off in central Asia aproximately 30/40~ thousand years ago.
As a result, R1a is predominant in central Asia, fading out in Eastern Europe, and R1b is predominent in Europe.
R1, parent of R1a and R1b is found only in west central Africa, Egypt and Jordan.
Prior to R1 all earlier non African Y chromosome lineages converge on East African M168 at 70~kya.
So it's clear where Europeans come from, and when they come from.
quote:Today there is no evidence of hunter gathers in Europe carrying the R gene.
There's precious little evidence of hunter gatherers in Europe - today - period, so I don't understand this comment?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Who said "Zenaga" was ever a language, much less "Numidian", as opposed to appellation of certain groups. What is your source for this questionable claim. And how does this help you with the fact that you cited me, but didn't actually address what was cited?
You don't know what you'r talking about as usual.
Which would make it even more remarkable, considering that I always descredit you - thus making you even sillier or unknowledgable about you're talking. And you call yourself a professor.
quote:Clyde Winters:
There is a language called Numidian language. See below:
"Numidian" is no more a language than saying "Ghanaian language"; does that make "Ghana" a language?
quote:Clyde Winters:
The Numidian Language Language Name: Numidian Alternate Name(s): Ancient Berber Lybico-Berber Once Spoken in: Algeria Morocco Language Code: nxm (Former code: XNUM) Status: Extinct Family: Afroasiatic Subgroup: Berber Subgrouping Code: AFA Brief Description: An ancient language of Northwest Africa. c. 200 BC.
Find more information on Numidian Retrieve: Everything on Numidian in LINGUIST Database View: Listing of Numidian documents in Odin Database Search in: Google Database Rosetta Database Page Updated: 06-Jun-2007
Please extensively reconstruct the "Numidian language", that you seem to know so much about.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: 5) Europeans [white] adopt cattle and agro-CULTURE from the Neolithic Afro-Asian [non white].
quote: Winters: True but this probably took place in Anatolia, not Europe.
Incorrect, based on the divergence of European sub-lineages, several distinct populations are descendant from distinct Ice Age refuges.
All of them inherent this culture, so the case cannot be, that they are *only* descendant from a single group in Turkey.
quote:The writing civilization and culture of the Old Europeans, represented a matriarchial society--truely disimilar to the paternalistic culture associated with Indo-European peoples.
If so, so what?
quote:There were no white hunter-gatherers in Europe.
Actually this is possibly a fairpoint.....according to the article cited above the origin of light skin in Europeans is between 12,000 and 6,000 years ago, and the farming diet which would be post neolithic, and the associated lack of vitimin D and the wearing of clothing exascerbated European dipigmentation.
So, you are right, that we can't say for certain that many Europeans were white before this. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mystery Solver
quote:
Virtually all studies based/relying on demographics are assessed in terms of statistics & probability and repeat studies, apparently because it not temporarily, spatially and financially viable to get every single person on the planet to participate, not to mention that one cannot always get everyone to participate. And so, the subjects whose data have been collected are used as being representative of a given demographic segment and section of the population under study. You need to familiarize yourself with mathematics, and its function in the business of collecting statistical data.
This is false. Genetic studies are based on an available sample, which naturally going to be self-selected by the people who chose , or have taken a test. Please cite at least one article where the researchers used a systematic, random or stratified sample. I have read many pepers to date and not found any.
.
You lie. Genetic studies are based on calling in ‘volunteers’ to a designated place to provide blood samples [hair collection, mouth swabs or what have you], as well as available samples to be used under consent of the donors or the overseers of those samples. It is random, because the Geneticists don’t select the contents of these samples; whatever is there, would be a pre-existing entity beyond the Geneticist’s control - use your head. Again, would you have people ‘tortured’ to participate in studies? Your comments always reach such sub-intellectual comic levels. You read things, only for the heck of reading them, but not really understand - like the post you just cited.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Mystery Solver
quote:
Genetics [as is the case with linguistics], doesn't deal with absolute accuracy, but certainly works with methodological approximations by way of statistics and probability, as I just said. Hence, actual facts are collected from firsthand tests and then these are interpreted in a broader-context by probability assessment, which takes us to...
If they do not deal with "absolute accuracy" the authors of these articles are making good guesses. Nothing they write can be assumed to be factual or proof,
Are you pretending to be this much unperceptive, or are you for real? The data they collect is ‘absolute’ facts, because these are based on actual testing of samples. The probability of frequency of the said results as representative of a population, is based on repeat studies and the probability statistical analysis of extrapolation. Mathematics, or the business of collecting data is apparently foreign to you.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mystery Solver
quote:
Apparently they were preceded by other populations in the region, as late Pleistocene crania attest to. That's beside the point. The point is that they are 'indigenous' and have an upward date expansion of ca. 8 ky ago westward and northward.
Cite the article discussing osteological evidence of modern Europeans 8ky ago.
Illogical; null and void - citation?
Learn to read what is said, and not what you imagine.
Where is your point-by-point layout of what is wrong with Cruciani’s data method, not to mention your seriously bankrupt, if not questionable charge that Cruciani et al don’t take ‘population movements into account’? That is a serious charge, that needs to be backed up asap.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You lie. Genetic studies are based on calling in ‘volunteers’ to a designated place to provide blood samples [hair collection, mouth swabs or what have you], as well as available samples to be used under consent of the donors or the overseers of those samples
Supercar if a person volunteers for study he self selects him/herself for the study. This is an available sample. The fact that it is an available sample means that you only have people in the study that want to be in the study. This type of study is not a representative sample of any population except the participants in the study.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that it is an available sample means that you only have people in the study that want to be in the study.
Volunteers yes.
quote:This type of study is not a representative.
Most medical research is based on volunteers.
Exceptions would situations such as the involuntary NAZI medical experiments with their concentration camp victims, and the notorious Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment wherein the United States government unknowingly 'studied' but did not treat African American citisens suffering from the disease.
The fact that a study selects from among volunteers does not necessarily invalidate it.
For the volunteer status to violate rule of objectivity, you would have to demonstrate how the fact that the person volunteered likely altered the result in a statistical way.
Ex:
A person volunteers to join a political party.
You then take a poll of such volunteers asking them their political views....
this is absurd, as the sampling predetermines a favorable opinion of select political views, by virtue of how was sampled.
In contrast from the same pool of volunteers you sample them to see how many are left handed and how many are right handed. This is not absurd, as the their volunteer status does not per-se alter the prospect of their being left handed or right handed.
A study is not invalidated soley because its participants are volunteers.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poor Clyde Winters is just too engulfed in racialism (racism) to comprehend any of the info that discredits racialism.
I hope this helps you Clyde: "The majority of the maternal ancestors of the [Maghrebi] Berbers must have come from Europe and the Near East since the Neolithic." - Rando
Maghrebi [white] Berbers have predominantly European maternal lineages, but even then they have African paternal lineages. 'White' Brazilians also have predominant Native American and African maternal lineages. Which is why skin color does NOT reflect lineage. How many blacks in America alone have European ancestry? How many whites have African ancestry?
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You lie. Genetic studies are based on calling in ‘volunteers’ to a designated place to provide blood samples [hair collection, mouth swabs or what have you], as well as available samples to be used under consent of the donors or the overseers of those samples
Supercar if a person volunteers for study he self selects him/herself for the study. This is an available sample. The fact that it is an available sample means that you only have people in the study that want to be in the study. This type of study is not a representative sample of any population except the participants in the study.
Rasol's response was appropriate enough, as it is clear that he obviously understands what you just cited, while you apparently don't [even though you've been told this multiple times now].
*Again, would you have participants in the study tortured to participate? - you don't answer.
*Again, do the geneticists not actually get blood samples of participants? If so, do they not test these samples? In turn if so, do their results from these tests not reflect the 'absolute facts' of those samples? - you don't answer.
*Can the geneticists do anything about the microscopic content of their subjects' DNA samples? If yes, can you eleborate on how? If not, is this condition then not a random aspect of the sampling, as per the specific composition of these samples? - you don't answer.
*You were asked to show exactly what was wrong [point-by-point] with Cruciani et al.'s dating method and - you don't answer.
*You charged the above authors of doing population genetics without taking into account population movements. You were asked to corroborate this with citations - you don't answer.
It is quite amusing to see a person who cannot even distinguish between a male Y chromosome haplotype and a female transmitted mtDNA haplotype, come here and pass off unfounded judgement of the genetics discipline. Apparently, you don't understand the discipline enough to make an informed assessment of its potential. This is why you continue to use material that the authors of which, themselves, have discredited.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly enough, even the Egyptians seemed to have understood the concept of female lineages thousands of years ago: (Note the image of the goddess on the upper right and how her dress looks much like the modern symbol of the genetic spiral)
And this image says it all about modern Berber lineages:
posted
^ LOL Takruri what is it with you in black Aegean males and white females? Again, I have also seen pictures of Cretan females just as dark, and what does Crete in the eastern Mediterranean have to do with Northwest Africans?
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You lie. Genetic studies are based on calling in ‘volunteers’ to a designated place to provide blood samples [hair collection, mouth swabs or what have you], as well as available samples to be used under consent of the donors or the overseers of those samples
Supercar if a person volunteers for study he self selects him/herself for the study. This is an available sample. The fact that it is an available sample means that you only have people in the study that want to be in the study. This type of study is not a representative sample of any population except the participants in the study.
Rasol's response was appropriate enough, as it is clear that he obviously understands what you just cited, while you apparently don't [even though you've been told this multiple times now].
*Again, would you have participants in the study tortured to participate? - you don't answer.
*Again, do the geneticists not actually get blood samples of participants? If so, do they not test these samples? In turn if so, do their results from these tests not reflect the 'absolute facts' of those samples? - you don't answer.
*Can the geneticists do anything about the microscopic content of their subjects' DNA samples? If yes, can you eleborate on how? If not, is this condition then not a random aspect of the sampling, as per the specific composition of these samples? - you don't answer.
*You were asked to show exactly what was wrong [point-by-point] with Cruciani et al.'s dating method and - you don't answer.
*You charged the above authors of doing population genetics without taking into account population movements. You were asked to corroborate this with citations - you don't answer.
It is quite amusing to see a person who cannot even distinguish between a male Y chromosome haplotype and a female transmitted mtDNA haplotype, come here and pass off unfounded judgement of the genetics discipline. Apparently, you don't understand the discipline enough to make an informed assessment of its potential. This is why you continue to use material that the authors of which, themselves, have discredited.
It is more confounding to read statements by someone who knows nothing at all about research methods-- discuss how research is conducted.
And then criticize research that has been published recently in leading biological journals. If I did not understand the research methods of these disciplines my work would not have been published.
You claim to be the expert geneticist, where are your publications Mr. Know it all?
At least I am brave enough to publish my work. Cite some of your published articles in biology journals if you know so much.
quote: You lie. Genetic studies are based on calling in ‘volunteers’ to a designated place to provide blood samples [hair collection, mouth swabs or what have you], as well as available samples to be used under consent of the donors or the overseers of those samples
Supercar if a person volunteers for study he self selects him/herself for the study. This is an available sample. The fact that it is an available sample means that you only have people in the study that want to be in the study. This type of study is not a representative sample of any population except the participants in the study.
Rasol's response was appropriate enough, as it is clear that he obviously understands what you just cited, while you apparently don't [even though you've been told this multiple times now].
*Again, would you have participants in the study tortured to participate? - you don't answer.
*Again, do the geneticists not actually get blood samples of participants? If so, do they not test these samples? In turn if so, do their results from these tests not reflect the 'absolute facts' of those samples? - you don't answer.
*Can the geneticists do anything about the microscopic content of their subjects' DNA samples? If yes, can you eleborate on how? If not, is this condition then not a random aspect of the sampling, as per the specific composition of these samples? - you don't answer.
*You were asked to show exactly what was wrong [point-by-point] with Cruciani et al.'s dating method and - you don't answer.
*You charged the above authors of doing population genetics without taking into account population movements. You were asked to corroborate this with citations - you don't answer.
It is quite amusing to see a person who cannot even distinguish between a male Y chromosome haplotype and a female transmitted mtDNA haplotype, come here and pass off unfounded judgement of the genetics discipline. Apparently, you don't understand the discipline enough to make an informed assessment of its potential. This is why you continue to use material that the authors of which, themselves, have discredited.
It is more confounding to read statements by someone who knows nothing at all about research methods-- discuss how research is conducted.
Not as confounding as someone who isn't even capable of directly addressing what was requested, as laid out. Considering that I know the difference between a male lineage and a female one when I come across either, it is pretty much safe to assume that I'm well ahead of you. If you can't even tell the difference between male and female lineages, what makes you think you are in a position to even be criticizing geneticists, rightly or wrongly? To this extent, if I didn't know what I was talking about, what does that place you - at the bottom of the barrel?
quote:Clyde Winters:
And then criticize research that has been published recently in leading biological journals. If I did not understand the research methods of these disciplines my work would not have been published.
Suffering from amnesia, are we? You were the 'one' who took the initiative of criticizing geneticists with what amounts to cartoonish claims, and yet when asked to support these awkward charges, what do you do? You guessed it - no answer [outside of incoherent ranting].
Gist: Answers, Clyde! Anything less, is unacceptable.
quote:Clyde Winters:
You claim to be the expert geneticist
Citation?
quote:Clyde Winters: , where are your publications Mr. Know it all?
Juvenile - off-point. The best you can offer as a distraction for your incapacity to answer?
quote:Clyde Winters:
At least I am brave enough to publish my work.
Lying through your teeth isn't bravery; it is a disgrace.
quote:Clyde Winters:
Cite some of your published articles in biology journals if you know so much.
The sort of pseudo-scientific eloquence from 'a brave publisher' [certainly not brave on producing 'subtantial merit']. However, as for your off-point question, the answer is: not until you submit answers to the outstanding specific questions relayed to you, point-by-point, in response to your spooky charges against geneticists, including Cruciani et al. You'd get right to answering 'all' the outstanding requests, if you are really as 'brave' as you proclaim to be, and not full of 'it'.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The distribution of H1, the largest sub-clade, displays two peaks, one in Iberia and another in Scandinavia (Fig. 2B). However, the Norwegian sample size is low (n = 18) and haplogroup H is overrepresented (∼70%, while larger data sets for Norway point to a frequency of ∼50%: Richards et al. 2000). When we removed the Norwegian sample, the Scandinavian peak disappeared, and the picture showed only the decreasing frequency of subhaplogroup H1 from the southwest to the north and east. H1 is almost exclusively European, with its only incursion into the Near East being a few Palestinian individuals bearing the most common haplotype. This absence of derived lineages in the Near East sample suggests that the H1 sub-clade had its origin in Europe. H1 has an age of ∼14,000 years (SE 4000) using codingregion data and ∼16,000 years (SE 3500) using HVS-I. No significant difference between its diversity in western and eastern Europe was manifest.
posted
Your proposition is that 'Crete' was predominantly black?
The few dark females don't negate or erase the over riding fact of light females, and those are light not dark females in the 'Cretan' painting. Can't you see that only the light females could've paled the original North African complexion.
I maintain that in that painting we have the earliest quasi-historic record for one source of North African mtDNA.
And understand that those are North African men not black Aegean men in that 'Cretan' painting next to the jug balancing paloured girls.
Northwest Africans aren't a static non-moving population. You know of course that the iMazighen of Awdaghust originated in the whereabouts of Tripolitania?
In short, the ancient dark Libyans from Cyrenaica to Tunis got children on pale north Med girls from Sicily on eastward long before the Iberian incretions of mainly the Islamic age.
From one work of art to the other we see a theme of dark North African male with his pale jug handling female. It's not what is it with me, it's what is it with them.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL Takruri what is it with you in black Aegean males and white females? Again, I have also seen pictures of Cretan females just as dark, and what does Crete in the eastern Mediterranean have to do with Northwest Africans?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you can forgive my interuption with historical materials in a thread for anthropometric and genetic evidence, I'll say this.
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
Geneticist find the main North African male markers (E3b2-M81, E3b1-M78; TMRCAs ~2300 BCE) moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward. This is around the time the map accompanying Williamson's text places south Temehu divergence from proto-'Berber' and Cyrenaica to Western Egyptian Delta offshoots of proto-North 'Berber.'
The Meshwesh moved from the west to the east near 1250 BCE. Then, some 500 years later. Herodotus records the westward migration of his Libyans (E3b2-M81 backflow?).
Another 400 to 600 years later we read of blond Libyan women in the east not the west (Callimachus; Lucan).
I find it hard to accept that only far northwest North Africans are miscegenated with Euros just because they show the heaviest incidence of Eurasian mtDNA when there are indications from other fields that from Cyrenaica westward miscegenation has been ongoing since at least 1600 BCE.
* NRY data - Arredi 2004, Table 2
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting to note that the putative mrca of ProtoBerber, predates the 5000 kya mrca of M-81, denoting it's divergence from M-35.
More data regarding the Siwa population.
Could be - they are result of recent migrations of NorthWest African Berber to NorthEast Africa, but the low level of M-81 makes this questionable.
It could also be that they are remnant of the original ProtoBerber population, whose own genetic composition has been influenced by subsequent local events.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Takruri, I thought that the idea of predominantly black male Cretans was your idea. Crete was initially settled by North Africans and then peoples from Western Asia (the Levant and Asia Minor). What is your premise?
To Rasol, do you have the list of anthroplogical types of North Africans identified by Western scholars??
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hastily compiled table to show the guessing game of NA NRY marker TMRCAs EA = East Africa origin
code:
E3b M35 M78 M81
EA 25.6 - EA 23.2 ?? 5.6 Cruciani 2004
EA 30 7.6 19 Bosch 2001 (low end figures)
8.26 4.48 4.15 Arredi 2004
EA 29.2 EA 14.9 8.6 Semino 2004
quote:Originally posted by rasol: It's interesting to note that the putative mrca of ProtoBerber, predates the 5000 kya mrca of M-81, denoting it's divergence from M-35.
More data regarding the Siwa population.
Could be - they are result of recent migrations of NorthWest African Berber to NorthEast Africa, but the low level of M-81 makes this questionable.
It could also be that they are remnant of the original ProtoBerber population, whose own genetic composition has been influenced by subsequent local events.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
By E3b-M35, are you referring to its derivative E-M81? That date for E3b sounds questionable.
As for Northwest African expansion being older than East, implicated above by the back-migration eastward in this:
spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin.
^Would be inconsistent with this:
However, the E3b3-M123 chromosomes may have spread predominantly toward the east, whereas E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco (33% and 69% in Moroccan Arabs and Moroccan Berbers, respectively [Cruciani et al. 2002]), dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in accordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa 2 ky ago (Cruciani et al. 2002). The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 ky ago) is also compatible with this scenario. The Turkish collection displays a near absence of E3b2-M81 (1 in 523 males) but displays polymorphic levels of the other two M35 derivatives (5.5% for E3b3-M123 and 5% for E3b1-M78 [Cinniolu et al. 2004]). - Luis et al. 2004
And this:
A clinal pattern of haplogroup variation like the one we observe can be expected from an east-to-west population expansion, and the finding of lower E3b2 STR variation in the west than in central North Africa (table A2 [online only]), accompanied by a substantial increase in frequency of this haplogroup, is most readily explained by expansion into virtually uninhabited terrain by populations experiencing increasing drift (Barbujani et al. 1994). - Arredi et al. 2004
quote: al Takruri:
Geneticist find the main North African male markers (E3b2-M81, E3b1-M78; TMRCAs ~2300 BCE) moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward. This is around the time the map accompanying Williamson's text places south Temehu divergence from proto-'Berber' and Cyrenaica to Western Egyptian Delta offshoots of proto-North 'Berber.'
Perhaps you’ll elaborate if not so: the TMRCA as presented above suggests that E3b2 and E3b1 are of the same age?
If so, this would be inconsistent with most of the studies regularly cited here and elsewhere. E3b2 is consistently shown as the younger lineage of the two.
quote: al Takruri:
The Meshwesh moved from the west to the east near 1250 BCE. Then, some 500 years later. Herodotus records the westward migration of his Libyans (E3b2-M81 backflow?).
If by Meshwesh you are referring to coastal northwest African Tamazight groups, which study are you going by, regarding the westward movement and occurring in the said timeframe?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
It's interesting to note that the putative mrca of ProtoBerber, predates the 5000 kya mrca of M-81, denoting it's divergence from M-35.
E-M81 expansion ages have been estimated to be anywhere between ~2ky ago and 8ky ago, according to most studies.
quote: rasol:
More data regarding the Siwa population.
Could be - they are result of recent migrations of NorthWest African Berber to NorthEast Africa, but the low level of M-81 makes this questionable.
And also made questionable by finds like this, just to reiterate:
However, the E3b3-M123 chromosomes may have spread predominantly toward the east, whereas E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco (33% and 69% in Moroccan Arabs and Moroccan Berbers, respectively [Cruciani et al. 2002]), dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in accordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa 2 ky ago (Cruciani et al. 2002). The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 ky ago) is also compatible with this scenario. The Turkish collection displays a near absence of E3b2-M81 (1 in 523 males) but displays polymorphic levels of the other two M35 derivatives (5.5% for E3b3-M123 and 5% for E3b1-M78 [Cinniolu et al. 2004]). - Luis et al. 2004
quote:rasol:
It could also be that they are remnant of the original ProtoBerber population, whose own genetic composition has been influenced by subsequent local events.
Which would be consistent with the above. I haven’t come across a single study which shows E-M81 expansion dates in East Africa being younger than those from west Africa. I have however, seen the contrary assessment.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
E3b (8.3KY, 95% CI 5.2–12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3–19.3 KY; table 2)
and E3b2 (2.8–8.2 KY)
should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa. These times contrast sharply with estimates of
53 ± 21 KYA for the M35 lineage and 32 ± 11 KYA for the M81 lineage, by use of a constant-sized population model, or 30 ± 6 and 19 ± 4 KYA, respectively, by use of an expanding population model (Bosch et al. 2001).
They are, however, more in accordance with times of 26.5 KYA (without a useful CI) for the M215 mutation ... and 5.6 KYA for M81 (Cruciani et al. 2004) or of 29.2 ± 4.1 KYA for M35 and 8.6 ± 2.3 KYA for M81 (Semino et al. 2004).
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
By E3b-M35, are you referring to its derivative E-M81? That date for E3b sounds questionable.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
started at Darfur went west by northwest across the Sahara then back east but to further north (slightly inland from the littoral)
^ There is certainly linguistic and genetic basis for the East West movement.... but what is the basis for the West to East movement?
I agree with the general premise of the map below, but i'd be amazed if it were literally accurate in minor detail.
For Tehenu, why not the more parsimonious movement from the upper to lower nile, as opposed to around the central sahel an then back east?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As can be seen in the table a few posts above, Bosch makes E3b2-M81 out to be the youngest. And this is one of the discrepencies, along with the total disagreement between the four referenced geneticists on the involved TMRCAs, that led me to call it a "guessing game."
But there's more in Bosch 2001 contrary to the status quo here.
quote: Assuming a constant population size, an infinite-sites model, and population subdivision between NW Africa and Iberia,
we used Genetree (Griffiths and Tavare´1994) to estimate the age of M35 (giving H36) to be 53,000±21,000 years ago (ya), that of M78 (giving H35) to be 16,000±10,000 ya, and that of M81 (giving H38) to be 32,000±11,000 ya.
Under the more likely condition of population growth (Thomson et al. 2000), the respective estimated ages were 30,000±6,000 ya, _7,600±6,000 ya, and 19,000±4,000 ya.
Hence, the expansion that brought the ancestors of H35 and H38 (or even those haplotypes themselves) into NW Africa could have happened at any time after 30,000 ya, and, more specifically, it could have happened during the Upper Paleolithic.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ... most of the studies regularly cited here and elsewhere. E3b2 is consistently shown as the younger lineage of the two.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe Williamson thinks the THHNW weren't "Berber" speakers?
I think the less parsimonious movement arrow is based on the historic movement of the Meshwesh (known "Berber speakers") from west to east.
Genetic evidence was not consulted by any of the contributors to Vogel's volume.
Also what do you think about the date the map attaches to what it labels as a Temehu branch (the one that parsimoniously should extend clear north through all the oasis right up to the western delta home of the THHNW? Note that date matches the first record of TMHHW (Harkhuf's mention of Yam? marching to war against them).
And as for taking it all literally, I find it hard that just because TMHHW enter history at that point in time and space that that's when their branch of "Berber" developed.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: started at Darfur went west by northwest across the Sahara then back east but to further north (slightly inland from the littoral)
^ There is certainly linguistic and genetic basis for the East West movement.... but what is the basis for the West to East movement?
I agree with the general premise of the map below, but i'd be amazed if it were literally accurate in minor detail.
For Tehenu, why not the more parsimonious movement from the upper to lower nile, as opposed to around the central sahel an then back east?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know and s/he's dead. Have to check the history c. 2000 BCE before I could even guess what North Temehu is supposed to mean.
I do think Siwa is included in that North Temehu arrow. But don't forget that Cyrenaica to the Western Delta is its main thrust.
Anyway, Williamson is short on text and in fact defers to P. Behrens. The Williamson text:
quote: P. Behrens has suggested that Beber had its homeland in western Sudan and, from around 8000 years ago, moved north toward the Nile, northwest into northern Africa, and also into western Africa to become the rather highly differentiated Zenaga of southern Maritania. He also suggests that proto-Berber speakers, like proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers, were pastoralists Modern Berber speakers are adapted to desert conditions and seem to have replaced Niger-Congo, probably Mande, speakers, in parts of their present range. Since Berber has relatively little internal differentiation compared with the deep divisions within Chadic, proto-Chadic speakers must have begun their own move at a much earlier period.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get it. Can you please rephrase your question?
Meshwesh means the Meshwesh of AE record who moving from Tunisian/Libyan Syrtis forced every ethny along the way to join them as they marched on Egypt. Their movement was from west to east c.1250 just as I wrote.
Where are you getting a westward movement of Meshwesh from?
If by Meshwesh you are referring to coastal northwest African Tamazight groups, which study are you going by, regarding the westward movement and occurring in the said timeframe?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As indicated by the asterisk at the bottom of the post where I made the questioned statement, the NRY data was taken from Arredi 2004, Table 2 which I reproduce in part below:
code:
Table 2 TMRCA Estimates and 95% CIs of Y-Chromosomal Lineages in North Africa ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TMRCA [IN KY] (95% CI) -------------------------------------- SAMPLED NO. OF 30 Years/ 25 Years/ LINEAGES MUTATION CHROMOSOMES Generation) Generation) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- . E3b M35 226 8.26 (5.18–12.37) 14.33 (9.32–19.19) E3b1 M78 38 4.48 (3.01–6.16) 8.10 (5.42–10.71) E3b2 M81 165 4.15 (2.84–5.97) 6.90 (5.91–8.19)
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote: al Takruri:
Geneticist find the main North African male markers (E3b2-M81, E3b1-M78; TMRCAs ~2300 BCE) moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward. This is around the time the map accompanying Williamson's text places south Temehu divergence from proto-'Berber' and Cyrenaica to Western Egyptian Delta offshoots of proto-North 'Berber.'
Perhaps you’ll elaborate if not so: the TMRCA as presented above suggests that E3b2 and E3b1 are of the same age?
If so, this would be inconsistent with most of the studies regularly cited here and elsewhere. E3b2 is consistently shown as the younger lineage of the two.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
E3b (8.3KY, 95% CI 5.2–12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3–19.3 KY; table 2)
and E3b2 (2.8–8.2 KY)
should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa. These times contrast sharply with estimates of
53 ± 21 KYA for the M35 lineage and 32 ± 11 KYA for the M81 lineage, by use of a constant-sized population model, or 30 ± 6 and 19 ± 4 KYA, respectively, by use of an expanding population model (Bosch et al. 2001).
They are, however, more in accordance with times of 26.5 KYA (without a useful CI) for the M215 mutation ... and 5.6 KYA for M81 (Cruciani et al. 2004) or of 29.2 ± 4.1 KYA for M35 and 8.6 ± 2.3 KYA for M81 (Semino et al. 2004).
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
By E3b-M35, are you referring to its derivative E-M81? That date for E3b sounds questionable.
Doesn’t answer the question at hand, which was: By E3b-M35, are you referring to its derivative E-M81? That date for E3b sounds questionable.
Notice that these datings are given with confidence intervals which shouldn’t be dismissed. Once taken into account, the age provided for E3b doesn’t deviate much from the general understanding that E3b originated in the Upper Paleolithic, in the vicinity of ca. 23 ky ago or so.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: When read in context and quoted in full its the spread of "Berber" language that
started at Darfur
went west by northwest across the Sahara
then back east but to further north (slightly inland from the littoral)
This can easily be seen in the map accompanying Williamson. In it one can see "Berber" reaching the north of Egypt by two different routes.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
As for Northwest African expansion being older than East, implicated above by the back-migration eastward in this:
spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin.
^Would be inconsistent with this:
...
I’ve grasped the full context, but as cited in the extracts I posted, there is no evidence that coastal North East African Tamazight speakers are younger than those from west, which was implied in your original post, by way of migration from Saharan/sahel East Africa westward, and from thence, a westward movement, this time reaching coastal north east Africa. I haven’t seen any genetic evidence backing up such a scenario.
I’ll reply to the other posts later. I’ve got some business to take care of. Watch this space...
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Refined, and more complete response of the above, is provided below, as follows...
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
See Arredi 2004 for the moot TRMCA.
quote: The TMRCAs for
E3b (8.3KY, 95% CI 5.2–12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3–19.3 KY; table 2)
and E3b2 (2.8–8.2 KY)
should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa. These times contrast sharply with estimates of
53 ± 21 KYA for the M35 lineage and 32 ± 11 KYA for the M81 lineage, by use of a constant-sized population model, or 30 ± 6 and 19 ± 4 KYA, respectively, by use of an expanding population model (Bosch et al. 2001).
They are, however, more in accordance with times of 26.5 KYA (without a useful CI) for the M215 mutation ... and 5.6 KYA for M81 (Cruciani et al. 2004) or of 29.2 ± 4.1 KYA for M35 and 8.6 ± 2.3 KYA for M81 (Semino et al. 2004).
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
By E3b-M35, are you referring to its derivative E-M81? That date for E3b sounds questionable.
Arredi et al. have lower bound and upper bound expansion ages, each of which have their corresponding confidence intervals; these intervals are there, precisely because they need to be taken into account. Once taken into account, the age provided for E3b doesn’t deviate much from the general understanding that E3b originated in the Upper Paleolithic, and expanded northward within the vicinity of by ca. 24 ky ago or so.
The geographic and quantitative analyses of haplogroup and microsatellite diversity is strongly suggestive of a northeastern African origin of E-M78, with a corridor for bidirectional migrations between northeastern and eastern Africa (at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago), trans-Mediterranean migrations directly from northern Africa to Europe (mainly in the last 13.0 ky), and flow from northeastern Africa to western Asia between 20.0 and 6.8 ky ago.- Cruciani et al.
Heck M78, the derivative of M35, has expansion dates of 6ky ago or so [and older] in the “Near East”[ Semino et al. 2004, Cruciani et al. 2004, and Underhill et al.]. Naturally, M78 cannot be contemporaneous with its father lineage E-M35 in initial expansion ages - this understanding is consistently communicated in the bulk of genetic studies referenced herein.
Example:
“The subdivision of E-M78 in the six common major clades revealed a pronounced geographic structuring (table 1, fig. 2): Haplogroup E-V65 and the paragroups E-M78* and E-V12* were observed mainly in northern Africa, Haplogroup E-V13 was found in high frequencies in Europe, and Haplogroup E-V32 was observed at high frequencies only in eastern Africa. The only Haplogroup showing a wide geographic distribution was E-V22, relatively common in north-eastern and eastern Africa, but also found in Europe, western Asia, up to southern Asia (table 1, fig.2).”
“On the basis of robust phylogeographic considerations, an eastern African origin has been proposed for E-M215 (Underhill et al. 2001; Cruciani et al. 2004), with a coalescence time of 22.4ky (95% C.I. 20.9-23.9ky; recalculated from Cruciani et al. 2004, see Materials and Methods). A north-eastern African origin for Haplogroup E-M78 implies that E-M215 chromosomes were introduced in north-eastern Africa from eastern Africa in the Upper Paleolithic, between 23.9ky ago (the upper bound for E-M215 TMRCA in eastern Africa) and 17.3ky ago (the lower bound for E-M78 TMRCA here estimated, fig. 1). In turn, the presence of E-M78 chromosomes in eastern Africa can be explained through a back migration of chromosomes that had acquired the M78 mutation in north-eastern Africa. The nested arrangement of Haplogroups E-V12 and E-V32 defines an upper and lower bound for this episode, i.e. 18ky and 5.9ky, respectively. These were probably not massive migration/s, since the present high frequencies of E-V12 chromosomes in eastern Africa are entirely accounted for by E-V32, which most likely underwent subsequent geographically restricted demographic expansions involving well differentiated molecular types (fig. 3A). Conversely, the absense of E-V12* chromosomes in eastern Africa is compatible with loss by drift.” - Cruciani et al. 2007
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
As can be seen in the table a few posts above, Bosch makes E3b2-M81 out to be the youngest. And this is one of the discrepencies, along with the total disagreement between the four referenced geneticists on the involved TMRCAs, that led me to call it a "guessing game."
But there's more in Bosch 2001 contrary to the status quo here.
quote: Assuming a constant population size, an infinite-sites model, and population subdivision between NW Africa and Iberia,
we used Genetree (Griffiths and Tavare´1994) to estimate the age of M35 (giving H36) to be 53,000±21,000 years ago (ya), that of M78 (giving H35) to be 16,000±10,000 ya, and that of M81 (giving H38) to be 32,000±11,000 ya.
Under the more likely condition of population growth (Thomson et al. 2000), the respective estimated ages were 30,000±6,000 ya, _7,600±6,000 ya, and 19,000±4,000 ya.
Hence, the expansion that brought the ancestors of H35 and H38 (or even those haplotypes themselves) into NW Africa could have happened at any time after 30,000 ya, and, more specifically, it could have happened during the Upper Paleolithic.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ... most of the studies regularly cited here and elsewhere. E3b2 is consistently shown as the younger lineage of the two.
If Bosch et al. posit a younger age for M81 than that of E-M35 and E-M78, then this would be in agreement with many of the other cited sources, not in disagreement. As for the Bosch et al.'s supposed "Upper Paleolithic" extraction of "Berber" paternal lineages, I've already taken issue with that multiple times now, including in that thread you started about 'Tamazight language being Afrasan'. Outside of Bosch et al., I've rarely seen genetic studies posit an Upper Paleolithic expansion age for E-M81, as opposed to being of a Neolithic one.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
I don't get it. Can you please rephrase your question?
Meshwesh means the Meshwesh of AE record who moving from Tunisian/Libyan Syrtis forced every ethny along the way to join them as they marched on Egypt. Their movement was from west to east c.1250 just as I wrote.
Where are you getting a westward movement of Meshwesh from?
If by Meshwesh you are referring to coastal northwest African Tamazight groups, which study are you going by, regarding the westward movement and occurring in the said timeframe?
Technicality on my part. What I meant to ask was: What study are you going by, concerning the west-to-eastward movement of the Meshwesh, presuming that you are equating the Meshwesh with coastal northwest African Tamazight groups?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: When read in context and quoted in full its the spread of "Berber" language that
started at Darfur
went west by northwest across the Sahara
then back east but to further north (slightly inland from the littoral)
This can easily be seen in the map accompanying Williamson. In it one can see "Berber" reaching the north of Egypt by two different routes.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
As for Northwest African expansion being older than East, implicated above by the back-migration eastward in this:
spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin.
^Would be inconsistent with this:
...
I’ve grasped the full context, but as cited in the genetic study extracts that I posted, there is no evidence that coastal North East African Tamazight speakers are younger than those from coastal North West Africa, which was implied in your original post, by way of migration from first Saharan/sahel East Africa in westward direction [and reaching coastal north west Africa], and from thereon an eastward movement occurred, reaching coastal north east Africa. For instance, when you said:
spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin -al Takruri
^This implies that there were no Tamazight speakers already inhabiting coastal northeast Africa, prior to the ‘eastward’ migration of coastal northwest African Tamazight speakers from west Africa [pending clarification to the contrary]. I haven’t seen any genetic evidence backing up such a scenario. Genetic evidence for such would demonstrate older expansion ages for west African Tamazight groups than those in coastal Northeast Africa; however to date, I’ve seen genetic evidence to the contrary.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure it answered the question, and quite fully, with a direct quote straight from Arredi who issued it.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
See Arredi 2004 for the moot TRMCA. [QUOTE] The TMRCAs for
E3b (8.3KY, 95% CI 5.2–12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3–19.3 KY; table 2)
and E3b2 (2.8–8.2 KY)
should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa. These times contrast sharply with estimates of
53 ± 21 KYA for the M35 lineage and 32 ± 11 KYA for the M81 lineage, by use of a constant-sized population model, or 30 ± 6 and 19 ± 4 KYA, respectively, by use of an expanding population model (Bosch et al. 2001).
They are, however, more in accordance with times of 26.5 KYA (without a useful CI) for the M215 mutation ... and 5.6 KYA for M81 (Cruciani et al. 2004) or of 29.2 ± 4.1 KYA for M35 and 8.6 ± 2.3 KYA for M81 (Semino et al. 2004).
Doesn’t answer the question at hand, which was: By E3b-M35, are you referring to its derivative E-M81? That date for E3b sounds questionable.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the highest CI figure in Arredi only goes back 19,300 years. Arredi is really loose with the TMRCAs
quote: E3b (8.3KY, 95% CI 5.2–12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3–19.3 KY; table 2)
E3b M35 226 8.26 (5.18–12.37) 14.33 (9.32–19.19)
Taking both generation sets into consideration it's anywhere from 5,200 years ago to 19,300 years ago but the 23,000 year figure is out of Arredi's range.
code:
Table 2 TMRCA Estimates and 95% CIs of Y-Chromosomal Lineages in North Africa ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TMRCA [IN KY] (95% CI) -------------------------------------- SAMPLED NO. OF 30 Years/ 25 Years/ LINEAGES MUTATION CHROMOSOMES Generation) Generation) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- . E3b M35 226 8.26 (5.18–12.37) 14.33 (9.32–19.19) E3b1 M78 38 4.48 (3.01–6.16) 8.10 (5.42–10.71) E3b2 M81 165 4.15 (2.84–5.97) 6.90 (5.91–8.19)
If we can back up from this tree and look at the forrest, the point I'm making is that there's no general agreement on these TMRCAs between Bosch, Arredi, Cruciani, and Semino. Most certainly not so for a 23,000 year ago date for E3b.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Notice that these datings are given with confidence intervals which shouldn’t be dismissed. Once taken into account, the age provided for E3b doesn’t deviate much from the general understanding that E3b originated in the Upper Paleolithic, in the vicinity of ca. 23 ky ago or so.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Most high caste Tuaregs would not mix with enslaved populations bvecause of the strict matrilineal sucession. The Tuaregs mixing with Arabs is definately out of the question considering that Tuaregs put up fierce resistance against the Arabs.
There is a policy that often masks tribal social ecology because we that that Taureg integration of other groups depends on the area/location and perhaps socioeconomic reality. In modern parlance the slave master may hates his slaves but through his power he can choose any female slave he wishes, as long as the madam (wife) doesn't figure it out! The master will not say I hav a right to my female slaves because that would upset the social economy so he says the opposite knowing he can command as he wishes! Look at the Janjaweed talk about the 'abid' as their inferiors but the first thing they do is rape! OR the Hemmings/Jefferson controversy and most recently the Strom Thurmond affair!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sure it answered the question, and quite fully, with a direct quote straight from Arredi who issued it.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
See Arredi 2004 for the moot TRMCA.
quote: The TMRCAs for
E3b (8.3KY, 95% CI 5.2–12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3–19.3 KY; table 2)
and E3b2 (2.8–8.2 KY)
should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa. These times contrast sharply with estimates of
53 ± 21 KYA for the M35 lineage and 32 ± 11 KYA for the M81 lineage, by use of a constant-sized population model, or 30 ± 6 and 19 ± 4 KYA, respectively, by use of an expanding population model (Bosch et al. 2001).
They are, however, more in accordance with times of 26.5 KYA (without a useful CI) for the M215 mutation ... and 5.6 KYA for M81 (Cruciani et al. 2004) or of 29.2 ± 4.1 KYA for M35 and 8.6 ± 2.3 KYA for M81 (Semino et al. 2004).
Doesn’t answer the question at hand, which was: By E3b-M35, are you referring to its derivative E-M81? That date for E3b sounds questionable.
In which case, your initial post placing E3b-M35 to just 8ky ago was misleading, because even your citation of Arredi et al. gives both lower bound and upper bound expansion estimations along with their corresponding CIs, and when the CIs are taken into consideration, the upper bound expansion age falls in the general reach of the Upper Paleolithic as is the case with the dates provided by Semino et al., Luis et al, Cruciani et al. and Underhill et al, with a give-or-take so many years of the dates provided by the said researchers - all dating back to the upper Paleolithic, as opposed to the impression given by your initial post of a Neolithic timeframe.
Example 1:
The TMRCAs for E3b (8.3 KY, 95% CI 5.2 to 12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3 to 19.3 KY; table 2) and E3b2 (2.8 to 8.2 KY) should thus bracket the spread of E3b2 in North Africa. These times contrast sharply with estimates of 53 ± 21 KYA for the M35 lineage and 32 ± 11 KYA for the M81 lineage, by use of a constant-sized population model, or 30 ± 6 and 19 ± 4 KYA, respectively, by use of an expanding population model (Bosch et al. 2001). They are, however, more in accordance with times of 26.5 KYA (without a useful CI) for the M215 mutation (intermediate between M35 and M96 in the phylogeny; see fig. 1A) and 5.6 KYA for M81 (Cruciani et al. 2004) or of 29.2 ± 4.1 KYA for M35 and 8.6 ± 2.3 KYA for M81 (Semino et al. 2004). - Arredi et al. 2004
Example2:
We obtained an estimate of 25.6 thousand years (ky) (95% CI 24.3 to 27.4 ky) for the TMRCA of the 509 haplogroup E3b chromosomes, which is close to the 30 ± 6 ky estimate for the age of the M35 mutation reported by Bosch et al. (2001) using a different method. Several observations point to eastern Africa as the homeland for haplogroup E3b - that is, it had (1) the highest number of different E3b clades (table 1), (2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and, finally, (3) the exclusive presence of the undifferentiated E3b* paragroup. - Cruciani et al. 2004
Example 3: A more recent dispersal out of Africa, represented by the E3b-M35 chromosomes, expanded northward during the Mesolithic (Underhill et al. 2001b). The East African origin of this lineage is supported by the much larger variance of the E3b-M35 males in Egypt versus Oman (0.5 versus 0.14; table 3). Consistent with the NRY data is the mtDNA expansion estimate of 10 to 20 ky ago for the East African M1 clade. Local expansions of this clade and subsequent demic movements may have resulted in the irregular presence of the M1 haplogroup in the Mediterranean area (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999). - Luis et al. 2004
^ Naturally the expansion ages of 10 to 20 ky provided by Luis et al. herein, correspond with E-M78 lineages, since ancestral E3b lineages have rarely been found in Northeast Africa [Egypt in this case] as opposed to sub-Saharan East Africa.
Example 4:
The M35 estimate is in agreement with those of Bosch et al. (2001) and Cruciani et al. (2004 [in this issue]), obtained with different methods. - Semino et al. 2004
Semino et al., Underhill et al, and Cruciani et al. have relatively more closer TMRCA ages for E3b [and in turn relatively closer to Bosch et al.’s date for E3b-M35, but produced relatively closer TMRCA ages for E-M81 to Arredi et al. than Bosch et al.] than Arredi et al., but it is also of note that, while these researchers had study sub-Saharan groups in their dating estimations, Arredi et al. in their 2004 publication directly studied only the more Northern African groups; Bosch et al. 2001 started largely coastal North Africans :
To provide a more complete description of the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation, we have analyzed five additional populations: Algerian Arabs, Algerian Berbers, Tunisians, and North and South Egyptians (table 1)…
In addition, samples from southern Europe, the Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa were included in some analyses (Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002). - Arredi et al. 2004
Given that these aforementioned researchers did relatively more detailed population genetics analysis on E3b macro-haplogroup than Arredi et al. 2004 [and Bosch et al. 2001], they have an edge over the latter. Arredi et al.’s age estimation for E3b would be a reflection of their analysis of Northeast and Northwest African derivatives of E3b, notwithstanding adopting methodology from other researchers like Zhivotovsky et al. 2004 in the ‘effective mutation rate’.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Actually the highest CI figure in Arredi only goes back 19,300 years. Arredi is really loose with the TMRCAs
quote: E3b (8.3KY, 95% CI 5.2–12.4 KY; or 14.4 KY, 95% CI 9.3–19.3 KY; table 2)
E3b M35 226 8.26 (5.18–12.37) 14.33 (9.32–19.19)
Taking both generation sets into consideration it's anywhere from 5,200 years ago to 19,300 years ago but the 23,000 year figure is out of Arredi's range.
Table 2 TMRCA Estimates and 95% CIs of Y-Chromosomal Lineages in North Africa
The 23 ky ago so was estimation based on Cruciani et al. [actually reflecting upper bound expansion of E3b1], who had actually done more extensive sampling on and 'combing' of E3b chromosomes than Arredi et al. Arredi et al. base their calculations on the dating methods by following researchers:
The TMRCA of haplogroup E3b2 was estimated to be ~ 4.2 KY (95% CI 2.8 to 6.0 KY), using the mutation rate measured in father-son pairs (Kayser et al. 2000) and assuming 30 years per generation, or 6.9 (5.9 to 8.2) KY using the deduced "effective" mutation rate calibrated by historical events (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004) (table 2).
a The two parameters describing the population growth (alpha and beta) have been set as alpha prior uniform (0.03, 0.05) and beta prior uniform (0.10, 0.20), the microsatellite mutation rates used were from Weale et al. (2001) or gamma (2,1000) for the loci for which published estimates of mutation rates were not available.
b The two parameters describing the population growth (alpha and beta) have been set as in footnote a, the microsatellite mutation rate used was from Zhivotovsky et al. (2004). - Arredi et al. 2004
…and were apparently not the only researchers to adopt the methodology utilized by Zhivotovsky et al., since Cruciani et al. 2007 too employed the following methodology:
And again from Cruciani et al., we have:
To estimate the time TMRCA of haplogroups we used the seven tetra nucleotide loci and applied the average square distance (ASD) method (Goldstein et al. 1995), where the ancestral Haplotype was assumed to be the Haplotype carrying the most frequent allele at each micro satellite locus. We employed a micro satellite evolutionarily effective mutation rate (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004). However, since the loci used here and those used by Zhivotovsky et al. (2004) do not overlap completely, we calculated the micro satellite mutation rate as follows: we obtained the mean and standard deviation of the father-to-son mutation rates reported by Gusmao et al. (2005) for the same loci here used, and reduced them by a factor 3.6 [i.e. the discrepancy between the rate estimate obtained from population data and that obtained from father-to-son transmissions (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004)]. This resulted in an evolutionarily effective rate w=7.9 x 10^-4 (SD=5.7x10^-4), a figure that was also used in recalculating the E-M215 coalescence age (data from Cruciani et al. 2004). Recently, Zhivotovsky, Underhill and Feldman (2006), showed that reduced loss of diversity in an expanding population brings the evolutionarily effective rate closer to the germ-line rate than in constant-size populations. Thus, in the case of expanding populations, we used a correction of the 7.9 x 10^-4 value, that was calculated as follows. With reference to fig. 2 in Zhivotovsky, Underhill and Feldman (2006), the values of accumulated variance in 200-300 generations for the scenarios of 1)a single rate for exponential population growth and 2) growth with four distinct consecutive rates, were compared with the amount accumulated in constant size populations. This resulted in evolutionarily effective mutation rates decreased of factors 2.4 and 2.8 respectively (instead of 3.6), that is 11.9 x 10^-4 (SD = 8.5 x 10^-4 and 10.2 x 10^-4 (SD = 7.3 x 10^-4), which were applied to Haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 found in Europe. C.I.s for the ASD (and TMRCA) were obtained as follows: mutations on the micro satellite genealogy were simulated using a Poisson process, in which the total number of mutational events was calculated based on branch length and assuming that mutations at each micro satellite were gamma-distributed with mean and standard deviation calculated as above. Each mutation increased or decreased allele length by one step (each with probability 0.5). ASD was then evaluated for the simulated data and the whole process repeated 1000 times, to quote the central 95% values. This method represents a refinement of that by Thomas et al. (1998) and Scozzari et al. (2001), as it also takes into account heterogeneity of mutation rates across loci. And independent dating method (rho statistics; Forster et al. 1996 et al. 1996; Saillard et al. 2000) was also used to assay how robust the time obtained is to choice of method.
Both dating procedures rely on the appropriate choice of a Haplotype to be considered ancestral, which remains an uncontrolled source of uncertainty. We observe that the rho-based ages are slightly younger than the ASD-based ones (fig. 1). The difference is significant only for the root of the entire Haplogroup, this being attributable to the relevant departure from a star-like structure because of repeated founder effects (Saillard et al. 2000). Only values obtained from ASD are quoted in the text. Haplogroup diversity and its sampling variance were estimated as in Arlequin 3 (Excoffier, LAVal and Schneider 2005). - Cruciani et al. 2007
quote:Originally posted by al Takruri:
If we can back up from this tree and look at the forrest, the point I'm making is that there's no general agreement on these TMRCAs between Bosch, Arredi, Cruciani, and Semino. Most certainly not so for a 23,000 year ago date for E3b.
quote: Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Notice that these datings are given with confidence intervals which shouldn’t be dismissed. Once taken into account, the age provided for E3b doesn’t deviate much from the general understanding that E3b originated in the Upper Paleolithic, in the vicinity of ca. 23 ky ago or so.
Subtlety of language can make quite a difference: For instance, in my posted cited, there’s “in the vicinity of" and “or so”; therefore, the claim about the findings of all the said researchers’ fitting the 23 ky ago date specifically, is but a smokescreen. Furthermore, in my post, it was mentioned “E3b originated in the upper Paleolithic”, which undoubtedly contradicts the date you focused on in your post - that is, the 8 ky ago figure.
As you have read in the words right from the very authors that you cited, there is a “general” agreement between them with respect to the other researchers they‘ve cited. See the topmost postings of this entire post, in the ‘examples’ provided for this.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic