posted
Some of the old vets might recall how Dienekes and Evil Euro were saying that pre-historic East Africans were Caucasoids and by virtue of their morphological features were "non-African" and unrelated to other Africans[anyone remember the that quote from Howells they both spammed?] Here's new research that virtually slams the door shut on that nonsense and lends genetic support to Rughtmire's 1975 study on these same pre-historic East African crania and belonging to those of "Nilotic Negroes":
PNAS August 5, 2008 vol. 105 no. 31 10693–10698
Y-chromosomal evidence of a pastoralist migration through Tanzania to southern Africa
Brenna M. Henn et al.
Abstract
Although geneticists have extensively debated the mode by which agriculture diffused from the Near East to Europe, they have not directly examined similar agropastoral diffusions in Africa. It is unclear, for example, whether early instances of sheep, cows, pottery, and other traits of the pastoralist package were transmitted to southern Africa by demic or cultural diffusion. Here, we report a newly discovered Y-chromosome-specific polymorphism that defines haplogroup E3b1f-M293. This polymorphism reveals the monophyletic relationship of the majority of haplotypes of a previously paraphyletic clade, E3b1-M35*, that is widespread in Africa and southern Europe. To elucidate the history of the E3b1f haplogroup, we analyzed this haplogroup in 13 populations from southern and eastern Africa. The geographic distribution of the E3b1f haplogroup, in association with the microsatellite diversity estimates for populations, is consistent with an expansion through Tanzania to southern-central Africa. The data suggest this dispersal was independent of the migration of Bantu-speaking peoples along a similar route. Instead, the phylogeography and microsatellite diversity of the E3b1f lineage correlate with the arrival of the pastoralist economy in southern Africa. Our Y-chromosomal evidence supports a demic diffusion model of pastoralism from eastern to southern Africa ≈2,000 years ago.
From the fulltext:
"A second model is based primarily on linguistic evidence, with some archaeological correlates. Ehret (33) proposed that elements of the Khwe language, specifically words associated with pastoralism, had been borrowed from an East Sahelian language. Intriguingly, the Bambata-ware pottery found at early pastoralist sites in northern Namibia, northern Botswana and Zambia has stylistic similarities to spouted pottery found at Ngamuriak on the border of Kenya/Tanzania (29, 34). Ngamuriak is a pastoralist site considered part of the Elmenteitan culture. Southern Nilotic languages (a subset of East Sahelian) correlate with the Elmenteitan archaeological culture from 2,500 ya (33, 35).
Anyone recall Dienekes and by extension Evil Euro spamming this nonsense:
To sum it up, since Howells found no correlation between modern East African Bantu speaking Teita, Pontikos and Evil Euro argued that pre-historic East Africans were not "Negroid", while ignoring Rightmire's suggestion that these peoples were Nilotes, whom Howells did *NOT* include among his samples. This study proves that they are wrong as we already knew back in 2005, lol!
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Help me out here Bass. The paper is saying that was a "recent" migration. ie ~2000ya. I thougt E3b is somewhere close to 10kyo. which would mean that If E3b was European then it would take a longer time to reach Southern Africa, via East Africa, which would fit in with Evil Euro theory.
---------------- Instead, the phylogeography and microsatellite diversity of the E3b1f lineage correlate with the arrival of the pastoralist economy in southern Africa. Our Y-chromosomal evidence supports a demic diffusion model of pastoralism from eastern to southern Africa ≈2,000 years ago.
-----------------------
Ngamuriak is a pastoralist site considered part of the Elmenteitan culture. Southern Nilotic languages (a subset of East Sahelian) correlate with the Elmenteitan archaeological culture from 2,500 ya (33, 35).
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
There is no E3b anymore. You guys on EgyptSearch have been arguing so much so that you haven't checked up on the change of Y Chromosome Haplotype labels.
E1b1a = former E3a E1b1b = former E3b
T = former K2
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good looking RW&B+C. These constant alphanumeric changes are why it's a good idea to identify the lineages by their defining mutation along with the alphanumeric instead of by the alphanumeric alone.
quote:To sum it up, since Howells found no correlation between modern East African Bantu speaking Teita, Pontikos and Evil Euro argued that pre-historic East Africans were not "Negroid", while ignoring Rightmire's suggestion that these peoples were Nilotes, whom Howells did *NOT* include among his samples. This study proves that they are wrong as we already knew back in 2005, lol!
^ The Howells nefarious claim that the original population of East Africa was not African, has to be one of the most mind-bending propaganda statements in the history of anthropological scholarship.
The method by which he reached this irrational conclusion, was clearly contrived, for he knew that Masai, Oromo, Somali, were descedant from early East Africans, yet he ignored them in order to reach his false conclusion.
He was taken to task by the anthropological community for doing so, specifically with reference to Rightmire.
Howells excuse was that he did not have "Nilotics and Cushitics" in his database, and that "contra Rightmire there was no clear continuity".....
This is contradictory. You can't contra the data based on having no data. And then offer the fact that you have no data as and excuse for your conclusions.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:To sum it up, since Howells found no correlation between modern East African Bantu speaking Teita, Pontikos and Evil Euro argued that pre-historic East Africans were not "Negroid", while ignoring Rightmire's suggestion that these peoples were Nilotes, whom Howells did *NOT* include among his samples. This study proves that they are wrong as we already knew back in 2005, lol!
^ The Howells nefarious claim that the original population of East Africa was not African, has to be one of the most mind-bending propaganda statements in the history of anthropological scholarship.
Evergreen Writes:
The claim is especially nefarious given the fact that West African specific haplogroup E1b1 is now seen as originating in East Africa.
Evergreen Posts:
Phylogeography of the human Y chromosome haplogroup E3a F. Cruciani1, B. Trombetta1, D. Sellitto2, C. Nodale1, R. Scozzari1; 1Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, Italy, 2Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy. Presentation Number: P07.134 The Y chromosome specific biallelic marker DYS271 defines the most common haplogroup (E3a) currently found in sub-Saharan Africa. A sister clade, E3b (E-M215), is rare in sub-Saharan Africa, but very common in northern and eastern Africa. On the whole, these two clades represent more than 70% of the Y chromosomes of the African continent. A third clade belonging to E3 (E3c or E-M329) has been recently reported to be present only in eastern Africa, at low frequencies. In this study we analyzed more than 1,600 Y chromosomes from 55 African populations, using both new and previously described biallelic markers, in order to refine the phylogeny and the geographic distribution of the E3a haplogroup. The most common E-DYS271 sub-clades (E-DYS271*, E-M191, E-U209) showed a non uniform distribution across sub-Saharan Africa. Most of the E-DYS271 chromosomes found in northern and western Africa belong to the paragroup E-DYS271*, which is rare in central and southern Africa. In these latter regions, haplogroups E-M191 and E-U209 show similar frequency distributions and coalescence ages (13 and 11 kyr, respectively), suggesting their involvement in the same migratory event/s. By the use of two new phylogenetically equivalent markers (V38 and V89), the earlier tripartite structure of E3 haplogroup was resolved in favor of a common ancestor for haplogroups E-DYS271 (formerly E3a) and E-M329 (formerly E3c). The new topology of the E3 haplogroup is suggestive of a relatively recent eastern African origin for the majority of the chromosomes presently found in sub-Saharan Africa.
SOURCE: ESHG 2008
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I gotta say is LMAO @ the notion of "prehistoric East African Caucasoids"!
This shows exactly how desperate and insane the eurocentrics and white racists are!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Help me out here Bass. The paper is saying that was a "recent" migration. ie ~2000ya. I thougt E3b is somewhere close to 10kyo.
It's not the age of E3b that is at issue, but of the emergence of cattle culture in Southern Africa.
One thesis has said that cattle is a product of the Bantu expansion, and prior to that southern Africa would have had hunter-gatherer culture only.
This study shows the expansion of E3b* into southern Africa prior to the Bantu expansion.
quote:If E3b was European
No geneticist argues that E3b is European, or "middle eastern". All agree that it originates in Africa.
The African origin of E3b is only disputed by non geneticists, whose view is rooted in the frustration of realising that Europeans, and Arabs, and Jews, all have Black African ancestry.
These pseudo-scholars simply exploit ignorance, and attempt to confuse the issue.
Since genetics is non trivial sometimes they succeed in sowing confusion.
And for all the anti-Kemetic haters - Black is just as valid as and ethnic reference as European or Arab or Jew, and Arabs, and Jews, and Europeans, and Africans have historically agreed....since they all have used the color reference/term "black", and it is has, if anything *greater* historical relevance than Arab, or Jew, or European, or African for that matter.
Dissenters feel free to speak up. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Black is valid if you mean it in a social sense such as how it is used in America and Europe. Many latin American people will have a different definition for Black in comparison to mainstream America.
Nevertheless this is no longer considered Black but is called multi-racial in modern American society.
AE was primarily Black according to the American social definition.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ A strawman with silly semantics. What Rasol refers to is the original meaning of 'black' which is a reference to very dark skin such as populations indigenous to Africa like the ancient Egyptians. 'Mixed-race' categories are out of the question.
Also the description of Egypt being 'primarily' black is like that of Greece being 'primarily' white or even more so since ancient Egypt likely had less non-African lineages than Greece had non-European lineages. Unless you still insist on some major Asiatic ('Hebrew') population invovled in the founding of Egyptian civilization. LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I have yet to understand is how East Africa has so many different phenotypes if it is not in part due to contact with west Asians. Why is it that the only Africans with more caucasian looking features are nearer to the coast, if very little of there heritage is non-african? When people mention East Africa, they are mostly talking about Ethiopians and Somalis...Why is it that these are the only two groups with such features if they are of very little West Asian influence?
Note differences between the Nilotic speakers and the Cushtic speakers. Though both tend to have narrowish features, Nilotic peoples look more (and I hate this term) well negroid. The mursi of Western ethiopia have a very different look from those to the east.
Now, i'm not trying to prove anything...just using my eyes.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Black is valid if you mean it in a social sense such as how it is used in America and Europe.
Black as and ethnic reference to dark skinned people is by definition a social term.
Therefore Black is valid.
Black is valid when the AE refer to themselves as Blacks, or refer to Osirus as "The Great Black One".
Black is valid when in the Coptic Bible - it is written "I am Black and comely".
Black is valid when 'the Blacks' are made the topic of Al Jahiz "The Glory of the Blacks".
America or Europe are completely irrelevant to all of the above.
America and Europe are merely the source of your Kemo-phobic [fear of Blackness].
As for Race - meaning the sub division of species homo sapiens into sub-species - *not* recognised by any school of biology, it is therefore *not* valid, no matter what terminology/words you use to describe -non existent- races.
Jews, for example, are not a race, because race is invalid.
This says nothing whatsover about the validity of "Jew", as and ethnic reference.
One day, when you grow a bit more emotionally and intellectually....you will understand every word of the above.
quote:Originally posted by Boofer: What I have yet to understand is how East Africa has so many different phenotypes if it is not in part due to contact with west Asians.
This is a strawman argument, not a query.
It is a strawman because no one denies that Africa has contact with West Asia.
Also West Asia has phenotypical diversity as well, and also has contact with Africa.
Also West Africa has physical diversity as well.
East AFrica is the origion of all humans, and as a matter of logic, is the region of the world where it makes the -least- sence to invoke non indigenous admixture as the primary cause of diversity.
So if we can't explain native diversity in East Africa, we certainly can't explain it anywhere else.
Cavelli Sforza [european-geneticist] gave the game away decades ago when he stated with puzzlement that -EUROPEANS APPEAR AS A GENETIC MIXTURE - 1/3 African, 2/3 ASIAN.
Europeans are provably recipients of genetic admixtures to a greater extent than they are sources of mixture.
That's why most Eurocentric references disguise and obscure - with references to west asian, caucasian, and eurasian, all designed to conflate the literally limited European paternity.
Question: What male lineage is specifically European?
Answer - R1b.
Question: Which groups of East Africans have significant R1b.
Answer - none.
Question: What is the primary East African male lineage.
Answer - E3b.
Question: What groups of Europeans have signficant African E3b?
Answer: Greeks, Italian, Spaniard, Portugese.
Question: What groups of Arabs have signficant African male ancestry.
Answer: All of them.
And you wonder why Eurocentrists fight so desparately to have E3b mis-interpreted as a non African lineage?
E3b, when accurately comprehended - is the death blow to "Euro-centric-pseudo-biology-anthropology-history." That's why. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it that the only Africans with more caucasian looking features are nearer to the coast,
This is a typical race tautology.
Do you know what a tautology is?
It's when you assume a conclusion, and then ask
a question intended to encourage someone [stupid] to mistake your assumption for proof of
something.
Myself, I respond by demanding that you prove your own assumptions, otherwise your question is disregarded as empty rhetoric.
- Please present a map of caucasia.
- Now present a list of 'features' which you claim 'originate' in 'caucasia, and provide the evidence for your claims.
^ It's simple: Don't repeat the claim, if you can't provide the above evidense.
Otherwise you only reinforce the following...
quote:The African origin of E3b is only disputed by non geneticists, whose view is rooted in the frustration of realising that Europeans, and Arabs, and Jews, all have Black African ancestry
posted
bump^^^ You raise some key points. There shouldnt be any debate. The argument is irrational. R1b(Europeans) never entered Africa. Their genetic lineage are NOT there. . .period. So the hamitic/admixed east Africans is all nonsense there is no proof of that. R1b(10kyo) is NOT in East Africa. So their phenotype is NOT due to admixture from Europe because Europe NEVER got there.
As you said their only hope is an European E3b.
BTW NG attributes E3b to the near east "implying" Levant.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Europeans are provably recipients of genetic admixtures to a greater extent than they are sources of mixture.
ALL DESIGNED TO CONFLATE THE LITTERALLY LIMITED EUROPEAN PATERNITY.
Question: What male lineage is specifically European?
Answer - R1b.
Question: Which groups of East Africans have significant R1b.
Answer - none.
Question: What is the primary East African male lineage.
Answer - E3b.
Question: What groups of Europeans have signficant African E3b?
Answer: Greeks, Italian, Spaniard, Portugese.
Question: What groups of Arabs have signficant African male ancestry.
Answer: All of them.
And you wonder why Eurocentrists fight so desparately to have E3b mis-interpreted as a non African lineage?
E3b, when accurately comprehended - is the death blow to "Euro-centric-pseudo-biology-anthropology-history." That's why.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correction: just re-checked NG they have E3b as "middle east" not near east origin. They said the E3b brought Agriculture to Europe. Guest they are trying to avoid saying Africans brought Agriculture to Europe. Heck the neolithics E3b brought them civilization.
What is interesting is they now have E3a as "uncertain" origin. This was recently updated, initially they had it as East Africa. That's was about a year ago when I did my HaploGroup test with them.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Aren't they correct? I mean according to the faux keyboard scholars these geneticists never lie and they are never wrong.
So of course we should believe what the scientists say. In much the same way as the non-degreed keyboard scholars who are not even on the sidelines when the scientists are supposedly performing their tests. That is if they really are performing their tests and not just printing out a report on their word processor. LOOOOL!
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Black is valid if you mean it in a social sense such as how it is used in America and Europe.
Black as and ethnic reference to dark skinned people is by definition a social term.
Therefore Black is valid.
Black is valid when the AE refer to themselves as Blacks, or refer to Osirus as "The Great Black One".
Black is valid when in the Coptic Bible - it is written "I am Black and comely".
Black is valid when 'the Blacks' are made the topic of Al Jahiz "The Glory of the Blacks".
America or Europe are completely irrelevant to all of the above.
America and Europe are merely the source of your Kemo-phobic [fear of Blackness].
As for Race - meaning the sub division of species homo sapiens into sub-species - *not* recognised by any school of biology, it is therefore *not* valid, no matter what terminology/words you use to describe -non existent- races.
Jews, for example, are not a race, because race is invalid.
This says nothing whatsover about the validity of "Jew", as and ethnic reference.
One day, when you grow a bit more emotionally and intellectually....you will understand every word of the above.
Until then....
You are just repeating what I said so - I'll ignore the personal attack.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are some articles that confirm what is already known, (Albeit, at the same time repeating the misnomer of farming originating in the middle east) which is E3b (E-M35) was one of the Y haplogroups that was common among the Neolithic farmers from the Middle East(Natufians) who first brought agriculture into Europe about 9000 years ago. Cruciani et al give an estimate of 24-27 thousand years ago for the date of the most recent common ancestor of all E3b's and named eastern Africa as the place of origin.
It is seen most frequently along the Mediterranean coast - especially at the eastern end. Semino et al saw E3b at frequencies of 20-24% in Greece, 10-27% in Italy, and 2-11% in Spain.
But also of note, is the mtdna lineage N1a that left little genetic bearing on European populations, confirming, Europeans DID NOT invent agriculture.
-------
Earliest European Farmers Left Little Genetic Mark On Modern Europe
ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2005) — The farmers who brought agriculture to central Europe about 7,500 years ago did not contribute heavily to the genetic makeup of modern Europeans, according to the first detailed analysis of ancient DNA extracted from skeletons of early European farmers.
The passionate debate over the origins of modern Europeans has a long history, and this work strengthens the argument that people of central European ancestry are largely the descendants of "Old Stone Age," Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who arrived in Europe around 40,000 years ago rather than the first farmers who arrived tens of thousands of years later during the Neolithic Age.
This paper appears in the 11 November 2005 issue of the journal Science published by AAAS the nonprofit science society.
The researchers from Germany, the United Kingdom and Estonia extracted and analyzed DNA from the mitochondria of 24 skeletons of early farmers from 16 locations in Germany, Austria and Hungary. Six of these 24 skeletons contain genetic signatures that are extremely rare in modern European populations. Based on this discovery, the researchers conclude that early farmers did not leave much of a genetic mark on modern European populations.
"This was a surprise. I expected the distribution of mitochondrial DNA in these early farmers to be more similar to the distribution we have today in Europe," said Science author Joachim Burger from Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz in Mainz, Germany.
"Our paper suggests that there is a good possibility that the contribution of early farmers could be close to zero," said Science author Peter Forster from the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, UK.
To get at questions surrounding the ancestry of modern Europeans, the researchers studied mitochondrial DNA from early farmers in Central Europe. Mothers pass mitochondrial DNA to their offspring primarily "as is," without mixing or recombination with mitochondrial DNA from fathers. Mitochondrial DNA, therefore, provides a way for researchers to piece together how closely members of a species are related, using maternal lineages as a guide, explained Burger.
In the new study, the researchers attempted to extract mitochondrial DNA from the skeletons of 56 humans who lived in various parts of Central Europe about 7500 years ago. These ancient humans all belonged to well known cultures that can be identified by the decorations on their pottery -- the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) and the Alföldi Vonaldiszes Kerámia (AVK). The presence of these cultures in Central Europe marks the onset of farming in the region. These farming practices originated in the "Fertile Crescent" of the Near East about 12,000 years ago.
From bones and teeth of these 56 skeletons, the researchers extracted mitochondrial DNA sufficient for analysis from 24 of the skeletons. Six of the 24 early farmers belonged to the "N1a" human lineage, according to genetic signatures or "haplotypes" in their mitochondrial DNA that the researchers studied. These six skeletons are from archeological sites all across central Europe. Few modern Europeans belong to this N1a lineage, and those that do are spread across much of Europe.
The other 18 early farmers belonged to lineages not useful for investigating the genetic origins of modern Europeans because their genetic signatures from the scrutinized region of mitochondrial DNA are widespread in living humans, according to the authors.
Using the tools of population genetics and a worldwide database of 35,000 modern DNA samples, the researchers investigated the genetic legacy of early European farmers based on the fact that six of the 24 early European farmers are from a lineage that is now extremely rare in Europe and around the world.
At least 8 percent of the early farmers belonged to the N1a lineage, according to the researchers who estimate the range was between 8 and 42 percent.
Even this conservative estimate of 8 percent stands in stark contrast to the current percentage of central Europeans who belong to the N1a lineage -- 0.2 percent. This discrepancy suggests that these early farmers did not leave much of a genetic mark on modern Central Europeans, the authors say.
"It's interesting that a potentially minor migration of people into Central Europe had such a huge cultural impact," said Forster.
Small pioneer groups may have carried farming into new areas of Europe, the authors suggest. Once farming had taken hold, the surrounding hunter-gatherers could have adapted the new culture and then outnumbered the original farmers, diluting their N1a frequency to the low modern level. A range of archeological research supports different aspects of this hypothesis, the authors say.
Alternatively, a different population may have replaced the early farmers in Central Europe, eliminating most of the N1a types, but archaeological evidence for this scenario is scant, according to the authors.
###
Wolfgang Haak, Barbara Bramanti, Guido Brandt, Marc Tänzer, Kurt Werner Alt and Joachim Burger at Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz in Mainz, Germany; Peter Forster, Shuichi Matsumura and Colin Renfrew at University of Cambridge in Cambridge, UK; Richard Villems at Tartu University in Tartu, Estonia; Detlef Gronenborn at Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz, Germany. This study was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)
ScienceDaily (Mar. 1, 2007) — The first direct evidence that early Europeans were unable to digest milk has been found by scientists at UCL (University College London) and Mainz University.
In a study, published in the journal 'PNAS', the team shows that the gene that controls our ability to digest milk was missing from Neolithic skeletons dating to between 5840 and 5000 BC. However, through exposure to milk, lactose tolerance evolved extremely rapidly, in evolutionary terms. Today, it is present in over ninety per cent of the population of northern Europe and is also found in some African and Middle Eastern populations but is missing from the majority of the adult population globally.
Dr Mark Thomas, UCL Biology, said: "The ability to drink milk is the most advantageous trait that's evolved in Europeans in the recent past. Without the enzyme lactase, drinking milk in adulthood causes bloating and diarrhoea. Although the benefits of milk tolerance are not fully understood yet, they probably include: the continuous supply of milk compared to the boom and bust of seasonal crops; its nourishing qualities; and the fact that it's uncontaminated by parasites, unlike stream water, making it a safer drink. All in all, the ability to drink milk gave some early Europeans a big survival advantage."
The team carried out DNA tests on Neolithic skeletons from some of the earliest organised farming communities in Europe. Their aim was to find out whether these early Europeans from various sites in central, northeast and southeast Europe, carried a version of the lactase gene that controls our ability to produce the essential enzyme lactase into adulthood. The team found that it was absent from their ancient bone DNA. This led the researchers to conclude that the consumption and tolerance of milk would have been very rare or absent at the time.
Scientists have known for decades that at some point in the past all humans were lactose intolerant. What was not known was just how recently lactose tolerance evolved.
Dr Thomas said: "To go from lactose tolerance being rare or absent seven to eight thousand years ago to the commonality we see today in central and northern Europeans just cannot be explained by anything except strong natural selection. Our study confirms that the variant of the lactase gene appeared very recently in evolutionary terms and that it became common because it gave its carriers a massive survival advantage. Scientists have inferred this already through analysis of genes in today's population but we've confirmed it by going back and looking at ancient DNA."
This study challenges the theory that certain groups of Europeans were lactose tolerant and that this inborn ability led the community to pursue dairy farming. Instead, they actually evolved their tolerance of milk within the last 8000 years due to exposure to milk.
Dr Thomas said: "There were two theories out there: one that lactose tolerance led to dairy farming and another that exposure to milk led to the evolution of lactose tolerance. This is a simple chicken or egg question but one that is very important to archaeologists, anthropologists and evolutionary biologists. We found that the lactose tolerance variant of the lactase gene only became common after dairy farming, which started around 9 thousand years ago in Europe.
"This is just one part of the picture researchers are gathering about lactose tolerance and the origins of Europeans. Next on the list is why there is such disparity in lactose tolerance between populations. It's striking, for example, that today around eighty per cent of southern Europeans cannot tolerate lactose even though the first dairy farmers in Europe probably lived in those areas. Through computer simulations and DNA testing we are beginning to get glimpses of the bigger early European picture."
---------
Ancient Pig DNA Study Sheds New Light On Colonization Of Europe By Early Farmers
ScienceDaily (Sep. 4, 2007) — The earliest domesticated pigs in Europe, which many archaeologists believed to be descended from European wild boar, were actually introduced from the Middle East by Stone Age farmers, new research suggests.
The research by an international team led by archaeologists at Durham University, which is published recently in the journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, analysed mitochondrial DNA from ancient and modern pig remains. Its findings also suggest that the migration of an expanding Middle Eastern population, who brought their 'farming package' of domesticated plants, animals and distinctive pottery styles with them, actually 'kickstarted' the local domestication of the European wild boar.
While archaeologists already know that agriculture began about 12,000 years ago in the central and western parts of the Middle East, spreading rapidly across Europe between 6,800 -- 4000BC, many outstanding questions remain about the mechanisms of just how it spread. This research sheds new and important light on the actual process of the establishment of farming in Europe.
Durham University's Dr Keith Dobney explained: "Many archaeologists believe that farming spread through the diffusion of ideas and cultural exchange, not with the direct migration of people. However, the discovery and analysis of ancient Middle Eastern pig remains across Europe reveals that although cultural exchange did happen, Europe was definitely colonised by Middle Eastern farmers.
"A combination of rising population and possible climate change in the 'fertile crescent', which put pressure on land and resources, made them look for new places to settle, plant their crops and breed their animals and so they rapidly spread west into Europe."
The research, funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Leverhulme Trust, the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Smithsonian Institution also showed that within 500 years after the local domestication of the European wild boar, the new domestics completely replaced the Middle Eastern pigs that had arrived in Europe as part of the 'farming package'.
Dr Greger Larson, who performed the genetic analysis said: "The domestic pigs that were derived from the European wild boar must have been considered vastly superior to those originally from Middle East, though at this point we have no idea why. In fact, the European domestic pigs were so successful that over the next several thousand years they spread across the continent and even back into the Middle East where they overtook the indigenous domestic pigs. For whatever reason, European pigs were the must have farm animal."
The research is part of an ongoing research project based at Durham University which explores the role of animals in reconstructing early farming, ancient human migration and past trade and exchange networks around the world.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boofer: What I have yet to understand is how East Africa has so many different phenotypes if it is not in part due to contact with west Asians.
This is a strawman argument, not a query.
It is a strawman because no one denies that Africa has contact with West Asia.
Sorry, for that...You're right. I assumed that people here were arguing that none of the diversity is a result of West Asian influence. That is what i disagree with, though I can't be sure how much. And as I've said, it's based partly on eyeballing. So I admit, I can't really back it up, or rather not with anything on hand. I've seen an abstract that called East Africa the "crossroads" bewteen Sub Saharan Africa and the middle east [genetically].
quote:Also West Asia has phenotypical diversity as well, and also has contact with Africa.
Yeah, i know. And imo, it is apparent in some west Asian phenotypes, especially those in the Arabian penninsula. Of course, I have no proof, just using my eyes.
quote:Also West Africa has physical diversity as well.
Most definitely, but there is common look.
quote:East AFrica is the origion of all humans, and as a matter of logic, is the region of the world where it makes the -least- sence to invoke non indigenous admixture as the primary cause of diversity.
Never said it was the primary source of diversity, but i DO think that it is an additional source of diversity. Being the origin of modern humans does not mean it's a region that is automatically excluded from having outside contact.
quote:So if we can't explain native diversity in East Africa, we certainly can't explain it anywhere else.
I'm going to be completely honest with you. It has much to do with the small area that indiginous east africans (those that look like Somalis and Oromos) populate. Perhaps I'd expect that look to be more common and be spread over a greater area if it was completely indigenous. Africans with a similar look are mostly found Somalia, Ethiopia and that little strip up towards the Nile. go to west Sudan or even Western Ethiopia and there is a very noticable difference in general phenotypes.
Again, I'm just using my eyes, and i have no proof. I understand that it is possible that these folks have just been isolated for so long that vastly different looks popped up (specifically between mursi and the oromo). It's just a little hard to believe considering the close proximity. It leads one to believe that some elements of one group came from elsewhere that is not Ethiopia; that there was some migration.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boofer: Sorry, for that...You're right. I assumed that people here were arguing that none of the diversity is a result of West Asian influence.
Boooooo.
This is just a passive aggressive *repetition* of the strawman argument and burdan of proof fallacy that you are supposedly apologising for.
Disagree?
Tell us what diversity can exist in West Asia to begin with that can be proven to be the result of *no influence* FROM Africa?
Of course you can't, because the above question demands proof of a negative [no influence].
Now suppose I say, "I assume" that's what you're arguing?
Pray tell, why would I assume that....
Is it because it assists me in engaging in and elementary burdan of proof fallacy?
That appears to be what you're up to.
Let's us know when you're ready to stop playing games and start being honest.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it that the only Africans with more caucasian looking features are nearer to the coast,
This is a typical race tautology.
Do you know what a tautology is?
It's when you assume a conclusion, and then ask
a question intended to encourage someone [stupid] to mistake your assumption for proof of
something.
Myself, I respond by demanding that you prove your own assumptions, otherwise your question is disregarded as empty rhetoric.
- Please present a map of caucasia.
- Now present a list of 'features' which you claim 'originate' in 'caucasia, and provide the evidence for your claims.
^ It's simple: Don't repeat the claim, if you can't provide the above evidense.
Otherwise you only reinforce the following...
quote:The African origin of E3b is only disputed by non geneticists, whose view is rooted in the frustration of realising that Europeans, and Arabs, and Jews, all have Black African ancestry
Well, my usage of the term "caucasian" is to describe features that are most common in populations of Europe and Western Asia. So, instead of Caucasian, lets use the term "European looking." Such features imo are usually include pointy, narrow noses, thin lips, and what I'd like to call a "long faced" skull. Not sure if there is a name for it. Also, hair that is less kinky and more straight. In this case (many east africans), the hair is not exactly straight, but more of an intermediate, similar to many "bi racial" people that I've seen in the U.S.; curly or frizzy.
I'm aware that not every European descended person has all of the above features, and that many of the features can be found in non-european descended populations, but I'd say that such features are most common in Europe.
Please don't take this as my trying to squash the notion of the Ethiopians being indigenous. I'd bet money that those people are pretty much indigenous, but with some west Asian admixture.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boofer, don't listen to these fools. They're Afrocentrists. They spend their lives at this forum spouting lies, patting each other on the back, and insulting anyone who tries to bring some sense to the discussion. You won't get anything resembling truth from them.
In answer to your question, the reason East Africans look partly Caucasoid is, quite simply, because they are. This is due both to West Asian influences as you surmised, but also to the fact that prehistoric East Africans (E3b-carriers) were already evolving a Levantine Caucasoid appearance prior to Out-of-Africa migrations.
"Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5].
"The one population in their analysis that was seemingly not clearly classified on continental grounds was the Ethiopians, who clustered more into the Caucasian group. But it is known that African populations with close contact with Middle East populations, including Ethiopians and North Africans, have had significant admixture from Middle Eastern (Caucasian) groups, and are thus more closely related to Caucasians [14]."
posted
^ This persistent troll has registered again under another user because he has been debunked again and again.
How ironic that he will call himself Debunker this time. He clearly has serious mental problems.
Observe how he will get Debunked once again for talking rubbish.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Afrocentrists[/URL]. They spend their lives at this forum spouting lies, patting each other on the back, and insulting anyone who tries to bring some sense to the discussion. You won't get anything resembling truth from them.
Just so what is the truth?
quote:In answer to your question, the reason East Africans look partly Caucasoid is, quite simply, because they are.
The source you quoted doesn't even say that, idiot.
quote: This is due both to West Asian influences as you surmised, but also to the fact that prehistoric East Africans (E3b-carriers) were already evolving a Levantine Caucasoid appearance prior to Out-of-Africa migrations.
The pre-historic east African remains *POST-DATE* OOA you numbskull.
The Bass has that same book and nowhere does Howells say pre-historic EAs are part "Caucasoid", in fact the source says its backwards, which would mean that your Levantines are part Elongated African.
quote:"Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5].
And populations that border East Africa have great genetic resemblance to East Africans.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Boofer, don't listen to these fools. They're Afrocentrists. They spend their lives at this forum spouting lies, patting each other on the back, and insulting anyone who tries to bring some sense to the discussion. You won't get anything resembling truth from them.
In answer to your question, the reason East Africans look partly Caucasoid is, quite simply, because they are. This is due both to West Asian influences as you surmised, but also to the fact that prehistoric East Africans (E3b-carriers) were already evolving a Levantine Caucasoid appearance prior to Out-of-Africa migrations.
"Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5].
"The one population in their analysis that was seemingly not clearly classified on continental grounds was the Ethiopians, who clustered more into the Caucasian group. But it is known that African populations with close contact with Middle East populations, including Ethiopians and North Africans, have had significant admixture from Middle Eastern (Caucasian) groups, and are thus more closely related to Caucasians [14]."
Before we move further, into the land of Euro-turd fantasies. Please elaborate to me why South African Lembas show no features from the Middle East, though they have 50% J haplogroup admixture, so called 'caucasian'?
R1 is present at frequencies of 20% in North Cameroon. So hmm, if 'Caucasoid' genes exist where are they in these populations, who have more admixture than East Africans?
Tutsis have no West Asian admixture, yet exhibit so called 'Caucasoid' traits. Why? Can you explain this?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Great postings? refreshing to have someone with some knowledge of genetics and cite their references.. . .without getting emotional.
Great points - Looking at the World y-HG map I also noticed there are no R1a and R1b in East Africa the so called Euro y-HG. So Euros never "admixed with Africans to resultant . . .East Africans".
Furthermore, looking at the same map, E3b seems to be predominantly in east Africa and North Africa. With some in the Levant, Iberia and southern Europe. Which implies Southern Europe, East African and North Africa were essential of the same people.. . . but we have another thread dedicated that already. 26 pages.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Good to see you're now making a positive effort.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
WTF you talking about!! you seen my posts? Get the FOH!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh God, please tell me 'Debunker' is not Stupid-Euro! LOL Because if he is, he is more of a masochist for humiliation than I thought! And if he isn't and is a newbie, he obviously has no clue what he's getting himself into! Charlie Bass already completely yet politely debunked him using his own source. I hope he is smart enough to stop at that. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, my usage of the term "caucasian" is to describe features that are most common in populations of Europe and Western Asia. So, instead of Caucasian, lets use the term "European looking."
I see.
So, since dark hair and eyes, are most common in non europeans, then we can safely call them 'non european features' correct?
Therefore Europeans who have dark hair and dark eyes, must aquire these features as a produce of 'non european' admixture correct?
Dark haired Europeans would then best be regarded as mixed or mongrel, as opposed to caucasian, correct?
^ Your arguments are a reflection of broken logic, torn apart by bias.
Any bright 11 year old, even a European one, would detect the bias, and destroy you.
This is why I ignore posters like you. You are not a challenge, and you bore me.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Debunker: Afrocentrists. They spend their lives at this forum spouting lies, patting each other on the back, and insulting anyone who tries to bring some sense to the discussion.
^ The above is a splended example of a frustrated troll lashing out, in anger.
When a post starts this way, it either ends with no actual argument, or and extremely weak one, which requires the opening rant to bolster it.
quote:Debunker quotes Howells: Perhaps these scholars have it backwards
^ You must be the only one who can quote this, oblivious to the irony that it is your 'ideology' that is being referred to as backwards. What is backwards is precisely the inanity of referring to Native East Africans as "caucasian." This is a contradiction in terms, nothing more, no matter how desparately the attempts at spin.
That you quote from someone who derides you as backwards thinking, while pretending the quote agrees with you, rules out any possibility of your engaging a serious discussion.
quote:Charle Bass writes: The Bass has that same book and nowhere does Howells say pre-historic EAs are part "Caucasoid", in fact the source says its backwards, which would mean that your Levantines are part Elongated African.
Precisely so. These are two opposed views.
And the fact that Europeans get the features from Africans, is unremarkable, so do Chinese, Melanesians and ultimately everyone else.
Eurocentric racialism attempts as ever to compensate for Europes limitations by making claims on something Europe has nothing to do with - such as Paleolithic East Africa, or say...Ancient Egypt.
Caucasian is the nonsense term debunker wishes to rescue and so render such rheotoric as something more than unintelligible - as such, the "Caucazoid Cause" is lost and he knows it, and that's why 'Debunked, is such and angry troll.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And populations that border East Africa have great genetic resemblance to East Africans.
^ And southern Europeans have a greater resemblence to Africans as well. And, Neolithic southern Europeans even moreso.
Advocates of 'hybrid' have as ever - no comment on this curious fact.
They appear to hope that the rantign 'caucaZoid' can make all those African genes in Europe go away. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Oh God, please tell me 'Debunker' is not Stupid-Euro! LOL Because if he is, he is more of a masochist for humiliation than I thought! And if he isn't and is a newbie, he obviously has no clue what he's getting himself into! Charlie Bass already completely yet politely debunked him using his own source. I hope he is smart enough to stop at that.
Unfortunately that *IS* Evil Euro, he has returned, oh well, I mind as well stay and clobber him to death again.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets set Evil Euro turd up for a trap about his E3b is K-Zoid mania:
Damn, look at all those areas where E3b appears in high frequencies in SSA, by Evil Euroturd's logic SSA should be overwhelmingly Levantine K-Zoid looking
According to this study, Datog, who are Nilotic speaking people have 43% E3b1-M293, but since E3b is Caucasoid, why don't they look like so-called "mulattoes" and instead look like this:
Almost forgot those darfur people too, damn another study said this about Darfur males:
"Haplogroup E-M78, however, is more widely distributed and is thought to have an origin in eastern African. More recently, this haplogroup has been carefully dissected and was found to depict several well-established subclades with defined geographical clustering (Cruciani et al., 2006, 2007). Although this haplogroup is common to most Sudanese populations, it has exceptionally high frequency among populations like those of western Sudan (particularly Darfur) and the Beja in eastern Sudan."
And those Masalit
"The Masalit possesses by far the highest frequency of the E-M78 and of the E-V32 haplogroup, suggesting either a recent bottleneck in the population or a proximity to the origin of the haplogroup. Both E-V13, which is believed to originate in western Asia with its low frequency in North Africa, and E-V65 of North African origin (Cruciani et al., 2007), were not found among Sudanese."
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the illiterate: What Howells is saying is that the evolution of "peoples less like Africans" who were "almost-modern Levantines" with a "Hamitic" appearance actually took place in East Africa, and not North Africa as the older scholars believed. What they had backwards was the source and migratory direction of Caucasoid-like peoples.
This idea of a split within prehistoric Africa between a population that was evolving to look "African" and one that was evolving to look "non-African" is strongly supported by genetics:
"We propose that African chromosomes descend from at least two lineages that have been evolving separately for a period of time. One of them underwent range expansion colonizing different continents, including Africa, where it mixed with another, local lineage represented today by a large fraction of African-specific haplotypes.
"A remarkable separation of the African-specific haplotypes from the rest of the sample was seen using both total and the reduced number of sites. Fig 2 showing the results for 21 sites illustrates well this effect, which obviously was even more dramatic with 35 polymorphisms (not shown). On the PC plot in Fig 2A geographically related groups of populations cluster together.
"To examine the relatedness of the common and specific haplotypes, the groups of common and specific chromosomes in the populations were considered separately (specific chromosomes in non-African populations were pooled continentally because of small per population numbers). This stratification led to a rearrangement of the PC plot (Fig 2B). African-specific chromosomes are clearly separated from the cluster of common African haplotypes found in the center of an even greater cluster including all other non-African groups, both common and specific. This analysis confirms conclusions from structural comparisons above (Fig 1 and previous section), indicating that the African-specific haplotypes represent lineages distinct from those of the common haplotypes and the closely related non-African-specific haplotypes."
quote:Originally posted by Debunked: For the illiterate: What Howells is saying is that the evolution of "peoples less like Africans" who were "almost-modern Levantines" with a "Hamitic" appearance actually took place in East Africa, and not North Africa as the older scholars believed. What they had backwards was the source and migratory direction of Caucasoid-like peoples.
Dumb guy can't even read his own source correctly so I'll post the entire page for you to see stupid, and in no place in the book does Howells say "almost-modern Levantine" looking prehistoric East Africans. Do you even know what "almost modern" means?
quote:For the illiterate: What Howells is saying is...
....the illiterate, and ineducable would have to be your target audience.
Unfortunately there are no such fools here, other than yourself.
As usual Charlie Bass destroys you by referencing the very materials you hope to destort.
There is one reference to Hamite and Caucasoid in the above -> It is referenced as BACKWORDS thinking. On this matter you are debunked whether you admit it or not. Case closed.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems like an interesting book. Need to get my hands on it. Amazon.com here I come . . .again
The last sentence/statement throws a new twist on my views. Seems like he is saying that the so called "bantu" phenotype is recent(ie approx: 2000yo). And that most indigenous Africans - East, North, Central had similar phenotype. The so called East African features but with varying skin tones.
Question is - what led to the evolutionary change. Seems like E3a may have originated in East Africa migrated North then South and Central.
Does the encounter with Y-Hg-B or earlier y-Hg have anything to do with it?? As they moved further South/Central their body adapted to environment? Also it seems like y-hg-B existed in "central" Africa prior to E3a.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:For the illiterate: What Howells is saying is...
....the illiterate, and ineducable would have to be your target audience.
Unfortunately there are no such fools here, other than yourself.
As usual Charlie Bass destroys you by referencing the very materials you hope to destort.
There is one reference to Hamite and Caucasoid in the above -> It is referenced as BACKWORDS thinking. On this matter you are debunked whether you admit it or not. Case closed.
On top of that Howells even states that the East African crania in question are of no great age being reckoned at about 7,000 years old. Unless OOA happened *AFTER* this period Euro-Disney has no argument. His own source say earlier talk of a Hamite Caucasoid strain due to mixture is backwards, now watch Euro-Disney pretend we are the ones who don't understand.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Seems like an interesting book. Need to get my hands on it. Amazon.com here I come . . .again
The last sentence/statement throws a new twist on my views. Seems like he is saying that the so called "bantu" phenotype is recent(ie approx: 2000yo). And that most indigenous Africans - East, North, Central had similar phenotype. The so called East African features but with varying skin tones.
Question is - what led to the evolutionary change. Seems like E3a may have originated in East Africa migrated North then South and Central.
Does the encounter with Y-Hg-B or earlier y-Hg have anything to do with it?? As they moved further South/Central their body adapted to environment? Also it seems like y-hg-B existed in "central" Africa prior to E3a.
Understand this, when Howells studied these early east Africa crania he made no comparisons to modern day Nilotic, Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples like Datog, Maasai, Somali, etc, he made his conclusion based on the him comparing the early East African crania to modern day Teita who now inhabit the area, as if Bantus are the onl modern day inhabitant of East Africa. Debunked/Evil Euro ignores the data from other bioanthropologists who made the opposite conclusion when they compared these same crania to Nilotic and Afro-Asiatics speaking people.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman, this thread here explains everything that Debunked/Evil Euro ignores.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic