posted
You see it in the NIH food/Vitamin D chart. Fish provide adequate DV of Vitamin D. You can't read?
Also, the INUITS retained their bone formation (NOT Melanin production) by consuming ready Vitamin D rich sources of seafood, as undoubtedly would coastal Europeans who had access to the same Vitamin D rich seafoods. Likewise, early Europeans would have had access to Goats, and consequentially, Goat milk, second highest source of Vitamin D.
Your argument is, when Africans first migrate to Europe, they had ready made foodstuff high in Vitamin D. What do you believe these ready made products actually were? I, and others have asked you this before, but you have always failed to answer.
You go on to say, these ready made foodstuffs depleted and were replaced by agricultural products. Please list them.
You go on to say, with the availability of these new foodstuffs, Europeans simply stopped eating Vitamin D rich fish and Goats milk, both alone able to supply Europeans with adequate daily allowances of Vitamin D? Yes, I am contradicting myself.
Nature works in line with the IUNITS and EVERY other people with melanin in the world. It simple doesn't make this kinds of compromises in the basic building blocks of life.
More likely true that if the Early Europeans were normal from the beginning, their adaptive paths would have exactly followed the INUITS or Siberians and not fully compromised and regressed their internal systems. As with the INUITS, Europeans also would have functioning melanin production systems.
Dr Mark Thomas, UCL Biology: "The ability to drink milk is the most advantageous trait that's evolved in Europeans in the recent past.
Why is this true? Because Cow's milk provides whites with Vitamin D supplements. So what? Whites also BEFORE cow's milk had free and wide access to Goat's milk. If Cow's milk is described as GOOD for whites due to Vitamin D, then Goat milk based on the same gage can only be described as GREAT for whites, since one cup of Goat's milk contains 50%-100% greater quantities of Vitamin D relative to one cup of Cow's milk, and WITHOUT the lactose! The one sole greater benefit of Cow's milk versus Goat's milk is, QUANTITY. Obviously Cow's will PRODUCE more milk then Goats. However, when you consider Lactose intolerance which solely applies to Cow's milk, one can argue the two can pretty much cancel out one advantage over the other leaving only the richer health benefit of Goat's milk. Go figure.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Titre du document / Document title Hemochromatosis : A Neolithic adaptation to cereal grain diets Auteur(s) / Author(s) NAUGLER Christopher ; Résumé / Abstract
The Neolithic period in Europe marked the transition from a hunter-gatherer diet rich in red meat to an iron-reduced cereal grain diet. This dietary shift likely resulted in an increased incidence of iron deficiency anemia, especially in women of reproductive age. I propose that hereditary hemochromatosis and in particular the common HFE C282Y mutation may represent an adaptation to decreased dietary iron in cereal grain-based Neolithic diets. Both homozygous and heterozygous carriers of the HFE C282Y mutation have increased iron stores and therefore possessed an adaptive advantage under Neolithic conditions. An allele age estimate places the origin of the HFE C282Y mutation in the early Neolithic period in Northern Europe and is thus consistent with this hypothesis. The lower incidence of this mutation in other agrarian regions (the Mediterranean and Near East) may be due to higher dietary intakes of the iron uptake cofactor vitamin C in those regions. The HFE C282Y mutation likely only became maladaptive in the past several centuries as dietary sources of iron and vitamin C improved in Northern Europe.
So what?
All this IMPLIES is agricultural product were introduced into the main diet. This is correct, even today we eat broccoli and rice with a steak, but just because we have rice and broccoli, do we stop eating available steak, or COD? To imply this, I don't believe even you are THAT dumb. So, your cut and paste suggests, in addition to their steak, early Europeans added bread, grains, beans to their diets. These new foodstuffs provided minimal to zero levels of Vitamin D, but they did ADD minimally to PRIMARY Vitamin D allowances gained from existing foodstuffs, such as meats, Fish, and Goat's milk. What's your point?
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I've asked you these questions on the other board.
Where do you get the audacity to ask them towards me, when I have already answered them repeatedly, and you act dumb like you don't understand, then you made an excuse to go listen to your music, so not to answer them. I will put them forth again, see if you're willing to answer.
1)Tell me what a farming societies diet consists of?
2) Tell me what a hunter gatherers, herder, fishers diet consists of?
3) Please tell me why did the genes for pale skin only click on in Europeans 6-12kya, if Albinos walked OOA and then populated Europe?
4) Japanese and Chinese are also pale, are they albinos too?
5) Do you have genetic information that proves a set of Albinos walked out of Africa, and produced nothing but albinos forever? The genes should've been detectable in the original OOA albino population if your theory is true.
6)Albinism is recessive, so how do you explain a whole group of albinos walking OOA to stay albinos forever and produce nothing but albino children, when the mutations for Europeans paleness only occurred 6-12kya?
7) Please tell me why Eskimos retain melanin????? Can you explain this?
8) Explain how come if an Eskimo would change their diet, they develop vitamin D deficiencies i.e., rickets etc..?
9) Tell me why a population who adopted farming would want to hunt for their food when they can grow it?
10) Can you tell me what early Europeans were eating, what kind of diet they lived on?
11) When did humans reach Europe?
If you have no logical answers for the above, then you can't continue your free education.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:posted by meniarmer: I have not yet discovered any scientist linking Albinism with "whiteness" in "whites". LOL
End of story......
Come back when you actually have a credible and valid source for your idiotic theory.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
KIK wrote: 1)Tell me what a farming societies diet consists of?
2) Tell me what a hunter gatherers, herder, fishers diet consists of?
Since it is YOU making Cut And Pasting of other European's inspired data suggesting Europeans (Whites) turned white from switching to an agricultural diet, and the data neglects to identify exactly what these agricultural products consisted of, I think it is not I, but rather, YOU who is in need of "filling In" the trailer sized gaps in your presentation. Or do you not really fully understand it and merely regurgitate?
3) Please tell me why did the genes for pale skin only click on in Europeans 6-12kya, if Albinos walked OOA and then populated Europe?
Please stop being redundant and so obvious that you don't comprehend your own Cut and Pastes. Your comic book article merely "SUGGESTS" that these genes "evolved" to make super white people. Here you are race baiting and advocating, once again.
7) Please tell me why Eskimos retain melanin????? Can you explain this?
As per your comic book, INUITS (and other people of color) do not possess your magically evolved "white" gene and therefore have "WORKING" melanin factories able to synthesis melanin and Vitamin D. Incidentally, did I mention your "white" gene is the same regressive gene that turns African Albinos white? INUITS ain't got it. Only people on earth who do are, Albinos and Europeans (aka Whites).
9) Tell me why a population who adopted farming would want to hunt for their food when they can grow it?
Did fish farms exist back then? We know that fishing was prevalent, particularly in coastal regions as indicated by other cultures, such as the Siberians, Africa, and Alaska. Show me where you have proof these food sources were abandoned by Europeans and completely replaced by agriculture? No use squirming, simple answer is, You can't, because none of your European comic writers will state that craziness.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Inuit have traditionally been hunters and fishers. They hunted, and still hunt, whales, walruses, caribou, seals, polar bears, muskoxen, birds, and at times other less commonly eaten animals such as foxes. The typical Inuit diet is high in protein and very high in fat - in their traditional diets, Inuit consumed an average of 75% of their daily energy intake from fat.
Early Europeans also survived on similar hunter gatherer, fisher diets.
Neolithic farming in Europe contained of crops, both wild and domesticated, which included einkorn wheat, millet and spelt and the keeping of dogs, sheep and goats, cattle and pigs.
quote: Please stop being redundant and so obvious that you don't comprehend your own Cut and Pastes. Your comic book article merely "SUGGESTS" that these genes "evolved" to make super white people. Here you are race baiting once again.
Comic book article? Not quite. Nothing new about the genes in the human genome. They're existent since humans contain genes to produce melanin of course they can be turned off by natural selection, the selected genes which cause the loss in pigmentation became widespread in Europe only 6-12kya.
Dr. Wells, of the National Geographic Society, said Dr. Pritchard's results were fascinating and would help anthropologists explain the immense diversity of human populations even though their genes are generally similar. ***The relative handful of selected genes*** that **Dr. Pritchard's study** has **pinpointed** may hold the answer, he said, adding, "Each gene has a story of some pressure we adapted to."
Dr. Wells is gathering DNA from across the globe to map in finer detail the genetic variation brought to light by the HapMap project.
Dr. Pritchard's list of **selected genes** also includes **five** that **affect skin color** . The selected versions of the genes **occur solely in Europeans** and are **presumably responsible for pale skin** . Anthropologists have generally assumed that the first modern humans to arrive in Europe some 45,000 years ago had the dark skin of their African origins, but soon acquired the paler skin needed to admit sunlight for vitamin D synthesis.
The ***finding of five skin genes*** ***selected 6,600 years*** ago could imply that **Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently***. Or, the **selected genes** may have been a reinforcement of a process established earlier, Dr. Pritchard said.
The five genes show no sign of selective pressure in East Asians.
Because Chinese and Japanese are also pale, Dr. Pritchard said, evolution must have accomplished the same goal in those populations by working through different genes or by changing the same genes — but many thousands of years before, so that the signal of selection is no longer visible to the new test.
quote: Show me where you have proof these food sources were abandoned by Europeans and completely replaced by agriculture? No use squirming, simple answer is, You can't, because none of your European comic writers will state that craziness.
If you would have read the article you would've read this, which tells me you didn't read the article, but just want to spew nonsense.
quote: Either way, the implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years--a suggestion made 30 years ago by Stanford University geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He argued that the early immigrants to Europe, who were hunter-gatherers, herders, and fishers, survived on ready-made sources of vitamin D in their diet. But when farming spread in the past 6000 years, he argued, Europeans had fewer sources of vitamin D in their food and needed to absorb more sunlight to produce the vitamin in their skin. Cultural factors such as heavier clothing might also have favored increased absorption of sunlight on the few exposed areas of skin, such as hands and faces, says paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of PSU in State College.
quote: Researchers have disagreed for decades about an issue that is only skin-deep: How quickly did the first modern humans who swept into Europe acquire pale skin? Now a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggests that Europeans lightened up quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago. This contradicts a long-standing hypothesis that modern humans in Europe grew paler about 40,000 years ago, as soon as they migrated into northern latitudes. Under darker skies, pale skin absorbs more sunlight than dark skin, allowing ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D for bone growth and calcium absorption. "The [evolution of] light skin occurred long after the arrival of modern humans in Europe," molecular anthropologist Heather Norton of the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in her talk.
Pale skin is best explained through the spread of farming, There are two general sources for vitamin D—sunlight and diet.
We know that a farmer’s diet does not have enough vitamin D, meaning that people in farming-based societies need to get a lot of it from the sun. We also know there is not enough sunlight in Northern Europe for dark skinned people to get enough vitamin D. So farming based societies that live in Northern Europe need to have lighter skin.
But farming didn’t really take a hold in Europe until 6,000 or 8,000 years ago. So what about the 30,000 or 35,000 years that people lived in Europe before farming you ask? Well, If there was enough vitamin D in their diet, then there would have been no need for pale skin. Recent genetic work suggests that the diet of these hunter-gatherers had plenty of vitamin D.
Recent anthropological work has also shown Europeans did not become fully cold adapted until after the Mesolithic.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Early Europeans also survived on similar hunter gatherer, fisher diets. Neolithic farming in Europe contained of crops, both wild and domesticated, which included einkorn wheat, millet and spelt and the keeping of dogs, sheep and goats, cattle and pigs.
^ OK, pleased to see your WIKI source review has provided you some additional information of these foodstuffs. Although, I believe it is still missing fish, Goat/Sheep milk which are the essential Vitamin D supplements. If they raised Goats, I assume they consumed Goat's milk. Why they neglect to mention it and fish are, important and relevant to this disussion.
All the other foodstuffs are low in Vitamin D and with fully or near fully compromised Melanin systems Europeans would be fully dependent on supplementary sources of Vitamin D.
Having WORKING melanin systems, INUITS could obtain a good portion of their daily Vitamin D allowance through skin/kidney conversion. Like Africans, not fully dependent on supplements as Europeans.
So, as YOUR source suggests, Europeans DID NOT have available Vitamin D rich food sources stated above. As a result, many generations would have suffered from dramatic Vitamin D deficiencies resulting in extreme examples of system wide bone disorders. Many birth defects, many deaths at birth, many early deaths due to bones damage such as broken legs, arms, skulls, all would break easily and also take longer to heal and because of a compromised immunity system, lead to possible fatal infection and death. If all Europeans turned white due to Vitamin D deficiency, then in order, ALL Europeans first when through this episode of universal Vitamin D deficiency, and resulting bone disease. Massive cases of Rickets would come BEFORE the "turning" white, so why don't you have supporting evidence?
Only two peoples on the earth are fully dependent on supplements to obtain Vitamin D. Europeans (whites) and Albinos. This is no race baiting, black supremacy, or anything other then correlated, facts straight from, the source you place so much faith. Except, with 100x the credibility of the ones you've presented.
Here's another interesting fact. Today, in spite of having nearly every over-the-counter food fortified with Vitamin D, whites are still Vitamin D deficient. As confirmed on the NIH and WHO sites which agree, blacks on average require up to 30% less Vitamin D intake daily relative to whites. While intaking less then 70% of the daily Vitamin D levels of Whites, blacks form bones up to 50% stronger then whites. This is in a time when everything from eggs, milk, cheese, juice, bread, processed meats, canned and frozen foods, cereal, and even bottled water is fortified with Vitamin D.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK, pleased to see your WIKI source review has provided you some additional information of these foodstuffs. Although, I believe it is still missing fish, Goat/Sheep milk which are the essential Vitamin D supplements. If they raised Goats, I assume they consumed Goat's milk. Why they neglect to mention it and fish are, important and relevant to this disussion. All the other foodstuffs are low in Vitamin D and with fully or near fully compromised Melanin systems Europeans would be fully dependent on supplementary sources of Vitamin D.
Goats/sheeps were not domesticated in Europe before the spread of agriculture in the Neolithic. I've explained this to you, like three threads ago. No domestication of animals, no crops, cereals, were available in a hunter gatherers diet. Like I said these people were now growing their food, no need to go fishing and hunting for food, like they used to depend on it earlier, get it? Without vasts amounts of vitamin D from fish and other animals hunted, to provide Early Europeans with the adequate amount of vitamin D needed to retain melanin as seen in Eskimos, these Europeans starting turning pale to be able to absorb Vitamin d through synthesis of UV under darker lower UV environments.
quote: Having WORKING melanin systems, INUITS could obtain a good portion of their daily Vitamin D allowance through skin/kidney conversion. Like Africans, not fully dependent on supplements as Europeans.
Nope, this is incorrect, Inuits are highly dependent on their hunter gatherer diet to provide them with enough vitamin D to retain melanin. This has been explained to you a thousand times.
The Inuit have traditionally been hunters and fishers. They hunted, and still hunt, whales, walruses, caribou, seals, polar bears, muskoxen, birds, and at times other less commonly eaten animals such as foxes. The typical Inuit diet is high in protein and very high in fat - in their traditional diets, Inuit consumed an average of 75% of their daily energy intake from fat.
Explain how come if an Eskimo would change their diet, they develop vitamin D deficiencies i.e., rickets etc..?
quote: So, as YOUR source suggests, Europeans DID NOT have available Vitamin D rich food sources stated above.
The ability to tolerate lactose, and synthesize UV to produce Vitamin D under darker skies, helped early Europeans with vitamin D.
quote: Biological Perspectives on Human Pigmentation By Ashley H. Robins
Rickets have been described sporadically in European skeletal material(predominately from Scandinavia and Hungary)dating from the Neolithic period until medieval times. (Wells 1975)
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You contradict your own Cut And Paste above, which clearly states that Early Europeans maintained dogs, sheep, Goat, cattle, and pigs. Now you saying they didn't have them. LOL
KIK Wrote: Early Europeans also survived on similar hunter gatherer, fisher diets. Neolithic farming in Europe contained of crops, both wild and domesticated, which included einkorn wheat, millet and spelt and the keeping of dogs, sheep and goats, cattle and pigs.
KIKI Wrote: Like I said these people were now growing their food, no need to go fishing and hunting for food, like they used to depend on it earlier, get it?
Prove it by securing documentation verifying coastal Europeans did not fish. Interesting that with even more available agriculture today, coastal peoples STILL fish and it generally consists of a major part of their diets. This is true in EVERY major seaport and coastal community I've ever visited. To propose they simply shelves their rods and nets is absurd and not duplicated anywhere else in the world. Even today as it has always been most of Asia sustains on a major seafood diet. Post your facts.
Melanin defect leads to Infertility variations in Whites.
At least 6 million white American couples (approximately 10% of reproductive-age population) have difficulty conceiving. • 25% of women experience an episode of infertility during their reproductive life. • 5-10% of normal fertile couples take more than 1-2 years to conceive.
Hence, the emergence of billion dollar fertility clinics (triplets, quintuplets, sextuplets as result), and a primary reason for white couples yesterday (every culture they've invaded) and today scrambling to adopt black children. LOL, who do you think is dumping all those 10s of billion dollars of sales into those fraudulent companies like, Enzyte, Male enhancement and other penile deficiency placebos. LMAO!!
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You contradict your own Cut And Paste above, which clearly states that Early Europeans maintained dogs, sheep, Goat, cattle, and pigs. Now you saying they didn't have them. LOL
KIK Wrote: Early Europeans also survived on similar hunter gatherer, fisher diets. Neolithic farming in Europe contained of crops, both wild and domesticated, which included einkorn wheat, millet and spelt and the keeping of dogs, sheep and goats, cattle and pigs.
Nope. If you were intelligent or knowledgeable on the subject, and wouldn't rely on distortion. You would see I wrote:
quote: Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey: The Inuit have traditionally been hunters and fishers. They hunted, and still hunt, whales, walruses, caribou, seals, polar bears, muskoxen, birds, and at times other less commonly eaten animals such as foxes. The typical Inuit diet is high in protein and very high in fat - in their traditional diets, Inuit consumed an average of 75% of their daily energy intake from fat.
Early Europeans also survived on similar hunter gatherer, fisher diets.
Neolithic farming in Europe contained of crops, both wild and domesticated, which included einkorn wheat, millet and spelt and the keeping of dogs, sheep and goats, cattle and pigs.
Early Europeans I mentioned also survived in the hunter gatherers lifestyle as does/did the Inuits. Don't try to converge two of my lines together to make it look as if I said something else.
Neolithic Farmers were not hunter gatherers anymore, and hunter gatherers were not farmers, and they did domesticate any animals. Neolithic farming in Europe contained of crops, both wild and domesticated, which included einkorn wheat, millet and spelt and the keeping of dogs, sheep and goats, cattle and pigs. Not hunter gatherers you idiot.
See how I said you have to rely on lies and distortions to continue your theory.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL, you've said absolutely, NOTHING. All you've done is regurgitate someone else's OPINION sans any concrete backup data.
My sources provide summaries, but they also provide the raw data for review. Where's your data and supporting evidence? These Cut and Pastes of other people's OPINIONS are meaningless and only applicable to those who do not require data to be convinced. Show the data.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same scenario over and over with you. I provide you with the data, we discuss the data, you ask questions, I thoroughly answer and explain them everytime, you ask more questions, and when you've had everything explained to you, you turn around, act like you've forgotten everything and ask for the data again. Lmao
So actually this is your position and will always be your position.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:posted by meniarmer: I have not yet discovered any scientist linking Albinism with "whiteness" in "whites". LOL
End of story......
Come back when you actually have a credible and valid source for your idiotic theory.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well of course taken out of context the statement can be mis leading. For example; Do white couples bear Albino children?
The answer is, of course they do. Can Albinism be equated with "whiteness"? Yes, of course it can.
Do scientist link albinism in whites with "whiteness" in "whites"? Yes, they do. Sources confirming the above are, -World Health Organization -Mayo Clinic -International Albinism Research Center -National Institute Of Health -Center For Disease Control -European Skin Cancer Center
Have these sources recently went on record as stating an Albino may look normal, just like you, and still carry the Albino mutation? YOUR comic book 1 page article stated that 80% of ALL Europeans carried the gene mutation responsible for "whiteness", or Albinism and that Africans did not. YEP! Now, for the $2M question, Is Albinism a rare defect? No, not as rare as previously believed. The recent announcement also EXPANDED the range of symptoms to include the past visual inspection, but now also includes additional vital genetic trait information such as, eyesight, translucence of eyes, UV susceptibility, and a range of other symptoms which so happen to capture a very large number of whites previously went undetected. Get a check up. It could be you.
From NCBI Genetic Mutation Data base;
Ocular albinism and hypopigmentation defects in Slc24a5-/- mice. Vogel P, Read RW, Vance RB, Platt KA, Troughton K, Rice DS. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Inc., 8800 Technology Forest Place, The Woodlands, TX 77381-1160, USA. pvogel@lexgen.com As part of a high-throughput mutagenesis and phenotyping process designed to discover novel drug targets, we generated and characterized mice with a targeted mutation in Slc24a5, a gene encoding a putative cation exchanger. Upon macroscopic examination, Slc24a5-/- mice were viable, fertile, and indistinguishable by coat color from their heterozygous and wild-type litter mates. Ophthalmoscopic examination revealed diffuse retinal hypopigmentation, and a histologic examination of the eye confirmed the presence of moderate-to-marked hypopigmentation of the retinal pigmented epithelium (RPE), ciliary body, and iris pigment epithelium (IPE). Hypopigmentation was most severe in the anterior layer cells of the IPE, where melanosomes were smaller, paler, and more indistinct than those of the anterior stroma and posterior IPE. The pigment granules of the posterior IPE appeared to be nearly as dark as those in stromal melanocytes; however, both cell layers were thinner and paler than corresponding layers in wild-type mice. Ultrastructural analysis of the RPE, IPE, and ciliary body pigmented cells confirmed that mutation of Slc24a5 results in marked hypopigmentation of melanosomes in optic cup-derived pigmented neuroepithelium in the eyes. Milder reductions in melanosome size and pigmentation were noted in neural crest-derived melanocytes. The severe hypopigmentation of neuroepithelium-derived cells in the eyes resulted in a novel form of ocular albinism in Slc24a5-/- mice. Our findings suggest that SLC24A5 may be a candidate gene for some forms of ocular albinism and for the BEY1/EYCL2 locus previously associated with central brown eye color in humans.
So, they state the slc24A5 mutation described in your articles as present in 80% of Europeans may very well be responsible for ocular albinism. What age were you when you were first prescribed seeing aids?
Where's your accredited sources?
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a previous post, I indicated that the artefactual record negates Anatolia as the ancestral home of Cretans - this because no artifacts (Venus figures) of Steatopygia Females are known to have been found there. This may be an oversimplification: Though no actual Steatopygia figures have been found, similar female figures have been found of typical Anatolian figures.
Note the Head of this figure from Crete.
Compare the head with this figure from Anatolia.
But then, at about the time Mycenae was being built, artistic style seems to have changed. This "new" style seems to have carried over past the time of the White conquest.
In Anatolia and the Eastern Aegean Islands, a new artistic style also took hold.
posted
Notice how you have to rely on misinterpretations, and lies, to continue your theory?
Nobody asked you for scientists linking albinism in whites, as they do with every other population around the world.
The question is what scientists agree with your theory of whites not being from Europe based on skin cancer levels?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Sorry Rasol, but the data comes directly from the leading scientists in the field of skin cancer and melanoma.
^ name one who agrees with your claim that whites don't come from Europe, based on skin cancer levels.
none of your usual noise please - just the name of the scientist.
quote:What's so difficult to comprehend about this?
^ i comprehend it quite well, you never answer questions, you just use questions as and opportunity for blow"soft" demogaguery.
feel free to prove me wrong, any time, by answering my question.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ hmmm. dozens of windy posts from MN on this topic.
but i ask for a source by way of a name, that's all, just a name... and....... silence.
^ oh but since there's no answer, she will ignore the question and ask her own, in hopes of distracting from the non answer.
that's ok, mn, we'll just note that you can't name a single scholar who supports your position.
and then move on to your 'questions', just like you want us to.....
I have not yet discovered any scientist linking Albinism with "whiteness" in "whites". LOL Although it's fairly obvious normal working melanin regulation genes act analogous to a Wall light dimmer switch, where you can regulate the flow of electricity to control the intensity of the bulb (Off/More or less light). As people migrate to new environments, these switches ADJUST melanin levels to the OPTIMUM density, balancing light penetration for adequate vitamin D synthesis, and light absorbs ion for skin and internal organ protection from UVB and other harmful radiation exposure. This is in a NORMAL operational system.
In the mutated (broken) system at the extreme, is Albino. In Albinos, the regulation switch doesn't slide, or turn ON at all, but is switched off all the time. Therefore, there is no regulation of melanin production and little to no protect from UVB and other radiation. hence, sun burn and melanoma.
Only two types of humans on earth follow the last scenario, Albinos (African, Asian, Indian, White) and whites. What is the commonality shared between these two groups?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Notice ow you ave to rely on misinterpetations, and lies, to continue your teory?
Nobody asked you for scientists linking albinism in whites, as they do with every other population around the world.
The question is what scientists agree with your theory of whites not being from Europe based on skin cancer levels?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Sorry Rasol, but the data comes directly from the leading scientists in the field of skin cancer and melanoma.
^ name one who agrees with your claim that whites don't come from Europe, based on skin cancer levels.
none of your usual noise please - just the name of the scientist.
quote:What's so difficult to comprehend about this?
^ i comprehend it quite well, you never answer questions, you just use questions as and opportunity for blow"soft" demogaguery.
feel free to prove me wrong, any time, by answering my question.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ hmmm. dozens of windy posts from MN on this topic.
but i ask for a source by way of a name, that's all, just a name... and....... silence.
^ oh but since there's no answer, she will ignore the question and ask her own, in hopes of distracting from the non answer.
that's ok, mn, we'll just note that you can't name a single scholar who supports your position.
and then move on to your 'questions', just like you want us to.....
I have not yet discovered any scientist linking Albinism with "whiteness" in "whites". LOL Although it's fairly obvious normal working melanin regulation genes act analogous to a Wall light dimmer switch, where you can regulate the flow of electricity to control the intensity of the bulb (Off/More or less light). As people migrate to new environments, these switches ADJUST melanin levels to the OPTIMUM density, balancing light penetration for adequate vitamin D synthesis, and light absorbs ion for skin and internal organ protection from UVB and other harmful radiation exposure. This is in a NORMAL operational system.
In the mutated (broken) system at the extreme, is Albino. In Albinos, the regulation switch doesn't slide, or turn ON at all, but is switched off all the time. Therefore, there is no regulation of melanin production and little to no protect from UVB and other radiation. hence, sun burn and melanoma.
Only two types of humans on earth follow the last scenario, Albinos (African, Asian, Indian, White) and whites. What is the commonality shared between these two groups?
From NCBI Genetic Mutation Data base;
Ocular albinism and hypopigmentation defects in Slc24a5-/- mice. Vogel P, Read RW, Vance RB, Platt KA, Troughton K, Rice DS. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Inc., 8800 Technology Forest Place, The Woodlands, TX 77381-1160, USA. pvogel@lexgen.com As part of a high-throughput mutagenesis and phenotyping process designed to discover novel drug targets, we generated and characterized mice with a targeted mutation in Slc24a5, a gene encoding a putative cation exchanger. Upon macroscopic examination, Slc24a5-/- mice were viable, fertile, and indistinguishable by coat color from their heterozygous and wild-type litter mates. Ophthalmoscopic examination revealed diffuse retinal hypopigmentation, and a histologic examination of the eye confirmed the presence of moderate-to-marked hypopigmentation of the retinal pigmented epithelium (RPE), ciliary body, and iris pigment epithelium (IPE). Hypopigmentation was most severe in the anterior layer cells of the IPE, where melanosomes were smaller, paler, and more indistinct than those of the anterior stroma and posterior IPE. The pigment granules of the posterior IPE appeared to be nearly as dark as those in stromal melanocytes; however, both cell layers were thinner and paler than corresponding layers in wild-type mice. Ultrastructural analysis of the RPE, IPE, and ciliary body pigmented cells confirmed that mutation of Slc24a5 results in marked hypopigmentation of melanosomes in optic cup-derived pigmented neuroepithelium in the eyes. Milder reductions in melanosome size and pigmentation were noted in neural crest-derived melanocytes. The severe hypopigmentation of neuroepithelium-derived cells in the eyes resulted in a novel form of ocular albinism in Slc24a5-/- mice. Our findings suggest that SLC24A5 may be a candidate gene for some forms of ocular albinism and for the BEY1/EYCL2 locus previously associated with central brown eye color in humans.
So, they state the slc24A5 mutation described in your articles as present in 80% of Europeans may very well be responsible for ocular albinism. What age were you when you were first prescribed seeing aids?
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, they state the slc24A5 mutation described in your articles as present in 80% of Europeans may very well be responsible for ocular albinism. What age were you when you were first prescribed seeing aids?
The slc24a5 is present in all populations tested, African Asian and European. It was detectable and pinpointed as having a differing allele in the same gene in Europeans since the convergence of pale skin was recent in evolutionary terms 6-12kya. 5 genes pinpointed.
The question is what scientists agree with your theory of whites not being from Europe based on skin cancer levels?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
DNA sequences from ancient speciments may in fact result from undetected contamination of the ancient specimens by modern DNA, and the problem is particularly challenging in studies of human fossils. Doubts on the authenticity of the available sequences have so far hampered genetic comparisons between anatomically archaic (Neandertal) and early modern (Cro-Magnoid) Europeans. Methodology/Principal Findings
We typed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) hypervariable region I in a 28,000 years old Cro-Magnoid individual from the Paglicci cave, in Italy (Paglicci 23) and in all the people who had contact with the sample since its discovery in 2003. The Paglicci 23 sequence, determined through the analysis of 152 clones, is the Cambridge reference sequence, and cannot possibly reflect contamination because it differs from all potentially contaminating modern sequences. Conclusions/Significance:
The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neandertals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans. Because all potential sources of modern DNA contamination are known, the Paglicci 23 sample will offer a unique opportunity to get insight for the first time into the nuclear genes of early modern Europeans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Not the mutated version present in Europeans as your article STRONGLY suggests.
Official Symbol TYR Also known as OCA1A; OCAIA; SHEP3 Summary The enzyme encoded by this gene catalyzes the first 2 steps, and at least 1 subsequent step, in the conversion of tyrosine to melanin. The enzyme has both tyrosine hydroxylase and dopa oxidase catalytic activities, and requires copper for function. Mutations in this gene result in oculocutaneous albinism, and nonpathologic polymorphisms result in skin pigmentation variation. The human genome contains a pseudogene similar to the 3' half of this gene. [provided by RefSeq]
7. Most patients with AROA (autosomal recessive ocular albinism) represent phenotypically mild variants of oculocutaneous albinism , well over half of which is OCA1.
Official Symbol AIED Official Full Name Aland island eye disease (Forsius-Eriksson ocular albinism, ocular albinism type 2)
Also known as OA2
Official Symbol OCA2 Official Full Name oculocutaneous albinism II
Also known as P; BEY; PED; BEY1; BEY2; BOCA; EYCL; HCL3; EYCL2; EYCL3; SHEP1; D15S12 Summary This gene encodes the human homologue of the mouse p (pink-eyed dilution) gene. The encoded protein is believed to be an integral membrane protein involved in small molecule transport, specifically tyrosine - a precursor of melanin. Mutations in this gene result in type 2 oculocutaneous albinism. [provided by RefSeq]
Official Symbol TYRP1 Official Full Name tyrosinase-related protein 1
Also known as TRP; CAS2; CATB; GP75; TYRP; b-PROTEIN
1. Mutation of TYRP1 (OCA3) can modify the OCA2 phenotype, resulting in red hair. PubMed 2. An eye color variant in TYRP1 was associated with risk of cutaneous melanoma. 5. Most patients with AROA (autosomal recessive ocular albinism) represent phenotypically mild variants of oculocutaneous albinism , well over half of which is OCA1. PubMed 6. Anemonin, an active compound of C. crassifolia, inhibits melanin synthesis by inhibiting the transcription of the genes encoding TYR, TRP1, and TRP2. PubMed 7. results shows that organellar pH, proteasome activity, and down-regulation of tyrosinase-related protein 1(TYRP1) expression all contribute to the lack of pigmentation in tyrosinase-positive amelanotic melanoma cells We have identified the first TYRP1 mutation in non-Africans and have confirmed that TYRP1 mutations are associated with a milder phenotype of oculocutaneous albinism.
Official Symbol OA1Pprovided by HGNC Official Full Name ocular albinism 1 (Nettleship-Falls) Y-linked pseudogene
Official Symbol SLC45A2 Official Full Name solute carrier family 45, member 2
Also known as 1A1; AIM1; MATP; SHEP5 Summary The protein encoded by this gene encodes a melanocyte differentiation antigen that is expressed in a high percentage of melanoma cell lines. A similar sequence gene in medaka, 'B,' encodes a transporter that mediates melanin synthesis. Mutations in this gene are a cause of oculocutaneous albinism type 4. Alternative splicing results in multiple transcript variants encoding different isoforms. [provided by RefSeq]
Official Symbol MC1R Official Full Name melanocortin 1 receptor (alpha melanocyte stimulating hormone receptor)
Also known as MSH-R; SHEP2; MGC14337 Summary This intronless gene encodes the receptor protein for melanocyte-stimulating hormone (MSH). The encoded protein, a seven pass transmembrane G protein coupled receptor, controls melanogenesis. Two types of melanin exist: red pheomelanin and black eumelanin. Gene mutations that lead to a loss in function are associated with increased pheomelanin production, which leads to lighter skin and hair color. Eumelanin is photoprotective but pheomelanin may contribute to UV-induced skin damage by generating free radicals upon UV radiation. Binding of MSH to its receptor activates the receptor and stimulates eumelanin synthesis. This receptor is a major determining factor in sun sensitivity and is a genetic risk factor for melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer. Over 30 variant alleles have been identified which correlate with skin and hair color, providing evidence that this gene is an important component in determining normal human pigment variation. [provided by RefSeq]
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:^ Not the mutated version present in Europeans as your article STRONGLY suggests.
This is what you get for not reading or just not understanding.
The test found two variants in the same gene(slc24a5) that differed by just one amino acid, in Europeans.
quote: A team led by geneticist Keith Cheng of Pennsylvania State University(PSU) College of Medicine in Hersey found two variants in the same gene(slc24a5) that differed by just one amino acid. Nearly all Africans and East Asians had one allele, whereas 98% of the 120 Europeans had the other.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
One pet-peeve I have is when folks in a thread discuss something off-topic, especially when that particular topic is already covered in another thread!!
If you want to discuss the indigenity of whites to Europe, go HERE!! Of course I'd expect Meninarmer to talk about it here or elsewhere considering his utter humiliation on the last page like all ignorant trolls! Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^Indeed Dj, I tried to get him to leave this thread and discuss it back in Marc's thread, but the kid insists on posting here.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Carry on you two 4-eyed mutants. I'll pick it up later. Watching Hopkins-Pavlik re-run and it's taken priority.
BTW KIK: The differing allele you mentioned in Europeans is not present in Africans, but IT IS present in African Albinos. Go figure.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMAO, you are suicidal. Going to a gun fight with a rubber knife.
The Allele you, or rather your article describes is the same as the defect in African Albinos. Of course Kittles cannot say this, he cares about the approval of you, Europeans.
You, well, you merely parrot whatever mainstream "researchers" post using their Voodoo science without supporting data or very flimsy hutches supported by nothing. Go figure.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Wrong as usual on all counts! It's more like your argument is akin to someone going to a gunfight with no weapon or accessory at all and not even a brain!
The allele for pale skin in Europeans are different from albinism, but of course there are similarities. Why? Because the alleles are all found in the gene for skin melanin, you dummy!
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Indeed Dj, I tried to get him to leave this thread and discuss it back in Marc's thread, but the kid insists on posting here.
That's because he scared of all the facts presented to him there. (As if such facts can only remain in that thread alone and not posted anywhere else! LOL) Besides, when have you allowed a stupid kid do what he wants?! It's bad enough allowing these other trolls have run of this forum, I refuse to allow a dumb kid with a chip off his brain run even this thread! Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course Mike is not the only one. Unfortunately trolls like minibrainer have low attention defecit as well as low intellects, but getting back to the topic...
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: It's as nutty as a fruitcake Djehuti and you know better. You show me one thread, one single connection between some genetic marker and the acomplishments of classical Greece. Fact is you cannot do it. You cannot even tell me who these people were.
There is nothing "nutty" about it, and it is quite simple, dear professor. The genetic marker E3b as well as Benin HBS (sickle-cell) are all genetic evidence that verify past decades of findings via anthropological remains-- that Africans expanded into the Mediterranean during the Neolithic along with Southwest Asians to help found civilization in the Aegean and Greece. It was neolithic culture that brought agriculture and settled community life to Greece. These settled communities developed into the first urban centers or cities. These same communities also created the first writing, advanced sciences, complex government, advanced art-- everything we call 'civilization'. What does all of this have to do with 'Classical' Greece, you ask? Of course these early Neolithic to Bronze Age cultures comprise Archaic Greece which is the predecessor to Classical Greece! Do want me to break it down further for you, professor? Think of the alphabet-- A comes before B which comes before C. 'A' in this case is Archaic Greece which precedes and at the same time leads to Classical Greece!
Now, back to all the other posters who can think straight...
In an earlier page of this thread I posted a pic of a neolithic skull from Crete, and said that certain features remind me of ancient Egyptians such as Seti.
Takruri compared it to a mesolithic Nubian skull, but I think a comparison with dynastic Egyptians would be even better. Here is that same skull below compared to that of Seti II on the right.
^ Notice how both of them have low sloping foreheads as well as pronounced zygomatic arches; not to mention the high nose bridges which as we know is not unsual to Africans. But the alveolar prognathism of the Cretan skull looks more like that of say 18th dynasty members such as Tutankhamun.
^ Notice the so-called "buck-teeth".
Oh and that reconstructed Minoan priestess (despite her complexion and hair color) has features that remind me alot of the reconstruction of the Egyptian priest Natsef-Amun!
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is out of an insane asylum, what a bunch of dopey nonsense. The guys on the white supremacy boards get pretty crazy but they would be hard pressed to to this garbage. If we want a history, we just make one up. One good thing about it, everyone makes an A. Nobody is wrong beacuse facts are not neccessary.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Praytell us professor what exactly is so dopey or nonsensical about the anthropological information above?? My post was an assessment of skeletal remains discovered decades earlier as well as recent genetic data which all point to African influence in the Aegean during the Neolithic. Please offer something to rebut it, or else stand corrected.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Djehuti, The genetic markers and the work of anthropologists on human remains does not establish a history. It is a piece of information that has to be supported by extensive historical data. For example, who introduced the marker, how many, Historians want to look at change and continuity...what changes as the result of a historical event and what remains the same...
LOL You make no sense professor! Experts look at anthropological remains to get an idea of how a people looked like which may or may not give a clue as to their origins. Genetics definitively tells you a populations origins. Thus for decades anthropologists have noted Neolithic populations in the Mediterranean having appearances similar to Africans, today we have genetics to verify that they were of African origin.
I find it funny how you try to dispute such valid anthropological data in vain, yet you are the main one who always proposes outdated anthropological data in regards to the Egyptians such as Tut and his people having North African 'caucasoid' skulls!
quote:..The absurdity of your greece argument is that you cannot connect any of it to Homer, none of it to aristotle etc etc. You cannot even give these people a name or prove what happened to them or even from whom they got the marker..
Actually we can make the connections. The genetic markers they carry such as E3b are from Africa while others like J2 are from southwest Asia. These people populated the Aegean and Greece during the Archaic period of Greek history thus making them the predecessors of Greeks of the Classical period. The names or identities of these peoples and what happened to them are made by non other than the Greeks themselves! Homer and other Greek authors have made it clear that 'southern peoples' of Africa have had a presence in the Aegean and made significant relations with Greeks in the course of their history back in Archaic times. This is shown in their very myths such as the Libyan war with Atlantis, Danaus of Libya being a founding member of the Argive dynasty or Egyptian king Memnon's participation in the Trojan War, just to name a few. Or have you not read the Greek legends, professor??
quote:It is afrocentric silliness at it's greatest.
Nope. It's reality! First the ancient Greeks themselves have stated so, and now modern scholarship and science.
quote:You try to use these markers to connect Greece to Egypt and yet they predate even historical Egypt by centuries and more. I have heard some incoherent arguments in my time but even a typical untrained college freshman usually does better than this. It is what happens when people inject political ideology into academics.
Yes they predate Egypt's historical period; so what? We have shown you before what neolithic elements the predynastic Egyptians and even early dynastic Egyptians had in common with early Aegeans.
I suggest you read British Egyptologist David Rhol's book below:
The Lords of Avaris: Investigating the Origins of Western CivilizationPosts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You still have no connection Djehuti. You have to show me a piece of historical information showing a DIRECT connection between these people at classical Greece. Just assuming there is an evolutionary process there is not adequate. This is irresponsible data and not acceptable. You are making an assumption without even as much as a thesis. The only thing the marker shows is that at some point, some people who had PARTIAL East African ancestry were in the area. We also know these people were at one time spread all over southern Europe. So far you have shown ius nothing. This is exactly why many educators want to phase out the African studies pograms as they are currently constructed.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
DJE is not saying that the ancient African mixes are responsible for CLASSICAL GREECE, he is talking about the AEGEAN civilization that preceded Classical Greece, such as that in Crete. There is a difference.
DJE mentioned: David Rohl's Lords of Avaris
Amazon blurb:
"The Lords of Avaris" is one man's journey in search of the legendary origins of the Western World. Our story begins in a small rock-cut tomb below the desolate ruin-mound of Jericho in the Jordan Valley. This is the start of an epic journey of discovery, in the Homeric mould, which ranges across the ancient lands and archaeological sites of the Mediterranean. From Joshua's Jericho to Romulus' Rome, the true chronicle of our pre-Christian past is uncovered revealing an extraordinary historical picture, previously unimagined by scholars.
The epic legends of the West, which permeate the writings of Greece and Rome, appear to have been based on the exploits of genuine historical figures and actual events. There really was an 'Heroic Age' of brazen-clad warriors, the last of which fought before the walls of Troy, just as described in Homer's "Iliad". At the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age - two thousand years before the assassination of Julius Caesar in the Roman Senate - a new people appeared on the stage of history to join the great civilisations of Mesopotamia and Egypt. These 'Indo-European'-speaking tribes were chariot-riding warriors from the northern mountains and plains.
They became the Hittites, the Aryan kings of Mitanni, the Vedic heroes of the Indus, and the founders of the later empires of Greece, Persia and Rome. They had many legendary names - the Divine Pelasgians of Greece, the Luwians of Troy and western Anatolia, the Rephaim and Anakim of the Bible, and the Hyksos rulers of Avaris who suppressed Egypt for generations. Their heroes and heroines are legionary: Inachus, mythical king of Argos in the Peloponnese; his daughter the beautiful Princess Io who married an Egyptian pharaoh; Danaus, the Hyksos ruler who, fleeing from Egypt to Greece, founded the Mycenaean dynasty which culminated in Agamemnon's ill-fated Trojan War; Cadmus, the bringer of writing to the West; Minos, the Cretan high-king of Knossos who built the infamous Labyrinth; Mopsus, warrior and sage who led a vast Greek, Philistine and Anatolian army into the Levant in a daring attempt to seize Egypt in the time of Ramesses III. All these, and more, are the stuff of legend - but "The Lords of Avaris" reveals these Classical heroes as flesh-and-blood characters from our ancestral past.
---------------------- Note Rohl mentioning that thrse new migrants came AFTER certain civs like that of Egypt. Classical Greek civ historically also came after the Aegean cultures were already established.
===================== this one may alreay be on tap but here's genetic study as one aspect of the possibilities:
1: Tissue Antigens. 2001 Feb;57(2):118-27.
HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks.
Arnaiz-Villena A, Dimitroski K, Pacho A, Moscoso J, Gómez-Casado E, Silvera-Redondo C, Varela P, Blagoevska M, Zdravkovska V, Martínez-Laso J. Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es
HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first time determined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, particularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. The following conclusions have been reached: 1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum, 3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: The guys on the white supremacy boards get pretty crazy but they would be hard pressed to to this garbage.
You should know for sure, since you spend more time on Stormfront then you do here. Those are, after all, the only element that refers to you as, the professor. Ain't that right Hammer.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
zarahan, Djehuti does not even have the historical evidence to connect africa with pre Indo European greece. All he has is a genetic marker that a quarter of the population has. For all he knows the people who spread the marker may have no longer even have been substantially african at all. The fact that the marker exists tells us almost nothing historically.
It is the same as seeing a light in the sky and saying, "since I do not know what that light is it must be a UFO."
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
There is a fraudulent claim, promulgated by Racial Reality and Dienekes Pontikos, that the Arnaiz-Villena study HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks (abstract and link to full study below) has been retracted or scientifically refuted. Rest assured, the study is perfectly valid. It would be helpful here to discuss the study that was retracted, and the reason why. It is The origin of Palestinians and their genetic relatedness with other Mediterranean populations (which contained some cross-referenced Greek data in a neighbor-joining dendogram and a correspondence analysis), and it was retracted solely and strictly for political reasons, as this Observer article makes crystal clear:
(Keep in mind we are dealing with the study on the relatedness of Jews and Palestinians at the moment, which was retracted, and not the one on the Greek-sub-Saharan relatedness, which was not retracted. The two must not be confused.)
Observer wrote: Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians Robin McKie, science editor Observer
Sunday November 25, 2001
A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal.
Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away.
Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.
'I have authored several hundred scientific papers, some for Nature and Science, and this has never happened to me before,' said the article's lead author, Spanish geneticist Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, of Complutense University in Madrid. 'I am stunned.'
British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?'
The journal's editor, Nicole Sucio-Foca, of Columbia University, New York, claims the article provoked such a welter of complaints over its extreme political writing that she was forced to repudiate it. The article has been removed from Human Immunology's website, while letters have been written to libraries and universities throughout the world asking them to ignore or 'preferably to physically remove the relevant pages'. Arnaiz-Villena has been sacked from the journal's editorial board.
Dolly Tyan, president of the American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, which runs the journal, told subscribers that the society is 'offended and embarrassed'.
The paper, 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations', involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East.
In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.
Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they conclude.
But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article.
Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the journal.
He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps.
'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of colonists, but really, what is the difference?' he said.
'And clearly, I should have said refugee, not concentration, camps, but given that I was referring to settlements outside of Israel - in Syria and Lebanon - that scarcely makes me anti-Jewish. References to the history of the region, the ones that are supposed to be politically offensive, were taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other text books.'
In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness.
One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.'
It is worth exploring a few quotes from the above article, as they are very revealing:
Observer wrote: Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.
This shows the politics at work in certain circles of genetic research.
Sir Walter Bodmer wrote: British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?'
The fact that the journal initially published the paper shows the journal found nothing wrong with it scientifically. Indeed, all papers must pass peer review to be published. It also, apparently, saw nothing politically objectionable, until it received all those letters from people objecting to the supposedly politically incorrect wording.
Apparently, later on, in an attempt to discredit the study "scientifically," three scientists wrote in to Nature Magazine. Racial Reality and Pontikos claim it somehow "challenges" that the study was pulled for political reasons. This is utter nonsense, as the Observer article makes the political reasons for the withdrawal very plain. The three scientists are expressing their own opinions only, and their "lack of scientific merit" idea, which falls very weakly and definitely untrue, was not the reason for the retraction. This can be seen when viewing their own comment at the end of the article: "We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit." In actuality, this "scientific refutation" is a thinly veiled and weak attempt, containing nonsensical and straw-man arguments, to discredit the study solely and strictly because of its politically controversial remarks.
Here is the article. Note that what Dienekes Pontikos quotes on his site is only a portion of the article, and this is done to make it seem, to the unsuspecting reader, as though it pertains to the Greek study, or to Arnaiz-Villena's methodology in general, which it most certainly does not; if the scientists truly had a problem with the Greek study, they would have written specifically about it, and if they truly had a problem with Arnaiz-Villena's methodology in all his studies, they would have written about that. They didn't, and to reiterate, their comments about the Palestinian/Jewish study are invalid, and this will be explained below. This deception is also found on Racial Reality's own site, and he has added it to Wikipedia's article on admixture in Europe, calling it the "Arnaiz-Villena Controversy." Note also that there is no controversy in the scientific community over the study on Greeks at all; such controversy exists only in the minds of the two aforementioned southern European White Nationalists. I have made requests to have the misinformation removed from Wiki, but it hasn't happened yet. Racial Reality dodges the bullet by rewording it slightly, while still saying essentially the same thing. So, I have given up. Dear Reader, please take what you find on Wiki with several grains of salt; it is notorious for falsification, and I frankly don't think this problem will ever be resolved:
Quote: Nature 415, 115 (10 January 2002); doi:10.1038/415115b
Dropped genetics paper lacked scientific merit
Sir – Even though the controversial withdrawal of a paper on the genetic relatedness of Palestinians and Jews by the journal Human Immunology (see Nature 414, 382; 2001) is a minor episode compared with the tragedies caused by ethnic/religious conflicts over past decades, the issues involved are worth revisiting.
The stated purpose of the paper by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al. was to "examine the genetic relationships between the Palestinians and their neighbours (particularly the Jews) in order to: (1) discover the Palestinian origins, and (2) explain the historic basis of the present ... conflict between Palestinians and other Muslim countries with Israelite Jews".
They conclude: "Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool that supports a common ancient Canaanite origin. Therefore, the origin of the long-lasting Jewish–Palestinian hostility is the fight for land in ancient times."
It is difficult to believe that knowledge of genes may help to explain the present conflict. Although population genetics can address issues of relatedness of populations, mating patterns, migrations and so on, obviously it cannot provide evidence about reasons for conflicts between people.
Our primary concern, however, is that the authors might be perceived to have been discriminated against for political, as opposed to legitimate scientific, reasons.
Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.
The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.
We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.
Neil Risch Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
Alberto Piazza Department of Genetics, Biology and Biochemistry, University of Torino, Via Santena 19, 10126 Torino, Italy
L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
It is clear that the three above scientists are catering to popular political sentiments, and that is a damned shame. Let's examine what they say:
Three Scientists wrote: Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.
The DRB1 locus is apparently a good one to research, since it is used quite often by different researchers. It may only be one locus, but a relationship between populations at even one locus is still a relationship. Arnaiz-Villena, et al., say data obtained by using this locus is informative and discriminating, indeed more discriminating than data from mtDNA and Y-chromosomes. However, Arnaiz-Villena et al. always use other loci in addition to DRB1, and draw conclusions from all the data. So, the claim that conclusions are drawn from testing one locus (even though it is a good one) is false and a straw-man argument.
The claim the locus is under selection is vague and indefinite. Which alleles are under selection at this locus? There is no information stating that any of the ones tested are. Are all alleles found at this locus under selection? There isn't enough information to regard this seriously.
At any rate, selection plays no role in the Arnaiz-Villena studies, since the frequency of the alleles are not being used to estimate level of admixture. For example, no one is saying that allele from Population B exists in Population A at a rate of 4%, therefore there is admixture of Population B into Population A at a rate of 4%. This is the only case selection can have an adverse effect, because if an allele is expanded due to its being beneficial, its rate in a population will likely exceed the true admixture rate. If one is calculating admixture rate, one is likely to get inflated results.
However, the mere presence of any allele specific to one population in another cannot occur by any other means than admixture. Selection can never cause the presence of such an allele.
The study we are dealing with here, the one on Palestinian / Jewish relatedness, apparently included calculations of genetic distances at the DRB1 locus. Genetic distances are calculated by comparing the frequencies of alleles in various populations. The aim of calculating genetic distances is to determine relatedness of populations. Again, alleles under selection would have no effect on calculating relatedness, only on calculating level of admixture. If a certain foreign allele is introduced into a given population and becomes very beneficial in it, it causes those with the allele to survive, at the expense of those who don't have it. Eventually, many people will have this allele, even though it may have been introduced via a very small admixing population. However, as people without the allele die off, and those with it increase in number, it follows that the relatedness of the population to the population from which the beneficial allele came increases, of course, without the admixture increasing. Therefore, a calculation of genetic relatedness would reflect this elevated relatedness, without revealing true admixture. But if one is only calculating relatedness, it is not a problem and is quite accurate. This is precisely what Arnaiz-Villena, et al. are doing in this and their other studies.
The "DRB1 locus is under selection" attempt to discredit the study goes out the window.
Interestingly, Y-chromosome and mtDNA analysis is essentially the same as using a single HLA locus with its respective alleles, as mentioned to me by Dr. Arnaiz-Villena in private correspondence. Even more interestingly, Y Chromosomes and mtDNA are also subject to selection, since they are linked to diseases. Yet these are frequently used to calculate admixture estimates, and no one seems to complain:
Arnaiz-Villena, et al., in 'Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective' (abstract below) wrote: Other molecular markers, like mtDNA and Y Chr. are widely used for this type of research. They are also subject to selection since they are linked to diseases [...].
At any rate, the role selection plays is not necessarily significant in all cases, according a geneticist I recently spoke to. He explained that the four west African strains of HbS, which are definite indicators of sub-Saharan admixture when found elsewhere, are beneficial to those with malaria, and so selection would increase the frequency of the gene in malarial areas without the admixture increasing. However, in places like Sicily and southern Italy, the frequency of the HbS gene is still quite low, and generally not significantly different from estimates of African admixture using mtDNA, Y-chromosomes, or autosomal genes.
Let's face it: genetecists aren't going to use a marker or locus that isn't reliable. Period. To reiterate, Dr. Arnaiz-Villena has pointed out (in private correspondence) that HLA DRB1 is more discriminating than mtDNA or Y-chromosomes are.
Continuing with the dissection of the three scientists' article:
Three Scentists wrote: The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans;
Indeed, as shown by the neighbor-joining dendogram and correspondence analysis at the DRB1 locus shown in this Palestinian/Israeli study, Greeks are closely related to sub-Saharans. This is beyond question or challenge. This does not necessarily mean that overall, Greeks and sub-Saharans are similar. But a close relationship at even only one locus (already shown so far by two distinct methods of analyzing that locus) shows that admixture occurred. However, apparently the three scientists decided to ignore the actual study on Greeks (abstract & link below), because that study shows a relatedness in the samples between Greeks and sub-Saharans using several methods (including two ways of analyzing another locus entirely -- DQ), not just the neighbor-joining dendogram and correspondence analysis of DRB1 shown in the study on Palestinians and Jews, although those would certainly be sufficient; indeed, either one at the DRB1 locus alone would be sufficient. (This deliberate negligence on the part of the three scientists isn't surprising, because, as mentioned above, they criticized the basing of the main conclusions in the Israeli/Palestinian study -- that Palestinians and Israelis are related -- on only the DRB1 locus; this was most certainly not the case, since other loci were tested, and the conclusions were based on the similarities of all results.) Most convincingly, in the actual Greek study, several sub-Saharan-specific alleles were clearly found in the Greek population at the DRB1 locus when a direct search for alleles was undertaken. There is absolutely no getting around this. Sub-Saharan alleles could not be present in the Greek population without admixture having occurred. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of genetics and an ounce of common sense can see this. Alleles specific to one population do not appear in another by magic; only by admixture (as stated above).
Three Scientists wrote: and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans.
Firstly, according to another study, HLA Genes in Arabic-speaking Morrocans, the scientists (including Arnaiz-Villena) create what is definitely a similar tree to the one in the retracted study, and never mention that Japanese are related to sub-Saharan Africans, only that they are outliers together (along with Greeks, who really do have a relationship with sub-Saharans):
Quote: Greeks are almost outliers together with Japanese and San (Bushmen).. . In fact, a gradient from Western (both African and European) to Middle Eastern Mediterraneans is observed, placing distinctly Greeks, Japanese and San (Bushmen) as outliers.
Three Scientists wrote: It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups.
Often, genetics will reveal something we didn't previously know about a population. This isn't so puzzling. In fact, it happens all the time, on both individual and populational levels. But in the case of the Greeks having sub-Saharan admixture and Jews / Palestinians being related, the studies are in concord with others. There will be more on the Greek study itself below. It is only being mentioned here because of the cross-referenced data in the study on Palestinians and Jews.
Three Scientists wrote: Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.
This is a very silly and ignorant thing to say, since, as mentioned above, all studies must pass peer review before being published in scientific journals. As mentioned, the study on Palestinians and Jews passed peer review, proving it contained no glaring scientific errors, contrary to what the three scientists who wrote to Nature want us to believe.
An e-mail reply to my query to one of the three claiming a scientific weakness for the study is as follows:
One of the three scientists, in an e-mail reply wrote: Thanks for writing. I was rather surprised by the following statement in the article you recommend that I read : 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article”. I am not a Jew, but I have great respect for them, and I don’t think they are so ordinary, but I am one of those few geneticists that look at culture rather than genes. I am also scared by the amount of antisemitism I see around. Is the sentence above another bit of it? If so, it is better to not spread it around. The Arnaiz article was refused on the basis of a mistake made by Arnaiz Villena or his colleagues that introduced into a scientific article politics about a very sad conflict that has been going on for decades now, and that we would all like to come to a reasonable end as soon as possible, ideally one dignified for both sides. Arnaiz apologized, and so I suppose he has been forgiven for it and I am not sure the issue deserves continuing comment.
Quite surprising and revealing, isn't it? The scientist, who confirms the retraction of the study was political, actually thinks culture should be included in genetic investigations. Doing this can certainly prevent one from learning the truth about a population's genetic structure, since given genes do not necessarily correspond to a given culture. I must confess I am quite disappointed in this well-respected scientist, and will henceforth be somewhat wary of his work.
As mentioned above, that the study passed peer review shows nothing was wrong with it. This, together with the facts that: the study was indeed not pulled for scientific reasons; that no other scientists complained about the study scientifically; that no other scientists complained about other similar studies employing the DRB1 locus; and that the three scientists themselves complained about no other similar studies using the DRB1 locus, helps to show the study is scientifically sound. The fact that other scientists had written in to support Arnaiz-Villena after the retraction, further proves the study's validity:
Observer wrote: In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness.
One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.'
Sad business, indeed. Interestingly, the scientist who wrote the e-mail reply above thinks the above quote is Anti-Semitic, and should not be spread around. It is not, and is simply factual. This would equally apply to any other group (or individual) else with an ideological interest in the outcome of a genetics study.
So, to summarize, the study on the relatedness of Jews and Palestinians is perfectly valid from a scientific standpoint. The retraction was for political reasons, and the supposedly scientific objections by a few scientists are easily taken apart, and indeed are merely disguised attempts to show their dislike of the study for political reasons only.
-----
Now, it is time to move on to the study on the Greeks, which is called HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks. Again, keep in mind that this study has not been retracted or challenged.
Quote: Tissue Antigens. 2001 Feb;57(2):118-27. Related Articles, Links
HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks.
Arnaiz-Villena A, Dimitroski K, Pacho A, Moscoso J, Gomez-Casado E, Silvera-Redondo C, Varela P, Blagoevska M, Zdravkovska V, Martinez-Laso J.
Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es
HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first time determined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, particularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. The following conclusions have been reached: 1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum, 3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.
PMID: 11260506 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Here is the link to the full article of the above abstract:
The study found a clear relationship between Greeks and sub-Saharan populations. A neighbor-joining dendogram at the DRB1 locus shows this. Correspondence analyses using HLA-DRB1 allele frequencies data and low resolution HLA-DR and DQ (DQ, incidentally, is another locus) allele frequencies data support this. Genetic distances with HLA-DR and DQ generic typings support this. HLA-DRB1 genetic distance calculations support this. And finally, eleven DRB1 alleles were found to be shared by Greeks and sub-Saharans when a direct allele search was undertaken. These alleles, when not found in any real quantities in other populations geographically close to Greece, were searched for in other locations, and were found to exist mainly in Ethiopian and West African populations. Some are only found in Greeks and sub-Saharans, while a few are sporadically found in other populations, mainly around the Mediterranean (the Croatian island of Hvar and Lebanon) and Hungary. African ancestry in any of these populations should not be surprising. (Incidentally, two are found in Amerindians, who have been shown by other methods to have sub-Saharan admixture. One is found in Pacific peoples, who have also been shown to have low levels of sub-Saharan admixture by other methods.) This shows an introgression of sub-Saharan alleles into the Greek population. Again, the only way for alleles from one population to enter another one is by admixture. Selection cannot cause this. The DRB1 locus' being subject to selection has no bearing on these results (see above).
(It should also be noted that the idea put forth by one individual that the HLA alleles in question are Greek alleles and the sub-Saharan populations carrying them do so because of Greek admixture doesn't hold even a drop of water. This is because Greece's neighbours were tested for the alleles and were found not to have them to any significant degree. Since Greek colonists settled in many parts of the Mediterranean, if the alleles had been Greek in origin, they would be present in Greece's neighbours, like Italians, Turks, etc., at appreciable rates. Also, there is no historical evidence of significant Greek settlement in these sub-Saharan areas, particularly the West African ones. But there is indeed evidence of significant presence and settlement of sub-Saharans in Greece.)
Other tests that show other results should not surprise. There is another study, called High-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 locus in the Macedonian population, by Petlichkovski, et al., 2004, which tests the same DRB1 locus and apparently doesn't report sub-Saharan material (see below on this), and finds Greeks to be similar to Macedonians and other southern Europeans (using genetic distance calculations). In the study itself (not in the abstract) the Arnaiz-Villena study is addressed, and it is mentioned that their results are not in agreement with those of Arnaiz-Villena, and the reasoning used is that the sampled populations were different. This makes perfect sense. The authors didn't try to discredit the Arnaiz-Villena study, which they couldn't do, anyway, because results are results. But isn't it strange that those with ideological investments in the purity of Greeks or other Mediterraneans who claim to object to the use of the DRB1 locus don't object to this study, and freely quote it, conveniently ignoring, of course, what is stated in boldface above? If that doesn't make things clear, nothing will! Incidentally, Racial Reality, who frequently berates those who don't look beyond abstracts into the studies themselves, should have taken his own advice in this case, as he is one of those who fraudulently quotes this study as "proof" of a lack of African ancestry in Greeks.
Petlichkovski, et al. wrote: The observed closest standard genetic distance between the studied Macedonian population and the Greek population (SGD = 2.777, GD = 6.35) is not in concord with that published by Arnaiz-Villena et al. (21), who point out the close genetic relatedness of the Macedonian population to that of the Cretans and to the great genetic distance between the Macedonians and the Greeks coming from Attica, Cyprus, and northern Greece. Papassavas et al. (22) reveal a significant decrease of both DRB1*1104 and *1601 allele frequencies in the Cretan population used for the genetic distance analysis by Arnaiz-Villena et al., compared to their results. Bearing in mind the differences in the allele frequencies in the Macedonians in our study and those in the study of Arnaiz-Villena et al., we believe that the discordance of the observations in both the studies investigating the HLA polymorphism is probably due to the selection of different subject populations.
Specifically, this sentence from the abstract is used by Greek white nationalists in an attempt to fraudulently "prove" there is no sub-Saharan admixture in Greeks (as if this could really be done, since the Arnaiz-Villena Greek study, amongst others, has shown conclusively the opposite) is as follows:
Petlichkovski, et al. wrote: The included African populations grouped on the opposite side of the tree.
The key word here is included, since the included African populations were not the sub-Saharan ones Arnaiz-Villena mentioned had a relationship with Greeks (Oromo, Amhara, Nuba, Fulani, Rimaibe, Mossi), but instead, were Egyptians, Moroccans, Algerians (all North Africans), and Mandenka (sub-Saharan, but from Senegal) -- populations which Arnaiz-Villena also found to be distant from Greeks. Quoting from inside the actual Petlichkovski study:
Petlichkovski, et al. wrote: As expected, the included African populations (Moroccans, Egyptians, Mandenka, and Algerians) were grouped on the opposite side of the tree.
As we can see, Pontikos and Racial Reality are distorting things once again!
Now it is time to address additional claims made by some that the words of M.A. Jobling, M.E. Hurles, and C. Tyler-Smith, from their book Human Evolutionary Genetics, Garland Publishing: New York, 2004 (as quoted by Greek Nationalist Dienekes Pontikos) somehow refute the Greek study (which they don't). Once again, we are being misled, since the study being referred to is the one on Palestinians and Jews, even though they specifically refer to the Greek correspondence analysis reproduced in it from the original Greek study. I have this textbook, and the only mentioning of Arnaiz-Villena in the references is with regard to the Palesinians/Jews study. I am keeping this discussion in the Greek section of this article, incidentally, since it deals with Greek data, despite its coming from the other study.
Jobling, et al. [according to Dienekes] write:
Quote: As an example, Figure 1.5 illustrates the arbitrariness of different possible population groupings based upon DNA sequence diversity at an HLA locus. Often an objective way to choose between different interpretations is not obvious (though objective methods are discussed later in this book), and in its absence, simple assertion often fills the vacuum.
Figure 1.5: Grouping populations – take your pick. Relationships between populations based on DNA sequence diversity data at the HLA-DRB1 locus, displayed as a correspondence analysis plot (similar to principal components analysis; see Chapter 6) in which clustered populations are genetically similar. (a) Populations, with names indicated; (b, c, d) Three alternative groupings of the populations (there are others). The grouping chosen by Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001) is (d) (adduced as support for a sub-Saharan origin for the Greeks) but is essentially arbitrary. Why is it preferred to alternative groupings shown in (b) and (c)? If the population origins were unknown when the groupings were made, would it affect the outcome? Note that this locus is generally regarded as being under strong selection. Adapted from Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001).[Q1]
Click here for larger version.
In actuality, Dienekes leaves out much of the text (surprise, surprise) so that the true reason of the inclusion of the correspondence analysis is not revealed, which is to show how different interpretations are often (not just with this diagram or this study) possible when it comes to results, with opposing camps going at it, as it were. Here is the full quote from that particular section, from pages 11-12:
In many fields, as time passes, opinion upon how data should be interpreted changes. Indeed, there are often differences in opinion about data interpretation at any one time. This is particularly true of genetic data on human diversity. Debates described in Chapters 8 and 10, on the origins of modern humans and the genetic impact of the spread of agriculture in Europe, illustrate this. Particular methods of analysis, with different underlying paradigms, can be adopted by opposing "camps" within a particular field, and reconciliation becomes difficult. Some methods for analyzing diversity data seem particularly open to different interpretations. As an example, Figure 1.5 illustrates the arbitrariness of different possible population groupings based upon DNA sequence diversity at an HLA locus. Often an objective way to choose between different interpretations is not obvious (though objective methods are discussed later in this book), and in its absence, simple assertion often fills the vacuum.
[the following is the caption under the correspondence analysis]
Figure 1.5: Grouping populations – take your pick. Relationships between populations based on DNA sequence diversity data at the HLA-DRB1 locus, displayed as a correspondence analysis plot (similar to principal components analysis; see Chapter 6) in which clustered populations are genetically similar. (a) Populations, with names indicated; (b, c, d) Three alternative groupings of the populations (there are others). The grouping chosen by Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001) is (d) (adduced as support for a sub-Saharan origin for the Greeks) but is essentially arbitrary. Why is it preferred to alternative groupings shown in (b) and (c)? If the population origins were unknown when the groupings were made, would it affect the outcome? Note that this locus is generally regarded as being under strong selection. Adapted from Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001).[Q1]
Let me reiterate that the correspondence analysis being questioned is the one that contains Greek data in the retracted (for political reasons) study on Palestinians on Jews, not anything from the actual Greek study, even though the correspondence analysis is identical. Jobling, et al. do not (and cannot) take issue with Arnaiz-Villena's findings of sub-Saharan alleles in the Greek population, as shown in the Greek study itself. The alleles don't lie. Also, they don't (and can't) question the fact that the population distances were closest between Greeks and sub-Saharans at that and another locus, as shown in the Greek study itself. This, too, does not lie. The issue of the DRB1 locus being under selection has been addressed above, and is a non-issue, since Arnaiz-Villena was not attempting to actually quantify sub-Saharan admixture in Greeks or influx of sub-Saharans to Greece; he merely points out that admixture occurred, and that it is more than just an infinitessimal amount, since in the Greek study itself genetic distances show closeness at a few loci, and since quite a few (eleven) sub-Saharan alleles at the DRB1 locus were reported in Greeks in that study.
Jobling, et al. are only using the Greek correspondence analysis in the Palestinians/Jews study to illustrate how groups are chosen in diagrams, and they mention that choosing them objectively is not always done. They use Arnaiz-Villena, et al. as an example because they feel that since A-V knew the population origins, it may have skewed their objectivity with regard to a single diagram based on the DRB1 locus (this is their opinion only, and by no means are they stating this is the only time elements of studies have been called into question by those who happen to have different opinions). As stated above, this correspondence analysis is but one of many methods A-V use to determine sub-Saharan admixture in Greeks in the actual Greek study itself. But Jobling, et al. themselves admit that the population origins were known beforehand, which proves they aren't questioning the Greek-sub-Saharan relatedness at all. They are only questioning the supposed non-objectivity of the population groupings of one correspondence analysis. (In the Greek study itself, as stated above, there is another correspondence analysis, using HLA-DR and DQ [another locus] allele frequencies data, that isn't mentioned at all by Jobling, et al., since they aren't addressing that study at all, yet it comes up with essentially the same results.) Jobling, et al. actually aren't specifically questioning the grouping of Greeks with sub-Saharans in the correspondence analysis under scrutiny, either, since one of the alternative groupings they show, (b), also does this. Furthermore, since Greeks and sub-Saharans cluster together in the charts, it makes sense to group them together. This part really isn't arbitrary, and there is nothing wrong with Arnaiz-Villena's grouping them together. This aside, the Jobling, et al. book, incidentally, is an excellent book, and I highly recommend it.
No one is saying Greeks are primarily sub-Saharan in their overall genetic makeup. They are Europeans, after all. But that sub-Saharan admixture has been shown to exist genetically in Greeks (here at the HLA level) should not arouse skepticism. In fact, owing to Greece's former empire and contact with Egypt and other parts of Africa during this time; the mingling of various peoples in Roman-era Greece; the same mingling of peoples of different ethnicities (including sub-Saharans) in Greece during the Turkish period; and Greece's geographical location near Africa, the finding of a relatedness between Greeks and sub-Saharans due to the former's absorption of the latter does not by any stretch of the imagination contradict geography and history.
Other studies using markers other than HLA have also found sub-Saharan genetic material in Greeks. This flatly contradicts the claim by Racial Reality and Pontikos that sub-Saharan admixture in Greeks is unsupported by other studies.
The study Clinal patterns of human Y chromosomal diversity in continental Italy and Greece are dominated by drift and founder effects finds sub-Saharan Y-haplogroup A in a sample of 27 Greeks from the island of Lesvos (Mitilini) (data in full study, not in abstract).
Also, the Benin-originating strain of the HbS (sickle-cell) marker (#19) is found in Greeks. It could only have gotten there through admixture, whether indirect (through North Africans, for example, as the authors of the study suggest) or direct (through the influx of sub-Saharans at various times in Greek history). Either way, the end result is irrefutable post-Diasporic sub-Saharan ancestry:
Quote: Hemoglobin. 1991;15(6):459-67. Related Articles, Links
The origin of the sickle mutation in Greece; evidence from beta S globin gene cluster polymorphisms.
Boussiou M, Loukopoulos D, Christakis J, Fessas P.
Unit for Prenatal Diagnosis, Laikon Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Study of the Hpa I polymorphism 3' to the beta-globin gene in the Greek population revealed absence of the site in 238 beta S chromosomes, in contrast to a much larger sample of chromosomes carrying the beta A gene, where this site was consistently positive. Subsequent haplotype analysis of the beta-globin gene cluster in 82 beta S chromosomes demonstrated that 79 (96%) belonged to haplotype #19, while the three exceptions (all Hpa I negative) could be explained by a delta-beta recombination event. Haplotype #19 was never encountered in a parallel study of the 83 beta A chromosomes. Comparison of the above results with similar surveys in other parts of the world and consideration of various historical events suggest that the beta S mutation was introduced into Greece over the last few centuries by the Saracen raids and/or by settlements of North African slaves brought in by the Arabs, Franks, Venetians, or Ottoman Turks, who have occupied the country over the last millennium.
PMID: 1687685 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Here is yet another study that finds a beta-thalassaemia allele specific to Africans in Greeks:
DNA haplotype heterogeneity of beta-thalassaemia in Greece: feasibility of prenatal diagnosis.
Athanassiadou A, Zarkadis I, Papahadjopoulou A, Maniatis GM.
We have carried out DNA haplotype analysis of 69 beta-thalassaemia patients in Greece and 42 of the parents using seven standard polymorphic sites. Our data show a high degree of heterogeneity of the chromosomal background in which beta-thalassaemia occurs in Greece, suggesting a high degree of heterogeneity in the beta-thalassaemia mutations involved. Haplotype I is found here to represent 45% of total beta-thalassaemia mutations detected, a proportion well below the 67% reported in earlier studies with Greek-American patients. Nine different haplotypes are detected and the ones carrying beta(+) mutations are the majority, including those which are linked to beta(+) mutations associated with a thalassaemia intermedia phenotype, and which constitute 11% of all haplotypes. One of these haplotypes (---- ) has never before been reported to occur in non-Africans, whether in beta thal or beta A chromosomes, and it is found here to be of African origin rather than the product of recombination. In 21 families haplotype analysis showed that prenatal diagnosis for a second child was feasible in 81% of the cases. Use of the AvaII-psi beta polymorphic site as well as the seven standard ones brought this proportion up to 90%.
PMID: 3620356 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
In addition, sub-Saharan Chromosome 7 markers have been found in Greeks. These Chromosome 7 markers are cystic fibrosis mutations that are specific to sub-Saharans; Greeks are the only Europeans in which these sub-Saharan mutations are found:
Quote: Tissue Antigens. 2002 Aug;60(2):111-21. Related Articles, Links
Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective.
Arnaiz-Villena A, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J.
Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es
HLA genes allele distribution has been studied in Mediterranean and sub-Saharan populations. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, neighbour-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The population genetic relationships have been compared with the history of the classical populations living in the area. A revision of the historic postulates would have to be undertaken, particularly in the cases when genetics and history are overtly discordant. HLA genomics shows that: 1) Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers. The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.). 2) Turks (Anatolians) do not significantly differ from other Mediterraneans, indicating that while the Asians Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language), it is not genetically detectable. 3) Kurds and Armenians are genetically very close to Turks and other Middle East populations. 4) There is no HLA genetic trace of the so called Aryan invasion, which has only been defined on doubtful linguistic bases. 5) Iberians, including Basques, are related to north-African Berbers. 6) Present-day Algerian and Moroccan urban and country people show an indistinguishable Berber HLA profile.
Publication Types: Historical Article
PMID: 12392505 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
The above study is another by Arnaiz-Villena, using the data from his main study on Greeks. The information on the Chromosome 7 markers comes from Dork, et al., 1998. Here is the quote from inside the above Arnaiz-Villena study:
Quote: Other Negroid genes have also been found in Greeks. They are the only Caucasoid population who bears cystic fibrosis mutations typical of Black Africans (Chromosome 7). See Dork, et al. In Am. J. Hum. Genet., 1998: 63: 656-682.
Anthropologists, studying old remains of Greeks, sometimes found sub-Saharan-like individuals:
J. Lawrence Angel, in American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 74, No. 1/2 (Feb. - Apr., 1972) [review of Frank Snowden's "Blacks in Antiquity" book] reports:
Quote: In my own skeletal samples from Greece I note apparent negroid nose and mouth traits in two of fourteen Early Neolithic (sixth millenium B.C.), only two or three more among 364 from fifth to second millenium B.C., one among 113 Early Iron Age, one or two among 233 Classic and Hellenistic skeletons, but four clear Negroids (all from one area of Early Christian Corinth) among ninety-five Roman period, two among eighty-five Medieval, and of course ten among fifty-two Turkish period Greeks, yet none among 202 of Romantic (nineteenth century) date.
An interesting quote from Biological Relations of Egyptians and Eastern Mediterranean Populations during pre-dynastic and Dynastic Times, Journal of Human Evolution, 1972 (1) pp. 307-313:
Quote: Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction off body size one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians [. . .]
Frank Snowden, who passed away in 2007 at age 96, had researched the presence of blacks in the ancient Greece from the standpoint of art and literature. His findings include:
Quote: Both the literary and archaeological evidence points to a not infrequent crossing between blacks and whites. Nothing in the observations on such unions, whether marriage or concubinage, resembles certain modern strictures on racial mixture.
Of course one reason for the color bar which recently existed in the West was the belief that it was race mixing which led to the collapse of Greek, Roman, and other civilizations. . . .
No laws in the Greco-Roman world prohibited unions of blacks and whites. Ethiopian blood was interfused with that of Greeks and Romans. No Greek or Roman author condemned such racial mixture. . . . The scientists Aristotle and Pliny, like Plutarch, commented as scientists on the physical appearance of those born of black-white racial mixture but included nothing resembling certain modern strictures on miscegenation. . . . It is safe to assume, therefore, that in course of time many Ethiopians were assimilated into a predominantly white population. (Blacks in Antiquity, 193-195)
With respect to the number of blacks in ancient Greece, Snowden states:
Quote: Even though we cannot state, in the manner of modern sociologists and historians,the ratio of Blacks to Whites in either Greece or Italy, we can say that Ethiopians were by no means few or rare sights and that their presence, whatever their numbers, constituted no color problem. (Blacks in Antiquity, 186)
Snowden also mentions:
Quote: Black-white sexual relations were never the cause of great emotional crises and many blacks were physically assimilated into the predominantly white populations of the Mediterranean world.
...the number of references to Ethiopians in Greek literature of the fifth century BC, on the appearance of mulatto children following the presence of blacks in Greece in the army of Xerxes, and on the many artistic representations of the mid- and late-fifth century BC reflecting this anthropological evolution.
It is worth clicking on his name above and reading the article. His two books, Blacks in Antiquity and Before Color Prejudice, are excellent works and are highly recommended. They do not contain Afrocentric drivel, and Snowden cites all his sources and makes logical conclusions. In fact, the Arnaiz-Villena study's results of Ethiopian alleles in the Greek population correlate to Snowden's research, since most of the sub-Saharans Snowden speaks of originated in the Ethiopian region. So, history is corroborated by genetics, and vice-versa. Even most of the specific geographical regions match up, e.g., the Athens area, Cyprus, Aegean Islands, etc.
Snowden has been studying this field since the 1940's, and wrote a few articles at that time. One is called The Negro in Ancient Greece and is available online in PDF form. (I have the original article, as well as The Negro in Classical Italy, and will soon scan them both in.)
Here is another Arnaiz-Villena study mentioning the Greek-sub-Saharan relatedness:
Quote: Hum Immunol. 2001 Sep;62(9):1051-61. Related Articles, Links
The correlation between languages and genes: the Usko-Mediterranean peoples.
Arnaiz-Villena A, Martinez-Laso J, Alonso-Garcia J.
Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, 28041, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es
The usko-Mediterraneans peoples are defined as ancient and present day populations that have lived in the Mediterranean/Middle-East/Caucasus area and have spoken a Basque related language. The present day existing populations show an HLA genetic relatedness which is more or less close according to geographical distance. The Greek sample is an outlying in all genetic analyses, because Greeks have a significant genetic input from sub-Saharan Ethiopians and Blacks. This probably occurred in Pharaonic times. Present day comparisons between genes and languages show a lack of correlation: Macedonian, Palestinians, Kurds, part of Berbers, Armenians, and Turks belong to the old Mediterranean substratum, but they do not speak a language included in the old Mediterranean Dene-Caucasian group. This is due to an "elite"-imposed culture and language. Other ethnic groups speak an "old Mediterranean language" or "usko-Mediterranean language" modified by Roman Latin (i.e., Spanish, Italians), or by other not fully explained processes (Jews). Therefore, the correlation between genes and languages may exist at a macrogeographical level, but not when more precise microgeographical studies are done, as shown in the present "usko-Mediterranean" peoples model.
PMID: 11543906 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
The following study was done by other scientists and confirms the relatedness of the Greeks to sub-Saharans by calculating genetic distances at the DRB1 locus (this study, incidentally, and the Petlichkovski (2004) study above, show that the Greek study is indeed cited by other scientists, and not merely northern European White Nationalists and Afrocentrists, contrary to what Racial Reality and Pontikos would have us believe; the fact that we site it here on our respectable site also disproves those claims, since we are a group who seek the truth and demand all sources):
Quote: Eur J Med Genet. 2006 January - February;49(1):43-56. Epub 2005 Feb 10. Related Articles, Links
HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their Relationship with other Mediterraneans.
Hajjej A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa1ed A, Boukef K.
National Blood Transfusion Centre, Tunis, Tunisia.
South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th-8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.
PMID: 16473309 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
There is more. AncestryByDNA, using autosomal markers, mentions that the average Greek and Italian type with approximately 5% sub-Saharan genetic material. Even though in some cases with respect to certain population groups, for an individual, a low reading such as this may be negated by the confidence interval, in Greeks and Italians low levels of sub-Saharan admixture are consistenly found, making them signature results for these populations. This means they are not stastical "noise," but true results.
That Greeks have some sub-Saharan admixture isn't open to question. The HLA alleles and genetic distance calculations (and neighbor-joining dendograms and correspondence analyses) speak for themselves, as do the other sub-Saharan markers described above, along with the cranial and skeletal, as well as historic, data.
But there is even more.
Sub-Saharan-originating Y-group E-M78 (a derivative of sub-Saharan-originating E3b) is found at relatively high levels in Greeks (and some other Mediterraneans), which suggests, in addition to the more recent admixture, a very ancient sub-Saharan contribution to the Greek genepool (Semino, 2004 and Cruciani, 2004). The fact that the most prevalent form of E-M78 found in Greeks is a later, mainly local (Mediterranean) variation is irrelevant, since the parental E-M78 originated in eastern Africa, as did all of its ancestral markers. Various descendants of E3b, E-M78's ancestor, are shown to exist in many Mediterraneans in this study (though all are simply marked "E3b"), which also shows sub-Saharan Y-group A in Cypriots (although it isn't specified whether these are Greek or Turkish, so, perhaps it is a cross-section; Greek-identified Cypriots are far more numerous). East-African-Specific M1 has also been reported in Greeks (Richards, 2000 and supplementary data).
We rest our case. It must be remembered, this posting is not about "proving" Greeks are "really Black" because of a minor amount of sub-Saharan ancestry. This is about showing sub-Saharan admixture occurred in Greece, and this is evidenced by different kinds of genetic research and supported by history and anthropology. More importantly, it is about refuting fraudulent claims (by those with ideological investments in Greece's "Whiteness") that Arnaiz-Villena's Greek information is invalid or unsound, or that the study on Greeks has been refuted or retracted. Arnaiz-Villena's study on Greeks is perfectly sound scientifically, as are all of his others. And, despite that there are some geneticists (usually those who specialize in mtDNA or Y Chr.) who don't have much faith in HLA studies, there are a great deal of geneticists who find HLA to be a very reliable and discriminating tool for studying population relationships, and the number of studies employing HLA for this purpose are legion. Indeed, some of those who specialize in HLA find mtDNA and Y Chr. to be less reliable. [/QB]
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if all of that is true it tells us almost nothing from an historical point of view. Classical Greece was a product of the Indo European invasion and had nothing to do (as far as we know) with any genetic marker they may well have been deposited there thousands of years before. Population movements have been the rule for the past 50,000 years. To stretch that into an african contribution to historical Greek culture is absurd.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You still have no connection Djehuti. You have to show me a piece of historical information showing a DIRECT connection between these people at classical Greece. Just assuming there is an evolutionary process there is not adequate. This is irresponsible data and not acceptable. You are making an assumption without even as much as a thesis.
You make no sense, Hore. I presented explicit data showing peoples of the Aegean to be of mixed African as well as Asiatic descent and you say there is no connection to Classical Greece?! Are you saying there is no connection between the peoples of Classical Greece and their ancestors of Archaic Greece?!
quote:The only thing the marker shows is that at some point, some people who had PARTIAL East African ancestry were in the area. We also know these people were at one time spread all over southern Europe. So far you have shown is nothing. This is exactly why many educators want to phase out the African studies pograms as they are currently constructed.
There was nothing "partial" about it. E3b as well as Benin HBS (for sickle-cell anemia) is African ancestry pure and simple. Anthropology does not deny it, archaeology does not deny it, and even the Classical Greeks themselves in their own legends and myths do not deny it! Yet YOU do!
quote:zarahan, Djehuti does not even have the historical evidence to connect africa with pre-Indo-European greece. All he has is a genetic marker that a quarter of the population has. For all he knows the people who spread the marker may have no longer even have been substantially african at all. The fact that the marker exists tells us almost nothing historically.
It is the same as seeing a light in the sky and saying, "since I do not know what that light is it must be a UFO."
LMAO Incorrect. The Y-chromosomal marker E3b shows that it originated in Africa and that its presence in the Mediterranean and southern Europe dates to the Neolithic. Not only that but HLA cell receptors important in immunity show the same thing...
Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers. The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.)/Neolithic..-- Arnaiz Villena
And even the form of Sickle-cell anemia (Benin HBS) in Greece is African!
Add all the genetic data above with physical remains showing African or 'negroid' features dating from the neolithic. Not only the skulls from Crete that I posted above but even skeletal remains in mainland Greece such as neolithic Lerna (a site in Argos) as stated in previous pages of this thread.
Add to that the surviving artwork and depictions, particularly the Minoan frescoes from Crete...
The people of the Bronze Age Aegean. Physical appearnce. "The inhabitants of the Aegean area in the Bronze Age may have been much like many people in the Mediterranean basin today, short and slight of build with dark hair and eyes and sallow complexions. Skeletons show that the population of the Aegean was already mixed by Neolithic times, and various facial types, some with delicate features and pointed noses, others pug-nosed, almost negroid, are depicted in wall paintings from the 16th century BC. But men and women are always represented with black hair, and the presence of fair-haired people is not attested in the Aegean until later Greek times. Some very tall men buried in the Mycenaean shaft graves may be descendants of invaders who entered the mainland at the end of the 3rd millennium. A few skeletons from the single graves that appear on the mainland at the very end of the Bronze Age suggest teh presence of new people from the north."--- Sinclair Hood, The Home of the Heroes: The Aegean Before the Greeks (1967) also found in Encyclopedia Britannica 1990 ed. Macropedia Article, Vol 20: Greek and Roman Civilizations
And although Disney World may not be a primary source, it could be thought of as a secondary source... in that many years ago when I was a kid I remember going to the 'Posiedon Adventure'. There in the hallways of the long waiting line were exact duplicates of the Minoan frescoes and I was surprised to see on many of them images of what looked like black people! With everything I know now, I'm no longer suprised.
British archaeologist Arthur Evans (1851-1941), who conducted excavations on the island, was convinced of African migrations to ancient Crete. He pointed out that:
"The multiplicity of these connections with the old indigenous race of the opposite African coast, and which we undoubtedly have to deal with in the pre dynastic population of the Nile Valley, can in fact be hardly explained on any other hypothesis than that of an actual settlement in Southern Crete."
The research team of C.H. and H.B. Hawes, the latter of whom, like Evans, conducted important archaeological excavations in Crete, [...] noted that: "Anthropologists are inclined to the view that the Neolithic people of Crete were immigrants, and probably came from North Africa."
Historian H.R. Hall, also Oxford trained, shared Evans' position on the early population of Minoan Crete:
"While the majority of the original Neolithic inhabitants of Crete probably came from Anatolia, another element may well have come in oared boats from the opposite African coast, bringing with them to the southern plain of Messara the seeds of civilization that, transplanted to the different conditions of Crete, developed into the great Minoan culture, a younger more brilliant, and less long-lived sister of that of Egypt."
Whether the Minoan culture was more brilliant than that of Egypt is highly questionable at best, but on the other points Hall seems to just about to hit the mark. Evans, again, indeed considered Egypt and Libya as the springboards of Minoan civilization; so much so that he structured his own Minoan chronology on that of dynastic Egypt. He was particularly struck by the similarities in the contents of the of the tombs of the ancient Minoans and Egyptians:
"So numerous, in fact, are the points, of comparison presented by the contents of these early interments with those of pre dynastic Egypt that, far-fetched as the conclusion might appear at first sight, I was already some years since constrained to put forth the suggestion that about the time of the conquest of the lower Nile Valley by the first historic dynasty some part of the older population had actually settled in this southern foreland of Crete."
Gordon Childe also commented on the relations between Crete and pre dynastic Egypt:
"At least on the Mesara, the great plain of southern Crete facing Africa, Minoan Crete's indebtedness to the Nile is disclosed in the most intimate aspects of its culture. Not only do the forms of early Minoan stone vases, the precision of the lapidaries' technique and the aesthetic selection of variegated stones as his materials carry on the the pre dynastic tradition, Nilotic religious customs such as the use of the sistrum, the wearing of amulets in the forms of legs, mummies and monkeys, and statuettes plainly derived from Gerzean `block figures,' and personal habits revealed by depilatory tweezers of the Egyptian shape and stone unguent palettes from the early tombs and, later, details of costumes such as the penis-sheath and loin-cloth betoken something deeper than the external relations of commerce."
Cretan/Egyptian contacts pick up again in the sixteenth and fifteenth centuries B.C. During the reigns of Egyptian monarchs Makare Hatshepsut and Thutmose III (1504-1447 B.C.) the people of Crete, whom the Egyptians called Keftiu, were graphically portrayed as tribute bearers on the walls of the tombs of the Egyptian nobility.
SOURCES: African Presence In Early Europe, Edited by Ivan Van Sertima Man, God And Civilization, by John G. Jackson
And last but not least, add to everything above the ancient Greek stories of African involvement in the Aegean from Libya and the Gorgon Amazons to Danaus and his daughters hegemony over Argos, to the 'Ethiopian' king Memnon's participation in the Trojan War etc. etc.
Alot people forget that even the Bible confirms African presence in the Mediterranean via ancient Hebrew Scriptures! From Genesis Table of Nations: ..And Mizraim (Egypt) begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, and Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim) and Caphtorim...
The Casluhim are said to be an island dwelling people in the Aegean identified with ancestors of the Philistine, while the Caphtorim are identified with the people of Crete whom the Egyptians called Keftiu!
My oh my, professor! All this data and info combined seemed to be far more than just a faulty conclusion from something vague, or as you say calling a light in the sky a UFO! LOL It is a FACT pure and simple that the forebearers of Aegean including Archaic Greek civilization were a mixed people including Africans, and NOT simply Europeans as you believe!
quote: Even if all of that is true it tells us almost nothing from an historical point of view. Classical Greece was a product of the Indo European invasion and had nothing to do (as far as we know) with any genetic marker they may well have been deposited there thousands of years before. Population movements have been the rule for the past 50,000 years. To stretch that into an african contribution to historical Greek culture is absurd.
Incorrect professor. Classical Greece is a product of peoples whose roots lie in the preceeding Archaic Greece which was the first Greek civilization and yes Africans had a significant role in it.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
AP maintained: "Djehuti does not even have the historical evidence to connect africa with pre Indo European greece."
But you have laid out a) historical evidence, as seen right there in the wall and tomb paintings, the (b) genetic markers discussed earlier and above.
You said originally that Africans and Southwest Asians moved to the Aegean area and helped found civilization in the Aegean and Greece. You did not say swarms of Nubian or Egyptian charioteers were roaming around Crete or parts of Turkey. You said a mix of peoples were involved. Also various Southwest Asian and Near Eastern peoples DO carry African genetic markers in varying proportions (per Knowledge's posts above) so any presence of these markers also coming via Near Eastern peoples as part of that mix is not surprising, particularly the further back you go in history. Under the OOA model, all the SA/NE populations derive from migrating Africans, so corresponding genetic material from that original source is hardly unusual. The people seen today do not necessarily look like the people 4,000 years ago. A mix of routes, pathways, peoples and sources are involved in the Neolithic era.
AP seems to be missing your point. The Aegean civilizations existed before so called Indo-European Greece, and the Indo-Europeans adopted numerous aspects of that previous civilization. Also the pug-noses and very dark skin would only represent ONE TYPE of Afrocoid strain. There are other types. As noted by Hiernaux 1975, Africa has the tallest and the shortest people in the world, the broadest and the narrowest noses, etc etc.. So right there is historical evidence of an Africoid type on the wall and tomb paintings. The pug-noses just happen to be the most visible type that can be seen via the paintings. There may have been others that looked different, a routine occurrence with African peoples.
As for AP's claim of no "historical evidence to connect africa with pre Indo European greece" you have proven that false. The Minoan civilization is located on Crete, considered one of the "Greek" islands by later definition.
Adding to your data would be the well documented paper below which shows extensive contacts between Crete and Egypt in olden times, BEFORE the rise of Myceaean Greeks, particularly through Byblos, located in present day Lebanon: Not only did this involve trade but cultural borrowing and interchange as well.
Some quotes: See: ((http://www2.ulg.ac.be/archgrec/IMG/aegeum/aegaeum18(pdf)/08%20Watrous.pdf))
Deposits of votives from the area of the temples at Byblos exhibit a strongly Egyptian f lavor. The famous Montet Jar from Byblos was filled with Egyptianizing objects and motifs, such as jewellery, seals, amulets and votives as well as representations of an ibis, apes, baboons, the uraeus and the Horus child.4 Other groups of votives at Byblos included Egyptian-type stone vases, private Egyptian statuettes, objects, figurines, and amulets depicting the lotus, Osiris column, scarab, bull, lion, hippo and the royal crown of Lower Egypt which were associated with Egyptian deities and the Pharaoh.5 This elite Egyptian(izing) material contrasts with the contents of local private tombs which contain little or no such items.6 The presence of many of these Egyptian motifs and titles at Byblos underlines the local nobility’s use of the powerful Egyptian status and their assimilation of Egyptian ideology for their own political enhancement.
Because Crete was poor in raw materials and “underdeveloped” relative to the Near East, it seems likely that it was Minoan mariners who first set sail for Levantine and Egyptian ports in search of silver, copper, tin, ivory and precious stones, in return for which they brought timber, and finished goods such as textiles, metal vases, weapons and decorated pottery.
It is also clear that the Cretans came into contact with some forms of Egyptian culture indirectly, via the Levant. Minoan seals with Egyptianizing designs, for example, at times resemble Levantine models more closely than Egyptian examples.[11]
In 1994 Judith Weingarten published a stimulating article on the sealings from the early palace at Phaistos.[23] By distinguishing among the groups of some 1500 well preserved seals that were used on five different door pommels, she found that three seals seemed to have an important position in the administrative hierarchy of the palace, since they had been used many more times than any of the others. Two of these seals had traditional abstract designs (CMS ii 5, nos.165 and 168), but the third seal (CMS ii 5, no. 268/9) was decorated with a scene of a bull battering down a fortified settlement. From earliest times (as on the Narmer palette), this design was one of the most royal of Egyptian motifs.
This sealing brings us to the question of Egyptian influence on the creation of Minoan administration and political structure. Fiandra has shown that the administrative system governing the storage and redistribution of goods in the First Palace at Phaistos is so similar to the many such systems in Egypt and the Near East that it must have been derived from the East.24 The distinctly Egyptian shape of the Phaistian door pommels also may point to the area where the Minoans actually learned about the administrative system. On Crete the Minoans devised two forms of writing for administrative purposes, the hieroglyphic script (which may be the earlier of the two) and Linear A.25 At Byblos, the Phoenician alphabet is thought to have been devised during the second millennium BC, probably by a local Byblite scribe knowledgeable of Egyptian hierogylphic script, who wanted an efficient writing system for the local Byblite language.26 Given the presence of Egyptian characters in the Cretan hieroglyphic script, it too may have been formulated under similar circumstances in Crete.
In the area of funerary customs, however, the Minoans seem to have been more open to Egyptian ideas. In MM I-II Crete, traditional Minoan burials continued to be made in tholoi and house tombs, but some burials began to occur in clay coffins, a shape unknown in the Eastern Mediterranean at this time, except in Egypt. At Mallia, the monumental royal tomb built in MM I at Chrysolakkos may imitate the form of the Egyptian mastaba.34 For the first time, too, MM I-II burials included quantities of Egyptian funerary paraphernalia: stone palettes (for grinding cosmetics) the sistrum (for making music in the Afterworld) Egyptian types of stone vases (for perfumes, unguents, cosmetics): -alabastra -cylindrical vessels -block vases -goblets -carinated bowls -double vases -miniature amphoras -ceremonial shells -clay models of bread loaves.35
The funerary concept that the deceased travelled over water (viz. the Nile River) to reach the Afterworld is well known in Egypt. The Minoans had clearly adopted this idea by the Late Bronze Age, but Middle Minoan I-II grave goods, e.g. seashells and water-worn pebbles found in tombs at Archanes and a clay ship model, probably from the Mesara, shows that this practice began much earlier.36
In order to understand the appearance of funerary paraphernalia (and the ideas associated with them) in Cretan tombs, this development must be viewed within its larger sociopolitical context. Cretan burial practices in Middle Minoan I-II were also transformed in other ways. Burials became individual, placed in single clay coffins or jars. In addition, the deceased was provided with a larger (mostly Egyptianizing) range of grave goods, that included the provisioning of perfumes, cosmetics, model offerings, animal sacrifices (i.e real food, as was the practice in Egypt), which indicates that at this time the individual Minoan was envisioned as having greater direct access to an eternal life in an Afterworld. Seashells, sea pebbles and a boat model found in Middle Minoan tombs hint that the deceased had to travel overseas to get to this Afterworld, an eschatological concept that surely was based on Egyptian ideas.
The full meaning of this development on Crete is suggested by the development of funerary practices in Egypt, where a similar, widespread “democratization of the Afterlife” took place beginning in the First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom.43 In Egypt this change in burial customs can be seen in the elaboration of individual commoners’ tombs that for the first time include royal iconography, written magical texts, private stelae and large numbers of amulets. Egyptian texts explain two important features of this democratization: 1) the Egyptian population was given access to an elaborate Afterlife (previously limited to the elite), and 2) the individual earned the right to an Afterlife (through judgment before Osiris in the Underworld) by following the ethical and legal dictates of society. If a similar development took place in Crete, the appearance of Egyptian funerary paraphernalia in Cretan tombs should be understood as only one aspect of a larger transformation of social roles in Minoan society.
During the era before Cretan contact with Egypt (EM I-III), Minoan cult was carried out largely within the communal cemetery, and would seem to have revolved around the importance of the living community’s ties with its deified ancestors. In Middle Minoan IA, the rise of multi-community, regional sanctuaries and the demise of communal burials are part of a redefinition of Minoan eschatology and worship. The Egyptian elements in Minoan tombs may indicate not just the acceptance of an Egyptianizing Afterworld, but also the idea that the deceased had to have lived a just life in order to earn an eternal Afterlife.44
-----------------------
None of the above says that the Egyptians "founded" Cretan culture or religion. The Cretans were their own bosses, but there was some cultural change as doucmented above, falsifying AP's argument that there was no "historical evidence to connect africa with pre Indo European greece." Last I remember, Egypt is in Africa...
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly, you have no historical data. You have shown us that there was a marker that spread over much of southern Europe. Minoans were not black Africans. That they and many many others had a genetic marker is not historical data. Secondly, Indo Europenans did not come from that area at all. A thousand years is a very very long time, ten thousand years is an eternity in a conversation like this. I'll grant you the genertic marker. You just have not been able to do anything with it. Over several thousand years populations moved all over that area and beyond. The genius of Greece was exported from Greece, it did not come into Greece. The Greek Polis has nothing to do with anything in Africa. In fact, Greece and Egypt are almost mirror opposites in that and most areas. Greek religion does not in any way resemble Egyptian religion. The Greeks cremated their dead, the exact opposite of the Egyptians. The Greek afterlife was nothing like the Egyptian afterlife. Politics was not remotely related as the Egyptians were a very very conservative political culture. Egypt did not have the organized legal system the Greeks had. All this and more is why no classical scholar has ever stated a thesis that agrees with yours.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Exactly, you have no historical data. You have shown us that there was a marker that spread over much of southern Europe...
Actually several genetic markers-- Y-chromosal E3b, Benin HBS (sickle-cell anemia), and HLA genes. Not to mention, evidence from physical remains!
quote:..Minoans were not black Africans. That they and many many others had a genetic marker is not historical data.
If you read the above archaeological info from Evans, you would realize that the Minoans like many other Aegean peoples were a mixed population of Africans and Asians, with Africans being the earlier group! What about the Minoan frescoes themselves showing the presence of blacks??!
quote:..Secondly, Indo Europenans did not come from that area at all. A thousand years is a very very long time, ten thousand years is an eternity in a conversation like this.
Did you not read my excerpt from Sinclair Hood?? He specifically stated the Aegean was a mix of of peoples from Asia and Africa before Indo-European speakers even entered the scene. I-E speakers were NOT the creaters of Aegean or Archaic Greek civilization; they were merely the inheritors of it!
quote:..I'll grant you the genertic marker. You just have not been able to do anything with it...
My God, you are as dense as you are stubborn. It has been explained to you countless times that geneticists specifically state that these genetic markers originate in Africa and entered the Aegean and Greece during the Neolithic. I also showed you other evidence besides genetics such as anthropological remains as well as archaeological remains! Did you not read my previous post in its entirety??
quote:Over several thousand years populations moved all over that area and beyond. The genius of Greece was exported from Greece, it did not come into Greece. The Greek Polis has nothing to do with anything in Africa. In fact, Greece and Egypt are almost mirror opposites in that and most areas. Greek religion does not in any way resemble Egyptian religion. The Greeks cremated their dead, the exact opposite of the Egyptians. The Greek afterlife was nothing like the Egyptian afterlife. Politics was not remotely related as the Egyptians were a very very conservative political culture...
And again, nobody is saying that Egypt founded Greek civilization outright. We are merely saying that pre-Egyptian forebearers from Africa as well as Asia founded the roots of Greek culture which is Neolithic culture itself-- i.e. agriculture, animal domestication, and urbanization!! In fact, it's obvious that the Asiatic cultural roots were more dominant as there is much more in common between the Greeks and Anatolians in terms of culture!
quote:Egypt did not have the organized legal system the Greeks had. All this and more is why no classical scholar has ever stated a thesis that agrees with yours.
You're wrong about this! Of course the Egyptians had an organized legal system. In fact their system later influenced that of Greece. I suggest you look at this source here.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Sounds like AP is trying to duck and shift the subject. He first set out claiming that there was no "historical evidence to connect africa with pre Indo European greece."
That has been refuted for you have shown (a) the genetic markers, (b) the historical and cultural evidence via the wall paintings.
Added to the mix was (c) the historical interchange between Crete and Egypt before the Myceanan rise. ((http://www2.ulg.ac.be/archgrec/IMG/aegeum/aegaeum18(pdf)/08%20Watrous.pdf))
On three counts, Ap's claim falls flat. -----------------
Seems now he is trying to shift the ground, perhaps not understanding that before the Mycenean Greeks came there were other PRIOR Aegean civilizations. He is now floating a strawman argument that Egyot is responsible for Greek civ. No one is saying that. This is a red herring.
However he digs himself in a deeper hole with claims such as this:
Egypt did not have the organized legal system the Greeks had. All this and more is why no classical scholar has ever stated a thesis that agrees with yours.
As DJE has shown, Egyptian law was very well organized. In fact the Greeks learned some things fronm Egypt on that score. In addition to DJE's link, add this:
FROM THE CONSERVATIVE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA 1974 EDITION
"Ancient Egyptian law was remarkable in terms of its lines of application, since it has as its primary objective, the promotion of basic human rights. There were, certainly, periods of regression, but these were balanced by others in which great forward strides were made..
"Yet Bocchoris freed the individual, suppressed imprisonment for debt, prohibited the interest of a debt from doubling the capital, and fixed the rules of written contracts; he also initiated certain reforms dealing with the mobility of private property. All these changes were eminently important, but correspond with the spirit of th Egyptian law in the high points of its history."
"Furthernmore, Egyptian law had a definite effect on Greek law during the Hellenistic period and later on Roman imperial law. Even before this time, Egyptian influence has been felt on Greek law, for in the early 6th century BC Solon, an early Athenian lawgiver, came to Egypt anbd was inspired by the legislative work of Bocchoris. The result was a decisive turn in Greek law, although the Greeks never emancipated women as had the Egyptians."
AP, not to beat up on you, but you need to go back and take a little more time to study the relevant data, and understand what people are saying. If you feel you have credible evidence on hand, by all means bring it to bear but so far your 2 claims:
(a) no contact between Africa and pre-Mycn. Greece
(b) no organized system of Egyptian law or linkage to Greek law
have been proven false. If you have additional info to support these 2 claims, bring it forward.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Zarahan, you waste your time. 'Patriot' is nothing more than a bitter racist. Notice that all he does is argue against the evidence no matter how valid it is or how much of it is piled up in front of him, yet he presents absolutely nothing to counter the evidence!
He is just a mouthpiece talking for the same of talking, and is mouthpiece of racist white America. Seriously, it's guys like him that actually kind of make me proud Obama was elected!
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know it's funny how the 'professor' speaks of the very notion of ancient blacks being present in southern Europe to be "out there", "wacky", "absurd", yet at the same time he espouses the notion of ancient whites of North Africa!! LMAO
Now how wacky is that! I mean hypocrisy is an understatement with this guy.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that we've established that the Ancient Greeks were mixed with Africans and Southwest Asians, does anyone have an opinion as to exactly what they would have looked like? I've noticed that it's difficult finding a reliable source with representative images of modern Greeks on the Internet. The only collections of photographs of modern Greeks that I've found so far are on Medicentrist websites with a "lily white Greek" agenda---needless to say, they pick the lightest-skinned Greeks.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And although Disney World may not be a primary source, it could be thought of as a secondary source... in that many years ago when I was a kid I remember going to the 'Posiedon Adventure'. There in the hallways of the long waiting line were exact duplicates of the Minoan frescoes and I was surprised to see on many of them images of what looked like black people! With everything I know now, I'm no longer suprised.
Printer-friendly view of this topic