posted
The Cro-Magnon type has tacitly been invoked as the most likely forebearer of contemporary Europeans—where human paleontological record of Europe is concerned—within "Western" academic media circles, the so-called remains having been branded as being that belonging to modern anatomically modern human phylogen. Recently, the Oase 2 cranium finding in Romanian Pes¸tera cu Oase cave setting has culminated into efforts to present another viable alternative to the Cro-Magnon type, as potential forebearers of contemporary Europeans, given that cranio-morphic assessment renders it relatively more modern than the rather incomplete item of the Oase I mandible. However, the Oase 2 is determined to have its own set of peculiarities that distinguish it from modern human examples, whether it happens to be those of the Middle Paleolithic, Early Upper Paleolithic, Middle Upper Paleolithic or from thereon [see: H. Rougler et al. (2007)]. This allows the Cro-Magnon to retain its relative privileged place in human paleontological record of Europe, as likely ancestors of contemporary Europeans. However, while Cro-Magnon ties have been insinuated in northern Africa [re: Mechta-Afalou and Mechtoids], few references to human paleontological, if any, have actually been made that directly tie the so-called "Middle East" and possibly even the Central Asia—the two main alternatives generally referenced within "Western" academia, with regards to the corridor for the peopling of Europe with anatomically modern humans—to the Cro-Magnon remains of Europe...or has there been considerable publication otherwise?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cro-Magnon could not have entered Eurasia from the Levant since it was occupied by Neanderthals until after 28kya. The entered Eurasia from Africa through Spain and made their way Westward (Grimaldi).
As a result, the Cro-Magnon people were San people. I explain this in detail in an upcoming paper. When it is published, hopefully, later this year I will direct you to it.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damnit Clyde, you have to make up your mind, either Cro-magnon was a primitive humanoid or a full-fledged human - he can't be both.
In either case he couldn't have anything to do with San or Grimaldi, as they were unquestionably full-fledged modern humans.
Not only that, the genus homo-sapien-sapien (modern humans) is at least four (4) times OLDER than Cro-magnon.
So if cro-magnon was even in the genetic line of modern humans, how would you explain the "throw-back" nature of cro-magnon?
I mean, since when does the younger, more modern creature, represent an inferior breed with less capabilities? (excluding White people).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those scratching their heads and wondering "So then, where did Cro-magnon come from?"
Cro-magnon was born in the middle-east. His parents were some horny Modern-men and some Neanderthal females who happened to be available and receptive.
Cro-magnon entered Europe at about 30,000 B.C.
Modern-man Grimaldi (the San) entered Europe much earlier at about 45,000 B.C.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Cro-Magnon could not have entered Eurasia from the Levant since it was occupied by Neanderthals until after 28kya. The entered Eurasia from Africa through Spain and made their way Westward (Grimaldi).
I guess that is ONE way of looking at it; can you share with us some of the reasons [in the form of evidence, preferrably bio-anthropological] why you think that route was taken, besides the one presented above.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Damnit Clyde, you have to make up your mind, either Cro-magnon was a primitive humanoid or a full-fledged human - he can't be both.
In either case he couldn't have anything to do with San or Grimaldi, as they were unquestionably full-fledged modern humans.
Not only that, the genus homo-sapien-sapien (modern humans) is at least four (4) times OLDER than Cro-magnon.
So if cro-magnon was even in the genetic line of modern humans, how would you explain the "throw-back" nature of cro-magnon?
I mean, since when does the younger, more modern creature, represent an inferior breed with less capabilities? (excluding White people).
The Cro-Magnon people were San. I have always made this claim.
Furthermore, they originated in Africa.
The Europeans have tried to make these people their ancestors but as you may know we have no evidence, according to Diop of any European skeletons until 2000BC.
posted
Question: Clyde, are you basing your Gibraltar Strait(?) route case merely on the account that the Cro-Magnon remains belong to that of Khoisan individuals. If so, how come you've managed to make that connection, while researchers who studied these remains haven't?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Question: Clyde, are you basing your Gibraltar Strait(?) route case merely on the account that the Cro-Magnon remains belong to that of Khoisan individuals. If so, how come you've managed to make that connection, while researchers who studied these remains haven't?
Lol, I've mentioned this to Clyde many times before, but he simply doesn't get it.
But in regards to your opening question it is warranted as you note the Mechta specimens who are described as being similar to the specimens found in the cave in France dubbed Cro-Magnon (noted as resembling modern tropical peoples more than modern Europeans), while there are no specific ties noted amongst the recent studies to link them with the supposed origin for Europeans (I.e., southwest or central Asia), which is suggested supposedly according to the genetic data.
So indeed this needs to be further investigated.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Question: Clyde, are you basing your Gibraltar Strait(?) route case merely on the account that the Cro-Magnon remains belong to that of Khoisan individuals. If so, how come you've managed to make that connection, while researchers who studied these remains haven't?
This connection was made over 60 years ago when they compared this civilization to South African civilizations.
They assume a Levant entry because they have failed to review the archaeology.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Question: Clyde, are you basing your Gibraltar Strait(?) route case merely on the account that the Cro-Magnon remains belong to that of Khoisan individuals. If so, how come you've managed to make that connection, while researchers who studied these remains haven't?
The archaeological evidence also makes it clear that the Aurignacian culture moved from west to east. The archaeological evidence makes it clear that ‘classic Aurignacian’ began in Iberia and expanded eastward across Europe. It dates back to 40,000 years before the present (ybp). Many researchers believe that the Aurignacian culture entered Europe from the Levant. Although this view has been accepted without challenge, the archaeological evidence indicates that AMH replaced Neanderthal during the Aurignacian period in Europe around 32-35kya . It is also evident that archaic humans were replaced in much of the Levant by the Levantine Aurignacian culture bearers by a local variant of the technology at Ksar Akil Xlll-Vll 32kya , not 60-50kya.
posted
Here is what Richards et al. (2000) had to say, from mtDNA standpoint, to recap:
mtDNA in the Near East
Table 1 shows frequencies and age estimates of the main mtDNA haplogroups that occur in the Near East and Europe. These clusters are restricted primarily to Europe and the Near East (western Eurasia). Western-Eurasian lineages are found at moderate frequencies as far east as central Asia (Comas et al. 1998) and are found at low frequencies in both India (Kivisild et al. 1999a) and Siberia (Torroni et al. 1998), but, in these cases, only restricted subsets of the western-Eurasian haplogroups have been found, suggesting that they are most probably the result of secondary expansions from the core Near Eastern/European zone. - Richards et al., Tracing European Founder Lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA Pool, 2000.
The "moderate frequencies" of Western-Eurasian markers that do appear in central Asia, are proposed here to be largely the product of gene flow from "core Near Eastern/European Zone". Essentially, the case being made here, is that the "Near Eastern" corridor is the more likely player of the two aforementioned peopling corridors.
However, as I have noted: Publications in "western" media have sought to make links between north African specimens and the European Cro-Magnon type [suspiciously -- usually with underlying motives to make north African groups as essentially extensions of Europeans]; I have yet to see the same links being invoked in human fossil record in the so-called "Near East" and Central Asia, where the Cro-Magnon is concerned. Have I overlooked data? I mean, the general observation about certain "tropical" physical trends in Upper Paleolithic Eurasian specimens aside, little in way of cranio-morphometric link has been made between Cro-Magnons and human fossil records of the said regions, as far as any comes to immediate attention.
It should be noted that in crural and brachial indices, and limb-trunk proportions, Cro-Magnons have been implicated in specimens who approach the recent sub-Saharan mean before they do the recent European mean. The likes of the Cro-Magnon have retain "tropical" trend indices, although some in situ adaptation did take place as well.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Question: Clyde, are you basing your Gibraltar Strait(?) route case merely on the account that the Cro-Magnon remains belong to that of Khoisan individuals. If so, how come you've managed to make that connection, while researchers who studied these remains haven't?
This is a bushman or San.
Hottentot
As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.
Venus Figurines
The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.
The Aurignacian civilization was founded by the Cro-Magnon people who originated in Africa. They took this culture to Western Europe across the Straits of Gibraltar. The Cro-Magnon people were probably Bushman/Khoi.
There have been numerous "Negroid skeletons" found in Europe. Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois, in Fossil Man, provide an entire chapter on the Africans/Negroes of Europe Anta Diop also discussed the Negroes of Europe in Civilization or Barbarism, pp.25-68. Also W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa, pp.86-89. DuBois noted that "There was once a an "uninterrupted belt' of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa" (p.88).
Boule and Vallois, note that "To sum up, in the most ancient skeletons from the Grotte des Enfants we have a human type which is readily comparable to modern types and especially to the Negritic or Negroid type" (p.289). They continue, "Two Neolithic individuals from Chamblandes in Switzerland are Negroid not only as regards their skulls but also in the proportions of their limbs. Several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element.
Since the publication of Verneau's memoir, discoveries of other Negroid skeletons in Neolithic levels in Illyria and the Balkans have been announced. The prehistoric statues, dating from the Copper Age, from Sultan Selo in Bulgaria are also thought to protray Negroids.
In 1928 Rene Bailly found in one of the caverns of Moniat, near Dinant in Belgium, a human skeleton of whose age it is difficult to be certain, but seems definitely prehistoric. It is remarkable for its Negroid characters, which give it a reseblance to the skeletons from both Grimaldi and Asselar (p.291).
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
However, as I have noted: Publications in "western" media have sought to make links between north African specimens and the European Cro-Magnon type [suspiciously -- usually with underlying motives to make north African groups as essentially extensions of Europeans]; [/QB]
Ahha indeed, this is the underlying idea that the Euro-centric's want to prevail, in essence to claim northern Africa, but how would one beat around the evidence that both populations resembled tropical Africans?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
The archaeological evidence also makes it clear that the Aurignacian culture moved from west to east. The archaeological evidence makes it clear that ‘classic Aurignacian’ began in Iberia and expanded eastward across Europe. It dates back to 40,000 years before the present (ybp).
Many researchers believe that the Aurignacian culture entered Europe from the Levant. Although this view has been accepted without challenge, the archaeological evidence indicates that AMH replaced Neanderthal during the Aurignacian period in Europe around 32-35kya . It is also evident that archaic humans were replaced in much of the Levant by the Levantine Aurignacian culture bearers by a local variant of the technology at Ksar Akil Xlll-Vll 32kya , not 60-50kya.
Okay, I suppose there's nothing unreasonable in what you point out here. The question is, how do we know the Aurignacian culture is specifically tied to Cro-Magnon types; as far as I can tell, this is made by way of "by correlation" deductive reasoning, in that it falls within an era contemporaneous with Cro-Magnon fossil record, more than anything else.
As for steatopygia, in all seriousness, surely you are not saying that this is why you assume the Cro-Magnons must have been the Kalahari Bushmen type, are you? If Cro-Magnon likes can have body indices that approach recent sub-Saharans, then is it not possible--if the pieces of art relics posted indicate anything real at all about the associated society--that steatopygia was something known amongst them as well...something rarely encountered amongst recent Europeans?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Ahha indeed, this is the underlying idea that the Euro-centric's want to prevail, in essence to claim northern Africa, but how would one beat around the evidence that both populations resembled tropical Africans?
With all attempted linkage made between EpiPaleolithic and early Holocene northern African crania and European Cro-Magnon types, it is made in vain, since the African examples still sported enough variations to be considered phylogenetic entities in their own right. One might try to argue some kind of genetic exchange with Cro-Magnons, but nothing in the trends noted in published data make this apparent.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe.
Interesting. What specific southern African "stone implements" is being referenced above? The same question applies to the burial sites in question; elaboration on these would be welcome.
Any parallels between the Europe-based Aurignacian art and Bushman art?
quote: Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
Elaboration is due on these cranio-morphometric specifics, don't you agree?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
However, as I have noted: Publications in "western" media have sought to make links between north African specimens and the European Cro-Magnon type [suspiciously -- usually with underlying motives to make north African groups as essentially extensions of Europeans]; [/QB]
Ahha indeed, this is the underlying idea that the Euro-centric's want to prevail, in essence to claim northern Africa, but how would one beat around the evidence that both populations resembled tropical Africans?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
MindoverMatter, were you trying to add something to that; I believe it was already posted above?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"That" refers to the above post that you last posted. It was already posted several posts ago.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well then in that case the "aha indeed" was a confirmation that I understood what you were saying, and as I noted above in reply to your initial post question. Correct, there doesn't seem to be any recent studies that provide any specific cranio-morphic ties to anatomically modern humans in the near east or central Asia rather supposed Cro-magnon specimens tie to north African sample Mechta.
So basically the answer to your OP is no, you're not missing anything, and as Ive agreed it needs to be further investigated.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand. I was referring to the *entire* post. It is a *duplicate* of another one already posted. I wasn't sure what your intentions were -- re:the double post, and hence, my question.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, now that I looked back you're correct I made a double post accidentally. Pardon.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No harm done. Just curious, wan't trying to pass premature judgment of any sort. But your point is taken.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Ahha indeed, this is the underlying idea that the Euro-centric's want to prevail, in essence to claim northern Africa, but how would one beat around the evidence that both populations resembled tropical Africans?
With all attempted linkage made between EpiPaleolithic and early Holocene northern African crania and European Cro-Magnon types, it is made in vain, since the African examples still sported enough variations to be considered phylogenetic entities in their own right. One might try to argue some kind of genetic exchange with Cro-Magnons, but nothing in the trends noted in published data make this apparent.
It is in vain, and as you note one has to take into consideration the connection and emphasis that "western academia" puts inbetween Mechta and Cro-magnon, but can this also note anything about the underived R1* located in Africa, of which its derivatives appear to be concentrated in Europe?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The paraphyletic Hg R chromosomes in Africa vs. none in Europe certainly presents an interesting situation. Some have been implicated in the Dead Sea area, which itself has been implicated in gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa, but these -- as some would reckon -- could be a matter of fine-tuning resolution of DNA sequencing [as Cruciani obviously attempted to do recently, but only with African chromosomes]. Of course, this would have to ultimately implicate the R1a siblings of R1b carriers. While some paraphyletic Hg R chromosomes have been implicated in the Indian sub-continent, R1b is rather rare, if not absent, in that region. Why is that a big deal? Well, R1b is considered to be the older of the two, between R1a and R1b. It remains to be seen if Cro-Magnon can be tied to Hg R genetically, but given the current Y-DNA landscape of Europe, the correlation between the two isn't unreasonable.
BTW, as far as paraphyletic Hg R chromosomes go, none has been implicated in Central Asian populations. But, if brought to my attention otherwise, it is something I'll definitely examine closely.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe.
Interesting. What specific southern African "stone implements" is being referenced above? The same question applies to the burial sites in question; elaboration on these would be welcome.
Any parallels between the Europe-based Aurignacian art and Bushman art?
quote: Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
Elaboration is due on these cranio-morphometric specifics, don't you agree?
Not really. To find out more you need to read the book I am sure you live near a large library you will find the book there.
Years ago I made copies of the book but I can't find them at the moment.
Specific mtDNA sites outside HVRI were also analyzed (by amplification, cloning, and sequencing of the surrounding region) to classify more precisely the ancient sequences within the phylogenetic network of present-time mtDNAs (35, 36). Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35). Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN,containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*. Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35). It is difficult to say whether the apparent evolutionary relationship between Paglicci-25 and Paglicci-12 and those populations is more than a coincidence. Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are rare among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated. However, genetic affinities between the first anatomically modern Europeans and current populations of the Near East make sense in the light of the likely routes of Upper Paleolithic human expansions in Europe, as documented in the archaeological record (37).
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Cro-Magnon people carried haplogroup N:
quote:
Specific mtDNA sites outside HVRI were also analyzed (by amplification, cloning, and sequencing of the surrounding region) to classify more precisely the ancient sequences within the phylogenetic network of present-time mtDNAs (35, 36). Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35). Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN,containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*. Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35). It is difficult to say whether the apparent evolutionary relationship between Paglicci-25 and Paglicci-12 and those populations is more than a coincidence. Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are rare among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated. However, genetic affinities between the first anatomically modern Europeans and current populations of the Near East make sense in the light of the likely routes of Upper Paleolithic human expansions in Europe, as documented in the archaeological record (37).
posted
^The White man put up a straw man in Cro-magnon, and you idiots have been chasing him without thought.
Clyde, for the last time, the San are Modern humans NOT Cro-magnons!
1) This is easily proven by the fact that Cro-magnon is an extinct species, and the San are very much alive.
2) Has anyone bothered to wonder why the White man would ONLY speak of Cro-magnon as the first advanced humanoid in Europe, and attribute all the advanced cultures in Europe to this less-than-human species;
all the while, knowing full well that the full-fledged modern human Grimaldi was in Europe 10,000 years previous. And by then would have had a far more numerous population in Europe. Thus by Human capability and sheer numbers, would have been the likely creator of the cultures and artifacts attributed to Cro-magnon.
ARE YOU PEOPLE SO DENSE THAT ALL OF THAT DOESN'T SEEM STRANGE TO YOU?
posted
^I see that nobody has figured it out, so here it is:
The White man worked a two-pronged attack against Black people.
First, After defining Cro-magnon, he then seeded the scientific community and the rest of the world with this depiction of Cro-Magnon;
After everyone was used to thinking of Cro-magnon as looking like this; In about 2006, the White scientific community "UPGRADED" Cro-Magnon from a humanoid to a Homo-sapien;
Since Homo-sapiens were modern people like us, WE also had to be "UPGRADED" to Homo-sapien-sapien.
Thus with Cro-Magnon "UPGRADED" to a human status, they could then go ahead and attribute the first modern cultures in Europe to Cro-Magnon.
Cro-Magnon first entered Europe at about 30 - 35,000 B.C.
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe.
Interesting. What specific southern African "stone implements" is being referenced above? The same question applies to the burial sites in question; elaboration on these would be welcome.
Any parallels between the Europe-based Aurignacian art and Bushman art?
quote: Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
Elaboration is due on these cranio-morphometric specifics, don't you agree?
Not really. To find out more you need to read the book I am sure you live near a large library you will find the book there.
Years ago I made copies of the book but I can't find them at the moment.
Wait a minute here; are you saying that you are incapable of supporting something that you brought up, and that it is my job to seek answers? Why do you even bother to post on a discussion board at all, if that's your attitude...that we can all just go to the library, and try & figure out if what someone says at any given time has any objective merit to it. Is it possible that you just took *references* to these authors for granted, but did not actually investigate the substance of their claims? And by extension, is it possible that you cite them because their claim appears to lend support to your position?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
or are you simply a lucked-out queer who cannot resist The Explorer?
It is obvious that your sole purpose of trailing me all over the board has to do with trying to get "lucky" with me, because for sure, it never has anything to do with EVER addressing what I actually say.
Your time will be better spent trailing the tail of yo redneck masta, Hammered. It is clear to anyone here that Hammered and his ilk have your snout in a tight leash, since they have you trailing people you never seem to have a shot at ever refuting, but just being a queer pest, who will must definitely be exposed to some serious wacking [and I don't mean the queer way that will send you off drooling] if ever confronted in person.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Even the most stringent available criteria for validating ancient human DNA sequences DO NOT ALLOW ONE TO PROVE that the sequences determined are AUTHENTIC.
Only if a sequence is radically different from modern ones, as is the case for Neandertals, can one be relatively sure that no contamination has affected the results. Therefore, a certain degree of prudence is necessary before drawing any conclusions from this study. Still, none of the biochemical tests we carried out suggests that different sequences (namely the endogenous one plus some contaminating sequences) were amplified from the 23,000- and 25,000-year-old specimens that we used. In addition, the amino acid racemization test strongly suggests that reasonably well preserved DNA should be present in those specimens. Because DNA from all four Cro-Magnon type bone fragments could be amplified and sequenced only by using primers specific for modern humans, and not for Neandertals, there is little doubt that the mtDNAs of early a.m.h. and of cronologically close Neandertals were, at least, very different.
Indeed, DNA do contaminate or deteriorate over a certain amount of time, as has been pointed out here time and again, and provide false impression of sequences. The author alerts potential readers of such, or at least make the reader take such matter into consideration. More over, from that same link:
Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN, containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*.
The presence of such nucleotide motifs [we are not told here, is whether these are just detections of known motifs found in N haplogroups which are known to occupy specific designated positions across the entire N macrohaplogroup/ N sub-haplogroups…or whether they actually both resemble known motifs and actually occupy the same positions as those known motifs] in between the said motif ‘positions’ [as designated in the Cambridge reference sequence], is what the author(s) are basing their conclusions off; what they don’t say and perhaps cannot say, is into which specific N mtDNA sub-haplogroup, do the said ancient mtDNA fall. For this to be determined, similarities of sequences at specific loci between designated mtDNA haplotypes within the N sub-haplogroup have to be shown. The author doesn’t do this; rather gives the impression of “suspicion” that the said ancient DNA belong to the N haplogroup, for the reason just stated.
More from the study:
Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35).
Thus here, the author(s) is basing the generalization of the ancient specimen mtDNA into the N paragroup, via extrapolation from a single mutation in the nucleotide position designated by the nucleotide sequence ‘16233’ by the Cambridge reference sequence. The author(s) makes the said extrapolation from this referenced study, as the author(s) make note of:
“As before, we denote sequence types in terms of the positions at which they differ from the CRS, so that an HVS-I sequence type differing by a transition at nucleotide position 16311 is denoted “16311,” and a type differing by transitions at nucleotide positions 16145 and 16223 and a C→G transversion at nucleotide position 16176 is denoted “16145-16176G-16223.” The term “founder type” denotes a sequence type that has been carried from a source population to a derived population. “Founder cluster” refers to the cluster that has evolved from the founder type in the derived population.” - Richards. et al.
And then the author(s) note:
It is difficult to say whether the apparent evolutionary relationship between Paglicci-25 and Paglicci-12 and those populations is more than a coincidence. Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are RARE among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated.
Thus, if some one is to put any faith in these ancient mtDNA data, and ‘cautiously’ at that, the least that can be said is that, this simply says that those mtDNA of the so-called “Cro-Magnon” type remains analyzed here, were not much different from those in modern/contemporary groups, and perhaps, exemplifies a common source of the lineages, which would be L3. Otherwise, I suspect the author(s) would have at least informed us about which specific N sub-haplogroups, the ancient mtDNA samples fall into. Instead again, we are told:
“Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are rare among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated.”
We need to delineate what the author(s) is referring to, which is:
What is dubbed "Paglicci-25" sample, and what is dubbed "Paglicci-12" sample.
The former, i.e. Paglicci-25 sample, is claimed to have motifis which suggest affiliation with the either Pre-HV or HV haplogroup (which split to give rise to haplogroups H and V), which are all part of the N macro-haplogroup. This is perhaps an indication of the kind of ambiguity the authors are dealing with. They see relationships between the ancient mtDNA extracts and the N macro-haplogroup.
Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35).
The latter, i.e. Paglicci-12 sample, show affiliation with any of the mentioned N sub-haplogroups, which were:
Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroup N, containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*.
That said, if the said lineages are definitely long drifted-out rare Hg N markers, and if they indeed belong to what is dubbed as "Cro-Magnon", then it may well serve the purpose of placing the Cro-Magnon type as likely ancestors of contemporary European groups [as noted in the intro]. The presence of Hg N markers in the so-called "Near East" would lend support to the use of the "Near Eastern" corridor in the peopling of the European subcontinent. A case can be made however, such prospect can open up the possibility that the Cro-Magnon types miscegenated with groups in the migration route through such a corridor. Clearly there are some maternal DNA evolutionary gaps between the Paglicci-25 specimen and that of Paglicci-12 specimen [the latter involving the relatively older evolutionary time frame], if one is to go by Caramelli et al.'s findings. Yet, they are supposed to belong to the same general era (Gravettian).
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: As a result, the Cro-Magnon people were San people. I explain this in detail in an upcoming paper. When it is published, hopefully, later this year I will direct you to it.
Not San, they were paleolithic people, they are distantly related to Sanids, but they aren't Sanids.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike. Aside from the "Whites are expelled African Albinos" nonsense you make so much more sense.
According to the modern accepted knowledge anatomical modern man is 200kyo. AMM entered Europe 45kya. So what is cro-magnon more than a dead end? As you said more straw from Euros. Slight of Hands.
And we fvckers fall for it. Come on guys. . . .THIIINK!!! If cro-magnon is not equivalent to AMM(africans included) then it(cro-magnon) is irrelevant.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^The White man put up a straw man in Cro-magnon, and you idiots have been chasing him without thought.
Clyde, for the last time, the San are Modern humans NOT Cro-magnons!
1) This is easily proven by the fact that Cro-magnon is an extinct species, and the San are very much alive.
2) Has anyone bothered to wonder why the White man would ONLY speak of Cro-magnon as the first advanced humanoid in Europe, and attribute all the advanced cultures in Europe to this less-than-human species;
all the while, knowing full well that the full-fledged modern human Grimaldi was in Europe 10,000 years previous. And by then would have had a far more numerous population in Europe. Thus by Human capability and sheer numbers, would have been the likely creator of the cultures and artifacts attributed to Cro-magnon.
ARE YOU PEOPLE SO DENSE THAT ALL OF THAT DOESN'T SEEM STRANGE TO YOU?
Practice with this:
1 + 1 = 2 2 + 2 = 4
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
from Wiki. . .so not sure about it's authenticity. . .but. . . ____ Cro-Magnon were anatomically modern, only differing from their modern day descendants in Europe by their more robust physiology and slightly larger cranial capacity.[13] Of modern nationalities, Finns are closest to Cro-Magnons in terms of anthropological measurements.[14]
and ___
Qafzeh humans seem to have coexisted with Neanderthals for up to 60,000 years in the Levant[16] although Qafzeh are logical representatives of sub-Saharan Africans but not of Cro-Magnon and subsequent Europeans
so . . .Qafzeh=levantines=natufian-true negro=neolithic farmers=sub-saharan
but cro-magnon is not the "true negro".
question is - who got held up in the refuge.. . you know the refugium theory. Were they cro-magnons?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman - When you call a theory with good evidence as a foundation nonsense, good manners requires you to provide a "COUNTER THEORY" with even BETTER evidence. You are obviously a person of very poor manners/knowledge.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
so which is it. . .is Cro-magnon AMM or a dead end? See bold. This reads like cro-magnon were Africans and they were replaced by modern Europeans. Sounds familiar! Check the time frame.
Our ancestor, the Cro Magnon Man is the earliest known modern man, Homo sapiens sapiens, and they lived from about 45,000 to 10,000 years ago in the Upper Paleolithic period of the Pleistocene epochPosts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike. Don't want to have to re-hash that discussion but the bottom line. They are two different genes.
BTW. What is address of your website. You haven't quoted it in awhile.
www.worldhistory something. . .Do you have any of those pics posted there.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: so which is it. . .is Cro-magnon AMM or a dead end? See bold. This reads like cro-magnon were Africans and they were replaced by modern Europeans. Sounds familiar! Check the time frame.
Our ancestor, the Cro Magnon Man is the earliest known modern man, Homo sapiens sapiens, and they lived from about 45,000 to 10,000 years ago in the Upper Paleolithic period of the Pleistocene epoch
Even Wiki wouldn't have trash like this. Did you get it from stormfront?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: xyyman - When you call a theory with good evidence as a foundation nonsense, good manners requires you to provide a "COUNTER THEORY" with even BETTER evidence. You are obviously a person of very poor manners/knowledge.
This was in reference to your comment about Albinism.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't visit intellectual bankrupt sites. eg SF And I have limited discussions with such people. They are not my equal.
Point is Mike, got it off some dumb article, but I am trying to understand what the Euros are saying about Cro-magnon. In one breath they talk like CM is AMM and in another he is a different species and he went extinct.
Irregardless - which ever it is they agree he is not modern Europeans. So they question is who is he?
Africans living in Southern Europe up to 10kya and if so what happened to them. And are they really the ancestors of modern Europeans. Is 10kya enough time for the morph?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those nonsense theories of a morph have been long ago debunked - try to keep up.
But more to the point, there has never been anything stopping you from investigating it yourself. Why do you need other people to tell you what is real and what is not?
Case in point; there is all kinds of histories, available to all, of White people moving into Europe from the East. All of the modern European people and tribes can be seen coming into Europe.
I don't see where it takes a great deal of intelligence or anything to understand that if these people turned White in Europe, then how could these same people be seen coming into Europe at around 1,500 B.C.
Common sense says that you can't be there, and come there, at the same time.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: In one breath they talk like CM is AMM and in another he is a different species and he went extinct.
Can you cite a reference that states the skeletal remains found in Cro-Magnon cave, France, was another species separate from AMH?
Question #2 is how would the AMH dubbed Cro-Magnon be of a different species when its noted by numerous anthropologists to resemble modern Australians and Africans like all other early humans in Europe?
Question #3 do you know of the ties Cro-Magnon shares with Mechta-Afalou and Mechtoids from north Africa?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
so which is it. . .is Cro-magnon AMM or a dead end?
Not necessarily, if you go by Caramelli et al.'s insinuations, from the DNA findings - presented above. And if you went by your own cited piece--whatever that may be--"our ancestor, the Cro Magnon Man..." should be a dead give away to your question.
Limb and limb-trunk proportion indices of late Paleolithic and Mesolithic European specimens suggest an evolutionary pattern in comparative analysis to recent European specimens, from a trend of "tropical" body indices of Paleolithic specimens to a trend of "cold-adapted" indices in recent specimens. Now, whether this means that the so-called Cro-Magnon is the only candidate of likely forebearers of contemporary European groups amongst what could have involved other variants of anatomically modern groups, remains to be ascertained.
...but cro-magnon is not the "true negro".
Don't know if they conform to what a "true negro" is supposed to be, but this is what Stringer et al. had to say:
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of Modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China
quote: question is - who got held up in the refuge.. . you know the refugium theory. Were they cro-magnons?
Interesting question, since after all, if the Cro-Magnon are to be considered ancestors of contemporary European groups and Europeans groups by way of molecular genetics, does not appear to have existed as "whites" [in the sense as they are known today] further back, beyond European Neolithic, then one would have to assume that the folks "who got held up" in the Glacial Maximum Refugia must have been Cro-Magnon-like. I use the term "like" here, to mean retention of certain traits yet to be determined, because in between the time frame of c. 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, due to environmental pressure brought about by increased cold conditions of the glacial period, some level of micro-evolution or another would have likely taken place...like say, gradual changes in patterns of limb proportions.
Holliday for one seems to imply this:
brachial and crural indices do not appear to be a good measure of overall limb length, and thus, while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. The somewhat paradoxical retention of "tropical" indices in the context of more "cold-adapted" limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe. - TW Holliday, Brachial and crural indices of European late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans, 1999.
Holliday seems to be of the mindset that "short limb" lengths--mind you not crural or brachial indices--is indicative of some sort of cold-adaptation, while the high crural and brachial indices are reflective of the retention of "tropically-adapted" body plan.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not busy right now, I will explain the obvious.
Holliday seems to be of the mindset that "short limb" lengths--mind you not crural or brachial indices--is indicative of some sort of cold-adaptation - Neanderthal is the ONLY Humanoid creature that was "COLD ADAPTED."
while the high crural and brachial indices are reflective of the retention of "tropically-adapted" body plan - ALL full Humans are "TROPICALLY ADAPTED."
1 + 1 = Cro-magnon?
Yes!
1 horny Negro Human in the middle east.
+
1 horny Neanderthal Woman in the middle east.
= 1 mixed breed Cro-magnon.
Just like the birds and the bees.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic