quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yes. One major reason why those new E1bs in Eurasia are important is because they show that the African uniparentals are starting to show a better correlation with Basal Eurasian. So, for instance, some people were saying that Basal Eurasian can't be African because the genomes that have it generally don't have African uniparentals. This was always a bogus argument, because no one would say the paucity of Y-DNA G in modern Europe means EEF ancestry wasn't passed on to modern Europeans. So I always knew it was a bogus argument. But now the evidence is coming along, which is always better than just knowing it's true without having direct evidence.
Not only that I also heard(correct me) that those Neolithic Iranians had more Basel Eurasian than the Natufians and so I believe we are getting closer than before especially the finding of e1b in this part of the world.
Yes. More Basal Eurasian in them is also reflected in the skeletal data. Based on what little skeletal data I have seen, Neolithic Iranians look more like predynastic Egyptians than Natufians do. Natufians are much more diverse and only some Natufians (e.g. Shuqbah Natufians) look like predynastic Egyptians, with others looking more like pre-Natufian Levantines (also diverse) and some looking like they have substantial Sub-Saharan ancestry. Below is a comparison I created in 2015. Neolithic Iranian left, dynastic Egyptian right:
This resemblance to Egyptians indicates this Iranian individual's African ancestry was primarily Basal Eurasian. Most Natufians don't look like that (although some do), which is consistent with Raqefet Natufians having less Basal Eurasian than Laz's Iran Neolithic genomes.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah yeah, wasn't thinking of Armenians, but that odd result could reflect something in Semites. Got anything quantifiable?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. My bad. Pictures of Kenny G are more conclusive and to the point. I'll leave you to it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yemen dude, not representative (but thanks for the link). Honestly I don't have time right now though, so I will grant you the SSA in Bronze Age Semites.
Said SSA has not made it into the Medieval Ganj Dareh or Hasanlu Tepe Iron Age samples AFAICT. OTOH one of the Shahr-i-Sokhta Bronze Age samples (I8725) did often get 0.2-0.6% Dinka in nMonte models I ran.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: there we go with the Kenny G strawman again, Kenny G was Phoenician not Persian
Don't mind me, my G. Carry on with pictures of Persian bass reliefs. Want to see how you get us out of the endless loop and bring it to a conclusion.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: Yemen dude, not representative (but thanks for the link). Honestly I don't have time right now though, so I will grant you the SSA in Bronze Age Semites.
Said SSA has not made it into the Medieval Ganj Dareh or Hasanlu Tepe Iron Age samples AFAICT. OTOH one of the Shahr-i-Sokhta Bronze Age samples (I8724) did often get 0.2-0.6% Dinka in nMonte models I ran.
Iron Age and Medieval Iran are not exactly Bronze Age OOA migrations. The Bronze Age result proves my point. As do Lazaridis' results when he is not shucking and jiving:
quote:Disjoint sets of populations can be modeled as WHG+Mota or EHG+Mota mixtures. For WHG+Mota, the populations that can be modeled adequately are from the Levant, Anatolia, and Neolithic Europe. For EHG+Mota, the populations that can be modeled adequately are from Iran and the Eurasian steppe down to the Early/Middle Bronze Age (Steppe_EMBA) populations. The EHG+Mota modeling is adequate in the steppe continuing through the time of the Poltavka culture of the Middle Bronze Age 11 , since as we show in Supplementary Information section 7, the Near Eastern migration into the steppe from Iran-related populations. The ~14,000 year old Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherer from Switzerland 12 can also be modeled as WHG+Mota, but has no significant evidence of Basal Eurasian ancestry (α=-0.9±5.1%), consistent with its close relationship to WHG 12 (Fig. 1b). Scandinavian hunter-gatherers (SHG) from Motala 1,7,11 are an example of a population that cannot be modeled as either WHG+Mota (p=2.27E-17), or EHG+Mota (p=2.11E-08), but can be modeled as WHG+EHG+Mota (p=0.247). This population has both WHG and EHG ancestry 7 . By using both WHG and EHG as source populations, we are able to model it, and infer that its Basal Eurasian ancestry is 5.1±3.3% which is not significantly different than zero.
Not that I'm generally interested in those tools. I rather go by what the good 'ole fashioned data says. Fst says distance to Yoruba decreases over time in the entire Middle East, with one major West Eurasian Fst distance decrease coinciding with the Bronze Age (i.e. Semitic speakers).
As far as the Yemeni mtDNAs, Yemenis speak Semitic languages and derive a large portion of their ancestry from the Bronze Age Fertile Crescent. While I can see that direct Yemeni contacts with SSA complicate things, calling Yemenis irrelevant to Bronze Age Semitic speakers is a blatant reach. They're certainly more Semitic than most other living Middle Eastern populations.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, Fst alone doesn't cut it. And yeah, direct contacts with East Africa are kind of important here! If the SSA in Shahr-i-Sokhta is real, which I'm not guaranteeing, there is no need for it to go through Bronze Age Semites (Arabian traders aside), especially since the actual samples I have from the Bronze Age Levant *don't* have any SSA in the same models.
There's no evidence of a relationship between Mota and Basal Eurasian. But I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me, so let's wait for further evidence.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: Eh, Fst alone doesn't cut it. And yeah, direct contacts with East Africa are kind of important here! If the SSA in Shahr-i-Sokhta is real, which I'm not guaranteeing, there is no need for it to go through Bronze Age Semites (Arabian traders aside), especially since the actual samples I have from the Bronze Age Levant *don't* have any SSA in the same models.
There's no evidence of a relationship between Mota and Basal Eurasian. But I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me, so let's wait for further evidence.
Which is the point
which datasets are you working with?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yes. More Basal Eurasian in them is also reflected in the skeletal data. Based on what little skeletal data I have seen, Neolithic Iranians look more like predynastic Egyptians than Natufians do. Natufians are much more diverse and only some Natufians (e.g. Shuqbah Natufians) look like predynastic Egyptians, with others looking more like pre-Natufian Levantines (also diverse) and some looking like they have substantial Sub-Saharan ancestry. Below is a comparison I created in 2015. Neolithic Iranian left, dynastic Egyptian right:
This resemblance to Egyptians indicates this Iranian individual's African ancestry was primarily Basal Eurasian. Most Natufians don't look like that (although some do), which is consistent with Raqefet Natufians having less Basal Eurasian than Laz's Iran Neolithic genomes.
So wouldn't this basically mean that the Natufians observed by Laz are recent to the area since Basel Eurasian has been in Iranian remains much longer and that area is much further from Africa? This along with the skeletal date you posted(of Iranians being more similar to Predynastic Egyptians than Natufians) actually hurts team Euros arguments badly
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: Eh, Fst alone doesn't cut it. And yeah, direct contacts with East Africa are kind of important here! If the SSA in Shahr-i-Sokhta is real, which I'm not guaranteeing, there is no need for it to go through Bronze Age Semites (Arabian traders aside), especially since the actual samples I have from the Bronze Age Levant *don't* have any SSA in the same models.
The underlying implication of your "irrelevant" comment is that it would ok for me to highlight traces of Semitic ancestry in these Middle Easterners.
What is the difference between dilution of Semitic ancestry in Yemen due to East African and Arabian influences, and in the north due to East African, EEF and IE influences. Why the double standard? And, if not Yemenis, what is an acceptable Middle Eastern sample to identify traces of Semitic in?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yes. More Basal Eurasian in them is also reflected in the skeletal data. Based on what little skeletal data I have seen, Neolithic Iranians look more like predynastic Egyptians than Natufians do. Natufians are much more diverse and only some Natufians (e.g. Shuqbah Natufians) look like predynastic Egyptians, with others looking more like pre-Natufian Levantines (also diverse) and some looking like they have substantial Sub-Saharan ancestry. Below is a comparison I created in 2015. Neolithic Iranian left, dynastic Egyptian right:
This resemblance to Egyptians indicates this Iranian individual's African ancestry was primarily Basal Eurasian. Most Natufians don't look like that (although some do), which is consistent with Raqefet Natufians having less Basal Eurasian than Laz's Iran Neolithic genomes.
So wouldn't this basically mean that the Natufians observed by Laz are recent to the area since Basel Eurasian has been in Iranian remains much longer and that area is much further from Africa? This along with the skeletal date you posted(of Iranians being more similar to Predynastic Egyptians than Natufians) actually hurts team Euros arguments badly
I think you may have been thrown off by that Hotu paper, which states that the Hotu Cave inhabitants date to the Upper Palaeolithic. This would make them older than the Natufians and it would place Basal Eurasian there earlier. But the Hotu cave sample is probably much younger than Angel thought. Probably just a bit older than the Neolithic. This would make them roughly contemporary with Natufians.
And yes, it does hurt their argument. They don't want to talk about it. I've only seen one blogger point out that Iranian farmers are closer to Africans. Here is what he says:
quote:
Quite ironically it is not the Natufians who are the closest to the African reference population (Yoruba) but the CHG, Iran-N and Levant-N groups. In fact the Natufians are the most distant ones after the WHG population. However this is tricky because the affinity to Yoruba may also be caused by the "ghost" Basal Eurasian population, claimed first of all by Lazaridis 2014, which would be a remnant of the Out of Africa Migration (not strictly African but close enough and impossible to discern from true African admixture in most analyses).
posted
People from Forumbiodiversity (like Semitic Duwa) argued that Basal Eurasian is a significant component of ancient Egyptian ancestry. Now that it seems that Basal Eurasian is African, what implications does this present for the genetics of the Abusir mummies?
Also, if the paternal profile of these mummies is African [E1b1b]... wouldn't that make the Abusir mummies half African?
Elias has been triumphant, despite the presence of E1b1b in some of the samples.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
You can find the graph in Lazaridis et al 2014. But the paper isn't admitting that the decrease in Neanderthal is due to African ancestry, so there is not much in it if that's what you're looking for.
Nah, just wanted to see how much Basal Eurasian is in each sample, thanks Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Too bad the Kenny G pics are not forthcoming this time. Lioness' white-people-can-have-curly-hair-too campaigns usually include a copy.
For those who don't get the inside joke, the Lioness white-people-can-have-curly-hair-too campaign is real. She keeps a bunch of Kenny G pics on deck at all times. Bet she has some in her backpocket right now. She usually starts with some pics of curly jews and Iranians, but might pull out the heavy artillery (Kenny G pics) if you don't back down. Luckily for me, she didn't post the Kenny G pics the last time we got into it. Fully aware of the risks inherent in doing so, I posted the afros on the battlefield palette in a thread where lioness was active, and suggested they were African. I barely got away in one piece. But I'll never forget she could have used her fatality on me if she wanted to.
stop trolling
^^ I don't consider this person to be "white" and I have stated repeatedly that the below Medes and Persians don't appear, in my opinion to be classified as "Black" or "white" and I also showed the winged sphinx from the Palace of Darius which was an argument that the Persians at that time may have had brown skin
Now after you stop trolling and begging to see Kenny G, I dare you to answer the question as to whether or not you see the Persians in this relief to be African types
(people watch now as he goes in to his purposeful over complicated answer to hide behind muddy water)
I did some reading on the history of that region yesterday, after having that discussion with Nevermore. I still have to look at some documentaries, I found. But from what I have learned up till now, that picture you post here historically makes no sense at all. That region has a complex history with ethic groups being replaced etc.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: In an academic forum you cant call the other person slow and stupid. That's weak and low frequency I'm not allowing insults in the thread, I've already stated this
That is true, but the frequency in ignorance and arrogance is annoying. Never the less, you’re right.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line Persia has always been the homeland of what we now call "Aryans". And this homeland has included aboriginal black populations like "Elamites" and Sumerians or literally "black heads". Persia was the last of the great empires in Iran(derived from Aryan). Persia was much more influenced by Indo-European horse raiders like the Scythians. Elamites/Sumerians were more related to populations of aboriginal blacks from the Persian gulf moving out of Arabia with connections to Africa. Sumer was much older than Persia. Persia proper didn't come about until after 1000 BC. And some would argue that the timeline of Sumer is artificially propped up to be older than Ancient Kmt..... The term "Aryan" is primarily a reference to the lighter skinned horse warriors of later Persia starting with the Parthians and then the Sassanians, and it is these Indo-Aryan Eurasians from which modern Iran derives its name.
And the bigger picture is that African migrations out of Africa over the last 60-80,000 years right up to and after the Neolithic are basis of many cultures and societies in the "Near East", Asia and Europe. This is the part most racists are trying to deny and cover up.
Most of the new studies and papers are confirming this so there is really nothing for any mythical "afrocentrics" to be silenced about if anybody is actually paying attention. If anything what African scholars have been saying for many years is turning out to be correct.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So now lack of 1.5 to 2.1 percent Neanderthal = African
That is relatively a lot. And this summed up with other data states a given conclusion.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: People (from Forumbiodiversity) like Semitic Duwa argued that Basal Eurasian is a significant component of ancient Egyptian ancestry. Now that it seems that Basal Eurasian is African, what implications does this present for the genetics of the Abusir mummies?
Also, if the paternal profile of these mummies is African [E1b1b]... wouldn't that make the Abusir mummies half African?
Elias has been triumphant, despite the presence of E1b1b in some of the samples.
It had to be African retained considering Panmixia.
This paper said it all:
Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
The Episode of Genetic Drift Defining the Migration of Humans out of Africa Is Derived from a Large East African Population Size
And long before “Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa”.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: African migrations out of Africa over the last 60-80,000 years right up to and after the Neolithic are basis of many cultures and societies in the "Near East", Asia and Europe. This is the part most racists are trying to deny and cover up.
The part that certain racists, i.e. you, are trying to invent.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fist thump! Your search function works better than mine. I was trying to find this about a month now for that IVC study showing the presence of SSA in Southern Arabia since the Holocene. DNATribes was correct.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Capra
See L3b and L3i. Though the location (SSA vs NA) of the latter hg during the early/mid holocene is more uncertain.
-------------------- 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
Notice my "?" in Western Eurasia for mtDNA N and M sub-groups(back then). We now know that R0a is most likely of African origin making the Upstream N also of African origin. Furthermore M1a is also of Africans. So we can safely conclude yes, These were Africans migrating towards Arabia. That is why it is useless to pay any attention to these racialist fools who post here with their "Negroid skulls vs Kakasoid" skulls and spamming picture of Modern who now occupy Arabia and Persia.. Time we ignore them and focus on getting our shyte together like getting the BAM files and doing our own analysis. And I am not talking useless software like ADMIXTURE. Work with software that can ACTUALLY inform on migration paths and not who has shared AIM. Which many on the blogs seem to focus on. Time we ignore these fools and start doing our own thing like autosomal STR analysis. Instead of this frequency based nonsense.
-------------------- 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
@Xyyman If google doesn't work, use Bing or another search engine.
quote:Originally posted by capra:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: African migrations out of Africa over the last 60-80,000 years right up to and after the Neolithic are basis of many cultures and societies in the "Near East", Asia and Europe. This is the part most racists are trying to deny and cover up.
The part that certain racists, i.e. you, are trying to invent.
It's racist now to say that? You're really starting to show your colours right now. He has said nothing that's racist. But you're certainly parroting anti-African sentiments circulating in the blogs by saying SSA ancestry disqualifies Yemenis from the Semitic conversation, subtly implying diluting European and steppe influences on Mesopotamia and the Levant don't count as diluting influences.
The irony is that ancestral Semitic people originated in Africa, and yet we keep seeing that East Africans are singled out as the population that diluted Afroasiatic ancestry in the Middle East and North Africa.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet, you are inventing this entire "dilution" line, kindly cut it out. We all know where Yemen is and why that's relevant. I don't give two shits what you think my "colours" are and I am not interested in your bullshit. If you have a decent hypothesis about 'recent' African origin of Basal Eurasian that would be interesting, otherwise I'm out.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: Swenet, you are inventing this entire "dilution" line, kindly cut it out. We all know where Yemen is and why that's relevant. I don't give two shits what you think my "colours" are and I am not interested in your bullshit. If you have a decent hypothesis about 'recent' African origin of Basal Eurasian that would be interesting, otherwise I'm out.
You said Yemenis are "unrepresentative" in the context of Yemeni L lineages dated to 6-7kya, which is when Semitic peoples started to expand. How did Yemenis become "unrepresentative" as far as Semitic ancestry, and how are you relating that to L lineages in Yemen dating to 6-7ky? I'll let you explain it in your own words.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
"You said Yemenis are "unrepresentative" in the context of Yemeni L lineages dated to 6-7kya, which is when Semitic peoples started to expand. How did Yemenis become "unrepresentative" in the Semitic conversation, and how are you relating that to L lineages in Yemen dating to 6-7ky? I'll let you explain it in your own words."
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: African migrations out of Africa over the last 60-80,000 years right up to and after the Neolithic are basis of many cultures and societies in the "Near East", Asia and Europe. This is the part most racists are trying to deny and cover up.
The part that certain racists, i.e. you, are trying to invent.
What part am I inventing? Are you saying that racists don't deny that Africans had a substantial role in the development of almost everything "human", ie. civilization, language, math, art, hunting, gathering, agriculture, religion, spirituality, mysticism, minerology and so forth.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Not sure exactly what you guys talking about but considering proposed age and birthplace of Semitic language I think Jordan Beduin are your best bet Semitic 'people', -- whatever 'Semitic people' could possibly mean in a biological sense seems like poppycock to me.
Kitchen, Ehret, Assefa, Mulligan (2009) A 5400 West Semitic E 4650 South Semitic B 4450 Central Semitic C 4050 Ugaritic-Hebrew-Aramaic
posted
Doug M. mentioned 'black-headed" Sumerians, that is the usual interpretation. I think it actually meant "soil-directed" aka farmers as opposed to nomadic herders and hunters-gatherers.
On Iran, Yemen & Swahili; mashua is a boat used in Yemen, built by Iranian-descended Kuzmari, called mashua (non-Arabic, similar to Bantu terms for boat).
I don't have enough data to verify these claims, but consider it plausible. ---
from Sci.lang:
> On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 2:27:28 AM UTC-4, Helmut Richter wrote: > > [...] > > > > The simplest and most plausible explanation is that in the local > > language Kumzari this kind of boat has always been called "mashua" and > > the word has been exported to East Africa. Note that the word is > > always written in quotation marks in the Arabic text which indicates > > that it is not regarded as an Arabic word. Kumzar is not far away from > > the museum. Note the name of the person who restored the boat: Abdulla > > Bin Ali Al-Kumzari. They are proud of being part of the Kumzari > > minority, and I have not heard of any conflicts with the central power > > in the main part of Oman. > > A Bantu-speaking community in Oman?
No. A Kumzari-speaking community in an Omanian exclave at the strait of Hormuz with only by few thousands of speakers. Thus an Iranian language spoken 30 miles away from Persia – remarkable but not miraculous. They brought the word to East Africa, where it was borrowed into Swahili.
The Kumzari may have been too few to have travelled to East Africa in noticeable numbers. In this case, it is possible that Arabic-speaking mainland Omanis, for instance from Muscat, have borrowed the word into their dialect before exporting it to East Africa.
posted
And that goes for ALL Judiasm--Islam-Christian religion. I see now not only was "Jesus" made up but also Mohammed and the Jew/Semitic faith. Why? These rites and customs existed long BEFORE these "personalities" were said to exist. Data(Doron Behar) shows these were migrating Africans. The clue was the existence of Islamic paraphernalia in European grave long BEFORE the supposed birth of Mohammed. We also see the dating getting skewed with the "Islamic" people in Madagascar. Doron Behar sourced that the Chinese Jews(apart from other natives) carry traces "Near East?" ancestry(really Africa when you look at the data). Sources cited.
All this points to the "Islam", Judaism etc existed long before these founding personalities supposedly existed. Neolithics took their customs with them as they the expanded out to even China. Keep in mind the Chinese donkey has an African origin of less than 5000years!!!!!! Yes, Really!!!.
" whatever 'Semitic people' could possibly mean in a biological sense seems like poppycock to me."
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: African migrations out of Africa over the last 60-80,000 years right up to and after the Neolithic are basis of many cultures and societies in the "Near East", Asia and Europe. This is the part most racists are trying to deny and cover up.
The part that certain racists, i.e. you, are trying to invent.
What part am I inventing? Are you saying that racists don't deny that Africans had a substantial role in the development of almost everything "human", ie. civilization, language, math, art, hunting, gathering, agriculture, religion, spirituality, mysticism, minerology and so forth.
Uh, no, try reading the sentence again. It was just a drive-by, though, a simple return insult will suffice, you don't need to write your usual full-length essay.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: African migrations out of Africa over the last 60-80,000 years right up to and after the Neolithic are basis of many cultures and societies in the "Near East", Asia and Europe. This is the part most racists are trying to deny and cover up.
The part that certain racists, i.e. you, are trying to invent.
What part am I inventing? Are you saying that racists don't deny that Africans had a substantial role in the development of almost everything "human", ie. civilization, language, math, art, hunting, gathering, agriculture, religion, spirituality, mysticism, minerology and so forth.
Uh, no, try reading the sentence again. It was just a drive-by, though, a simple return insult will suffice, you don't need to write your usual full-length essay.
You said I am making up something. So either you are claiming I am making up racists denying African history or making up the African roots of human everything. Which one is it? Because both are true. If you don't see that then fine. But really there is no debate here.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ha! HA! Ha! 50,000? These people believe their own BS. No brother. 2nd wave dated about 7000BC
---
That is why WHG are NOT related to Modern Europeans..--
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Man! They should pay me for this shyte. I told you so...again. As I said many times. I am 1000% correct!!!! There is no way in hell the Abusirs are back-migrated Europeans ...or Turks
Quote: "Classical haplotypes in eastern Arabia tend to have the Arabian/Indian designation, whereas those in western Arabia tend to have the Benin designation.18,21 The Arabian/Indian haplotype has been hypothesized to have originated in either east Saudi Arabia or India.5 Although our samples include only one predicted instance of the Arabian/Indian haplotype, the occurrence of this haplotype in the Luhya in Kenya and its clustering with the predominant haplotype found in Kenya and Uganda are consistent with the hypothesis that the Arabian/Indian haplotype originated in Africa and had an overseas migration route from eastern Africa to eastern Arabia and India.13,19 In contrast, the absence of the Benin haplotype in the Luhya in Kenya and the Baganda in Uganda provides evidence against an overseas migration route from eastern Africa to western Arabia. Instead, the presence of the Benin haplotype in western Arabia is consistent with an African origin and an overland migration route through northeast Africa"
Geography ...and genes don't lie. We need to re-write history. lol!
DNATribes was correct....from Africa then Arabia to the Harrapan Valley. [/Q]
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Not sure exactly what you guys talking about but considering proposed age and birthplace of Semitic language I think Jordan Beduin are your best bet Semitic 'people', -- whatever 'Semitic people' could possibly mean in a biological sense seems like poppycock to me.
posted
capra, no name calling please, you are losing your cool now, unnecessary. You can say an idea is racist or exaggerated, stick to the idea
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Are you saying that racists don't deny that Africans had a substantial role in the development of almost everything "human", ie. civilization, language, math, art, hunting, gathering, agriculture, religion, spirituality, mysticism, minerology and so forth.
Seriously? [/QB]
On the other hand this use of the word "human" in quotes it has odd tinge to it, Why does the list of things obviously innately human have to say "human" at all ?
I can't really pin it down so we'll leave it at that
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Elamites/Sumerians were more related to populations of aboriginal blacks from the Persian gulf moving out of Arabia with connections to Africa.
what connections to Africa did the Elamites have?
Elamites
Elamite Cup from Chogha Mish
Elamite silver beaker of a rulerPosts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by capra: indeed xyyman your work is intelligible and contains some facts
edited to say something nice
But them chart markups. Utter eyesore. Damn homes, use an img editor. Y doncha? Please!
quote:Originally posted by capra: yes, I was referring to your habit of reaching to make everything come from Africa.
edited for less troll
Humans came from Africa, including most aspects of human evolutionary behavior.
Humans have been in Africa for upwards of 300,000 years and outside of Africa for far less than that.
And yes, this means most aspects of human evolutionary behavior ultimately come from Africa as stated. That isn't "everything in the universe" but "everything" as it relates to racists lying about human evolutionary advancement or more specifically civilization as we know it.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correction and some more info for whatever it's worth. I decided to revisit the actual data (instead of just looking at the table) and Arabian L3i2 seems to be a late introduction, so it's not Semitic. L lineages in Yemen with a good likelihood of being Semitic are L3h2 and L3b1a (note that this doesn't count Semitic M1). The former hg doesn't seem to be highlighted as early Bronze Age in this preprint (at least not in that table I posted), but in the published paper Vyas et al say:
quote:Four sequences were classified as subhaplogroup L3h2 (Fig. 2b). Interestingly, these four Yemeni samples formed a clade with one Somali and two Yemeni samples gathered from GenBank (posterior probability 5 0.99). Notably, two sequences previously published by Soares et al. (2012) (one Yemeni and one Somali) were identical to two of our sequences. Our phylogenetic analysis pro- duced date estimates of the Yemeni clade of 6.9 kya (95% HPD: 2.9–11.7 kya; Table 1), while the subha- plogroup, as a whole, contained sequences from Yemen and the Horn of Africa that dated to 17.9 kya (95% HPD: 9.9–26.9 kya; Table 1).
Both Yemen-specific L lineages are almost certainly Semitic, but for now there is more information on Yemeni L3b1a-15883, which makes it easier to relate to historical people and cultures. Yemen-specific L3b1a-15883 dates to 2ky ago:
quote:Four haplotypes (n 5 5) were classified as subhaplogroup L3b1a1a. Two haplotypes (n 5 3) formed a sister clade to the rest of L3b1a1a, while the remaining two were intermixed with subSaharan African and Near Eastern sequences (Fig. 2b). Our phylogenetic analysis estimated the age of the Yemeni clade in this subhaplogroup to be 2.0 kya (95% HPD: 0.2–4.4 kya; Table 1).
This 2ky date fits with the expansion of the Semitic linguistic subfamily known as MSA (Modern South Arabian) shortly after these languages arrived in southern Arabia from the north.
They don't get a lot of attention in the blogs (for obvious reasons [the "recent Sub-Saharan/Zanj admixture" lie to explain away features doesn't work on them]). But some may have heard of one Modern South Arabian speaking population in particular (Soqotri people). Their settlement of a small island in between Arabia and Africa supposedly helped to preserve the looks and genetics of their MSA speaking ancestors 2kya. Here are some of the phenotypes common in this population:
Lastly, here is another interesting L lineage found in the Middle East, that's potentially Semitic. It's not fully characterized in the paper below, but today it's known as L3d4a:
quote:One Tunisian shares an ancestor at around 6,549 ± 2,883 years ago with one Syrian inside L3d1’2’3 haplogroup.
posted
Right up your alley gramps. Since I know you're following the conversation re:South Asia closely. See the clade the Pakistani (33) forms with the Kuwaiti (32). The other Pakistani (31) is interesting as well, but I'm done for now. I'm leaving you 31 as homework to figure out how he relates to what we've discussed before. 31's GenBank ID is EU092932.
quote:Most of these North African sequences share a recent ancestry with sequences observed in other parts of Africa, in the Holocene period (Table 3). This seems to point to a recent introduction of these lineages in North Africa from the original locations in sub-Saharan and East Africa. Namely, one Moroccan and one Libyan sequences belong to sub-haplogroup L3b1b, together with two West African sequences from Burkina, with a coalescence age of 9,926 ± 2,555 years. Three Egyptian, four Tunisian, one Libyan and one Moroccan sequences share a most recent common ancestor of 13,537 ± 1,058 years old with seven West African, two South African, six Americans (most probably African-descents), two East Africans, two Central Africans, five Near Eastern and two South Asians, being affiliated in haplogroup L3b1a.
posted
So these (relatively) recent waves of Africans into west Asia are offering evidence that the Basal Eurasian in these groups was not a detection of very distant African affinities but more recent influences?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Because of these L and E1b lineages we know that the dilution of Neanderthal ancestry in West Eurasia (and in South Asia) was caused by several waves populations with Basal Eurasian and Sub-Saharan ancestry. The Semitic people were the last large wave of Africans to cause population turnover in West Eurasia (mainly the Middle East). Based on how old the sample is, that Ukrainian E1b carrier from Verteba Cave (see below) may owe his Y-DNA to Semitic people. Although that's still speculation right now.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Please update if downlevel.
4000-3600 BCE corresponds to East Semitic and precedes West Semitic.
Arabic is the missing D not on Fig 1. They aren't clear whether it's its own major arm, a South Semitic branch, or a Central Semitic one. Rather than wager they weasled. In the supplement its dated no earlier than 750 BCE
Oh. Almost forgot. Akkad is Mesopotamia. The first African language in AME is Akkadian. Akkadians absorbed Sumer and had influence in the ancient region of Bahrein and Oman.
Oh Cèsaire ... but not your way "Since Akkad, since Elam, since Sumer "
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
[/QB]![[Confused]](confused.gif)
They're certainly more Semitic than most other living Middle Eastern populations.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic