"Of more relevence is who populated southern Mesopatamia originally. The genetic evidence of the M clade of mtDNA and ancient history indicate that at one point in time Black populations extended from Africa to India."
This raises the question:
When did Whites enter the "Middle East"? The M Clad of mtDNA found among ancient Black Asian populations such as the Andamanese Islanders and among East AND West Africans but NOT among people of the Iraq and Syria indicates that the aboriginal Black base that stretched from Africa to the south Pacific during the paloelithic has recieved an INTRUSIVE element via the Levant.
The topography of the "Middle East" indicates that it would be very difficult for Northern Eurasians to enter the Middle East during the mesolithic with the Caucasus, Zargos and Elburtz Mountains blocking passage.
The Neolithic (along with the E3b Black African gene)spread into Anatolia and eventually the Danube Valley. This process would have been a two way street. With the spread of civilization/agriculture from Africa to Central Europe population growth would have accelerated in Europe. Trade routes would have been established and northern European genes would have flowed back into Anatolia, then the Levant and eventually into NE Africa. Here is a very INTERESTING comment from Dienekes website:
"The spread of the Neolithic economy into continental Europe involved E3b bearers in a riverine expansion whose northern expression is associated with the Linearbandkeramik. This does not mean that E3b was the only haplogroup associated with these early European farmers, only that it definitely seems to correlate better with this movement compared to the other Neolithic haplogroup (J2)."
Thought Posts:
Tracing European founder lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA pool.
Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Nov;67(5):1251-76.
Richards et al.
"We conclude that (i) there has been substantial back-migration into the Near East..."
[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 03 September 2005).]
"The Linearbandkeramic (abbreviated LBK) is the earliest neolithic culture of Central Europe. Its oldest phase is dated by the radiocarbon method to 5.500 BC. This culture can be associated with the westward spread of agriculture across Europe during the 6th millennium BC and 5th millennium BC. The name derives from pottery found in Neolithic archaeological sites featuring painted or incised linear motifs.
Early LBK sites are found in river valleys and flood plains of the Danube River area in Hungary and the northern Balkans. This region already had a thriving culture of farms and small settlements in the 6th millennium BC. Most scholars derive the Linearbandkeramic from the Starcevo-Körös culture of Northern Serbia and Hungary, but some would argue for an autochthonous development out of the local Mesolithic cultures.
Evidence suggests that settlers from the northern Balkans spread slowly westward and northward over the centuries, eventually reaching the Rhine valley and west-central France. This region was then sparsely populated, probably by only a few Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.
Important sites include Bylany in the Czech Republic, Langweiler and Zwenkau in Germany and Brunn am Gebirge in Austria.
It is followed by the stroke-ornamented ware pottery in the eastern part of the settlement area, by the Hinkelstein, Großgartach- and Rössen-cultures in the West.
LBK sites near Cologne show that the people lived in villages of multi-room wooden long houses, and raised grain and vegetables in small plots. Though their farming was small-scale, the increasing numbers of LBK settlements began a process of thinning Europe's primeval forests. This would continue for millennia as population increased.
Evidence suggests that when Neolithic farmers reached the Atlantic and North Sea coasts, they met other peoples who made their living from the rich marine environment. Some anthropologists suggest that the encounter and possible fusion may have brought about the megalithic cultures of western Europe."
[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 03 September 2005).]
In 1786 Sir William Jones, an English Orientalist (and jurist), said..
"a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs, and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine all three without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists. There is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothick (i.e. Germanic) and the Celtick, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family." (Source Encyclopaedia Britannica references).
What evidence there is suggests that there was a "Proto-Indo-European Language" from which all the known Indo-European languages are derived. This parent language must have split into well defined different languages well before 2000 BC, but the split is unlikely to have occurred before 3000 BC and may well have been later. This implies a common cultural root or tribe around 2800 BC.
The best candidate for this "common culture" seems to be the Kurgan culture of what is now South Russia. The word "Kurgan" refers to the tumuli in which their dead were buried - often in the form of a house with many funeral gifts. The origins of Kurgan culture have been traced back to about 5000 BC. Round about 4000 BC to 3500 BC this culture started to spread, covering an area from Eastern Central Europe to northern Iran (Kurgan III 3500 - 3000 BC). It is possible that at an even earlier time, perhaps 2 or 3 thousand years earlier, the Indo-Europeans and the Ural-Altaics (the people who eventually settled in Finland and Hungary, for example) may have sprung from common roots (see Encyclopaedia Britannica references).
It would appear that in Europe at least there was a steady progression towards urbanisation before the invasion of the Indo-Europeans. But this was seriously threatened when in about 3500 BC semi-nomadic pastoralists from the Russian steppes (akin to the Kurgans) infiltrated Europe. An early stronghold of these invading Indo-European pastoralists was Vukovar (in modern Yugoslavia) (see Encyclopaedia Britannica references).
Greece seems to have had two waves of migration. An early wave seems to be the people who eventually ended up in South West Turkey (by about 2200 BC). These people were responsible for place names ending in "-anthos" and "-anassos", but they were eventually supplanted by Greek speaking people who were well entrenched by 2000 BC (The Hittites, MacQueen JG, see references)
In the south west of modern Turkey there is evidence of Indo-European settlement related to the culture of the second city at Troy (dated at about 2200 BC) and the Cilician culture of about 2400 BC (The Hittites, MacQueen JG, p27 references). This puts the Indo-Europeans as entering the North West of modern Turkey by about 3000 BC. They spread to the centre of modern Turkey by about 2300 BC (there is evidence of them in Konya in about 2230 BC)."
[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 03 September 2005).]
The term 'whites' and its use is not consistently been equal in use and metaphor. Tjhe modern term is different and in use due to the North American preoccupation with its supposed valid explicit aura of power.
Europe and its progeny, has its origins, due to population drift in the area now defined as the Fertile Crescent. At some time, a founder gene, over time left its imprint and over the millenia left footprints (genotype) that distinguishes each nation-state (formerly tribes like Saxon (Vikings from Normandy), Picts, Vandals, etc and each group in turn through conquest, slavery, or voluntary movement influenced the present society.
I see Indo-European as a language group (actually different languages sharing a basic root, albeit a misnomer) trying to link Europe with non European entitiies to form a greater majority. I reference Tamil (olde than Sanskrit?? language, which shares much with Sanskrit but its people were/are too BLACK in skin colour and location so they were excluded from the Indo-European sphere.
Turkey has a part in transferring genes from the Balkans (Serb, Croat, ec) to the homeland with its conquest so much of backmigration was probably forced, which in turn modified the Turkish gene pool to what it is today.
Spain with its North Africa association between 711 and 1492 can also be a point of transmigration due to Berbers and others who, when their dynasties fell, were forced to return to their countries of origin (Mali, Tunisia, Morocco, etc) and many with their ranks had Celtic or Germanic ancestry.
There is too much of mixing modern terms and usages which do not accurately reflect their ancient reality. I say that because theri is no such group known as Indo European, as it refers to language.
I am aware of an elusive group known as Scythians, who are said to be the ancestors of Sihks and some of their imprints are in Central Asia (Silk ROad).
Genotyping is great and they tell a good story but the social and cultural legacy is many times missing so it is anyone's guess of their relevance.
The term 'whites' and its use is not consistently been equal in use and metaphor. Tjhe modern term is different and in use due to the North American preoccupation with its supposed valid explicit aura of power.
Thought Writes:
Hi Yazid,
I agree that the use of the term white has recieved inconsistent usage. That is actually the point of this thread. To understand when whites moved into the Middle East and dislocated the indigenous Black populations such as the Natufians we must reason and establish a model based upon probability and possibility. Once we understand when genes and people flowed back into the Middle East THEN we can intelligently discuss the physical and genetic characteristics of Lower Egypt.
I agree that the use of the term white has recieved inconsistent usage. That is actually the point of this thread. To understand when whites moved into the Middle East and dislocated the indigenous Black populations such as the Natufians we must reason and establish a model based upon probability and possibility. Once we understand when genes and people flowed back into the Middle East THEN we can intelligently discuss the physical and genetic characteristics of Lower Egypt.
Interesting pieces on movements into Europe and back-migration into the "Middle East". In light of what we know about the Hg M mtDNA distribution, what paternal lineages would correlate to these movements?
quote:Originally posted by Super car: Interesting pieces on movements into Europe and back-migration into the "Middle East". In light of what we know about the Hg M mtDNA distribution, what paternal lineages would correlate to these movements?
Not to intrude, but just to offer a guess...R1b and I.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Not to intrude, but just to offer a guess...R1b and I.
What I had in mind, but want to be precise, for if we examine these regions [Middle East], will we find these lineages in meaningful frequencies? We know about the paleolithic expansion of the aforementioned lineages in Europe, and the subsequent Neolithic expansion involving Hg E and Hg J lineages.
Do you mean European-looking, or overall light-skinned Eurasians because that is a good question.
We know that a historically prominent indigenous black population in the Near-East was the Elamites of modern-day Iran. Other than them, I have no clue as to what other indigenous populations existed in the Near-East. It is very possible that the Ubaidians, the predecessors of the Sumerians were also indigenous black people. And what about Arabia? There are the pockets of black Yemenis but that's it.
Also, could the predominance of light-skinned Eurasians in the Near-East be compared to that of "mongoloid" peoples eventually predominating Southeast Asia?
According to Spencer Wells, all northern Eurasians share a common ancestry in western Central Asia. Could this be where "caucasian" Near-Easterners come from or from another source like Anatolia or something?
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 03 September 2005).]
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would appear that in Europe at least there was a steady progression towards urbanisation before the invasion of the Indo-Europeans. But this was seriously threatened when in about 3500 BC semi-nomadic pastoralists from the Russian steppes (akin to the Kurgans) infiltrated Europe. An early stronghold of these invading Indo-European pastoralists was Vukovar (in modern Yugoslavia) (see Encyclopaedia Britannica references).
Yes, the earliest evidence of urbanization in Europe is found in Cucuteni, in modern-day Moldavia to Tripolye in Ukraine. These areas were contemporary to urban centers like Catal Huyuk in Anatolia and others dotted along the Near-East. Do you believe that the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture has a connection to the Near-East via the introduction of agriculture?
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 03 September 2005).]
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
In light of what we know about the Hg M mtDNA distribution, what paternal lineages would correlate to these movements?
Thought Writes:
Possibly the YAP insertion that defines haplogroup DE. Haplogroup E being found in Africa and haplogroup D being found in Asia with populations like Andaman Islanders, etc.
Possibly the YAP insertion that defines haplogroup DE. Haplogroup E being found in Africa and haplogroup D being found in Asia with populations like Andaman Islanders, etc.
Right; for the likes of the Andaman Islanders. But what about the folks migrating from Europe back to the Middle Eastern regions? Surely they would have carried lineages extant in Europe, along with them back to the Middle East?
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 03 September 2005).]
Do you mean European-looking, or overall light-skinned Eurasians because that is a good question.
Thought Writes:
Indeed, you pose a very thoughtfull question Djehuti. I think relative to a discourse about back migration from Western Northern Eurasia into the Middle East and eventually Africa it is first neccessary to establish a POSSIBLE chronology for said event. Then we can examine what possible physical characteristics were existent in Northern Eurasia (specifically Western Northern Eurasia). For example many of the first Europeans carried a phenotype similar to modern Sub-Saharan Africans. It is safe to assume that by the Bronze Age (3300 BC) Europeans had phenotypes similar to what we see today in Western Northern Eurasia (for example see Ötzi the Ice-Man). These sorts of haplogroup I carrying Europeans represent the "Real Whites". Greeks look very different from these people because Greeks have substantial Sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern lineages. Then we can look for evidence of said physical characteristics in northern AE. This would be a proper approach to such a topic.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
According to Spencer Wells, all northern Eurasians share a common ancestry in western Central Asia. Could this be where "caucasian" Near-Easterners come from or from another source like Anatolia or something?
Thought Writes:
Probably NOT. The first Europeans and the first East Asians had physical similarities to modern Sub-Saharan Africans, Melaneseans and Andaman Islanders. There is an attempt to sweep this baseline phenotype under the rug by labeling it "GENERALIZED". Modern European phenotype probably had derived bi the late mesolithic. Their population was small and grew when they were instructed on how to reap and sow by people whose ancerstors came out of Sub-saharan Africa within the last 10,000 years.
Right; for the likes of the Andaman Islanders. But what about the folks migrating from Europe back to the Middle Eastern regions? Surely they would have carried lineages extant in Europe, along with them back to the Middle East?
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 03 September 2005).]
Thought Posts:
Richards et al 2000
"Extrapolating from the frequency of these clusters in the Near East has provided us with estimates for back-migration in general. These are STRIKINGLY HIGH. We estimate that 10% - 20% of extant Near Eastern lineages have a European ancestry."
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Richards et al 2000
"Extrapolating from the frequency of these clusters in the Near East has provided us with estimates for back-migration in general. These are STRIKINGLY HIGH. We estimate that 10% - 20% of extant Near Eastern lineages have a European ancestry."
Which "clusters in the Near East", was Richard et al. referring to here?
Richard et al. made reference to the following:
"The first PC accounts for 49% of the variation and is approximately east-west within Europe, but the Near East and eastern Mediterranean Europe cluster with central Europe. This gradient is accounted for largely by paragroup R* (nomenclature of the Y Chromosome Consortium [2002]), formerly haplogroup 1 (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 2000) in the west and by haplogroups R1a(formerly haplogroup 3) and N3 (formerly Tat) in the east (fig. 5). In agreement with the suggestion proposed to explain the distribution of mtDNA haplogroup V (Torroni et al. 1998, 2001), the distributions of Y chromosome groups R* and R1a have been interpreted by Semino et al. (2000) to be the result of postglacial expansions from refugia within Europe." - Richards et al. 2002
The Eskimo have lived in Artic regions for many thousands of years.
According to Nina Jablonski they never completely lost their melanin because a diet of fish supplied them with the vitamin D otherwise delmanated skin is more efficient at synthasizing from sunlight.
It is of interest because it is one of many evidence that points to the relatively recent [mesolithic] nature of the depigmented white phenotype.
Note: Skeletally, Eskimo are the most/best cold adapted of all peoples....thick trunks and short non tapering limbs for trapping body heat: they are the opposite of the ultra tropical morphology of the elongated Africans.
Europeans are opposite of elongated Africans in terms of skin color, but are more intermediate in terms of skeletype - they are not as well adapted skeletally to cold climates as Inuit and NorthEast Asians.
Then again - Europeans are product of admixtures with middle Easterners and Africans, so.....
Which "clusters in the Near East", was Richard et al. referring to here?
Thought Posts:
R1b-M269 Frequencies from:
Al-Zahery et al. Cinnioglu et al.
Nation Frequency Syria 15% Turkey 14.7% Iraq 10.8%
From Cinnioglu et al:
"The R1b3-M268 related, but opposite TaqI p49a, f ht 15 and ht35 distributions rflect the re-peopling of Europe from Iberia and Asia Minor during that period (Holocene)."
Nation Frequency Syria 15% Turkey 14.7% Iraq 10.8%
From Cinnioglu et al:
"The R1b3-M268 related, but opposite TaqI p49a, f ht 15 and ht35 distributions rflect the re-peopling of Europe from Iberia and Asia Minor during that period (Holocene)."
I realize that the clusters Richards et al. were actually referring to in your earlier post, has to do with mtDNAs, which nevertheless doesn't take away from your point, which is the back-migration from Europe to the "Middle East":
"We have employed a novel method to identify and quantify back-migration from Europe and the Near East. We have done this by identifying two European haplogroups (i.e., U5 and V) that appear to have evolved in situ. Extrapolating from the frequency of these clusters in the Near East has provided us with estimates for back-migration in general. These are strikingly high. We estimate that 10%–20% of extant Near Eastern lineages have a European ancestry, although this estimate fallsto 6%–8% for the core zone of the Fertile Crescent. - Richards et al. 2000
But now, to your last post, which is what I was specifically after...
Those R1b3-M269 frequencies, were they from Al-Zahery et al. or from Cinnioglu et al.?
And what do we know about the R1b3-M268 mutation, as mentioned in your Cinnioglu et al. citation? Does its distribution extend deep into Asia, i.e., west Asia or the so-called "Middle East"? or is it supposed to read "R1b3-M269"?
Here's a piece from P. Underhill, which is relevant to your earlier point about "The genetic evidence of the M clade of mtDNA and ancient history indicate that at one point in time Black populations extended from Africa to India."...
"This review has catalogued 14 different Y-chromosomes among 74 East Asian populations, totalising 3,762 individuals. The reconstructed phylogeny shows that all 14 chromosomes descend from a unique origin (M168) further subdivided into 3 different clades, YAP, M130 and M89. The YAP lineages, probably originating in Africa, would be representative of the early colonisers into Asia. They are observed at low frequencies throughout East Asia, except in Tibet, Japan and the Andamanese where they are more common. This suggests that they were initially present in the region but pushed to peripheral regions by new migrants carrying other lineages. The M130 and M89 mutations, not detected in Africa, may have arisen in Asia, but prior to the arrival of modern humans in Sahul." - Underhill.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 03 September 2005).]
posted
Some researchers studied the MtDNA and Y chrosmomes of Andamon/Nicobar Islanders and found that the present 'natives' were acually the first wave from Africa, who through isolation retained their African characteristics but as subsequent waves from North to South began the more movement (frequency of movement) created the typical 'Mongoloid' look over time. Science 2005: will try to get the exact issue.
Climate and dietary changes also appear to influence physical characteristics!
[This message has been edited by yazid904 (edited 03 September 2005).]
quote:The Neolithic (along with the E3b Black African gene)spread into Anatolia and eventually the Danube Valley. This process would have been a two way street. With the spread of civilization/agriculture from Africa to Central Europe population growth would have accelerated in Europe. Trade routes would have been established and northern European genes would have flowed back into Anatolia, then the Levant and eventually into NE Africa...
Richards et al.
"We conclude that (i) there has been substantial back-migration into the Near East..."
Here is the thing, as reiterated in the Cinnioglu et al citation:
"The phylogenetic and spatial distribution of its equivalent in Europe (Cruciani et al. 2002), the R1-M173 (xM17) lineage for which considerable data exist (Semino et al. 2000a; Wells et al. 2001; Kivisild et al. 2003) implies that R1b3-M269 was well established throughout Paleolithic Europe, probably arriving from West Asia contemporaneous with Aurignacian culture.
Although the phylogeographic pattern of R1b3-M269 lineages in Europe suggest that R1-M173* ancestors first arrived from West Asia during the Upper Paleolithic, we cannot deduce if R1b3-M269 first entered Anatolia via the Bosporus isthmus or from an opposite eastward direction. However, archeological evidence supports the view of the arrival of Aurignacian culture to Anatolia from Europe during the Upper Paleolithic rather than from the Iranian plateau (Kuhn 2002)."
...something that is not exactly news, but then this simply means that the presence of these lineages are to be expected in West Asia, where they arose in situ. So these lineages made their way to Europe about 40,000 years ago or so.
This brings us to the following point, which is relevant to the idea of the lineages having expanded northwards from west Asia, and then subsequently expanding back to the Mediterranean regions [with southwestern Europe, i.e., Iberia being important, in terms of refuge] and Asian Minor during the last Ice age, and then at the end of LGM, re-peopling of the northward European regions began from these regions. And as noted time and again, during the early Holocene, Neolithic expansion involving sub-Sahara African E3b lineages along with J, spread these lineages to Europe:
"The variance of 49a,f ht35 related chromosomes are lower in the Balkan, Caucasian and Iraqi representatives than those in Turkey (Table 4). Similarly, the variance is higher in Iberia than in Western Europe. The decreasing diversity radiating from Turkey towards Southeast Europe, Caucasus and Mesopotamia approximates similar results from Iberia tracing the re-colonization of Northwest Europe by hunter-gatherers during the Holocene as suggested by others (Torroni et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2000a; Wilson et al. 2001)...
Haplogroup R1b3-M269 occurs at 40–80% frequency in Europe and the associated STR variance suggests that the last ice age modulated R1b3-M269 distribution to refugia in Iberia and Asia Minor from where it subsequently radiated during the Late Upper Paleolithic and Holocene. The R1b3-M269 related, but opposite TaqI p49a, f ht 15 and ht35 distributions reflect the re-peopling of Europe from Iberia and Asia Minor during that period. The R1b3-M269 variances and expansion time estimates of Iberian and Turkish lineages are similar to each other (Table 2) but higher than observed elsewhere (Table 4). Low variances for R1b3-M269 lineages have also been reported for Czech and Estonian populations (Kivisild et al. 2003)." - Cinnioglu et al.
The issue of European mtDNA (as per Richards et al.) comes into play in these southward back-migration, and perhaps the best indicator of back migration to the Near East, at least in the context of regions as far as Iraq, where variance of R1b3-M269 are lower relative to those in Turkey.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 04 September 2005).]
You raise many interesting questions that deserve further investigation. For example we need to review R1b to determine which SUB-CLADES derived in West Asia and which sub-clades derived in Europe AFTER the migration of man to Europe. In other words we need to determine which lineages are generalized Eurasian and which ones are European or northern Central Asian specific. We also need to study the topography of these regions to understand the possible effects on phenotypic evolution. Did R1a evolve in the region of northern Kazakhstan?
About 2 years ago I came across a report filmed by one researcher who followed the trail of supposed out migration and there was a place in present day Kazakhstan where there was a family that possessed the founder effect genotype associated with present day Europe. I do not recall the specific gene complex but it shows that the youngest group belong to Europe!
It is interesting to note that the tribes associated with Indo-European are rarely mentioned and if so they are associated with the Fertile Crescent (Middle East) or border area separating Asia from Europe proper.
The myth of the Aryan is also odd in that it has survived despite the falsehoods associated with it. There is no doubt that the Dravidians (S. India like Tamils) were driven south and that the foreign elements were usually fair skinned when compared to the native Tamils. The trick is, again, those tribal group were rarely mentioned!
posted
What's interesting is how Stupid-Euro tries to tie in East Africans' elongated features as somehow being associated with Europeans, when in fact a couple of sources I read stated that remains from Central to Eastern Europe during the Mesolithic indicate a broad face and head phenotype.
I agree that genetically we still have to discern between which clades are generalized Eurasian and which are European specific.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
About 2 years ago I came across a report filmed by one researcher who followed the trail of supposed out migration and there was a place in present day Kazakhstan where there was a family that possessed the founder effect genotype associated with present day Europe. I do not recall the specific gene complex but it shows that the youngest group belong to Europe!
It is interesting to note that the tribes associated with Indo-European are rarely mentioned and if so they are associated with the Fertile Crescent (Middle East) or border area separating Asia from Europe proper.
The myth of the Aryan is also odd in that it has survived despite the falsehoods associated with it. There is no doubt that the Dravidians (S. India like Tamils) were driven south and that the foreign elements were usually fair skinned when compared to the native Tamils. The trick is, again, those tribal group were rarely mentioned!
What many people tend to forget about India is other groups. The tribal groups are diverse and vary phenotypically. Although all of them speak Dravidian languages, there is evidence that other languages existed and Dravidian itself ultimately orignated from the north, perhaps even outside of India! There are also certain language isolates like Burushaski in Pakistan and Sumerian in Mesopotamia give further proof of great ethnic diversity that has been lost.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
About 2 years ago I came across a report filmed by one researcher who followed the trail of supposed out migration and there was a place in present day Kazakhstan where there was a family that possessed the founder effect genotype associated with present day Europe. I do not recall the specific gene complex but it shows that the youngest group belong to Europe!
Thought Writes:
Hi Yazid
Was this the documentary that Spencer Wells worked on?
At anyrate it is clear that during this Upper Paleolithic period the phenotype was still Sub-Saharan. I want to know more about this region during the late mesolithic.
quote:Originally posted by yazid904:
There is no doubt that the Dravidians (S. India like Tamils) were driven south and that the foreign elements were usually fair skinned when compared to the native Tamils.
Thought Writes:
I concur. It is possible that we have TWO different (R1a and R1b), distantly related (related via upstream R1*)leucoderm populations. This R1 model may be akin to the African to southern Asian spread of the mtDNA M clad. The R1a carrying Whites may have been primarily responsible for the demise of NE African and SW Asian Black civilizations (Egypt, Elam, etc.)
What many people tend to forget about India is other groups. The tribal groups are diverse and vary phenotypically. Although all of them speak Dravidian languages, there is evidence that other languages existed and Dravidian itself ultimately orignated from the north, perhaps even outside of India! There are also certain language isolates like Burushaski in Pakistan and Sumerian in Mesopotamia give further proof of great ethnic diversity that has been lost.
Thought Writes:
I concur that India was diverse, but it is likewise clear that the baseline population is of a tropical African background. These people RETAINED the phenotypic traits they took with them when they migrated out of Africa. The full delineation of the mtDNA lineage M1 will tell us more about these people as well.
I concur that India was diverse, but it is likewise clear that the baseline population is of a tropical African background. These people RETAINED the phenotypic traits they took with them when they migrated out of Africa. The full delineation of the mtDNA lineage M1 will tell us more about these people as well.
A look at Evil Euro's favorite graph suggests of the existence of an African phenotyic element as a sub-stratum of the Indian population. Its intermediate location between the European/cold adapted cluster and the African/tropically adapted cluster attests to the fact that before the "Aryan" incursian the population of that sub-continent (Dravidian/Dalit?) was primarily of a phenotype similar to Africans. Furthermore it suggests a continuity (both temporally and spatially)of this phenotype from Africa to South Asia and Australia.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Thought Writes:
Hi Super Car
we need to review R1b to determine which SUB-CLADES derived in West Asia and which sub-clades derived in Europe AFTER the migration of man to Europe. In other words we need to determine which lineages are generalized Eurasian and which ones are European or northern Central Asian specific. We also need to study the topography of these regions to understand the possible effects on phenotypic evolution. Did R1a evolve in the region of northern Kazakhstan?
posted
Well, this explains my earlier question asking why west Asians have lighter skin than Africans...
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assume Indo-European Cimmerians (Assyrian Gumerri, Hebrew Gomeri of the Bible) Armenians, Scythians, and various other Iranian speakers who settled the Iranian plateau, as well as the Indo-Aryan Mitanni no doubt represent "white" groups intruding into the 'Middle East'. Which would explain the presence of R1a in these areas. (?)
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The term "Indo-European' is a modern one so it does not automatically imply "white" as in modern European! My thoughts are that this "European" genotype came form a Asian base and through isolation, diet and climate was born what we called today European (as in land mass) vis a vis the Indo portion to attempt to include the better "Caucasian" phenotype from whence the name came associated with the Georgian republics!
They did not enter as much as they were a sub-population that emerged from the Fertile Crescent and adapted according to their environment, like all other groups. Tricky enough for all sorts of bamboozlement!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Actually, the term Indo-European is a linguistic one describing a language phylum. No one knows what the original speakers of proto-Indo-European looked like, but many linguists place its origins somewhere in the Russian steppes. Also, many of the earliest Indo-European speakers are described or depicted as tall, blonde-haired, and gray-eyed. Of course this does not mean all of them looked that way, and it especially does not mean peoples who had such features were proto-Indo-European speakers. As we all know, 'white' features especially fair hair, eyes, etc. were cold adapted traits that evolved in Pleistocene glacial Europe.
It is interesting that European Jews especially those from Eastern Europe with blonde hair and blue eyes are called Ashkenazi and the Ashkenazi in Jewish history are said to be descended from Gomeri, an ancient Indo-European people.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^Actually, the term Indo-European is a linguistic one describing a language phylum. No one knows what the original speakers of proto-Indo-European looked like, but many linguists place its origins somewhere in the Russian steppes. Also, many of the earliest Indo-European speakers are described or depicted as tall, blonde-haired, and gray-eyed. Of course this does not mean all of them looked that way, and it especially does not mean peoples who had such features were proto-Indo-European speakers. As we all know, 'white' features especially fair hair, eyes, etc. were cold adapted traits that evolved in Pleistocene glacial Europe.
It is interesting that European Jews especially those from Eastern Europe with blonde hair and blue eyes are called Ashkenazi and the Ashkenazi in Jewish history are said to be descended from Gomeri, an ancient Indo-European people.
That is what they are Djehuti, they are Indo-Europeans who have taken another peoples heritage. I mean I don't think it takes a bible to note that, look at the name: Ashke-NAZI. These modern day Jews are simply Germany that are in turmoil about what they did to themselves... The other sect of Jews are Sephardi which claim to be the Khazars. The Khazar king announced that the Khazar descended from Togarmah ... Japheth grandson.
NOTE: This comment is not Anti-Anything ... just truth.
The hebrews of old were viewed as a black people and there is a Roman historian who verifies this claim like Herodotus verified a black Egypt. So that this last comment wont be taken as afrocentricism I must info you that I'm not an A-centric. Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Elamites being black people Djehuti? What evidence do you have of this?
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They look like very dark arabs to me, djehuti come here and explain it to me.
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: That is what they are Djehuti, they are Indo-Europeans who have taken another peoples heritage. I mean I don't think it takes a bible to note that, look at the name: Ashke-NAZI. These modern day Jews are simply Germany that are in turmoil about what they did to themselves... The other sect of Jews are Sephardi which claim to be the Khazars. The Khazar king announced that the Khazar descended from Togarmah ... Japheth grandson.
NOTE: This comment is not Anti-Anything ... just truth.
LOL Actually, the 'nazi' in Ashkenazi is a different word with a totally different meaning from the German political party NAZI which means National Socialist.
quote:The hebrews of old were viewed as a black people and there is a Roman historian who verifies this claim like Herodotus verified a black Egypt. So that this last comment wont be taken as afrocentricism I must info you that I'm not an A-centric. Peace!~
Actually it would be wrong to call the Hebrews black also, even though no doubt they had some black ancestry. Many Hebrews would look no different from Bedouin people found today in the Levant. Of course this does not mean there were any black people among them let alone in their land.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Of course there are northern Sudanese who think of themselves as being "very dark Arabs" also. Does this mean they are not black?
And Morpheus, lay off the Matrix pics.
My question is to you: would you consider the elamites to be "asiatic negroids" or what exactly means "black" to you?
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^'Black' is in reference to skin color and judging from the depictions of themselves, yes the Elamites were black.
"Negroid" on the other hand is a racial typology like all racial typologies is rooted in Eurocentric fallacies. Thus "negroid" could mean anyone besides Africans who have those certain features to all of a sudden those Africans who have those certain features only (even if other Africans don't have such features).
The Elamites were black and they were Asiatic so they were black Asiatics.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
you think they were related to Dravidians physically? and why do sumerians call themselves "the black headed people"
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The very fact that its content compelled a disclaimer is evidence enough that the gist of the post (underlined below) is just a bunch of Jew baiting garbage.
European Jewry is just as Indo-European as the African Americas is Indo-European.
The comment on ashke-NAZI and the comment on Sepharadiym as Khazars are both so ahistorical they don't even require rebuttal as they obviously are merely inflammatory remarks devoid of any scholarly backing.
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^Actually, the term Indo-European is a linguistic one describing a language phylum. No one knows what the original speakers of proto-Indo-European looked like, but many linguists place its origins somewhere in the Russian steppes. Also, many of the earliest Indo-European speakers are described or depicted as tall, blonde-haired, and gray-eyed. Of course this does not mean all of them looked that way, and it especially does not mean peoples who had such features were proto-Indo-European speakers. As we all know, 'white' features especially fair hair, eyes, etc. were cold adapted traits that evolved in Pleistocene glacial Europe.
It is interesting that European Jews especially those from Eastern Europe with blonde hair and blue eyes are called Ashkenazi and the Ashkenazi in Jewish history are said to be descended from Gomeri, an ancient Indo-European people.
NOTE: This comment is not Anti-Anything ... just truth.
The hebrews of old were viewed as a black people and there is a Roman historian who verifies this claim like Herodotus verified a black Egypt. So that this last comment wont be taken as afrocentricism I must info you that I'm not an A-centric. Peace!~
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, modern day Jews are one people of diverse phenotypes and infusions of just about every people on the planet.
"Modern day Jews" include ancient Jewish communities spanning geographic locales as widespread as from India to Morocco and even China (not to mention Sudan and Ethiopia). None of these folk are Ashkenazi.
So when I see someone speaking of Ashkenazim or the Spanish & Portuguese Sepharadiym as if they are the only representatives of the Jewish people I see a certain bias entering the picture.
Jews are a people and a civilization which recognizes the children of converts who've married into "old families" (i.e. "Israelites") to be part of the nation and as such heirs to all of "Jewish" heritage including the history and rights to tribal lands as laid out in the territorial claims documented in the TN"K (i.e., the original edition of what has been translated into and named "the Bible," the Hebrew Scriptures part only as the Greek Scriptures part is neither recognized or accepted as a continuance of Torah (5 books of Moses, Nebi'iym (the Prophets), and Ketubiym (the Holy Writings).
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Speaking of Marc, 
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Of course there are northern Sudanese who think of themselves as being "very dark Arabs" also. Does this mean they are not black? 
Printer-friendly view of this topic