"Thought Writes:
The entire "Negroid" versus "Non-Negroid" diachotomy is a ruse utilize by Medi-Centrics to conceal the fact that Sub-Saharan bloodlines played a major role in the establishment of Southern European Neolithic culture."
and...

"Thought Translates:
We don't want to focus on the FACT that Sub-Saharans spread into Eurasia during the mesolithic, sparking the Neolithic revolution, hence we will focus on non-issues like how he types."

But Charlie Bass stated:

My position is this, Thought's comment was that sub-Saharans sparked the Neolithic revolution, my true position is that Levantine people received some influence from Northeast Africa[Mesolithic], the sub-Saharan influence was later dilúted as quoted per Brace, so whatever happened in the Neolithic was not solely by the sub-Saharan influence of the Mesolithic. I like to read studies and interpret them for what they say. E3b1 delta, the lineage that mih´grated out of Northeast Africa during the Late Pleistocene/early Mesolithic period is found at low frequencies in both Africa and Europe, so its no big deal to make a statement based on low frequencies of a specific lineage. The ancestral E3b1 from which all other descend from is sub-Saharan East African derived but the alpha cluster is not, so why harp on the point about E3b1 being "black African derived", no genetic study states this. All OOA male lineages descend ultimately from East African derived M168, so why not say all male lineages are black African derived?

My response was:

A point that I had earlier brought to attention in my thread of "E-M78 clusters". For one, in this case, the temporal factor of E3b1 hasn't been great enough to allow E3b1 in Europe to be as divergent as other lineages that developed further or mutated outside the continent, with examples being that of J and K, and R lineages. The lineage is pretty much still an outlier in the European landscape, with relatively low frequencies mostly concentrated in the southern European regions, with a gradient increasing eastward.

"The fourth cluster delta (cluster in fig. 2B) is present, albeit at low frequencies, in all of the regions analyzed (4.0% in eastern and northern Africa, 3.3% in the Near East, and 1.5% in Europe) and shows a notable microsatellite differentiation (fig. 2B). The two E-M78 chromosomes found in Pakistan, at the eastern borders of the area of dispersal of haplogroup E3b, also belong to cluster delta. On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster delta was involved in a **first dispersal** or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East. Time-of-divergence estimates for E-M78 chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity (14.7 ± 2.7 ky) for the separation of eastern Africans from the other populations. A **later range** expansion from the Near East or, possibly, from northern Africa would have introduced E-M78 cluster **delta** into Europe. However, given the low frequencies of E-M78 delta, it seems to have contributed only marginally to the shaping of the present E-M78 frequency distribution in Africa and western Eurasia. Indeed, later (and previously undetected) demographic population expansions involving clusters alpha in Europe (TMRCA 7.8 ky; 95% CI 6.39.2 ky), beta in northwestern Africa (5.2 ky; 95% CI 3.27.5 ky), and gamma in eastern Africa (9.6 ky; 95% CI 7.212.9 ky) should be considered the main contributors to the relatively high frequency of haplogroup E-M78 in the surveyed area.

The present distributions of these clusters also suggest episodes of range expansions. Although E-M78 beta and E-M78 gamma show only modest levels of gene flow (from northern Africa to Europe and from eastern to northern Africa, respectively), the clinal frequency distribution of E-M78 alpha within Europe testifies to important dispersal(s), most likely Neolithic or post-Neolithic. These took place from the Balkans, where the highest frequencies are observed, in all directions, as far as Iberia to the west and, most likely, also to Turkey to the southeast. Thus, it appears that, in Europe, the overall frequency pattern of the haplogroup E-M78, the most frequent E3b haplogroup in this region, is mostly contributed by a new molecular type that distinguishes it from the aboriginal E3b chromosomes from the Near East. These data are hard to reconcile with the hypothesis of a **uniform spread** of **a single** Near Eastern gene pool into southeastern Europe. On the other hand, they might be consistent with either a small-scale leapfrog migration from Anatolia into southeastern Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic or with an expansion of indigenous people in southeastern Europe in response to the arrival of the Neolithic cultural package. At the present level of phylogenetic resolution, it is difficult to distinguish between these possibilities." - Cruciani et al.

What needs to be taken into consideration, shouldn't simply be the numbers of sub-Saharan-connected populations involved in the migration from the "Near East" and "North Africa" into Europe, but also the time of expansion, in terms of what the frequencies of these haplogroups were at time, since phenomena such as drift and environmental factors can determine the distribution and frequency of lineages through time. As Cruciani et al demonstrates, the delta cluster was originally involved in the Neolithic expansion, but E-M78 didn't arrive in Europe in a single movement or migration. It indeed appears to have flowed through successive migrations. So, it's likely that some later migration spread the new mutation of E3b1, i.e. alpha, from the east, which then expanded due to reasons I mentioned earlier, and hence, dominating the original delta cluster:

"If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of **almost equal importance** as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.” - Brace et al.

Y chromosome's defined by SNP markers can sometimes be sub-catagorised by DYS = [DNA, Y chromosome, Segment] analysis.

The segments for Y chromosomes are short tandom repeats [strs] of the 4 nucliotides that make up DNA: A (adenine), T (thymine), C (cytosine) and G (guanine).

So for example gaat:gaat:gaat is a 12 base pair sequence representing 3 repeats [DSYXXX=3] of Guanine, Adenine, Adenine, Thymine.

The place or location on the chromosome where this markers occur is known as the locus [loci].

Each of these markers are assigned arbitrary numbers based on when they are 1st identified by the Geneticists.

For E3b1 alpha DYS460 [a locus] = 9 [short tandem repeats], whereas for E3b1 gamma DYS19 [a different loci]=11.

Both clusters are derived from the same [sub-saharan African] origin.

The clusters are primarily useful for allowing us to to track the age, direction and pattern of spread of the lineages.

For example, you may have 10 different groups of people who have E3b1.

How can we tell where it originated, and how it spread?

That's what clusters can tell us.

In the case of E3b1 we know that European Greeks inherit E3b lineages from Mesolithic SouthWest Asia and East Africa.

Obversely, we know that East Africans do not get their E3b1 from the Greeks, or more generally from Non-Africans.

This is because the Greek cluster E3b1 alpha, has a very young derivition [8kya~] and is not found, among East Africans, for example.

By contrast East Africans have far older parent clusters including underived E3b1, and E3b which is found mainly among Cushitic, Nilotic, San and Bantu speakers SOUTH of the Horn.

So let's make this very clear:

The clusters confirm that these lineages originated in Sub-saharan Africa.

The clusters confirm that a specific patrileneal relationship between Africa and Greece because Africans migrated out of Africa and INTO GREECE, and NOT vice versa.

These Africans spread to SouthWest Asia and thence to Southern Europe during the Neolithic: actually ushering in the Neolithic in Europe.

And that leads us, to another discussion...

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

Clearly E3b is not the only group moving into Southern Europe during the time period that the Neolithic culture sprang into existince in this area. We also have the J2 (Eurasian) haplogroup which are the first people to practice agriculture.

---

quote:

---

I think it is the latter. Here is the gist: the alpha cluster is derived from the delta, the lineage that was originally involved in the Neolithic expansion, which indeed is found in sub-Saharan East Africa. So what does this translate into? The "immediate" ancestor of alpha cluster, is the delta cluster... Or say, alpha cluster is derived from the delta cluster. Which is why I am trying to figure out why anyone would have a problem with the saying that, "E3b lineages in souther Europe", for example, are "sub-Saharan derived" or "black African derived"?

---

Right. The clusters change nothing substantively. They simply make the process of tracing the lineages more accurate.

Africans spread from the horn, to the Nile [Egyptian civilisation], into the Levantine and Southern Europe, denoting the neolithic transition in Europe and West Asia.

Clusters are a part of why we can say this with confidence.

But bear in mind - this was intuited based upon pre-genetic archeological, anthropological and linguistic evidence long before anyone heard of E3b [or clusters thereof].

E3b just provided the clinching, utterly inescapable evidence. [as DNA often does. ]

Hopefully we can get more [into] what the Neolithic transition in Europe entials, with the help of some other discussants.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Right. The clusters change nothing substantively. They simply make the process of tracing the lineages more accurate.

Africans spread from the horn, to the Nile [Egyptian civilisation], into the Levantine and Southern Europe, denoting the neolithic transition in Europe and West Asia.

Clusters are a part of why we can say this with confidence.

But bear in mind - this was intuited based upon pre-genetic archeological, anthropological and linguistic evidence long before anyone heard of E3b [or clusters thereof].

E3b just provided the clinching, utterly inescapable evidence. [as DNA often does. ]

Hopefully we can get more [into] what the Neolithic transition in Europe entials, with the help of some other discussants.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 October 2005).]

---

Hey Rasol, do you have any decent population genetics maps that give a good visual image of what you are discussing regarding these African genetics clusters?

I believe it was you who once posted this:

Also do you have a reliable visual chart of the "Out of Africa" migrations? The best I could find was this little map:

By Dr. Ofer Bar-Yosef, 1987;
The African Archaeological Review;
Chapter 5, pg 29-38.

“The Mushabians moved into the Sinai from the Nile Delta, bring North African lithic chipping techniques.”

“Thus the population overflow from Northeast Africa played a definite role in the establishment of the Natufian adaptation, which in turn led to the **emergence** of agriculture as a new subsistence system.”

I went back and pulled some of my old posts from Richardpoe.com. I think it might have some value-added:

http://www.richardpoe.com/forum.cgi?article=2479&x=2003-07-25+11:30:46

Doric Greek writes:

I told you on the other forum that my issue was Greek anthropological history and not the racial makeup of the Egyptians. That is a subject for another debate.

Thought writes:

This is certainly relevent to this debate because NE Africa is the point of origin for the spread of Mesolithic and Neolithic culture to Eurasia. You are attempting to circumvent the Natufian origins by not dealing with the Mushabians and the diffusion of the microburin technology to the Levant. Africans were gatherers of wild grains along the Nile and in the Red Sea Hills circa 14,000 BC. They carried this cultural practice into Eurasia, possibly along with the proto-Afro-Asiatic language that became the Semitic branch.

Thought
7/22/03

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

They carried this cultural practice into Eurasia, possibly along with the proto-Afro-Asiatic language that became the Semitic branch.

---

Thought Writes:

It is my opinion that unlike Martin Bernals model, there were several Semitic (a language group) cultural infussions into Greece, possibly begining in Neolithic times. This idea certainly warrants investigation.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
They carried this cultural practice into Eurasia, possibly along with the proto-Afro-Asiatic language that became the Semitic branch.

Thought
7/22/03

---

Speaking of proto-Afroasiatic, here's one perspective from a linguist expert:

A Conversation with Christopher Ehret excerpt, 2004:

WHC: How does a small group of Semites coming in from Africa transform the language of a region in which they are a minority?

Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people ­ the Mushabaeans? ­ are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.

Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this.

And by the way: we can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the **earliest** stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati [Ethiopia] have it. And there are a lot of common words for using grasses and seeds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

It is my opinion that unlike Martin Bernals model, there were several Semitic (a language group) cultural infussions into Greece, possibly begining in Neolithic times. This idea certainly warrants investigation.....

[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 17 October 2005).]

---

Okay, now you guys are getting back on track. Semites and Hamites constituting the spread of agriculture into Europe. Lets not leave the Semites out of the picture. And lets not forget where agriculture seems to originate and amongst whom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

My position is this, Thought's comment was that sub-Saharans sparked the Neolithic revolution

---

Thought Writes:

Here is the view that I have espoused for over two years...

Thought Posts:

http://www.richardpoe.com/forum.cgi?article=2479&x=2003-07-25+11:30:46

Thought writes:

First of all, we should view Cro-Magnon and Mediterranean as being separate, but not mutually exclusive. The Cro-Magnon morphology is present because the Natufians are a mixture of the Upper Paleolithic Ohalo II type and the sub-Saharan Mushabians.

The Mediterranean type, as noted by Carleton Coon, carries a Negroid tendency. This same "Negroid Tendency" of a broad flat nose, a dolicephalic head shape and prognathism would present itself as a black person using modern social perspectives. Modern WASP's and Mediterraneans do not have broad flat noses, long heads or thick lips from prognathism!

Doric Greek writes:

Whenever you see terms like wide nasal cavity or prognathism mentioned, you state that it is evidence of sub-Saharan.

Thought writes:

No, not whenever, only when discussing the Natufians and their biological descendants. I also support this view with archaeology, linguistics and genetics.

Doric Greek writes:

But other studies pointing to Y Chromosome data that measure distant origins clearly associate groups of the Levant to be related and well as other Near Eastern groups. If there were substantial sub-Saharan DNA, it would show up in the data.

Thought writes:

The problem is that virtually all of these studies START with the premise that North East Africans were caucasoid. This is not supported by the cranio-facial remains. Furthermore, I am unaware of any genetic studies that have extracted DNA from Natufian remains and compared them with modern populations. Please provide me with your sources on this assertion and I will review them. Thanks.

Thought
7/22/03

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

Okay, now you guys are getting back on track. Semites and Hamites constituting the spread of agriculture into Europe. Lets not leave the Semites out of the picture. And lets not forget where agriculture seems to originate and amongst whom.

---

Thought Writes:

You do realize that SEMITIC and SEMITES are two very different entities?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:

By Semitic, are you referring to "Middle Eastern" cultures?...since obviously the only Afrasan branch spoken there is Semitic. The Greek predecessors, the Cretians, were certainly influenced by cultures in the "Middle East", aside from the contributions from the Nile Valley.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

You do realize that SEMITIC and SEMITES are two very different entities?

In addition, this discourse is about the Neolithic in general, not just agriculture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

Okay, now you guys are getting back on track. Semites and Hamites constituting the spread of agriculture into Europe. Lets not leave the Semites out of the picture. And lets not forget where agriculture seems to originate and amongst whom.

---

Where were you, when this was mentioned in the opening notes?

"If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of **almost equal importance** as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.” - Brace et al.

quote:

---

"There are two variants of the Classic Mediterranean type -- straight-nosed and hook-nosed. The former is the more primitive and the more widely distributed. It extended in prehistoric times along both shores of the Mediterranean, into central, western, and northern Europe and down into the Horn of Africa. Its area of characterization and source of dissemination cannot have been far from the traditional Garden of Eden -- Mesopotamia, which archaeologists include in 'the Fertile Crescent.'

"The expansion of the aquiline or hook-nosed Mediterranean type seems to have been somewhat more limited and probably later than that of the straight-nosed variant. In historical times, it was carried into North Africa and Spain principally by the Arabs, but other Semitic-speaking and non-Semitic peoples of prehistoric times may well have possessed this variation. Some of this type may have reached India, but nasal convexity there seems largely the result of infusions of the Iranian Plateau type."

-- Earnest Hooton, Up from the Ape. New York: Macmillan Co., 1931 (rev. ed. 1946)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Um, Neolithic farmers were not "Semitic". Semites (i.e. Hebrews, Arabs etc.) are a later group associated with southern Levantine haplogroup J1. Neolithic agriculturalists spread J2 from the northern Levant. There's also a marked phenotypic difference between the two groups:

[QUOTE]"There are two variants of the Classic Mediterranean type -- straight-nosed and hook-nosed. The former is the more primitive and the more widely distributed. It extended in prehistoric times along both shores of the Mediterranean, into central, western, and northern Europe and down into the Horn of Africa. Its area of characterization and source of dissemination cannot have been far from the traditional Garden of Eden -- Mesopotamia, which archaeologists include in 'the Fertile Crescent.'

"The expansion of the aquiline or hook-nosed Mediterranean type seems to have been somewhat more limited and probably later than that of the straight-nosed variant. In historical times, it was carried into North Africa and Spain principally by the Arabs, but other Semitic-speaking and non-Semitic peoples of prehistoric times may well have possessed this variation. Some of this type may have reached India, but nasal convexity there seems largely the result of infusions of the Iranian Plateau type."

-- Earnest Hooton, [b]Up from the Ape. New York: Macmillan Co., 1931 (rev. ed. 1946)

---

Shaddup, you are such a shmuck! Your own references can be used against your point. Can't you bloody read? And who cares anyway, like I am going to listen to a reference from the Nazi era!

quote:

---

The Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Um, Neolithic farmers were not "Semitic". Semites (i.e. Hebrews, Arabs etc.) are a later group associated with southern Levantine haplogroup J1. Neolithic agriculturalists spread J2 from the northern Levant. There's also a marked phenotypic difference between the two groups:

"There are two variants of the Classic Mediterranean type -- straight-nosed and hook-nosed. The former is the more primitive and the more widely distributed. It extended in prehistoric times along both shores of the Mediterranean, into central, western, and northern Europe and down into the Horn of Africa. Its area of characterization and source of dissemination cannot have been far from the traditional Garden of Eden -- Mesopotamia, which archaeologists include in 'the Fertile Crescent.'

"The expansion of the aquiline or hook-nosed Mediterranean type seems to have been somewhat more limited and probably later than that of the straight-nosed variant. In historical times, it was carried into North Africa and Spain principally by the Arabs, but other Semitic-speaking and non-Semitic peoples of prehistoric times may well have possessed this variation. Some of this type may have reached India, but nasal convexity there seems largely the result of infusions of the Iranian Plateau type."

-- Earnest Hooton, [b]Up from the Ape. New York: Macmillan Co., 1931 (rev. ed. 1946)[/B]

---

LMAO It's obvious the mongrel is out of answers when he cites Carletoon Coon crap that has been debunked and refuted over half a centurey ago!!

I think this debate over E3b1 is in overkill status. There is no conspiracy to conceal the ancestral origins of this lineage and the idiots who deny just can't accept reality; let that be their problem. I know what published states on E3b1 and I'll stick to that without adding special significance to it["black African derived"]. I'll just follow Keita's example:

S. Keita, "Badarian skeletal affinities in the Egyptian Nile Valley" - The speaker emphasized that he agrees with human biological diversity in Africa. He dwelt on linguistic evidence showing influence in Egypt from the west and the south. He mentioned that some of the most common words related to people's lives like sheep, cattle, etc. are not semitic loan words. He said that the Badarians were semi-sedentarian and that in different clustering studies of Badarian crania they appear to be linked with Nubian samples (Kerma, Meroe). J. J. Castillos asked whether the speaker thought that the clustering of the Badarian crania with those of Nubia and the Sudan had any special meaning, he replied that no, just that the Badarians were related to other north African populations.
http://www.geocities.com/juanjosecastillos/english.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
This my position on this and after this I'm leaving this topic alone. E3b1 alpha descends from the ancestral E3b1 which has an origin in sub-Saharan East Africa,

---

That is correct, and this is a good topic.

quote:

---

calling it "Black African derived" is the same thing as Evil Euro calling R lineages Caucasoid

---

I disagree. The above is specious, and the proof of this is that you have been asked by Supercar, Thought and myself to explain your reasoning....but you do not.

You simply repeat yourself dogmatically via broken analogy to Evil Euro's moronic antics, which would certainly be the penultimate insult if you could establish a logical basis for such a comparision.

So, I will respond by cutting thru the empty dogma, and if you find my logic flawed please correct it, but be specific. Othewise, I will conclude that your objections are unsound:

African -> native to Africa.

Black -> of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin.

Lineage -> The descendants of a common ancestor.

{Per Websters dictionary, 2005}

Lineages are defined by where and among whom they originate.

E3b is an African lineage because it originates in Africa.

E3b lineages are derived from Black Africans because Black Africans were the original bearers of E3b lineage.

If your answer is going to be predicated on analogising to K-zoid - I request politely that you define your terms: And don't use Evil Euro as a strawman [again], simply deal with what we are saying.

Thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
[b]Translation: Neither the Babbling Ape nor the Self-hating Jew have any answers for the evidence posted.

[/B]

---

My answer is that you are a shmuck and your evidence isn't worth the virtual paper its written on.

quote:

---

Thats how their studies should be intepreted, when they say a gene has a sub-Saharan origin, they're not speaking in racial terms, they're speaking in geographic terms where a lineage has its origins.

---

Actually sub-sahara is not geographic, but rather climatic. And during the Holocene almost all of Africa is "sub-sahara".

Moreover Black is not a race any more than sub-saharan, and sub-saharan is *every bit* as political as Black.

If you are saying that Black is a euphemism for race, then my answer is:

a) not if the term is used accurately

and...

b) sub-saharan can be and IS also used as a race misnomer.

The difference is that sub-saharan is more useful for Eurocentrists because it allows them to play little games with African anthropological history.

Games like moving East Africa out of sub-sahara Africa, because it's precense is so deemed, as inconvenient and detrimental to Eurocentrist fallacy.

Games which in my opinion, you are waaay to passive about playing along with.

So it's odd and in my opinion unfortunate that you prefer to cling to the concept of sub-saharan, a geographical inanity and racial ruse of Eurocentrists whose sole purpose is to service 'true negro' fallacy.

Black Africa is Sub-saharan Africa, the principal difference being that the former refers directly to the people and not the climate, and that is why it is a preferred term.

Since people have lineages and climates do not, aren't you really expressing your preference for a euphemism in order to soothe Eurocentric discomfort over the reality of their Black African ancestry?

I submit that if you state that a any lineage is sub-saharan African in origin, you have no logical basis for denying it's Black African origin.

I challenge you to deleneate a meaningful distinction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
As I've said, I'm not soothing anything or anyone, I just call it the way I see it. Calling genes and lineages black African derived is wrong.

---

I asked you to explain your reasoning, not repeat yourself.

quote:

---

I'm not going to get into war over semantics

---

quote:

---

I've already repeated too many times that E3b1-M78 alpha descends from an ancestral E3b1 thats sub-saharan East African in origin and thats as far as I'm taking it, no more no less. No one is denying this.

---

Wrong. Every time you quote a geneticist who separates East Africa from sub-saharan Africa they are denying it.

When we don't call them on this LIE, we are complicit in the lie.

quote:

---

E3b1-M78 alpha is just one small part of the southern European genome and it holds no higher significance than all the other parts of the genome in southern Europeans.

---

Red herring, no one said otherwise.

quote:

---

If black is a political and social construct

---

quote:

---

that makes the statement "black African derived" political and social,

---

As is Sub-saharan. The terms you prefer are as politically charged as the terms you object to and you are one naive Black man if you can't see that.

quote:

---

but *NOT* scientific nor genetic

---

Moot but also *WRONG* as Black *IS* a morphological feature that is genetic.

quote:

---

so why use that phrase?

---

Because it's an accurate reference TO THE PEOPLE in question, and cuts through the fog of racist distortions that you have been unwittingly ensnared in.

Because that's all 'sub-sahara' is, a racist ruse, and the sooner you face that fact, and stop blindly quoting ws.t anthropologists instead of applying critical thinking to their self serving terminological shell games, the better.

quote:

---

Thats the meat of my point.

---

I respect your opinion, but I don't think there is much meat there in this case.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Rasol, you do have a good point, Sub-Saharan is a politically loaded term. What comes to mind when you say Sub-Saharan African. Is there an accepted definition of where this region begins and ends?

---

It begins and ends wherever ws.t scholars want it to begin and end. It cannot have any consistent meaning in history as the sahara expands, contracts and even disapears.

In fact, we technically have no proof that a Holocene lineage like E3a originated South of the Sahara, in the Sahara or north of the Sahara.

Nor is there any way to prove such a thing.

We can prove that it originated among the native Black people of Africa however.

People have lineages - pseudo geographic euphomores DO NOT.

The whole basis for dividing Africa into North Africa and sub-sahara is political and contrived.

Moving East Africa out of sub-saharan Africa simply takes the absurdity to the nth* degree. The lunacy would never have gotten that far except for passive minded if well intended approaches that *play along* with racist dissemblings.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Rasol, you do have a good point, Sub-Saharan is a politically loaded term. What comes to mind when you say Sub-Saharan African. Is there an accepted definition of where this region begins and ends?

---

West, central, east and south African are all political terms using this sort or reasoning. When I e-mailed Underhill and Semino et tal and asked about E3a and E3b lineages, they phylogeographically broke down where these lineages are located. They both said E3a is phylogeographically located in their highest frequencies in West, Central and Southern Africans. E3b and its munerous subclades were phylogeographically most abundant North Africa, East Africa, Europe and the Levant[E3b3]. This breakdown isn't about political geography, its phylogeography.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
[B]If you have a problem with the terms East Africa and sub-Saharan Africa please take them up with Underhill and the rest of the geneticists.

---

I do, and I do, and that's why I don't play along with them.

quote:

---

If you agree that bone morphology does not equate to Y-chromosones why refer to a lineage as "black African derived"?

---

That is non-squitor as Black African is not a reference to bone morphology - it is a reference to the native people of Africa.

E3b lineages *ARE* derived from Black Africans - you object to that fact, but your objections are based on emoting, not on logic or reason.

Indeed stating that E3b is "sub-sahara derived" is a non-sense sentence - *unless* sub-sahara is a euphomore refering to Black African *people*.

quote:

---

however subclades within E3b show strong correlations with geography."

---

Completely irrelevant to the fact that only people carry lineages and E3b is derived from Black African people. You are evading the issue of the people who carry E3b because they are Black.

When you substitute sub-saharan for Black you substitute a reference to the people with a reference to geography.

I agree with Thought, Eurocentrists have bullied you into doing this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
That is non-squitor as Black African is not a reference to bone morphology - it is a reference to the native people of Africa.

---

Ok, but what does that have to do with calling a lineage "black African derived"?

quote:

---

E3b lineages *ARE* derived from Black Africans - you object to that fact, but your objections are based on emoting, not on logic or reason.

---

I didn't object to anything acdcept the characterization of lineages as being caucasoid and black African derived, since both of those terms are inconclusive as far as phylogeography is concerned. They don't tell us anything as far as where certain lineages and their subclades geographically located.

quote:

---

Indeed stating that E3b is "sub-sahara derived" is a non-sense sentence - *unless* sub-sahara is a euphomore refering to Black African *people*.

---

You had no problem quoting Luis et tal when he stated E3b*-M35 was mostly confined to sub-Saharan Africa so why is it problematic now?

quote:

---

I am not afraid of Black Africans. Eurocentrists are, and apparently so are you.

---

This is a lie and a slap in the face to me considering all of the time and work I've invested with e-mailing anthropologists and geneticists. I have no problem with stating populations in Africa are black African. I've never stated otherwise, please point out where I ever have done so. My gripe is with people referring to lineages as Caucasoid and Black African derived, since both imply that the lineage(s) are black African and or Caucasoid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Completely irrelevant to the fact that only people carry lineages and E3b is derived from Black African people. You are evading the issue of the people who carry E3b because they are Black.

When you substitute sub-saharan for Black you substitute a reference to the people with a reference to geography.

I agree with Thought, Eurocentrists have bullied you into doing this.

You need to reconsider your root concepts.

---

I have nothing to reconsider and I haven't been bullied by anyone, thats total nonsense, I just have *NOT* taken the extra step of placing special importance on specific lineages.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
I just have *NOT* taken the extra step of placing special importance on specific lineages. North Africans and Europeans carry E3b lineages, are they black also?

---

You really can't see how your comments are lacking in logic and consistency can you?

Are Europeans black? No.

Nor are they African.

Nor are they sub-saharan.

Thus when you say E3b is sub-saharan you are not saying that Europeans are sub-saharan.

When you say that E3b is African you are not saying that Europeans are African.

And were you not frightened and were able to state the fact that E3b originates with Black Africans - you would realise that this is *not* the same as stating that Europeans are Black.

Why can't you see that?

quote:

---

Keita even says the PN2 clade shatters so-called distinct racial boundaries because the people who share in this clade look different in terms of morphological traits.

---

Of course, and we agree, it simply has nothing to do with the fact that E3b originates with Black Africans.

Just as it is not withstanding Keita's statements with regards to a 'black' genetic influence in Southern Europe.

Keita's logic is sound and his statements are not in conflict, you just have to be able to make subtle distinctions, in terms of exactly what he is saying and why.

For all the scrambling about this is a simple issue:

Either E3b lineage originates with Black Africans.....or it does not.

If you admit that it does, then your objections are merely emotional bias, and refute no fact.

quote:

---

You had no problem quoting Luis et tal when he stated E3b*-M35 was mostly confined to sub-Saharan Africa so why is it problematic now?

---

It's not "problematic."

Again, you seem to have lost all ability to make distinctions, at least when it comes to the word Black, which seems to cause you a mental block.

Where is E3b*M35 largely confined to -> sub saharan Africa.

Among WHOM is E3b*M35 largely confined?...B L A C K A F R I C A N S.

The only question this conversation begs is...why is that simple fact so painfully difficult for you to admit, that you need to drag us all over the place with irrelevancies rather than simply admit it, and be done with it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Which is why, I want to understand why it is you think that it is any different from saying E3b1 is "sub-Saharan derived" or "black African derived".

---

This issue has it's parallel in km.t [rome] which literally means -> Blacks in reference to people -> Ancient "egyptian", and natch is deflected by Eurocentrists so as to imply reference to the land, but not the people.

The effort is to deflect the identity of that which is of value in Africa in a manner that allows Eurocentrists to lay claim to it.

It's an obvious enough eurocentric ruse, and Charlie will see thru it, sooner or later.

peace...

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
This issue has it's parallel in km.t [rome] which literally means -> Blacks in reference to people Ancient "egyptian", and so of course is deflected by Eurocentrists so as to imply reference to the land, and not the people.

The effor is to deflect that which is of value in Africa in a manner that allows Eurocentrists to lay claim to it.

It's an obvious enough eurocentric ruse, and Charlie will see thru it, sooner or later.

---

Hopefully, sooner, than LATER!

Not sure why we just can't admit that E3b originates amongst tropically adapted Africans which equates to them being socially Black. Race is just a political construct and nothing else. Can't talk about such things without being political.

It's a good example of how you have to stay on the case of geneticists over subtleties.

Notice geneticists in fact have no problem labeling haplotypes after their presumed population of origin -> when it suites them.

Keita cuts to the chase by addressing the fact that the Arabs do not originate this hapolotype which is not found among Asiatic Arab populations at all.

In fact E3b2 either originates in the lower Nile valley, or just as likely...in Ethiopia, as it is found there in populations that have no J haplogroup and among peoples who possess virtually all of the parent and sibling lineages of the Pn2 clade.

Not to mention the occassional attempts to pigeonhole E3A as THE "Bantu" haplotype, and to further infer that only Bantu is truly African.

Same for "Semitic" haplogroup J, and CMH -> Cohen Model Haplotype, also routinely given ethnic labels by geneticists.

Keita also gets on that case by pointing out that E3a's prescense in the Nile Valley long precedes the existence of the Bantu languages, peoples and expansion, and their are no Bantu in the Upper Nile Valley in any case.

Keita does not beg off the question of the populations among whom lineages originate.

That is futile.

Far from it.

His smart strategy is to insist upon accuracy in such labeling as opposed to obfuscation - and double standards.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
What may be helpful is a review of Kieta's lastest paper when he deals with Lucotte and Mercier and their reference to E3b2 as an "Arabic" haplotype.

It's a good example of how you have to stay on the case of geneticists over subtleties.

Notice geneticists in fact have no problem labeling haplotypes after their presumed population of origin -> when it suites them.

Keita cuts to the chase by addressing the fact that the Arabs do not originate this hapolotype which is not found among Asiatic Arab populations at all.

In fact E3b2 either originates in the lower Nile valley, or just as likely...in Ethiopia as it found there in populations that have no J haplogroup and among peoples who possess virtually all of the parent and sibling lineages of the Pn2 clade.

Same for "Semitic" haplogroup J, and CMH -> Cohen Model Haplotype, also routinely given ethnic labels by geneticists.

Not to mention the occassional attempts to pigeonhole E3A as THE "Bantu" haplotype, and to further infer that only Bantu is truly African.

Keita also gets on that case by pointing out that E3b's prescense in the Nile Valley long precedes the existence of the Bantu languages, peoples and expansion, and their are no Bantu in the Upper Nile Valley in any case.

Keita does not beg off the question of the populations among whom lineages originate.

That is futile.

Far from it.

His smart strategy is to insist upon accuracy in such labeling as opposed to obfuscation - and double standards.

---

In fact, even "sub-Saharan" is given an "ethnic/racial" connotation by some geneticists who use it when describing the gene pool in East African or North African populations. I've already demonstrated this with Brace's latest study, with regards to East Africans who ARE sub-Saharan Africans. And Brace is not alone, in this kind of usage of "sub-Saharan".

quote:

---

rasol:
Keita also gets on that case by pointing out that E3b's prescense in the Nile Valley long precedes the existence of the Bantu languages, peoples and expansion, and their are no Bantu in the Upper Nile Valley in any case.

---

You probably meant E3a here, right?

Not to belabor the point but if we are not careful - Africa will end up with a great variety of Berber, Arab, Medit, Semitic, Mid East etc. lineages....referring to everything 'but' the Native African people who spawned them.

Let's not kid ourselves either...one of the reasons for the frankness and honesty of some of the more recent and progressive statements of anthropologists, is because biased approaches are constantly challenged.

Look at how much progress is made simply by virtue of the the aknowledgement of physical and genetic continuity in NorthEast Africa.

Compare with WW Howells utterly ludicrous approach in which he compared mesolithic pre-cushtitic and nilotic groups to modern Bantu and San and then promptly labled them: "non African".

Do you think for a single second that Howells is a fool who didn't understand the essentially illogical nature of what he was asserting?

So enter Brace' latest findings/map and a touch of common sense - oh yes, those elongated mesolithic Black Africans actual resemble the modern ones - who still live here. Imagine that!

Racist pseudoscience never sleeps, we must not settle and keep pushing for truth and total disclousure, or we will end up back at square one.