posted
Also, while the male lineage (E3b) was the only one that has survived into the present we now have evidence of the female lineage:
WASHINGTON (AP): Modern Europeans appear genetically unrelated to first farmers
Researchers led by Wolfgang Haak of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, argue that their finding supports the belief that modern residents of central Europe descended from Stone Age hunter-gatherers who were present 40,000 years ago, and not the early farmers who arrived thousands of years later...
Haak's team used DNA from 24 skeletons of farmers from about 7,500 years ago, collected in Germany, Austria and Hungary. Six of the skeletons -- 25 percent -- belonged to the "N1a" human lineage, according to genetic signatures in their mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother.
The N1a marker is extremely rare in modern Europeans, appearing in just 0.2 percent.
"This was a surprise. I expected the distribution of mitochondrial DNA in these early farmers to be more similar to the distribution we have today in Europe," co-author Joachim Burger, also from Johannes Gutenberg University, said in a statement...
FYI, N1a occurs in high frequencies in both Ethiopian and Yemeni populations.Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: The evidence does not say that, we went all through that the other day. You are READING that information into those studies.
In the 1932 article: They [Natufians] were clearly a Negroid people, said Sir Arthur, with wide faces flat- noses and long large heads...
Larry Angel (1972): one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians...
C.L. Brace (2005): 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.
quote: and? This kind of stuff does not make your point.
Different studies that span over 80 years but with the same conclusions.
How dense could you get, professor?! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is that you are trying to take a very meager amount of information and 'create' history from it. You just do not have enough data to draw any conclusions . A study on 24 skulls is a study on 24 skulls, it says nothing about ALL of Europe, Africa or anyplace else. Again. it does not make the point...whatever the point is.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^On the contrary. The FACT that any percentage, let alone 25% of Europe's first farmers were found to have a lineage associated with Ethiopians is not "nothing".
Add that finding with ALL THE OTHER findings on E3b and the Natufian remains, and well it is YOU who has nothing but complaints.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This is not what I said, I said that textual evidence can be used to prove a particular point such as how the political system operated at a particular point in time, or the identiies of specific leaders and the period they ruled.
Yes I agree with this.
quote:Genetic research does not have this specificity.
This comment is illogical, as the application of genetics to political issues has nothing to do with its application to geneology, which was the subject of the post you originally responded to, and then - digressed from.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes. You are wrong because I see many ways in wish genetic research can be used to support my linguistic hypothesis.
Do elaborate.
quote: I really have no confidence in genetic research
Or you reject it because it contradicts you.
quote:but I have read the literature and saw how other researchers have used the knowledge to discuss recent population movements so I plan to apply the same methods to my papers, especially the relationship between Dravidian and African languages.
Then you would know that geneticists and linguists agree that Dravidians are not descendant of Neolithic Africans but rather paleolithic Asians.
quote: I have already decided on how I plan to write the studies up
I wish you only the best and look forward to reading them.
I hope you understand that my converse with you is always in good faith, and I don't shy away from disagreement with a fellow student of African history.
Whatever your thesis is going to be, the search for truth can only be strengthened by exposing it to alternate views.
Having said that, you may find that to get your thesis on the table of formal scholarly debates - you may need to change some of your root assumptions, particularly with regard to recent common origins of Dravidians and Africans - because the evidence rather strongly contradicts this.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Doug, Good post, He has not established that E3b migrated into Greece from Africa.
Of course not. Rasol has long established what other experts like Wells have been saying all along-- that E3b entered Greece from the NEAR EAST. This is why E3b frequencies in Greece are about the same as J frequencies and haplogroup J originated in the Near-East.
The archaeological record supports this case with the Natufians-- peoples from Africa who migrate into the Levant and from there spread agriculture into other areas.
But the issue is can you call these lineages "black". THAT is the problem. I dont think we should be using genetics as "racial" labels. This contradicts the whole point of using dna in the first place.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^let's not play dumb Hore. The keyword is multi-disciplinary.
You find a group of skulls anywhere and studies are going to be done on them to identify them at least physically. As for what their culture is like, that's where archaeology comes into play. And as too what their ancestry is--genetics.
It's as simple as that. For decades now, anthropologists have been commenting on how Natufian remains possess "negroid" or African features. Archaeology has shown that these people were responsible for the first use of agriculture in the area and both anthropology and archaeology shows that their technology spread to other areas.
Now with the advent of genetics it is now verified that these people did not just look African but had African ancestry by the lineages they carried.
It's as simple as that professor.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of that is being done here. There is simply not enough information. You guys are making much of this up and it goes on here all the time. Thats why NONE of this stuff ever makes it into mainline history books. By the way Brace used the word "possible." I posted it the other day. You guys are reading each other on this garble and you end up walking off a cliff.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ And exactly what are we making up, professor??
The FACT that 25% of Greeks carry E3b which is an African derived male lineage?
The FACT that the exact same amount (25%) of Neolithic skeletons in Europe carry N1a which is an African derived female lineage?
And what about these statements from experts that have been consistent for the past several decades...
In the 1932 article: They [Natufians] were clearly a Negroid people, said Sir Arthur, with wide faces flat- noses and long large heads...
Larry Angel (1972): one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians...
C.L. Brace (2005): 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.
... what about them??
Are you saying we made all of this up?!!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well that would depend on how the label is used. As Brace has said, the Natufians were a minority in the areas they entered and were eventually absorbed by the indigenous populations. That Middle-Eastern J haplotype frequency is associated with that of E3b only shows that the people who brought the Neolithic to Europe were not directly from Africa and were a mixed group.
For decades anthropologists have remarked about how populations in the Aegean area were mixture of different groups.
But again, many Greeks by archaic times did not 'look' black but this doesn't mean they didn't have any African ancestry.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find funny Hore is that you ramble all the time about how Egyptian civilization in Africa is due to the presence of "caucasians" without ever explaining who these caucasians were, where they come from, or what their culture was.You never could answer any of it simply because there was no evidence at all of such a thing...
But when we find evidence of black Africans being present in the Near East and even Europe, you consider it all impossible ridiculous nonsense despite the overwhelming evidence!
This is not only hypocritical but unfortunate of you.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: means nothing in terms of the development of Europe. You haven't even proven that it happened that way and if it did what it means.
Actually it means alot really.
Agriculture spawned civilization.
It is a very simple yet very significant concept. Before neolithic technology (agriculture and/or pastoralism) peoples were still living a paleolithic mode of life-- hunter-gathering.
When the neolithic was introduced to Europe it brought about settled urban communities, beauracracy, complex government-- CIVILIZATION.
Call it what you will, but it still won't change the FACTS.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who were the syrians and others in the near East? Most world history classes teach that middle eastern pastoral populations entered the sahara before it became a desert, later moving east and south. The problem is you haven't found any evidence. You have a series of isolated facts and theories that you are trying to weave into some sort of larger picture. Even your isolated facts are not certain. This stuff will never get off the ground.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Who were the syrians and others in the near East? Most world history classes teach that middle eastern pastoral populations entered the sahara before it became a desert, later moving east and south.
Where did you hear this?! And you have the nerve to accuse others of making stuff up?!!
quote:The problem is you haven't found any evidence. You have a series of isolated facts and theories that you are trying to weave into some sort of larger picture. Even your isolated facts are not certain. This stuff will never get off the ground.
There is nothing "isolated" or "theoretical" about the first agriculturalists having 'negroid' features, them and their descendants in the areas carrying African lineages, or peoples in the area speaking African languages.
However "isolated" or "theoritical" you think this maybe at least we have material for it and not just some imagined migration of 'Middle-Easterners' into the Sahara before its dessication.
Speaking of which, we have plenty of evidence from the Sahara desert itself in regards as to who lived there before it became desert. ALL of which shows indigenous Africans (blacks) and that pastoralism was developed in the area and NOT introduced.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
There are at least seven or eight maybe eleven to thirteen world regions which independently invented agriculture. None in Europe, by the way.
One, of course, is in the Middle East, and many people still believe that this was the first, from which all the others developed. The idea of diffusion from the Middle East still lingers.
That idea really can't be sustained.
Here's the point: agriculture was invented in Africa in at least three centers, and maybe even four. In Africa, you find the earliest domestication of cattle. The location, the pottery and other materials we've found makes it likely that happened among the Nilo-Saharan peoples, the sites are in southern Egypt. There is an exceptionally strong correlation between archaeology and language on this issue. A separate or distinct agriculture arose in West Africa around yams.
A third takes place in southeastern or southern Ethiopia.
The Ethiopians domesticated a plant called enset. It's very unique: Ethiopians use the lower stem and the bulb; not the tuber, the fruit, or the greens. Enset grows in a climatic zone distinct from that where cattle were first domesticated; that was further north.,....
We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northEast Africa into southwestern Asia.
The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East.
Another thing about the Afrasans: their religious beliefs. Anciently, each local group had its own supreme deity. This is called "henotheism." In this kind of religion, you have your own god to whom you show your allegiance. But you realize that other groups have their own deities. The fact that they have deities different from yours doesn't mean their deities don't exist. This kind of belief still exists.
It's fading, maybe on its last legs, in southeastern Ethiopia, among people of the Omati group. They descend from the earliest split in the Semitic family. Way up in the mountains...
Sorry Hore, but the Hegelian myth of a feckless Africa whose innovations were introduced from the outside by "caucasians" has been debunked a long time ago! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Problem is that nobody is teaching your stuff. Brace would not touch your theories with a telephone poll. I read his study and it does not say what you say it says. These are all ideas PUT TOGETHER on this board . If it filters into the history books I'll know about it because I either see it or get the samples and nothing like this is being taught.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
I wish you only the best and look forward to reading them.
I hope you understand that my converse with you is always in good faith, and I don't shy away from disagreement with a fellow student of African history.
Whatever your thesis is going to be, the search for truth can only be strengthened by exposing it to alternate views.
Having said that, you may find that to get your thesis on the table of formal scholarly debates - you may need to change some of your root assumptions, particularly with regard to recent common origins of Dravidians and Africans - because the evidence rather strongly contradicts this.
Thanks for your support even if we disagree. I see nothing wrong with disagreement on issues , and I enjoy our debates. It helps one grow, and learn.
The only thing I don't like about the forum is that selected people enter constructive conversations then use name calling and other tactics to change the subject of the forum so they can keep people ignorant.
I can't take things personal because I know that the state of research changes and I may even have to change my thinking about some ideas I have about history.
This is a great forum, back in the 1990's certain list would allow people to get into a debate and then drop one of the debaters if they were able to present evidence that knocked down the status quo. Here you battle it out, and move on to new topics that are always interesting.
Coming here has made me think about how I will use the genetic data to supplement the linguistic, anthropological, archaeological and historical evidence of the expansion of the Sumerians, Elamites, Dravidians and Mande from Africa to Asia since 3000-2500 BC.
That being said, I believe that my work may be published in journals mentioned frequently on this forum because I don't think that a professional geneticist is going to publicly dispute my work given the amount of archaeological, linguistic and anthropological research supporting a link between the Dravidians and Africans.
On this forum people can summary reject a proposition because they disagree with it and hold narrow views about the research findings discussed on this board. Professional geneticists on the other other hand , like most academics are cautious and will not challenge a thesis which has an abundance of evidence in support of that thesis, because they don't want to be embarassed.
They don't want people from other fields of study to dispute their work and show that much of it has a foundation of sand. So they will either refuse to publish my future articles or remain silent, like the professional archaeologists and linguists who came to my presentations on the Olmec at national anthropological meetings.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Problem is that nobody is teaching your stuff.
Brace would not touch your theories with a telephone poll. I read his study and it does not say what you say it says. These are all ideas PUT TOGETHER on this board .
Oh really?! Then why is Brace's recent 2005 study talk about the Natufians' identity and their relationship to Europeans?
Why does Brace himself conclude: 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.
Why does his cranio-facial comparison of Natufians look like this:
Sorry Hore, but your denial of reality is futile.
quote:If it filters into the history books I'll know about it because I eoither see of get all the samples and nothing like this is being taught.
Then what is being taught? So far all of world history classes have taught that agriculture in the Near-East was brought to Europe. They taught that the "Neolithic revolution" as it was called was responsible for the production of civilizations. Of course they didn't mention anything about Natufians having African ancestry but that was back then, things may start to change.
Non of my history classes by the way, mention anything about a migration of Middle-Easterners into the Sahara and all of them taught what Egyptologists have been saying all along-- that Egyptian civilization was indigenous to the Nile Valley. The teachers don't really get into the whole racial issue but it's implied that Egypt is African and not Near Eastern.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never seen Egypt sold as an Aftican nation in a world history class. I'll say this for you. I think you actually have convinced yourself this concoction is correct.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: I've never seen Egypt sold as an Aftican nation in a world history class.
Well you haven't but I have. Egypt is IN Africa. It's people were/are African and so was it's culture. For as long as you've been lurking around this board, it is still a wonder how you could deny all this.
quote:I'll say this for you. I think you actually have convinced yourself this concoction is correct.
Which one, the Natufians or the Egyptians? In both the evidence is overwhelming, the latter moreso than the former.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Problem is that nobody is teaching your stuff. Brace would not touch your theories with a telephone poll. I read his study and it does not say what you say it says. These are all ideas PUT TOGETHER on this board . If it filters into the history books I'll know about it because I either see it or get the samples and nothing like this is being taught.
hore is right. I helped write the World History Standards for the Chicago Public Schools and the Guided Lesson Plans used to teach 6th Grade World History. Although I was able to make the lessons on Kush and Egypt more realistic I was not allowed to insert information on the African origin of the Olmecs and lessons on Blacks in China.
As a result, if students are to learn real history and the role of African and Black people in ancient history they will not learn it in the public schools unless teachers use supplemental text.
Public school teachers interested in teaching an Afrocentric History, use supplemental text and the WWW to effectively instruct their students in Afrocentric truths. Earlier this year the Philadelphia Public School announced it was making its curriculum more African Centered; it will be interesting to see how Afrocentric ideas are incorporated in the proposed African centered curriculum being developed in Philadelphia.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: hore is right. I helped write the World History Standards for the Chicago Public Schools and the Guided Lesson Plans used to teach 6th Grade World History. Although I was able to make the lessons on Kush and Egypt more realistic I was not allowed to insert information on the African origin of the Olmecs and lessons on Blacks in China.
I wonder why!
quote:As a result, if students are to learn real history and the role of African and Black people in ancient history they will not learn it in the public schools unless teachers use supplemental text.
Better yet, if students are to learn real African history they need to be aware of psuedo-stuff from people like YOU.
quote:Public school teachers interested in teaching an Afrocentric History, use supplemental text and the WWW to effectively instruct their students in Afrocentric truths. Earlier this year the Philadelphia Public School announced it was making its curriculum more African Centered; it will be interesting to see how Afrocentric ideas are incorporated in the proposed African centered curriculum being developed in Philadelphia.
The key is not so much Afrocentrism as it is real history regardless of the region, whether it be Africa, Europe, or Asia etc.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Professional geneticists on the other other hand , like most academics are cautious and will not challenge a thesis which has an abundance of evidence in support of that thesis, because they don't want to be embarrassed.
True, for example with the 1st genetic study was released stating frankly that the Greeks have Black African ancestry - it was savaged in peer review.
It was the genetic equivalent of classicist Martin Bernal's puncturing of Eurocentric sacred mythologies involving the origins of ancient Greece.
And of course, Diops masterwork(s) on the African origins of Kemet - decades earlier - resulted in a similar firestorm.
So the resultant howlings of protest were predictable.
But truth will 'out', and subsequent study in genetics and physical anthroplogy - such as Brace 2005 - have supported earlier findings.
Future study will continue to reveal over and over again, that there is a Black African component in the European gene pool, because...it's true.
So no amount of argument by ridicule, sophistry or semantical dodging will make this truth go away.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats all garbage, none of it is true. Disney productions should hire rasol to make up cartoons. Brace did not even say what rasol says he did, he knows that.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Brace (2005): 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.
and his map:
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the entire study. You guys could not get this past any scholarly examination. Your methods are faulty and your conclusions are careless. No historian thinks like that.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Why should we, when scholarly examination was how this evidence was first discovered?!!
In the 1932 article: They [Natufians] were clearly a Negroid people, said Sir Arthur, with wide faces flat- noses and long large heads...
Larry Angel (1972): one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians...
C.L. Brace (2005): 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...
And of course the presence of E3b male lineage and N1a female lineage in Europe. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you had a PHD in the field you might be able to come to some meaningful conclusions. Its not my field so I would not venture out like that but I can tell your methods are incorrect.
i am a regular poster on a civil war board and we have the same problem from time to time though we do have some actual civil war specialists that leep the board from going insane like this one has.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: If you had a PHD in the field you might be able to come to some meaningful conclusions. Its not my field so I would not venture out like that but I can tell your methods are incorrect.
Sorry Hore, but the conclusions were meaningful enough. There was nothing complicated and there was no word usage involved that only an anthropologist could understand. The conclusions from all these scholars were very clear.
quote:i am a regular poster on a civil war board and we have the same problem from time to time though we do have some actual civil war specialists that leep the board from going insane like this one has.
And what problem is that? We are not dealing with some scanty clues from a Civil War battle mystery. Again, the evidence is very clear and so are the conclusions of which the experts reached
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL What is there to evaluate?! The conclusions are obvious and clear.
Sorry if you don't like them, professor.
Indeed, incompetant trolls are certainly free to keep bumping the thread with their mindless blatherings.
They allow us to present the evidence, while exposing their helplessness and frustration in the face of it.
I stated at the beginning of this thread, that Keita, Angel, Brace 2005, Underhill, etc. would all stand unrefuted, and that has been precisely the case, after nearly 150 replies, lol.
SOY Keita Arethusa 26 (1993) pg 329: "Professor Angel also found evidence for a "Black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."
No rebuttal from anyone eh?.
Very well then, let's continue.....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is rasol that you have always been careless in your evaluations. i personally could care less what you think but if you are serious about the subject you are going to have to train your mind to think in a more precise way. There is nothing wrong with being a layman, i wish more people were, but putting together historical material in a scholarly way takes years of training and education. This shot gun approach that you like simply leaves you open to endless errors.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.). -Arnaiz-Villena A, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J.
Eur J Med Genet. 2006 January The present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations.
This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara. - Hajjej A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa1ed A, Boukef K Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
OKAAAY... Sorry to disappoint your fantasies of me, then again i'm not sorry, but I'm a guy!
What fantasies obese retarded Yankee? I'm a sexy greek female,don't care for American twats like you...By the way how could you possibly satifsy a lady?With your middle finger perhaps.. since you got nothing useful in your pants.
(By the way ,you are the one who started the vulgar sexual comments.Sorry ,its not my fault.)
Thanks for the offer though....I have a wonderful Egyptian man for myself
I also find it funny how a Greek would support a Middle Eastern country, but I guess you are trying to get in touch with your roots.
I love my roots,and no Yankee moron like you is gonna make me feel somehow guilty for being white and not black.You guys are sick .. Maybe I should apologise also for being straight or something?!
I also love Arabs and enjoy so much that your nation has become their bit.ches. I had a good laugh on 9-11 too,miss that date.. Ya sou!Bye! Posts: 182 | From: greece | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will agree with Charles that we have been through everything discussed here before, and for that reason, I'll just reiterate only once, some of the points raised, which perhaps still stand, barring any new information being brought to light:
Elsewhere I posted:
...not to mention E3b1 delta. There is a tendency to focus on the alpha cluster too much, it being the predominent E3b1 cluster in Europe, while ignoring the presence of older clusters like the E3b1 delta. Some folks do so, as some of us are already aware, to distract, or dissociate the lineage from its relatively recent sub-Saharan African origin. A similar treatment [i.e., ignoring the lineage's presence in Europe], though to a greater extent, has been afforded to the lineages' PN2 clade sister lineages, the E3a haplotypes.
Charles posted:
On the other forum it was mentioned that E3b1 alpha was derived from E3b1 delta. I've searched every available publication on E3b1 and none have ever made that statement, so where's the proof?
Thought posted:
You are absoluetly correct. The Cruciani et al study does not explicitly state that alpha derived from delta. It does state that delta spread from East Africa to Europe after ~14,000 years ago. It also states that alpha derived in Europe. Hence it requires a commonsensical sort of extrapolation.
I replied:
Well, let's take a look:
"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." - Cruciani et al.
Again, the experts give us data, and then, it is our job to take further understanding from there. Most forget that the delta cluster is STILL present in **all of the regions surveyed**. Hence, the original cluster that made its way to the Near East, is still present in the Asia and Europe, and hasn't been totally wiped out. What other E3b1 cluster is found in the so-called "Near East"? So, it is obvious, that it was this cluster that mutated, most likely in the Balkans, where it has the highest frequencies and spread to southern Europe. The fact that the alpha cluster now dominates the delta cluster in the region [Europe], has to do with further migrations from the east, and perhaps, genetic drift [and founder effect] had a hand in enhancing its frequency. This is why the alpha cluster is largely responsible for the **present** E-M78 frequency distribution in Europe. We know how other E3b lineages, like E3b2, got into southwestern Europe.
Charles posts: If we read Cruciani's study he says the spread of E3b chromosones isn't so simple, so that extrapolation is *NOT* an absolute truth. Delta cluster was involve in several dispersals possibly so should we have several more clusters from each dispersal?
Thought posts:
1) There are NO absolutes in statistics because all forms of statistical analysis are based upon probability, hence there is the margin of error.
2) Common sense can be of assistance as well. E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 and has a MRCA of ~8,000 ky. E3b1 is absent in Europe. E3b1 beta is virtually absent in the Balkans. E3b1 gamma is restricted to East Africa. E3b1 delta predates E3b1 alpha AND is located in the Balkans. This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha.
Rasol posts:
Also not all E3b1 have been sub-catagorised into *any* cluster.
All E3b1's are by definition a part of the same lineage.
Whether alpha descends from a specific cluster such as delta, or from and undefined/underived E3b1 makes essentially no difference.
What is important about alpha is it's neolithic mrca, which tells 'when' and in turn sheds light on 'whom' brought this lineage into the Balkans.
One reason there are so many 'clusters' is that this lineage has been studied with a fine tooth comb, perhaps with hope of 'clustering' it out of Africa.
'Not a chance. This is the genetically ill-informed equivelant of the geographical illiteracy of removing East Africa from sub-saharan Africa.
It is a desparate ruse and should be dismissed as such.
Charles posts:
Black Africans didn't bring the alpha mutation into Europe, if thats what you're hinting at and thats faulty logic. Each of the clusters are defined by specific mutations that are geographically restricted to certain areas. At any rate, I've e-mailed some geneticists about where exactly does the alpha exactly is the alpha mutation derived from so I'll have an answer. No ois trying to cluster E3b1 out of Africa, the publications state that E-M78[the mutation of E3b that defines E3b1] has an East African origin and no place does it state that E3b1 came into Africa from the outside. All thats being said is certain clusters of E3b1 are geographically restricted to certain areas.
I posted:
One cannot be certain about the morphology of the folks, among whom the mutation occurred. What is certain, is that there were clear sub-Saharan affinities among the Neolithic populations of the "Near Easterners" who spread the Neolithic culture into Europe. Sub-Saharan affinities were also found in the Balkans, **from where the alpha derivatives appear to have spread elsewhere westward**:
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and **in Anatolian** and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - Angel
This was once again, more recently, observed by Brace et al.:
"...the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that,...
while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it." - Brace et al.
Not to mention...
"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.
According to Brace et al., this sub-Saharan element must have diluted over time, which I take it, is due to population expansions in Europe.
I agree with Rasol that, at the end of the day, the important point should be: What lineage the alpha cluster is, i.e., its derivation from E3b1, which is of sub-Saharan origin. Thus, E3b1 is sub-Saharan derived. Talking of clusters, or focusing on the question of which one is specific to which region, doesn't alter this fact in any case. Sub-Saharan Africa is also referred to as tropical Africa ~ black Africa.
Other matters that are taken into consideration in the discussion of the Neolithic spread of E3b1...
1)The mrca of the alpha cluster.
2)Examination frequencies of other [older] E3b1 clusters in the Near East and the Balkans, so as to narrow it down to the most likely precursor of the alpha cluster. At the end of the day, it can only derive from a E3b1 type that originated in Africa. Preponderance of available data favors the delta cluster, which is present in all the regions surveyed for E-M78 distribution.
Thought posts:
One fact that needs to be considered in this regard is that as the neolithic spread via the Rhine deeper into Central Europe TRADE ROUTES would have been established and BACK-MIGRATION would have occured. This society may have been paterilineal meaning indigenous European women would have gained priveldge mating with the neolithic males. In addition, as the African mtDNA lineages fade-out sooner as we enter Europe it may have been due to the fact that these original hunting parties contained few women. In fact, I have proposed that one of the reasons we see a spread from the Nile into Eurasia was because of the disruption of the gathering economy on the Kom Ombo plain with the onset of the Holocene High Nile Floods. This disruption could have empacted the local subsistance system and hence forced migration. This imples a tough lifestyle where women and children may have died out more rapidly than men. Areas for future research.....
Charles posts: The Natufian sample consisted of only four individuals and in an e-mail to me Dr. Brace said one should be careful when making conclusions about *ALL* Natufians. We do know that some of the skeletal material in the Levant was sub-Saharan influenced, thats something to build with.
Thought posts:
What is your point? I sometimes question if you are really as naive as you pretend to be. I have said DOZENS of times that the evidence for Sub-Saharan gene flow into Eurasia during the Mesolithic period relies on a multidisciplinary approach NOT just cranial analysis. Lingustics, arcaheology and genetics also support this conclusion. I have said that the Natufians were a COMBINATION of incoming Mushabians and indigenous northern Levant Upper Paleolithic populations such as the Ohalo populations YEARS AGO!
I reply:
Folks here have been consistent on this issue, about the Natufians being the product of cross-breeding between African populations and those of the Levantine. It also has to be recognized that Brace is just another expert, who has reached the same conclusion about the Natufians, as others BEFORE him and his partners. For example...
"[The caves of Erq-el-Ahmar] . . . Produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm.* and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding..." - Furon.
What I am getting at here, is that, notwithstanding Brace's rather smaller collection, others before him, who collected varying numbers of Natufian remains, had reached the same conclusion. As you can see, Miss Garrod's collection was much larger than Brace's. Thus, Brace et al.'s work, should simply seen as another re-confirmation of an earlier discovery, although Brace has the advantage of working with molecular geneticists to build a more complete thesis or the broader picture, than those who had to work with what was available to them at the time, i.e., archeology, including skeletal remains, and linguistics. Molecular genetics is much more prevalent now, and Brace can correlate his findings with this discipline.
“….is common in northwestern Africa (14.0%), representing 80% of E-M78 chromosomes in that area. Outside this region, E-M78 beta was observed only in five European subjects.”
The gamma cluster:
“Outside of eastern Africa, it was found only in two subjects from Egypt (3.6%) and in one Arab from Morocco.”
The alpha cluster:
“This cluster is very common in the Balkans (with frequencies of 20%-32%), and its frequencies decline toward western (7.0% in continental Italy, 7.4% in Sicily, 1.1% in Sardinia, 4.3% in Corsica, 3.0% in France, and 2.2% in Iberia) and northeastern (2.6%) Europe. In the Near East, this cluster is essentially limited to Turkey (3.4%). The relatively high frequency of DYS413 24/23 haplogroup E chromosomes in Greece (A.N., unpublished data) suggests that cluster alpha of the E-M78 haplogroup is common in the Aegean area, too.”
...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.
I’ve already pointed out the case with the “delta” cluster.
“Clusters” are a family which derive from a common ancestor, the original E3b1 mutation. E3b alpha being prevalent in Europe, or E3b1b (formerly E-M81) being prevalent in northwest Africa, or E3b1 gamma being prevalent in eastern Africa, and so forth, doesn't exempt one cluster from being part of the family of...E3b1 clade. E3b and E3a as PN2 clades, are typical tropical African lineages. This simply denotes the region of origin and the natives of such region, who originally carried the lineage, NOT to denote “phenotype” of a gene, LOL. Bone morphology and facial characteristics [that is, shape of face, mouth, nose, and so forth] are determined by a whole another group of DNA, among autosomes ; no set types of such phenotype-coding DNA have been identified, which is understandable, considering that individuals usually have their own unique combination of characteristics, while carrying hereditary material from their ancestors, ensuring similarities between ancestors and offspring , as well as sustenance of naturally selected traits among populations. For instance, we all have faces that are distinguishable from that of another person, even if there seems to be cranio-facial trends or patterns in populations. Melanin level has been determined to be influenced by variations in such DNA as for example, the “MC1R” (Melanocortin for MC, and R, denoting receptor) gene, which manifest in color of hair, eyes, and skin tone.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about N1a?? According to the article on first European farmers, N1a accounts for .02% of the mtDNA lineage in Europe. If this is true, then the female lineage didn't completely die out after all.
What is the geographic distribution of N1a as opposed to E3b1 delta; is there an association?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
N1a is extremely rare today, and is most frequently found only in Ethiopia and South Yemen.
N1a is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, and Indian populations (Mountain et al. 1995; Richards et al. 2000).
It occurs at a significant frequency in both Ethiopian and Yemeni populations.
Six Ethiopian N1a lineages, restricted to Semitic-speaking subpopulations, show low haplotype diversity and include an exact HVS-I sequence match with a published N1a sequence from Egypt (Krings et al. 1999). Tracking Gene flow across the Gates of Tears.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The alpha cluster is the *European branch of an African haplogroup,* E3b1 (M78), which spreads from what seems to be a Balkan homeland.
Alpha cluster seems to have entered Europe from the Middle East about the same time as the first pottery and farming around 10 thousand years ago, perhaps part of a population pushed there by the filling of the Black Sea.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Nope, but YOU are being incorrigible as always professor.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Where did you hear this?! And you have the nerve to accuse others of making stuff up?!! 
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
What is there to evaluate?! The conclusions are obvious and clear.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic