posted
Roger Blench (2006, pp. 183-185) proposes to solve some linguistic observations about African languages, i.e.: "(1) the relative lexical uniformity of non-Khoesanoid languages; (2) the phonological and morphological diversity of African languages compared to Papuan; and (3) the system of nominal classes that permeates Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo."
By suggesting that 20 to 30,000 years ago there was a back migration from Asia to Africa of a population with “...new skills, technology or perhaps social/ritual systems— spread out across Africa and gradually displaced or assimilated many of its resident populations. This hypothesis was first put forward in its modern form by Kingdon (1993), although in the absence of genetic evidence it was little more than speculation. But if the argument is accepted, these early returnees would be the source of Nilo-Saharan, as this is the oldest of the phyla apart from Khoesan (p. 183).” . . . “I am well aware of the political sensitivity of proposing such a scenario. After decades of trying to scotch theories that attribute African cultures to outside influences and trying to vanquish mysterious Egyptians and Phoenicians traveling to the heart of the continent, is this just a reinvention of these discredited views? I hope not. This hypothesis tries to account for what are otherwise very curious features of the ethnolinguistic map of Africa but does not attribute any specific aspects of African culture to outsiders. Is there any support in the archaeological record or from genetics? In the case of the latter, the surprising answer is yes. Harding et al. (1997) have shown that “Asian” lineages play an important role in human ancestry. Cruciani et al. (2002) underook a major analysis of Y-chromosome patterns in sub-Saharan Africa and find intriguing evidence for a back migration from Asia, based on haplogroup IX chromosomes. They also refer to other studies that have reached similar conclusions.
‘Interestingly, phylogenetic analysis of primate T-cell lymphotropic viruses type 1 indicate a putative Asian origin (Vandamme et al. 1998) followed by a simian- or human-mediated introduction to Africa 20,000 years ago (Van Dooren et al 2001). An ancient human back migration from Asia to Africa had already been proposed by Altheide and Hammer (1997) and Hammer et al. (1998, 2001), on the basis of nested cladistic analysis of Y-chromosome data (Cruciani et al. 2002, 1210).” (p. 184) %%%%%%%
I don’t know how to search ES efficiently so I don’t know if Cruciani 2002 has been discussed before. Harding et al (1997) is not very convincing because the “Asian” genes supposedly shared by all humans date previous to the emergence of “truly modern humans.”
The back migration of T-cell viruses (Van Dooren et al .2001; Vandamme et al. 1998) also seems shaky to me since the reintroduction of the virus could have been accomplished by a simian rather than a human.
Cruciani et al (2002) found that there were significant amounts of Y-chromosome haplotype R*-M173 (haplotype IX, of Asian origin) in several populations in Cameroon. Coia, et al (2005) suggests two explanations:
“ABSTRACT The hypervariable region-1 and four nucleotide positions (10400, 10873, 12308, and 12705) of the coding region of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) were analyzed in 441 individuals belonging to eight populations (Daba, Fali, Fulbe, Mandara, Uldeme, Podokwo, Tali, and Tupuri) from North Cameroon and four populations (Bakaka, Bassa, Bamileke, and Ewondo) from South Cameroon. All mtDNAs were assigned to five haplogroups: three sub-Saharan (L1, L2, and L3), one northern African (U6), and one European (U5). Our results contrast with the observed high frequencies of a Y-chromosome haplogroup of probable Asian origin (R1*-M173) in North Cameroon. As a first step toward a better understanding of the evident discrepancy between mtDNA and Y-chromosome data, we propose two contrasting scenarios. The first one, here termed “migration and asymmetric admixture,” implies a back migration from Asia to North Cameroon of a population group carrying the haplotype R1*-M173 at high frequency, and an admixture process restricted to migrant males. The second scenario, on the other hand, temed “divergent drift,” implies that modern populations of North Cameroon originated from a small population group which migrated from Asia to Africa and in which, through genetic drift, Y-chromosome haplotype R1*-M173 became predominant, whereas the Asian mtDNA haplogroups were lost.”
Has there been any analysis of Cruciani et al.’s (2002) claims on EgyptSearch?
References Roger Blench. 2006. Archaeology, Language, and the African Past New York: Altamira Press.
Coia, V. et al. 2005. “Brief Communication: mtDNA Variation in North Cameroon: Lack of Asian Lineages and Implications for Back Migration From Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 128:678–681.
Fulvio Cruciani, F. et al. 2002. “A Back Migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa Is Supported by High-Resolution Analysis of Human Y-Chromosome Haplotypes,” Am. J. Hum. Genet. 70:1197–1214.
Harding, R. M., et al. 1997. “Archaic African and Asian Lineages in the Genetic Ancestry of Modern Humans,” Am. J. Hum. Genet. 60:772-789
Vandamme, A-M., et al. 1998. “The simian origins of the pathogenic human T-cell lymphotropic virus type I,” Trends in Microbiology 6(12): 477-483.
Van Dooren, S. et al. 2001 “Dating the Origin of the African Human T-Cell Lymphotropic Virus Type-I(HTLV-I) Subtypes,” Mol. Biol. Evol. 18(4):661–671.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
By suggesting that 20 to 30,000 years ago there was a back migration from Asia to Africa of a population with “...new skills, technology or perhaps social/ritual systems— spread out across Africa and gradually displaced or assimilated many of its resident populations. This hypothesis was first put forward in its modern form by Kingdon (1993), although in the absence of genetic evidence it was little more than speculation. But if the argument is accepted, these early returnees would be the source of Nilo-Saharan, as this is the oldest of the phyla apart from Khoesan (p. 183).” . . .
*Nonsensical. First of, the marker TMRCA is linked to the Upper Paleolithic. Predynastic Nile Valley complexes, which came about in the Neolithic-Holocene, have been shown ad nauseam here to have evolved from in situ processes. Notwithstanding gene flow from the eastern neighbours, Northeast Africa is still largely of PN2 derived M78 lineages, showing the region to be home to the ancestral lineages of those that spread to their neighbours, southward, northward, westward and eastward. Therefore, the populations therein have definitely not been displaced.
*M78 are derivatives of M35, which is of sub-Sahara East African origin.
*R1*-M173 is also rare, even more so out of Africa, with the highest incidence being in north Cameroon - amongst its Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Afrasan language speakers.
*The studies done on Nilo-Saharan speakers show them to be largely those of early African lineages, which aren't found outside of Africa, e.g. Hg A and B, and other lineages involve PN2 transition derivatives, which again is of African provenance.
*Nilo-Saharan is exclusively African; it isn't found elsewhere.
As for R1*, we've been through its particulars a number of times now, e.g.:
What is most commonly misunderstood bout R1*173 in Cameroon is that this lineage is only found in Cameroon [mainly], Egypt, and SouthWest Asia.
It is not found among Europeans, NorthEast Asians, Indians, and...nor is it found among Maghreb Berber.
This is likely for the reason Cruciani suggests which is that it is at least a 30 thousand year old lineage in Central Africa.
Since this lineage is scarse outside of Africa, there is no direct proof that it originated per se outside of Africa, however many non African lienages are either predessor or cousin to R1, such as R1b which is the most common original European lineage.
The best assessment of these early dirived lineages which may be African or may be Eurasian comes from Keita:
It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplo-types called “Eurasian” are predominantly, although not solely, of indige-nous African origin. As a term “Eurasian” is likely misleading, since itsuggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can bepostulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before theemigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saha-ran/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and carefulanalysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities isneeded. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be mod-eled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving anasymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wideregion, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion.
^ 30 thousand years ago, when most of the worlds population was African, and African populations spilled out into SouthWest Asia and likely back over and again, there were few if any northern Eurasians, and 'white' people did not exist.
Did a parent of underived R1* in Cameroon came back across the Levant 30 thousand years ago?
Did a parent of underived R1* in Cameroon came back across the Levant 30 thousand years ago?
If so, so what?
According to the intro post, this would be the 'so what'...
“...new skills, technology or perhaps social/ritual systems— spread out across Africa and gradually displaced or assimilated many of its resident populations. This hypothesis was first put forward in its modern form by Kingdon (1993), although in the absence of genetic evidence it was little more than speculation. But if the argument is accepted, these early returnees would be the source of Nilo-Saharan, as this is the oldest of the phyla apart from Khoesan (p. 183).”
^But as I have briefly and swiftly shown, this is nonsensical.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But as I have briefly and swiftly shown, this is nonsensical.
Yes, hence....so what?
Basically we are seeing the increasingly desparate nature of the 'hamite' myth, which is now less of a ruse, and more a plea, as in -'please hear me out while i enage in highly unlikely and wild-minded speculation in effort to salvage what remains of Eurocentric anthropology'.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is such a silly proposition. 30,000 years ago most modern humans were largely living in Western Europe. By this time Cro Magnon people,who were not whites/modern Europeans-- who carry the N haplogroup were only entering the Levant, which was still occupied by Neanderthal populations.
By 20kybp we find the Natufians entering the Levant and Eurasia. I believe that they carried the M1 haplogroup into this area. The ancient M haplogroups were already well established in Eastern Eurasia and Pacific.
The presence of R hg in Eurasia probably reflects an early migration of Africans into Eurasia after 10kybp carrying this gene.
Also, I don't know how the author of this article claim the NiloSaharan speakers are the second oldest language in Africa. This is pure bull to me.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the response and the reference to previous threads on the topic of R1*-M173
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
*Nonsensical. First of, the marker TMRCA is linked to the Upper Paleolithic. Predynastic Nile Valley complexes, which came about in the Neolithic-Holocene, have been shown ad nauseam here to have evolved from in situ processes. Notwithstanding gene flow from the eastern neighbours, Northeast Africa is still largely of PN2 derived M78 lineages, showing the region to be home to the ancestral lineages of those that spread to their neighbours, southward, northward, westward and eastward. Therefore, the populations therein have definitely not been displaced.
*M78 are derivatives of M35, which is of sub-Sahara East African origin.
But didn't the transitions M9, M45, M207 prior to M173 take place outside of Africa, so that a back migration was involved?
However, according to posts by Rasol, the migration would have come from the Levant. Blench hypothesizes that the migration would have come from much farther South (New Guinea) and what you and Rasol are saying would not support this.
quote: *R1*-M173 is also rare, even more so out of Africa, with the highest incidence being in north Cameroon - amongst its Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Afrasan language speakers.
*The studies done on Nilo-Saharan speakers show them to be largely those of early African lineages, which aren't found outside of Africa, e.g. Hg A and B, and other lineages involve PN2 transition derivatives, which again is of African provenance.
*Nilo-Saharan is exclusively African; it isn't found elsewhere.
Blench is not arguing that any of the language phyla were developed outside of Africa. The impetus for his proposal are the linguistic peculiarities mentioned at the beginning of my quote.
quote:As for R1*, we've been through its particulars a number of times now, e.g.:
quote:Blench is not arguing that any of the language phyla were developed outside of Africa. The impetus for his proposal are the linguistic peculiarities mentioned at the beginning of my quote
Which was extremely vague. Can you elaborate?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the response and the reference to previous threads on the topic of R1*-M173
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
*Nonsensical. First of, the marker TMRCA is linked to the Upper Paleolithic. Predynastic Nile Valley complexes, which came about in the Neolithic-Holocene, have been shown ad nauseam here to have evolved from in situ processes. Notwithstanding gene flow from the eastern neighbours, Northeast Africa is still largely of PN2 derived M78 lineages, showing the region to be home to the ancestral lineages of those that spread to their neighbours, southward, northward, westward and eastward. Therefore, the populations therein have definitely not been displaced.
*M78 are derivatives of M35, which is of sub-Sahara East African origin.
But didn't the transitions M9, M45, M207 prior to M173 take place outside of Africa, so that a back migration was involved?
Given that Hg R1 is supposed to be the derivative of M9 and M45, I would assume that R1*-M173 chromosomes, presumably the oldest lineages in that macrohaplogroup, also bear these mutations. So, if M9 and M45 arose outside of Africa, then it would follow that the ancestors of R1* came from outside of Africa, a point I made in one of the links I provided you with earlier.
The R1* lineages in N. Cameroon bear both M173 and M207 mutations, including haplotype 117:
With the exception of a single Y chromosome from Morocco with the M269 mutation (haplotype 117b), all group IX African chromosomes are characterized by the presence of the M173 and M207 derived alleles and the absence of the downstream mutations (haplotype 117).
Haplotype 117 was found in only Cameroon, where it accounts for 26% of the chromosomes (40% in northern Cameroon). Chromosomes from Cameroon with this haplotype are the same as those reported in a previous article as belonging to haplotype 1C ( Scozzari et al. 1999) - Cruciani et al. 2002
^The same authors go onto to say:
Since, so far, no population data have been published for the M269 mutation, in the present study 102 European and 8 Middle Eastern Y chromosomes were analyzed for this marker. These chromosomes had been previously classified as haplotype 1 by Scozzari et al. (2001) (DYS257 A/ SRY10831 G chromosomes, corresponding to haplotypes 110-118 and 123 [group IX], and 124-131 [group X] of Underhill et al. [2001b]). In contrast to the group IX chromosomes from Cameroon, all western Eurasian chromosomes were found to carry the M269 derived allele.
The R1* chromosomes relatively common in Cameroon, are rarer outside of the region. None present in Europe, which has the derivatives of R1*, while Egypt, Oman and Jordan are the only other locations were these rare chromosomes have been detected, but in much smaller frequencies than that in Cameroon. Is it possible that the predecessor [not R1* lineage itself] of R1* came from outside the continent? Yes.
Is it possible that the mutation occurred somewhere in the continent during the movement in and out of the continent, with portions of the lineage making their way into the Levant? Perhaps.
Is it possible that R1* itself came from somewhere in the Levant, and expanded in Northern Cameroon as a product of genetic drift? Probable.
Note that Cameroon does have K-M9 derived lineages as well, in small frequencies.
Bottom line is that these lineages are very old, older than most of the R1 lineages in Eurasia, dating back to the Paleolithic. This has no bearing on the cultures of people in Cameroon or that of the Nile Valley.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
However, according to posts by Rasol, the migration would have come from the Levant. Blench hypothesizes that the migration would have come from much farther South (New Guinea) and what you and Rasol are saying would not support this.
Well, R1*-M173 haven't been detected in Southern Asia. As I said, it is quite rare, with much fewer incidences only in Egypt, Oman and Jordan thus far. So, if these lineages had to have come from outside mainland Africa, then the Levant would be the likely place based on current data.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Mystery Solver:
*R1*-M173 is also rare, even more so out of Africa, with the highest incidence being in north Cameroon - amongst its Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Afrasan language speakers.
*The studies done on Nilo-Saharan speakers show them to be largely those of early African lineages, which aren't found outside of Africa, e.g. Hg A and B, and other lineages involve PN2 transition derivatives, which again is of African provenance.
*Nilo-Saharan is exclusively African; it isn't found elsewhere.
Blench is not arguing that any of the language phyla were developed outside of Africa. The impetus for his proposal are the linguistic peculiarities mentioned at the beginning of my quote.
If not the people AND their languages, then he certainly argued for the origin of the groups that speak such language, outside of Africa, for which he has absolutely no evidence. From the citation yet again:
By suggesting that 20 to 30,000 years ago there was a back migration from Asia to Africa of a population with “...new skills, technology or perhaps social/ritual systems— spread out across Africa and gradually displaced or assimilated many of its resident populations. This hypothesis was first put forward in its modern form by Kingdon (1993), although in the absence of genetic evidence it was little more than speculation. But if the argument is accepted, these early returnees would be the source of Nilo-Saharan, as this is the oldest of the phyla apart from Khoesan (p. 183).Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: But didn't the transitions M9, M45, M207 prior to M173 take place outside of Africa, so that a back migration was involved?
Do you assume this or have you identified actual population sources for underived M9,M45, and M207?
I also notice you use the word 'involved' which is non specific as opposed to originated.
How do you qualify involvement?
For example we know that all of these lineages derive from African M168 - which precedes out of africa migrations....can we say that there was no further AFrican involvement in the downstream lineages. What if and M168 population migrated from Africa to South Asia, derived to M89, migrated from South Asia to Africa, and thence derived to M45 and then back migrated TO Asia?
I submit that back migrations from Africa to Asia is no less logical a hypothesis for many of these early derived non African lineages, however it is seldom conceptualised that way, even for the sake of 'hypothesis' because it yet again re-emphasisew Africa at the expense of Eurasia.
This is also I think, what Keita is getting at.
Further consider:
What if M207 populations migrated to Africa, derived to R1*, and then R1* populations migrated to Eurasia and derived to R1b, making Europeans descendant from R1* bearing Africans best represented by Cameroonians?
Be wary of the way in which the wounded Eurocentrist ego - now desparate in the face of the sheer onslaught of *Recent African Origin* genetic data - including of the PN2 clade which provides evidence of the African basis of Nile Valley civilisation, as well as the African foundation of the "european" Neolithic, seeks to base on argument on special pleading on behalf of 'Eurasia'.
Possibly vague claims like involved, and buzz words like 'back migration' mean to substitute for lack of evidence of actual specifics involving European *origin*?
After all this thread is devoted to discussing the involvement of Eurasia in Nilo Saharan and Afrisan via R1*, not any of which can actually be proven to *originate* outside of Africa.
This is why the use of the harsh term - desparate - is I think, fair.
quote:What if M207 populations migrated to Africa, derived to R1*, and then R1* populations migrated to Eurasia and derived to R1b, making Europeans descendant from R1* bearing Africans best represented by Cameroonians?
Hypothetical title of genetic studies based upon no less valid interpretations of R1* data.
A tropical African origin for Cro-Magnon
some resembled Africans and Australians more than modern Europeans based on objective anatomical criterion - Chris Stringer on Cro-Magnon, from African Exodus.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol, it's possible, but parsimony would lead us to accept that R* arose outside of Africa and then entered Cameroon.
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: But didn't the transitions M9, M45, M207 prior to M173 take place outside of Africa, so that a back migration was involved?
Do you assume this or have you identified actual population sources for underived M9,M45, and M207?
I also notice you use the word 'involved' which is non specific as opposed to originated.
How do you qualify involvement?
For example we know that all of these lineages derive from African M168 - which precedes out of africa migrations....can we say that there was no further AFrican involvement in the downstream lineages. What if and M168 population migrated from Africa to South Asia, derived to M89, migrated from South Asia to Africa, and thence derived to M45 and then back migrated TO Asia?
I submit that back migrations from Africa to Asia is no less logical a hypothesis for many of these early derived non African lineages, however it is seldom conceptualised that way, even for the sake of 'hypothesis' because it yet again re-emphasisew Africa at the expense of Eurasia.
This is also I think, what Keita is getting at.
Further consider:
What if M207 populations migrated to Africa, derived to R1*, and then R1* populations migrated to Eurasia and derived to R1b, making Europeans descendant from R1* bearing Africans best represented by Cameroonians?
Be wary of the way in which the wounded Eurocentrist ego - now desparate in the face of the sheer onslaught of *Recent African Origin* genetic data - including of the PN2 clade which provides evidence of the African basis of Nile Valley civilisation, as well as the African foundation of the "european" Neolithic, seeks to base on argument on special pleading on behalf of 'Eurasia'.
Possibly vague claims like involved, and buzz words like 'back migration' mean to substitute for lack of evidence of actual specifics involving European *origin*?
After all this thread is devoted to discussing the involvement of Eurasia in Nilo Saharan and Afrisan via R1*, not any of which can actually be proven to *originate* outside of Africa.
This is why the use of the harsh term - desparate - is I think, fair.
Yes, these points are worth considering.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yom: Rasol, it's possible, but parsimony would lead us to accept that R* arose outside of Africa and then entered Cameroon.
....not really, because you require that R1* die out in Eurasia, only to be replaced by successor lineages.
You then have to account for why the lineage is most frequent in central africa, then egypt, then lavantine immediately bordering egypt, and then dies out beyound levantine.
Don't you find it odd that this lineage does not exist in the Maghreb, Europe or Northern Asia?
That's no more parismonous than R1* deriving from a K1 predessesor within Africa.
I definitely agree though that between M168 and M173 - some of these lineages must have developed outside of Africa, they can't *all* have developed in AFrica, that would be unreasonable to suggest so.
In genetics at present every lineage claimed to be African is either found mostly or entirely in Africa, has and African predecessor, or both. [like E3B].
Well, R1* is not found mostly in the Levant, is not found at all in Northern Eurasia. It has some predecessor found in differnt parts of Eurasia - *and* Africa.
So I agree with Keita, it's not parsimonious to simply *assign* these lineages to Eurasia.
The picture Keita provides of post OOA Peleolithic hunter gatherers roaming NorthEast Africa and SouthWest Asia and spawning apparently -non contiguous- lineages in this area at the time, is the most sensible explanation of the data i've heard to date.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone have any knowledge of Cameroon's traditional history and God origin? Maybe there are some clues there?
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's no more parismonous than R1* deriving from a K1 predessesor within Africa.
What is interesting is that "k" is found in Cameroon as well. Where do you think this came from and isn't K most prevelant in Papua New Guinea and Australian Aborigines?
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Blench is not arguing that any of the language phyla were developed outside of Africa. The impetus for his proposal are the linguistic peculiarities mentioned at the beginning of my quote
Which was extremely vague. Can you elaborate?
Thanks for your genetics comments. You keep referring to Keita's postulate of wandering hunter/gatherers in North Africa and the the Near East as the source of many different haplotypes, could you give the reference?
Blench pp. 180-181 gives some of the linguistic rationale for his proposal: " All in all, the pattern of African language phyla is both evident and puzzling. The great majority of the African land mass is occupied by speakers of languages that are assigned to clearly defined phyla while the isolates from a small and uncertain list. This is very much in contrast with Papua and the New World, where linguistic differentiation is at levels such that existing groupings remain disputed and many isolates have been identified. To illustrate the point, there are more language isolates in Colombia than in the entirety of Africa (AILV 1994). This seems entirely counter to our present understanding of the relationship between time depth and linguistic diversity; if modern humans did indeed come out of Africa, and they already had some form of language, then the languages of Africa ought to be considerably more diverse than those in Papua or South America.
There is an additional contrast that is equally surprising: the comparative phonological and morphological diversity of African languages. Both Papuan and Australian languages are distinguished by lexical diversity combined with surprisingly similar phonologies and morphologies (Dixon 1980; Foley 1986). In other words, despite the gradual diversification of the lexicon, the framework in which they are set has remained remarkably stable over a very long period. African languages, on the other hand, are strikingly diverse, with very large and small consonantal inventories, often abutting one another and great variation in tonal, morphological and syntactic systems.
Whatever the present situation, there must have been a stage in African prehistory when the continent was characterized by extreme linguistic and biological diversity. As modern humans diffused from southern and eastern Africa, they would have spread over the continent at extremely low population densities, either assimilating or out competing existing in situ hominid populations. Whether modern humans would have been interfertile with resident African hominids is unclear, but it seems likely, as they would probably have been considerably closer genetically to H. sapiens than the hominids who left Africa in the first great outpouring several million years ago. The consequence of modern humans expanding within Africa would have been to create immense biological, social, and linguistic complexity... . . . However, within Africa this diversity has virtually disappeared, both linguistically and phenotypically. The most likely explanation for the present-day language situation is the expansion of the present-day language phyla in a relatively recent area and the assimilation of resident groups. . . We can calibrate this diversity in a simplistic manner by comparing Africa with other regions of the world. It is generally considered that Australia was populated by 55,000 BP, and Papua must have been occupied at a similar era although no confirmed dates are so old. Both Papua and Australia present a situation where on phylum is dominant (Trans-New guinea in the case of Papuan and Pama-Nyungan in the case of Australia), and there a many isolates or small phyla on their peripheries (Wurm 1982; Koch 1997). Given the lower level of language diversity in Africa, its phyla must have become established in the last 30,000-20,000 years and effectively assimilated the residual diverse languages. This assimilation process may well explain the phonological and morphological diversity, and thus, many languages may well exhibit rich substrate phenomena. . .”
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:some resembled Africans and Australians more than modern Europeans based on objective anatomical criterion - Chris Stringer on Cro-Magnon, from African Exodus.
What defines an African or an Australian, when you look at a skeleton? What makes a skeleton looks more African than modern European? I hope the poster who wrote that quote will be able to answer...what's the skeletal characteristics of a modern European? I hope the same poster will be able to answer the questions I just posted....
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Blench pp. 180-181 gives some of the linguistic rationale for his proposal: " All in all, the pattern of African language phyla is both evident and puzzling. The great majority of the African land mass is occupied by speakers of languages that are assigned to clearly defined phyla while the isolates from a small and uncertain list.
Relatively recent divergences of more recent lineages, coupled with assimilation processes can account for close relationships of many of the contemporary languages to the extent of placing them in language families. There are also places in Africa where European scholars never set foot; so, there's a lot more to learn.
quote:
This is very much in contrast with Papua and the New World, where linguistic differentiation is at levels such that existing groupings remain disputed and many isolates have been identified.
Because unlike Africans, when these groups moved into new habitat and diverged from thereon at some points in time, being highly conservative groups and living in relative isolation from one another, less assimilation would have lively occurred; hence, this would have resulted in relatively more pronounced language divergences.
quote:To illustrate the point, there are more language isolates in Colombia than in the entirety of Africa (AILV 1994). This seems entirely counter to our present understanding of the relationship between time depth and linguistic diversity; if modern humans did indeed come out of Africa, and they already had some form of language, then the languages of Africa ought to be considerably more diverse than those in Papua or South America.
African languages are diverse; they just so happen to be relatively more closely related due to relatively less isolation of African groups, as a result of the more recent divergences, resulting into fast paced expansions of these groups more so than their much earlier predecessors, because these demographic events came about at a time when humans had already began producing advanced cultures, with these cultural processes progressing with new generations. Assimilation processes with the relatively more direct decendants [in terms of TMRCA lineages] of earlier groups means acculturation, with languages eventually converging with or replaced by the more dominant languages [likely the newer ones] spoken in the region.
quote: There is an additional contrast that is equally surprising: the comparative phonological and morphological diversity of African languages. Both Papuan and Australian languages are distinguished by lexical diversity combined with surprisingly similar phonologies and morphologies (Dixon 1980; Foley 1986). In other words, despite the gradual diversification of the lexicon, the framework in which they are set has remained remarkably stable over a very long period. African languages, on the other hand, are strikingly diverse, with very large and small consonantal inventories, often abutting one another and great variation in tonal, morphological and syntactic systems.
Re: highlighted; now he's talking!
quote: Whatever the present situation, there must have been a stage in African prehistory when the continent was characterized by extreme linguistic and biological diversity. As modern humans diffused from southern and eastern Africa, they would have spread over the continent at extremely low population densities, either assimilating or out competing existing in situ hominid populations. Whether modern humans would have been interfertile with resident African hominids is unclear, but it seems likely, as they would probably have been considerably closer genetically to H. sapiens than the hominids who left Africa in the first great outpouring several million years ago. The consequence of modern humans expanding within Africa would have been to create immense biological, social, and linguistic complexity...
As far as the issue of potential miscegenation with the said hominids is concerned, it may have been probable, but *if* so, then apparently it wouldn't have been so to any significant degree, pending evidence.
quote: . . . However, within Africa this diversity has virtually disappeared, both linguistically and phenotypically.
False. Africans overall are the most diverse people on the planet. You can't be familiar with Africans, and proclaim that they aren't phenotypically or linguistically diverse, notwithstanding close relationships.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: . . . However, within Africa this diversity has virtually disappeared, both linguistically and phenotypically.
False. Africans overall are the most diverse people on the planet. You can't be familiar with Africans, and proclaim that they aren't phenotypically or linguistically diverse notwithstanding close relationships.
Genetically you are right. Blench's point is that, given the much deeper time depth of human habitation of Africa compared to South America and/or Papua, one should see much more variation in African languages than is actually found. Items like isolate languages, and a much greater lexical difference, On the other hand African languages have a very diverse phonological, tonal, and consonantal diversity. Both of these can be explained, according to Blench, by 1) a fairly recent large expansion of a language phylum which explains the few isolates and the existence of just a few phyla. and 2) The absorption and borrowing from the numerous languages it overran which would provide the tonal, consonantal and morphological variation found.
I think a good analogy of what Blench's hypothesis occurring 20-30 KYA is the much more recent explosion of Bantu languages out of Cameroon and across Africa.
The rest of your comments seem to me to be restatements of Blench's quote in different words, in that you emphasize the extent and relatively recent contact with each other of African languages.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: . . . However, within Africa this diversity has virtually disappeared, both linguistically and phenotypically.
False. Africans overall are the most diverse people on the planet. You can't be familiar with Africans, and proclaim that they aren't phenotypically or linguistically diverse notwithstanding close relationships.
Genetically you are right.
Genome is the bio-material essence of organisms, and so that is a big deal. Physically, if Africans aren't the most, they certainly are amongst the most diverse collectively. All put together in the complete biological sense, Africans do indeed turn out to be the most diverse.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Blench's point is that, given the much deeper time depth of human habitation of Africa compared to South America and/or Papua, one should see much more variation in African languages than is actually found.
And what did I have to say about this, in my point-by-point laid out response to Blench which you decided not to address?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Items like isolate languages, and a much greater lexical difference, On the other hand African languages have a very diverse phonological, tonal, and consonantal diversity. Both of these can be explained, according to Blench, by 1) a fairly recent large expansion of a language phylum which explains the few isolates and the existence of just a few phyla. and 2) The absorption and borrowing from the numerous languages it overran which would provide the tonal, consonantal and morphological variation found.
See post above, to see what you need to do.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
I think a good analogy of what Blench's hypothesis occurring 20-30 KYA is the much more recent explosion of Bantu languages out of Cameroon and across Africa.
Analogy of his 20-30 KYA language expansion of what? R1 along with proto-Nilo-Saharan perhaps?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
The rest of your comments seem to me to be restatements of Blench's quote in different words, in that you emphasize the extent and relatively recent contact with each other of African languages.
Please specify with citations, and how so.
E.g.: Blench uses as qualifier, the idea of modern humans originating in Africa, by saying...
if modern humans did indeed come out of Africa, and they already had some form of language, then the languages of Africa ought to be considerably more diverse than those in Papua or South America.
Why ought their languages be so, even if modern humans originated in Africa, and again, what did I have to say about this in my last post?
My points are made with not only language in mind, but also with genetic depth to them. Is this not significant, vis-a-vis Blench's contextualization?
How many African language phyla are you aware of? Do you think that all these phyla account for all the languages spoken in the continent? And again, what is the case being made; language expansion into Africa, or...? Because if not, what is the point?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: You keep referring to Keita's postulate of wandering hunter/gatherers in North Africa and the the Near East as the source of many different haplotypes, could you give the reference?
Keita, S. O. Y. Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation History in Africa
I keep referring to it, because it is better grounded in evidence and reason than Blench's far fetched and weasel worded speculations, which attempt to attribute to 'eurasia' languages which are not found in eurasia based upon dubious assocation with lineages not proven to have originated in eurasia. Blench is arguably engaged in special pleading in the absense of evidence.
And because Keita has still not been addressed.... It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplo-types called “Eurasian” are predominantly, although not solely, of indige-nous African origin. As a term “Eurasian” is likely misleading, since itsuggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can bepostulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before theemigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saha-ran/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and carefulanalysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities isneeded. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be mod-eled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving anasymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wideregion, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blench pp. 180-181 gives some of the linguistic rationale for his proposal
No he didn't say anything specific.
Quoting him...
All in all, the pattern of African language phyla is both evident and puzzling.
The great majority of the African land mass is occupied by speakers of languages that are assigned to clearly defined phyla while the isolates from a small and uncertain list.
The above is tautological mystification. By definition language "isolates" form small groups with uncertain relationships to other languages, while the major language 'families' form by definition relatively clear relationships which is what makes them families to begin with.
He has neither identified a mystery nor proposed a resolution to one.
Disagree?
Take the above statement and replace the word Africa with Asia, how the conclusion be any less applicable?
Are there not large related familes, and small unclearly situtated language isolates?
The comparison with Melanesia and the New world [and each taken as isolates] seems contrived - they are vastly different in temporal and physical scale than is Africa.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:if modern humans did indeed come out of Africa, and they already had some form of language, then the languages of Africa ought to be considerably more diverse than those in Papua or South America.
Blench has not demonstrated that African languages are less diverse than those of New Guinea.
For example there are less than 1000 languages on the various islands of New Guinea, but there are over 1500 in the Niger Congo family alone, and several hundred in the Afrisan and Nilo Saharan family respectively.
Also, I don't see what relative percentile of so called isolate languages would tell us, other than the relative number of small populations who have lived in recent isolation from one another? Can you explain better?
And I completely fail to see how any of this supports the notion of Afrisan or NiloSaharn coming from somewhere in "Asia" ? ?
Of course, you've pointed out that Blench doesn't *exactly* claim this or anything very specific, and well he shouldn't since he is speculating more than he is actually -assessing- evidence.
quote:rasol asks: have you identified actual [eurasian] population sources for underived M9,M45, and M207?
^ Pls. forgive the redundancy if you answered earlier. Thanks.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote::some resembled Africans and Australians more than modern Europeans based on objective anatomical criterion - Chris Stringer on Cro-Magnon, from African Exodus.
From a Super Negro African unlike Rasol :What defines an African or an Australian, when you look at a skeleton? What makes a skeleton looks more African than modern European? I hope the poster who wrote that quote will be able to answer...what's the skeletal characteristics of a modern European? I hope the same poster will be able to answer the questions I just posted....
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Same here, but I suspect you'll get a response similar to the one I had addressed in my last post, about the rationale/contextualization for discerning diversity!
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What defines an African or an Australian, when you look at a skeleton? What makes a skeleton looks more African than modern European?
Chris Stinger, one the leading Anthropologists who helped established the Out of Africa theorem, is noting that early 'Cro-Magnon' have many physical features that typify tropical Africans and Australians.
This is profound statement since Cro-Magnon is one of the race-buzz-words of Eurocentric anthropology...supposedly meaning 'european', caucasian, and somehow...leucoderm or white.
In fact Sringer is noting that early CroMagnon they still had a tendency towards tropical limb ratios whereas modern Europeans typically do not.
They often had broad nasal passages that were lower than modern Europeans - more typical of Africans and Australians, and some had brow ridges similar to those seen in Austalians today. Prognathism was much more common in early European "Cro-Magnon" than in Europeans today.
Chris Stringer's point is that this illustrates that early man came out of Africa, and that traits that are most particular to Europeans became predominent later.
Hope this helps.
ps - I don't know why you try to personalise or bait with some of your remarks. It's not necessary, helpful or polite.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Without adhering to stereotypes; varied! This is not to suggest that there are no discernable 'trends' in craniometry.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's talk about the European garbage that Rasol and other posters spit out: Cro-Magnon looked like African or Australian...well here is the news, some modern Africans view moden European like Black South Africans...because of their features...I mean they look alike...I'm not talking about the skin...I'm talking about about their features...let's see what Rasol and Supercar have to say... Conclusion: if some Africans looked at a skull, he would have a different perception depending where he comes from....
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Want to stay focused on the topic initiated by the Quetzalcoatl, but as to your point about African diversity, perhaps Hiernaux as a non-African said it best:
Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
If you agree there is diversity amongst Africans, then surely you must also be open to the idea that trends too exist within this diversity, and the case is true for anywhere else to some degree or another. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Let's talk about the European garbage that Rasol and other posters spit out\
Cro-Magnon looked like African or Australian...well here is the news, some modern Africans view moden European like Black South Africans...because of their features...I mean they look alike...I'm not talking about the skin...I'm talking about about their features...let's see what Rasol and Supercar have to say...
^ I say you don't understand what is being related, but that it's a waste of time arguing with you so I will just present more data.
[feel free to refute it, if you care to]
Phenogeography of Peoples of the World Department of Anthropology, Biological Faculty, Moscow State University, Moscow Phenetic diversity of peoples of the world in a system of nonmetric, discrete variable [PHYSICAL] traits has been studied.
Sixty-two populations from North, Central, and Southeast Asia, Eastern and Western Europe, America, East Africa, Australia, and Melanesia have been examined.
The estimates of phenetic diversity within regions (F st) and the distances of the regions from the global means (d) proved to be comparable to the corresponding estimates inferred from genetic data.
This means that differentiation of populations in discrete variable traits is related to the history of formation of their gene pools.
A classification tree of the world peoples constructed using bootstrap implemented in the PHYLIP program package (Felsenstein, 1993) showed that the Australo-Melanesian populations were [physically] close to the East African ones but separated from those of the Eurasian region.
The results of phylogenetic analysis of the reconstructed phene pools of the regional ancestral populations support -
* the early colonization of Australia and Melanesia.
* and on the later time of divergence of the ancestors of modern Northern Eurasians
^ The above explains exactly why early Cro-Magnon resemble the former more than the later to quote Stringer - 'based on objective measurement of anatomical traits'.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [And what did I have to say about this, in my point-by-point laid out response to Blench which you decided not to address?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
The rest of your comments seem to me to be restatements of Blench's quote in different words, in that you emphasize the extent and relatively recent contact with each other of African languages.
Please specify with citations, and how so. . . .
quote:How many African language phyla are you aware of? Do you think that all these phyla account for all the languages spoken in the continent? And again, what is the case being made; language expansion into Africa, or...? Because if not, what is the point? [/QB]
In the standard linguistic classification: Nilo-Saharan, Afroasiatic, Niger-Congo, Khoesan are the 4 phyla. + some isolates. The case being made is that language spreading across Africa displacing as well as assimilating the wide variety of languages already existing some 30KYA would explain both the, clearly distinguished phyla with few isolates and the large variety of morphological, and consonantal schemes found within them. These characteristics seem contrary to the enormous time depth of African languages and the expected variety that would result.
I don't think of this thread as an argument between us or that I need to defend all of Blench's points. As I pointed out above, his hypothesis is seriously damaged if R1*-M173 did not occur in Papua, south India, etc, where his back population would have come from.
You asked for examples from your response: Quetzalcoatl wrote
quote: This is very much in contrast with Papua and the New World, where linguistic differentiation is at levels such that existing groupings remain disputed and many isolates have been identified.
Mystery Solver said:
quote:Because unlike Africans, when these groups moved into new habitat and diverged from thereon at some points in time, being highly conservative groups and living in relative isolation from one another, less assimilation would have lively occurred; hence, this would have resulted in relatively more pronounced language divergences.
But essentially this is what Blench is saying, i.e. African languages have not been isolated and instead the major phyla have displaced, assimilated the languages that were there originally (i.e. this expansion overran languages not empty space.
Quetzalcoatl said
quote:To illustrate the point, there are more language isolates in Colombia than in the entirety of Africa (AILV 1994). This seems entirely counter to our present understanding of the relationship between time depth and linguistic diversity; if modern humans did indeed come out of Africa, and they already had some form of language, then the languages of Africa ought to be considerably more diverse than those in Papua or South America.
Mystery solver said
quote:African languages are diverse; they just so happen to be relatively more closely related due to relatively less isolation of African groups, as a result of the more recent divergences, resulting into fast paced expansions of these groups more so than their much earlier predecessors, because these demographic events came about at a time when humans had already began producing advanced cultures, with these cultural processes progressing with new generations. Assimilation processes with the relatively more direct decendants [in terms of TMRCA lineages] of earlier groups means acculturation, with languages eventually converging with or replaced by the more dominant languages [likely the newer ones] spoken in the region.
Again, the points you make: that these divergences are relaitively recent, that absorption has taken place, that expansion was rapid because of technological advantages are the points that Blench makes.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: You keep referring to Keita's postulate of wandering hunter/gatherers in North Africa and the the Near East as the source of many different haplotypes, could you give the reference?
Keita, S. O. Y. Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation History in Africa
Thank you for the refernce, I'll get it. Rasol said
quote:I keep referring to it, because it is better grounded in evidence and reason than Blench's far fetched and weasel worded speculations, which attempt to attribute to 'eurasia' languages which are not found in eurasia based upon dubious assocation with lineages not proven to have originated in eurasia. Blench is arguably engaged in special pleading in the absense of evidence.
I think you are mischaracterizing Blench, or perhaps my description was not good enough. Blench clearly says that this is speculation about a possible way to explain what linguistics finds. He does not claim any Eurasian languages-- every language and its development takes place within Africa. I still think that R1*-M173 did not originate in Africa. The papers you cited and Keita's paper seem to locate its origin somewhere in the Levant-- and it does seem that this shoots down Blench's idea that his back flow population with this lineage came from the region of Papua. This, to me, does not qualify as "weasel words", "special pleading" etc.
quote:And because Keita has still not been addressed.... It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplo-types called “Eurasian” are predominantly, although not solely, of indige-nous African origin. As a term “Eurasian” is likely misleading, since itsuggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can bepostulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before theemigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saha-ran/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and carefulanalysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities isneeded. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be mod-eled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving anasymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wideregion, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion.
I think Blench's arguments are primarily linguistic.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Blench pp. 180-181 gives some of the linguistic rationale for his proposal
No he didn't say anything specific.
Quoting him...
All in all, the pattern of African language phyla is both evident and puzzling.
The great majority of the African land mass is occupied by speakers of languages that are assigned to clearly defined phyla while the isolates from a small and uncertain list.
The above is tautological mystification. By definition language "isolates" form small groups with uncertain relationships to other languages, while the major language 'families' form by definition relatively clear relationships which is what makes them families to begin with.
He has neither identified a mystery nor proposed a resolution to one.
Disagree?
Yes, or at least Blench does . A language isolate is a single language, not a group of languages. But, more significantly, the mystery is that Africa being such a large area with such a time depth of modern humans with language has so few clearly defined language phyla, but that within the phylum there is such a diversity of phonological and morphological diversity. This is NOT what would be expected by comparison wih other areas such as South America or Australia.
quote:Take the above statement and replace the word Africa with Asia, how the conclusion be any less applicable?
Because Asia does not have the time depth of modern human occupation and the expansion would have taken place without displacing other languages.
quote:Are there not large related familes, and small unclearly situtated language isolates?
The comparison with Melanesia and the New world [and each taken as isolates] seems contrived - they are vastly different in temporal and physical scale than is Africa.
No , that seems to me to be the point. These areas have been settled for a much shorter time but they have more diverse phyla and these phyla differ from African phylal in having less diverse morphology and phonology.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:if modern humans did indeed come out of Africa, and they already had some form of language, then the languages of Africa ought to be considerably more diverse than those in Papua or South America.
Blench has not demonstrated that African languages are less diverse than those of New Guinea.
For example there are less than 1000 languages on the various islands of New Guinea, but there are over 1500 in the Niger Congo family alone, and several hundred in the Afrisan and Nilo Saharan family respectively.
Also, I don't see what relative percentile of so called isolate languages would tell us, other than the relative number of small populations who have lived in recent isolation from one another? Can you explain better?
And I completely fail to see how any of this supports the notion of Afrisan or NiloSaharn coming from somewhere in "Asia" ? ?
Of course, you've pointed out that Blench doesn't *exactly* claim this or anything very specific, and well he shouldn't since he is speculating more than he is actually -assessing- evidence.
quote:rasol asks: have you identified actual [eurasian] population sources for underived M9,M45, and M207?
^ Pls. forgive the redundancy if you answered earlier. Thanks.
We keep talking past each other. Blench, as I have pointed out is not necessarily making a global claim about the diversity of Papuan vs African languages. Read my recent previous posts for Blench's points about the number of phyla,isolates and the African diversity within phyla of phonology and morphology compared to South america, papua etc.
Blench is NOT claiming that Afroasiatic or Nilo-Saharan comefrom Asia. All the African phyla have their origin and expansion in Africa.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if M207 populations migrated to Africa, derived to R1*, and then R1* populations migrated to Eurasia and derived to R1b, making Europeans descendant from R1* bearing Africans best represented by Cameroonians?
Hypothetical title of genetic studies based upon no less valid interpretations of R1* data.
A tropical African origin for Cro-Magnon
some resembled Africans and Australians more than modern Europeans based on objective anatomical criterion - Chris Stringer on Cro-Magnon, from African Exodus.
I that book worth the money?
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
How many African language phyla are you aware of? Do you think that all these phyla account for all the languages spoken in the continent? And again, what is the case being made; language expansion into Africa, or...? Because if not, what is the point?
In the standard linguistic classification: Nilo-Saharan, Afroasiatic, Niger-Congo, Khoesan are the 4 phyla. + some isolates. The case being made is that language spreading across Africa displacing as well as assimilating the wide variety of languages already existing some 30KYA would explain both the, clearly distinguished phyla with few isolates and the large variety of morphological, and consonantal schemes found within them.
Which language was supposedly doing this 30ky ago? You don't seem to be properly engaging in what is being said. If there no specific language family being noted here, and this is just done for the heck of hypothesizing, then wouldn't this take us back to the question you are responding to?
And as already relayed to you, so what if many of the *Euro-identified* languages have been deemed to belong to families; does this in any way diminish diversity of African languages? If not, then what's the issue?
quote: Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
These characteristics seem contrary to the enormous time depth of African languages and the expected variety that would result.
"Enormous time depth" of which African languages - how enormous?
You just claimed that your extracts from Blench were acknowledging relatively recent divergences of many of the major languages spoken, so what is all this talk of 'enormous time depth'?
^This is why I said you hadn't been carefully engaging in what my reponses to your extracts were saying and why so.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
I don't think of this thread as an argument between us or that I need to defend all of Blench's points.
I don't know where this topic is going or even coming from now, but one thing is clear,you seem to be defending the extracts, which I would imagine follows the claim made about 30ky ago expansion.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
As I pointed out above, his hypothesis is seriously damaged if R1*-M173 did not occur in Papua, south India, etc, where his back population would have come from.
Therefore, which would render the rest of his claims pointless, as this would have been the basis of going through all that guesswork, no?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
You asked for examples from your response:
Quetzalcoatl wrote
quote: This is very much in contrast with Papua and the New World, where linguistic differentiation is at levels such that existing groupings remain disputed and many isolates have been identified.
Mystery Solver said:
quote:Because unlike Africans, when these groups moved into new habitat and diverged from thereon at some points in time, being highly conservative groups and living in relative isolation from one another, less assimilation would have lively occurred; hence, this would have resulted in relatively more pronounced language divergences.
But essentially this is what Blench is saying, i.e. African languages have not been isolated and instead the major phyla have displaced, assimilated the languages that were there originally (i.e. this expansion overran languages not empty space.
Again, the reason I told you to carefully read my responses. Blench is simply talking about the idea of more isolates being in the said non-African places and using that to extrapolate about the possibility of African languages being initially more diverse than it is now [and one which he reckons 'ought' to have followed through to this day - see your emphasized citation with in the *very last post* of my reply at the bottom], while I'm on the other hand, providing the biological and linguistic rationale for the cause of the said "situations" in the citation to which I was replying - see the difference?
E.g. see citation below:
Whatever the present situation, there must have been a stage in African prehistory when the continent was characterized by **extreme** linguistic and biological diversity. As modern humans diffused from southern and eastern Africa, they would have spread over the continent at extremely low population densities, either assimilating or out competing existing in situ hominid populations.
What does 'extreme diversity' mean here?...perhaps because he is including 'non-modern' humans, so as to cause this 'extreme diversity'? Because as far as modern humans are concerned, on what basis would it be proposed that Africans would have been 'extremely' more diverse than the case is today?
How does he know that languages in this 'prehistory' were any more diverse than it is today?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Quetzalcoatl said
quote:To illustrate the point, there are more language isolates in Colombia than in the entirety of Africa (AILV 1994). This seems entirely counter to our present understanding of the relationship between time depth and linguistic diversity; if modern humans did indeed come out of Africa, and they already had some form of language, *then the languages of Africa ought to be considerably more diverse than those in Papua or South America.*
Mystery solver said
quote:African languages are diverse; they just so happen to be relatively more closely related due to relatively less isolation of African groups, as a result of the more recent divergences, resulting into fast paced expansions of these groups more so than their much earlier predecessors, because these demographic events came about at a time when humans had already began producing advanced cultures, with these cultural processes progressing with new generations. Assimilation processes with the relatively more direct decendants [in terms of TMRCA lineages] of earlier groups means acculturation, with languages eventually converging with or replaced by the more dominant languages [likely the newer ones] spoken in the region.
Again, the points you make: that these divergences are relaitively recent, that absorption has taken place, that expansion was rapid because of technological advantages are the points that Blench makes.
Again, you are not engaging. See post above, because I think it is just as relevant to this post [and please pay attention to what I highlighted above with the '*', when taking the advice].
-------
Ps: Didn't see this in your reply to Rasol, because I thought it was part of your citation of his word, which it isn't...
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Rasol said
quote:I keep referring to it, because it is better grounded in evidence and reason than Blench's far fetched and weasel worded speculations, which attempt to attribute to 'eurasia' languages which are not found in eurasia based upon dubious assocation with lineages not proven to have originated in eurasia. Blench is arguably engaged in special pleading in the absense of evidence.
I think you are mischaracterizing Blench, or perhaps my description was not good enough. Blench clearly says that this is speculation about a possible way to explain what linguistics finds. He does not claim any Eurasian languages-- every language and its development takes place within Africa. I still think that R1*-M173 did not originate in Africa. The papers you cited and Keita's paper seem to locate its origin somewhere in the Levant-- and it does seem that this shoots down Blench's idea that his back flow population with this lineage came from the region of Papua. This, to me, does not qualify as "weasel words", "special pleading" etc.
Where does Keita make the claim that R*-M173 originates in the Levant; in fact in the said citation, he isn't arguing for any Levantine origin of anything - where did you get that idea?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rasdol:^ I say you don't understand what is being related, but that it's a waste of time arguing with you so I will just present more data.
quote:Supercar:"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
If you agree there is diversity amongst Africans, then surely you must also be open to the idea that trends too exist within this diversity, and the case is true for anywhere else to some degree or another.
Rasol, I say You read blindly what some scholars, who don't know anything about African diversity, write. The above poster, at least understood what I meant...
Now, that's the quote I would like to analyse: A classification tree of the world peoples constructed using bootstrap implemented in the PHYLIP program package (Felsenstein, 1993) showed that the Australo-Melanesian populations were [physically] close to the East African ones but separated from those of the Eurasian region.
Don't you think that the above fellow is ignorant and is not aware of African diversity, especially in East Africa, otherwise he wouldn't make the above conclusion, East African physical diversity span the whole globe...how can he come to such a lame conclusion? Day 1: What's the skeletal characteristics of a modern European?
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
- I related factual information about the uncertain nature of early derived paleolithic lineages that are at or near the original migrations of Africans and the peopling of the rest of the world.
- You respounded by asking a question - which was weren't all of these lineages Eurasian?
- My answer is that -to my knowledge- many of these lineages are of undefined source origin and so we can't say that they are Eurasian.
- My source, SOY Keita, who says the same thing.
- My follow up question asked if you have contradictory information?
The 1st time you ignored the question.
The 2nd time you respound by tellng me we are talking past each other.
The fact is you are *trying* to 'talk past' my answer and follow up question rather than address it.
Effectively this translates to....
No, you don't have proof that all the lineages between M168 and M-173 originate in Eurasia.
So, now that this question was been answered, we can move on...
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Blench, as I have pointed out is not necessarily making a global claim about the diversity of Papuan vs African languages.
^ It's remains unclear exactly what he is claiming. I would say he has no evidence for what he is insinuating - which is why he can only insinuate.
Your defense of him is notable for 'begging off' his insinuations. ie - he doesn't claim this, he doesn't claim that.
If you disagree a way forward is to tell us in a straighforward fashion -exactly what he does claim-?
quote:Read my recent previous posts for Blench's points about the number of phyla,isolates and the African diversity within phyla of phonology and morphology compared to South america, papua etc.
I addressed this directly. It is unclear to me why language 'isolation' is equated with language diversity.
Why would 8 languages 4 of which are isolates demonstrate greater diversity than 20 languages belong to 5 families and *none* of which were isolates.
What exactly does the number of so called isolates in Melanesia prove?
quote:Blench is NOT claiming that Afroasiatic or Nilo-Saharan comefrom Asia. All the African phyla have their origin and expansion in Africa.
Once again, you offer specifics only for what is *not* being claiming.... but none for what is being claimed.
This would conform with my position - which again - is that Blench is insinuating much, but proving nothing.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A classification tree of the world peoples constructed using bootstrap implemented in the PHYLIP program package (Felsenstein, 1993) showed that the Australo-Melanesian populations were [physically] close to the East African ones but separated from those of the Eurasian region.
quote:Africa writes: Don't you think that the above fellow is ignorant and is not aware of African diversity
No, I think you don't understand what he is saying.
Why?
Because the statement you quoted is about similarity.
You are not addressing that.
Your reply makes assumptions about the authors opinion on *diversity*, which is a distinct issue.
quote:Which language was supposedly doing this 30ky ago? You don't seem to be properly engaging in what is being said. If there is no specific language family being noted here, and this is just done for the heck of hypothesizing, then wouldn't this take us back to the question you are responding to?
It's also disingenuous. Let's take a glance up the thread to the 'topic' - which is back migration.
When the discussant is asked for proof, they simply beg off their own claim, and then later insinuate it...again. This is the standard circuitous dialectic for arguments lacking in proof.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Which language was supposedly doing this 30ky ago? You don't seem to be properly engaging in what is being said. If there no specific language family being noted here, and this is just done for the heck of hypothesizing, then wouldn't this take us back to the question you are responding to?
And as already relayed to you, so what if many of the *Euro-identified* languages have been deemed to belong to families; does this in any way diminish diversity of African languages? If not, then what's the issue?
Since the "back migration" idea is so offensive, let's do this; Between 30-20 KYA in East Africa the precursors of proto-Nilo Saharan and proto-Niger-Congo developed and also a technological advance in hunting/gathering technique or a new social organization developed, which conferred an advantage to these populations. Then, say 12KYA they rapidly expanded over much of Africa displacing and/or absorbing the variety of linguistic families that already occupied the land.
Somewhat later proto-Afroasiatic did the same. This would, I think, produce what Blench finds (and tries to explain)-- a few well-defined language phyla but with a huge variety of phonological and morphological differences in the languages composing the phyla and relatively few isolated languages. The point to concentrate on is the relatively recent large expansion of a few language phyla over a territory that was already occupied by people with many different languages.
quote: Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
These characteristics seem contrary to the enormous time depth of African languages and the expected variety that would result.
"Enormous time depth" of which African languages - how enormous?
You just claimed that your extracts from Blench were acknowledging relatively recent divergences of many of the major languages spoken, so what is all this talk of 'enormous time depth'?
Basically, it seems that by the time humans left Africa they had language and that surely means that modern humans in Africa had language prior to that. Thus, in Africa humans have had language for some 100,000 years. Comparing the diversification that occurred in other areas with much shorter occupations one would expect that Africa would have had at some time a much much more varied set of languages than even those found today. But, they became extinct and were replaced by what we find now.
Mystery Solver said
quote: ^This is why I said you hadn't been carefully engaging in what my reponses to your extracts were saying and why so.
This does not go one way only. You (and Rasol) keep arguing that African languages are very diverse and that Blench is denying that, but I keep pointing out that what Blench is trying to explain is the unexpectedly low number of well-defined language phyla which, however have a huge diversity of phonology and morphology, i.e. African languages are very diverse-- no denial there.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, the reason I told you to carefully read my responses. Blench is simply talking about the idea of more isolates being in the said non-African places and using that to extrapolate about the possibility of African languages being initially more diverse than it is now [and one which he reckons 'ought' to have followed through to this day - see your emphasized citation with in the *very last post* of my reply at the bottom], while I'm on the other hand, providing the biological and linguistic rationale for the cause of the said "situations" in the citation to which I was replying - see the difference?
E.g. see citation below:
Whatever the present situation, there must have been a stage in African prehistory when the continent was characterized by **extreme** linguistic and biological diversity. As modern humans diffused from southern and eastern Africa, they would have spread over the continent at extremely low population densities, either assimilating or out competing existing in situ hominid populations.
What does 'extreme diversity' mean here?...perhaps because he is including 'non-modern' humans, so as to cause this 'extreme diversity'? Because as far as modern humans are concerned, on what basis would it be proposed that Africans would have been 'extremely' more diverse than the case is today?
Again, Blench is not denying that African languages are diverse, but that the pattern is not what linguists would expect from their experience in other languages; quoting again: "All in all, the pattern of African language phyla is both evident and puzzling. The great majority of the African land mass is occupied by speakers of languages that are assigned to clearly defined phyla while the isolates from a small and uncertain list. This is very much in contrast with Papua and the New World, where linguistic differentiation is at levels such that existing groupings remain disputed and many isolates have been identified. To illustrate the point, there are more language isolates in Colombia than in the entirety of Africa (AILV 1994). This seems entirely counter to our present understanding of the relationship between time depth and linguistic diversity; if modern humans did indeed come out of Africa, and they already had some form of language, then the languages of Africa ought to be considerably more diverse than those in Papua or South America.
There is an additional contrast that is equally surprising: the comparative phonological and morphological diversity of African languages. Both Papuan and Australian languages are distinguished by lexical diversity combined with surprisingly similar phonologies and morphologies (Dixon 1980; Foley 1986). In other words, despite the gradual diversification of the lexicon, the framework in which they are set has remained remarkably stable over a very long period. African languages, on the other hand, are strikingly diverse, with very large and small consonantal inventories, often abutting one another and great variation in tonal, morphological and syntactic systems."
Mystery Solver
quote:How does he know that languages in this 'prehistory' were any more diverse than it is today?
Because as a professional linguist he knows wht would have been expected from the presence of language for 80-100 thousand years, or more, if no great displacement had taken place, in this case "more diverse" would refer to many more language phyla and isolates.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
title of genetic studies based upon no less valid interpretations of R1* data.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic