posted
I noticed some have quoted him in the past, but I wanted to take some time out to discuss other interpretations of what's been written.
quote:DNA of some modern Egyptians found a genetic ancestral heritage to East Africa: "The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers. This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations. Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population." (Stevanovitch A, Gilles A, Bouzaid E, et al. (2004) Mitochondrial DNA sequence diversity in a sedentary population from Egypt.Ann Hum Genet. 68(Pt 1):23-39.)
However some people are saying that the 20.6% L1 and L2 frequency proves that Egyptians are only 20% Sub Saharan and 79.4% of Modern Egyptian haplogroups are thus "Out of African"
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL What's new?? Euronuts love to distort what is actually written in the studies. It is basically their pastime. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the distortion was unintentional and merely the result a misreading due to the warped mental process of these folks where they 'read' into things which really aren't there but satisfy their desires. LOL
Also, we must keep in mind that the labeling of some haplogroups as 'Eurasian' is questionable considering that some these clades are associated with the first Out-of-African group ancestral to all Eurasians and/or originated in Southwest Asia i.e. Arabia and Levant which is right next to Africa and thus carries no clear distinction from Africans proper.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL What's new?? Euronuts love to distort what is actually written in the studies. It is basically their pastime. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the distortion was unintentional and merely the result a misreading due to the warped mental process of these folks where they 'read' into things which really aren't there but satisfy their desires. [b]LOL
So true, Djehuti. Too true.lol! Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hypocritical double standards of the European academy in research on African peoples - C.A. Diop
"But it is only the most gratuitous theory that considers the Dinka, the Nouer and the Masai, among others, to be Caucasoids. What if an African ethnologist were to persist in recognizing as white-only the blond, blue-eyed Scandinavians, and systematically refused membership to the remaining Europeans, and Mediterraneans in particular—the French, Italians, Greek, Spanish, and Portuguese? Just as the inhabitants of Scandinavia and the Mediterranean countries should the Negroes of East and West Africa be considered as the two extremes in the reality of the Negro world. To say that a Shillouk, a Dinka, or a Nouer is a Caucasoid is for an African as devoid of sense and scientific interest as would be, to a European, an attitude that maintained that a Greek or a Latin were not of the same race." -- Cheikh Anta Diop, 'Evolution of the Negro world', Presence Africaine (Vol. 23, no. 51, 1964), pp. 5-15.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Out of Africa" is a buzzword euroclowns use to combine African L3 lineages (L3a/e/f/k/x etc), African specific Non-L lineages (M1), and Non-Africa/Non L lineages (M~(xM1), N~) all in one group.
Thus nearly all Sub Saharan Africans would carry 1/3 Out of Africa mtdna lineages. Silly.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, this goes back to the second paragraph of my initial post above. Since these Non-African/Non-L lineages originated not long after the first emigration out of Africa, exactly how 'non-African' are they? Arabia and the Levant are right next door to Africa yet they are part of Eurasia. If you have early humans leaving Africa and crossing into Arabia and then just a few centuries to a few millennia later some of their L3 markers mutate into N and U etc. does this make them any less 'African'?? A similar argument can be made about some groups in North America especially in the arctic regions who descend from groups who entered from Siberia. Yes they are Native American in that they've been living in North America for centuries but does that take away from their Asian ancestry which is quite recent? If we were to fast-forward one or two thousand years from now, would white populations of the Americas, Australia, and South Africa deny their European ancestry or genetic lineages even if new mutations had occurred in their gene pools?? This is the same exact question in regards to the difference between early Eurasians and their kinfolk who never left the African continent. What exactly is the difference between them? To make the distinction between African and early 'Eurasian' even more unclear is the fact that these lineages especially in the mitochondrial form show back and forth movement between Africa and Eurasia. As is pointed out so many times, populations are not static but highly mobile and dynamic. There wasn't just one movement here or there in one direction only.
The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose.-- Keita, In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. John Benjamins. (2008)
This is exactly why I am irked as much as humored by the claims that certain mitochondrial haplogroups in Africa are labeled as 'Eurasian' or the result of 'back-migrations' even though their highest frequencies occur in Africa and not Eurasia!-- haplogroups like U6, X1, N1, and R0 just to name several.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Indeed. It is part and parcel of Eurocentric hypocrisy as exposed by Diop. Diop also notes that EUropean scholars change their tune when the data is not favorable towards their race models. Suddenly "race" becomes "unimportant." But at the same tme as Keita and pothers note, they will use the soothing language of "diversity" and "non-race" while in practice, continuing to use the same stereotypical race categories. This is the second side of Eurocentric hypocrisy- speaking the language of "progressivism" to lull the gullible, while continuing business as usual.
"But they know very well what a white man is.. every time these relationships are not favorable to the Western cultures, an effort is made to undermine.. telling them [Africans] 'we don;t know what a race is' (Finch interview 1989:366-7; see also Diop 1991: 16-17) -C.A. DIop
SOme scholars also hold that gene divergence PRECEDED population divergence. SO proto-lineages of alleged "Eurasian" DNA were already forming in place WITHIN AFRICA, before any significant outward colonization movement.
In any case, the alleged "Eurasians" until relatively recently, resembled tropical Africans. Any "back- migration" would have been by dark-skinned tropical phenotypes, and said phenotypes are the ones that (a) helped pioneer important Neolithic developments (i.e. the Natufians (BRace 2005) and (b) brought said Neolithic advances to Europe.
"The general resemblance between the Mushabian and certain North African industries is striking. The tradition of intensive use of the micro-burin technique and the production of La Mouillah points are considered to be of African origin." --Sigfried J. de Laet. 1994. History of Humanity: Prehistory and the beginnings of civilization - Page 249
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL What's new?? Euronuts love to distort what is actually written in the studies. It is basically their pastime. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the distortion was unintentional and merely the result a misreading due to the warped mental process of these folks where they 'read' into things which really aren't there but satisfy their desires. LOL
Also, we must keep in mind that the labeling of some haplogroups as 'Eurasian' is questionable considering that some these clades are associated with the first Out-of-African group ancestral to all Eurasians and/or originated in Southwest Asia i.e. Arabia and Levant which is right next to Africa and thus carries no clear distinction from Africans proper.
DJE Can you list a recap roundup of lineages that have their highest frequencies in Africa?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This filthy pink assed monkey is unbelievably still living in a world of fantasy and delusion. It still wastes its entire day in this forum and others thinking that it is fooling people, when the only one it is fooling is itself smdh!
Everyone understands that modern day Egyptians had nothing to do with ancient Egypt, or any other African country. Everyone understands that whites had nothing to do with ancient Mesopotamia or any other civilzation on the planet. Whites were living in caves, eating raw mean in their ancestral homelands in the caves of central Asia, where they accomplished absolutely nothing!
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That's not entirely true. Yes SOME modern Egyptians have nothing to do with ancient Kemet, but many do.
The map above shows that even among 'Arab' Egyptians of Cairo and urban areas of the Delta still have significant indigenous (African) ancestry. These African lineages increase while the foreign non-African lineages decrease in rural areas and especially in the south where there is less foreign influence.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: DJE Can you list a recap roundup of lineages that have their highest frequencies in Africa?
There are a lot of lineages that have their highest frequency in Africa; too many for me to list due to the fact that Africans have the most genetic lineages in general. But if you are referring to so-called 'Eurasian' lineages that occurr most frequently in Africa, I just listed some maternal (mitochondrial) in my second posting above: U6, X1, N1, and R0. Y-chromsome (paternal) lineages called 'Eurasian' but found most frequently in Africa are DE* and R1*. K and L are found in minimal frequencies around the Horn and Paragroup F* was recently discovered in Sudan. Considering the latter I would not be surprised if CF ancestral to both C and F were discovered in Africa as no carrier of that haplogroup has yet been discovered. And considering the prevalence of E (PN2) in Africa as well as the highest record of DE* carriers in West Africa I also would not be surprised if CT ancestral to both DE and CF were also discovered among individuals in Africa.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a lot of lineages that have their highest frequency in Africa; too many for me to list due to the fact that Africans have the most genetic lineages in general. But if you are referring to so-called 'Eurasian' lineages that occurr most frequently in Africa, I just listed some maternal (mitochondrial) in my second posting above: U6, X1, N1, and R0. Y-chromsome (paternal) lineages called 'Eurasian' but found most frequently in Africa are DE* and R1*. K and L are found in minimal frequencies around the Horn and Paragroup F* was recently discovered in Sudan. Considering the latter I would not be surprised if CF ancestral to both C and F were discovered in Africa as no carrier of that haplogroup has yet been discovered. And considering the prevalence of E (PN2) in Africa as well as the highest record of DE* carriers in West Africa I also would not be surprised if CT ancestral to both DE and CF were also discovered among individuals in Africa.
Good roundup. Just wanted that stated clearly for new readers. Strange that though certain Eurocentric writers cite frequency as a bass for labeling something "Eurasian," they do not apply the same thing across the board when Africans are involved. Then they usually remain silent, or attempt to "split" certain haplotypes under discussion so they can be framed as "non-African." Spencer Wells does this in his book Deep Ancestry. He notes that quote: " The highest frequency of E3b in any European population is found in Greece, where 25 percent of the men are part of the E3b clan."
But strangely, does not get around to saying that the highest frequencies of E3b overall is found in Africa. That just disappears down the memory hole. He has no problem talking about "EUropean" or "Asian" haplogroups on the basis of frequency, but when it comes to Africa a different standard is applied.
YEt another textbook (Bogusz and Smith 2007- Forensic Science) talks about Haplogroup E, but is strangely minimalist on in E3b. E3a it notes shows "wide geographic distribution" all around Africa, but when it comes to E3b all they note is that it is "present" in Western Europe, North Africa and the Near East. Again, the downplaying, minimization "splittist" approach- as if they don't want to state forthrightly that Haplogroup E, overall is an African haplotype, and E3b has its highest frequencies in Africa and is this "African. " The usual approach is to minimize this, or "split" discussion. They have no problem though talking about "Eurasian" or "EUropean" haplotypes elsewhere.
This is the kind of double-standard ES must continue to expose, just as Diop exposed Eurocentrism in his earlier works.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Indeed. It is part and parcel of Eurocentric hypocrisy as exposed by Diop. Diop also notes that EUropean scholars change their tune when the data is not favorable towards their race models. Suddenly "race" becomes "unimportant." But at the same tme as Keita and pothers note, they will use the soothing language of "diversity" and "non-race" while in practice, continuing to use the same stereotypical race categories. This is the second side of Eurocentric hypocrisy- speaking the language of "progressivism" to lull the gullible, while continuing business as usual.
"But they know very well what a white man is.. every time these relationships are not favorable to the Western cultures, an effort is made to undermine.. telling them [Africans] 'we don;t know what a race is' (Finch interview 1989:366-7; see also Diop 1991: 16-17) -C.A. DIop
Yes. This goes back to the whole concept of "generalized modern" i.e. the phenotype of early modern humans. By many racialist standards these 'generalized moderns' would be "negroid" yet since we are dealing with the ancestors of all humans they don't get such a racial label. If you notice in many early literature, no racial label is applied until recent European or 'Caucasian' features are to be found, then racial labels can be used. It is the double-standard of 'no races' until Caucasians. LOL That is why you have psychos like Anglo-Idiot claiming "Negroids" are a recent phenomenon and Caucasians are very ancient. They even include early gracilized types found in North Africa as 'proto-Caucasoids' or 'basic white' with 'primitive traits'. LOL
quote:SOme scholars also hold that gene divergence PRECEDED population divergence. SO proto-lineages of alleged "Eurasian" DNA were already forming in place WITHIN AFRICA, before any significant outward colonization movement.
In any case, the alleged "Eurasians" until relatively recently, resembled tropical Africans. Any "back- migration" would have been by dark-skinned tropical phenotypes, and said phenotypes are the ones that (a) helped pioneer important Neolithic developments (i.e. the Natufians (BRace 2005) and (b) brought said Neolithic advances to Europe.
Correct. Thus the very labeling of 'Eurasian' for these early OOA lineages is ambiguous at best and overall fool-hardy. The Natufians by the way are the result of a migration FROM Africa INTO Eurasia that happened during the mesolithic. In fact, Natufian cranial features were described as outright "negroid".
quote: Good roundup. Just wanted that stated clearly for new readers. Strange that though certain Eurocentric writers cite frequency as a bass for labeling something "Eurasian," they do not apply the same thing across the board when Africans are involved. Then they usually remain silent, or attempt to "split" certain haplotypes under discussion so they can be framed as "non-African." Spencer Wells does this in his book Deep Ancestry. He notes that quote: " The highest frequency of E3b in any European population is found in Greece, where 25 percent of the men are part of the E3b clan."
But strangely, does not get around to saying that the highest frequencies of E3b overall is found in Africa. That just disappears down the memory hole. He has no problem talking about "EUropean" or "Asian" haplogroups on the basis of frequency, but when it comes to Africa a different standard is applied.
YEt another textbook (Bogusz and Smith 2007- Forensic Science) talks about Haplogroup E, but is strangely minimalist on in E3b. E3a it notes shows "wide geographic distribution" all around Africa, but when it comes to E3b all they note is that it is "present" in Western Europe, North Africa and the Near East. Again, the downplaying, minimization "splittist" approach- as if they don't want to state forthrightly that Haplogroup E, overall is an African haplotype, and E3b has its highest frequencies in Africa and is this "African. " The usual approach is to minimize this, or "split" discussion. They have no problem though talking about "Eurasian" or "EUropean" haplotypes elsewhere.
This is the kind of double-standard ES must continue to expose, just as Diop exposed Eurocentrism in his earlier works.
LOL Apparently they 'forgot' E3b has its highest frequency in Sub-Saharan East Africa! But yeah, these sources you referenced come from authors who are still trying to come to grips with the FACT that E3b as well as the entire E clade is of African origin, thus its very presence in the Near East and Europe is the result of African admixture! Note that when E3b was initially discovered it too was first labeled as 'Eurasian', until the very high frequency and diversity of E3b in Africa and overall E3 pretty much debunked the 'Eurasian' claim.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Indeed, and keep those great summaries coming.
Interestingly, the authors below speak strongly in favor of backfl but they pause to note that the distribution of Hgs M and N could be due to an African L3 “root type” - a foundational core that later diverged into (a) M and N somewhere between the Horn and India, or (b) M and N within Africa and then subsequently out. WHatever scenario is chosen, they acknowledge the existence of an L3 “root type” WITHIN AFRICA that provided the foundation for subsequent developments that BEGIN somewhere in Africa.
quote: "These indicate that the root of L3 gives rise to a multifurcation from a single haplotype producing aT number of distinct subclades... The simplest explanation for this geographical distribution [haplogroups M and N], however, is an expansion of the root type within East Africa, where several independent L3 branches thrive, including a sister group to L3, christened L4 (Kivisild et al. 2004; Chap. 7), followed by divergence into haplogroups M and N somewhere between the Horn of Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Since neither the L3 root type nor any other descendants survive outside Africa, the root type itself must have become extinct during a period of genetic drift in the founder population as it diversified into haplogroups M and N, if the diversification was outside Africa. If on the other hand the diversification was indeed within East Africa, then Haplogroups M and N must have either been carried out of Africa in their entirety or subsequently have become extinct within Africa, with the singular exception of the derived M1." - Hans-Jürgen Bandelt et. 2006. EDS. Human Mitochondrial DNA and the Evolution of Homo sapiens.
In any event- the people LEAVING AFRICA would be tropically adapted dark-skinned types. Whether within Africa or somewhere on the way to India the same dark-skinned tropical types eveloped new gene variants. Any returneees roaming the expanses of south Asia back to Africa would STILL be dark-skinned tropical types. In a limited sense, DIop’s insistence on the primacy of the phenotype has some application here. Whatever the stage (root type multifurcation, initial OOA exit, subsequent roaming and travel, any returns) it still makes no difference- the phenotype is dark-skinned, tropically adapted.Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes this goes back to what Explorer stated about basic genetic concepts such as founder effect and bottlenecks. As each subset diverges from its source population, there is a loss of diversity and sometimes alleles that were once in the minority over time could end up the majority. You're correct that in the case of mitochondrial divergence, such took place somewhere between the Horn and India and the most likely scenario would be Arabia. Though unfortunately no M* or MN has yet been identified in Arabia unless someone has recent studies showing such. As Explorer said, the original M* or MN* in Arabia is still yet to be found OR could be lost entirely as that original population was small and could have been swamped out completely by younger more downstream mitochondrial lineages.
And then there's still African peoples or individuals who might carry such lineages as well and have yet to be identified.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some scholars seem to posit a "lost" or "dead end" migration out, via the Sinai/Palestine area- centered on the Jebel Qafeh specimens. Like you say individuals or small groups were probably always roaming across from the Red Sea over millennia, but their smallness meant developments were not preserved or carried forward. The original M or N may yet be found but the L3 "root type" lineages spoken of above by Jurgen- Bandelt et. al would have already began to diversify in Africa as migrants meandered out- whether it was via the Levant-towards Sinai/Palestine or an Arabian route. I wonder too if small populations sizes cannot mean that some innovations (as in tools, new methods etc) were not lost if the innovators got killed or sidetracked before wide dissemination).
But in any event- its dark-skinned tropical Africans with core lineages going out- whether via Sinai or Arabia. Any return would be by such people, defeating the entire bogus labeling edifice of "Eurasian" or "Middle Eastern." Makes no difference really in that sense. Do you have any more info on this so-called "lost" migration?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I'll have to look into the Jebel Qafzeh thing. All I know is that the skull is 92 ky old and represents the earliest known Homo Sapiens culture outside of Africa. The belief is that this culture was a dead end and died out since no other associated material or remains have been found (YET). So I don't know. Archaeology in the Near East is usually focused on Biblical times and of course there is much political conflict that interferes so who knows what the actual story is.
By the way, here is what Britannica says: One of the best-preserved early fossils that bears all the anatomic hallmarks of Homo sapiens is a skull dated to about 92 kya from the Israeli site of Jebel Qafzeh. This part of the Middle East, called the Levant, is often regarded as a biogeographic extension of Africa, so perhaps the discovery of this fossil in this particular location is not surprising. The specimen is a fractured...
LOL I take it the Levant is only considered an extension of Africa when the earliest modern humans are in discussion. I wonder if such a consideration is taken when the Natufians and the earliest agriculture is discussed, but I digress.
Despite the issues in the Middle East, archaeology in the Levant is still more prevalent than in Arabia where it is seriously lacking. I personally believe there is likely a LOT of data hiding in the Arabian deserts, especially in the Rub al Khali region, before experts can make any conclusions on the first AMH OOA populations.
By the way, it was the Qafzeh skull that was used as a model of what Mitochondrial Eve may have looked like in the Discovery program 'The Real Eve', even though Qafzeh Woman is actually 108,000 years younger and dates to around the time of her grand-daughter lineage L2.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I'll have to look into the Jebel Qafzeh thing. All I know is that the skull is 92 ky old and represents the earliest known Homo Sapiens culture outside of Africa. The belief is that this culture was a dead end and died out since no other associated material or remains have been found (YET). So I don't know. Archaeology in the Near East is usually focused on Biblical times and of course there is much political conflict that interferes so who knows what the actual story is.
By the way, here is what Britannica says: One of the best-preserved early fossils that bears all the anatomic hallmarks of Homo sapiens is a skull dated to about 92 kya from the Israeli site of Jebel Qafzeh. This part of the Middle East, called the Levant, is often regarded as a biogeographic extension of Africa, so perhaps the discovery of this fossil in this particular location is not surprising. The specimen is a fractured...
LOL I take it the Levant is only considered an extension of Africa when the earliest modern humans are in discussion. I wonder if such a consideration is taken when the Natufians and the earliest agriculture is discussed, but I digress.
Despite the issues in the Middle East, archaeology in the Levant is still more prevalent than in Arabia where it is seriously lacking. I personally believe there is likely a LOT of data hiding in the Arabian deserts, especially in the Rub al Khali region, before experts can make any conclusions on the first AMH OOA populations.
By the way, it was the Qafzeh skull that was used as a model of what Mitochondrial Eve may have looked like in the Discovery program 'The Real Eve', even though Qafzeh Woman is actually 108,000 years younger and dates to around the time of her grand-daughter lineage L2.
^^THe LEvant as a biogeographic extension of Africa? I wish I had the quote on the researcher who said that, or backed it up. ANy more on this?
You probably already covered this somewhere but what about Jebel Faya in Arabia as a "staging post"?
"The timing of the dispersal of anatomically modern humans (AMH) out of Africa is a fundamental question in human evolutionary studies. Existing data suggest a rapid coastal exodus via the Indian Ocean rim around 60,000 years ago. We present evidence from Jebel Faya, United Arab Emirates, demonstrating human presence in eastern Arabia during the last interglacial. The tool kit found at Jebel Faya has affinities to the late Middle Stone Age in northeast Africa.. --- Armitage, et al, 2011. The SOuthern ROute, Science 38, vol 331
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic