posted
LOL! Like I said, people don't realize that these folks are twisting history on top of its head and causing us to think backwards. ALL human lineages in Europe came from Africa directly or indirectly from Asia. The first human lineages in Europe likely died out due to ice age migrations back out of Europe and then were replaced by later migrations into Europe after the glaciers retreated. R1 lineages in Europe date to around 15-18Kya ago, which is the time when humans started settling Europe again after the glaciers retreated. This is the time frame of the "proto-indo-european" expansion, meaning expansion from Asia of aboriginal Indo-Asian derived phenotypes. Therefore, trying to speak of a "Eurasian" as in modern white Europeans or Asians or Near Easterners with cold adapted features from 30,000 years ago is blatantly absurd as no such creature existed.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your time frames are all jangled up. Do your homework first before you make preposterous claims such as a 15-18kya entry of R lineages in Europe, and a PIE expansion dating to the same time. Where on earth do you get those figures. Do you make them up on the spot or what? As for your other spacey claims, that someone in this thread referred to cold adapted populations ~30kya, or that the first European lineages died out, I'm pretty sure no one even knows what you're talking about.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
During the last glacial maximum, much of Europe was depopulated and re-settled, about 15,000 years ago. The European Neolithic begins about 9,000 years ago in southeastern Europe, and reaches northern Europe by about 5,000 years ago. R-M173 is very common throughout all of Eurasia except East Asia and Southeast Asia. Its distribution is believed to be associated with the re-settlement of Eurasia following the last glacial maximum ( approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago) Its main subgroups are R-M420 and R-M343. One subclade of haplogroup R-M343 (especially R-M269), is the most common haplogroup in Western Europe and Bashkortostan,(Lobov 2009) while another R-M420 (especially R-M17 aka R-M98) is the most common haplogroup in large parts of South Asia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Western China, and South Siberia. During the last glacial maximum, much of Europe was depopulated and re-settled, about 15,000 years ago. The European Neolithic begins about 9,000 years ago in southeastern Europe, and reaches northern Europe by about 5,000 years ago.
_______________________________________
The Evolution of Modern Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation By Marta Mirazón Lahr 1996
posted
^Stop talking about what you know little about. Cite one early Holocene European fossil whose aDNA indicates R1a or R1b. Early Europeans were mostly NRY G and I ACCORDING to their own Y chromosomes. Not some European 'expert' who is secretly motivated by extending the duration the bulk of his ancestors in Europe. Poor Eurocentrics have debated for centuries about whether they descend primarily from hunter gatherers or agriculturalists. Turns out, most of them are descended from neither.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Europe's First Farmers Were Immigrants: Replaced Their Stone Age Hunter-Gatherer Forerunners
(Sep. 4, 2009) — Analysis of ancient DNA from skeletons suggests that Europe's first farmers were not the descendants of the people who settled the area after the retreat of the ice sheets. Instead, the early farmers probably migrated into major areas of central and eastern Europe about 7,500 years ago, bringing domesticated plants and animals with them , says Barbara Bramanti from Mainz University in Germany and colleagues.
The researchers analyzed DNA from hunter-gatherer and early farmer burials, and compared those to each other and to the DNA of modern Europeans. They conclude that there is little evidence of a direct genetic link between the hunter-gatherers and the early farmers, and 82 percent of the types of mtDNA found in the hunter-gatherers are relatively rare in central Europeans today.
For more than a century archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, and more recently, geneticists, have argued about who the ancestors of Europeans living today were. We know that people lived in Europe before and after the last big ice age and managed to survive by hunting and gathering. We also know that farming spread into Europe from the Near East over the last 9,000 years, thereby increasing the amount of food that can be produced by as much as 100-fold. But the extent to which modern Europeans are descended from either of those two groups has eluded scientists despite many attempts to answer this question.
Now, a team from Mainz University in Germany, together with researchers from UCL (University College London) and Cambridge, have found that the first farmers in central and northern Europe could not have been the descendents of the hunter-gatherers that came before them. But what is even more surprising, they also found that modern Europeans couldn't solely be the descendents of either the hunter-gatherer alone, or the first farmers alone, and are unlikely to be a mixture of just those two groups.
"This is really odd" , said Professor Mark Thomas, a population geneticist at UCL and co-author of the study. "For more than a century the debate has centered around how much we are the descendents of European hunter-gatherers and how much we are the descendents of Europe's early farmers. For the first time we are now able to directly compare the genes of these Stone Age Europeans, and what we find is that some DNA types just aren't there - despite being common in Europeans today."
Humans arrived in Europe 45,000 years ago and replaced the Neandertals. From that period on, European hunter-gatherers experienced lots of climatic changes, including the last Ice Age. After the end of the Ice Age, some 11,000 years ago, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle survived for a couple of thousand years but was then gradually replaced by agriculture. The question was whether this change in lifestyle from hunter-gatherer to farmer was brought to Europe by new people, or whether only the idea of farming spread. The new results from the Mainz-led team seems to solve much of this long standing debate.
"Our analysis shows that there is no direct continuity between hunter-gatherers and farmers in Central Europe," says Prof Joachim Burger. "As the hunter-gatherers were there first, the farmers must have immigrated into the area."
The study identifies the Carpathian Basin as the origin for early Central European farmers. "It seems that farmers of the Linearbandkeramik culture immigrated from what is modern day Hungary around 7,500 years ago into Central Europe, initially without mixing with local hunter gatherers," says Barbara Bramanti, first author of the study. "This is surprising, because there were cultural contacts between the locals and the immigrants, but, it appears, no genetic exchange of women."
The new study confirms what Joachim Burger´s team showed in 2005; that the first farmers were not the direct ancestors of modern European. Burger says "We are still searching for those remaining components of modern European ancestry. European hunter-gatherers and early farmers alone are not enough. But new ancient DNA data from later periods in European prehistory may shed also light on this in the future."
posted
^ Wow. Interesting article, and one that deserves a thread of its own, I believe. But let's get back to the topic of ancient and prehistoric Maghrebi ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Your time frames are all jangled up. Do your homework first before you make preposterous claims such as a 15-18kya entry of R lineages in Europe, and a PIE expansion dating to the same time. Where on earth do you get those figures. Do you make them up on the spot or what? As for your other spacey claims, that someone in this thread referred to cold adapted populations ~30kya, or that the first European lineages died out, I'm pretty sure no one even knows what you're talking about.
I think Doug is confusing R1 lineages with R1a which is more properly to be associated with PIE though even then it shouldn't. I also believe Doug is just referring to Euronut claims that have been or still are being made and not to anything specifically state in this thread.
You asked in the previous page whether there are any mtDNA R lineages in Africa, and actually yes there are, specifically R0 which is present in significant frequencies in northeast and eastern Africa. This, along with N1 present in East Africa to suggests that an African origin for L3N may not be as far-fetched as some may think.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Your time frames are all jangled up. Do your homework first before you make preposterous claims such as a 15-18kya entry of R lineages in Europe, and a PIE expansion dating to the same time. Where on earth do you get those figures. Do you make them up on the spot or what? As for your other spacey claims, that someone in this thread referred to cold adapted populations ~30kya, or that the first European lineages died out, I'm pretty sure no one even knows what you're talking about.
This is about the expansion of R1 lineages in Western Europe which are generally dated to being after the last glacial maximum, ie 19,000 years ago.
And again, the point is that Eurasian has no meaning 30,000 years ago because at that time most populations of humans were still primarily in Africa, followed by Asia and parts of central and Southern Europe. And all of these people were still primarily of tropical adapted stock. Hence, the goal of claiming that North Africa was Eurasian 30,000 years ago is to turn logic on its head because by the same logic, Eurasia was primarily African 30,000 years ago. So it doesn't make any sense to say such a thing.
quote: Duration within refuges
During the Last Glacial Maximum, a period between 25,000 and 19,000 years ago, large ice sheets over a kilometer thick covered much of Northern Europe, making the region uninhabitable to humans. It is believed that human populations retreated south to warmer regions near the Mediterranean. Refuges during this period are believed to have been in Iberia, the Balkans and Italy.
DNA evidence suggests that during the Last Glacial Maximum, there was some gene flow from Africa into Iberia. After the Last Glacial Maximum, when the European climate warmed up, the refuges are thought to have been the source from which Europe was repopulated. African lineages that had been introduced into the Iberian refuge would have then dispersed all over Europe with the Northward expansion of humans. This could explain the presence of genetic lineages in Eastern Europe and as far North as Russia, that appear to have prehistoric links to Northwest and West Africa (see mtDNA).[3] The expansion of human populations from Iberian refuges is also believed to have moved back to Northwest Africa.
Neolithic to the end of the prehistoric
The change from hunting and gathering to agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution was a watershed in world history. The societies that first made the change to agriculture are believed to have lived in the Middle East around 10,000 BCE. Agriculture was introduced into Europe by migrating farmers from the Middle East.[5] According to the demic diffusion model, these Middle Eastern farmers either replaced or interbred with the local hunter-gather populations that had been living in Europe since the "out of Africa" migration.[6] It has been suggested that the first Middle Eastern farmers had North African influences.[7] There have been suggestions that some genetic lineages found in the Middle East arrived there during this period.[8] The first Agricultural societies in the Middle East are generally thought to have emerged out of the Natufian Culture, which existed in Palestine from 12,000 BCE-10,000 BCE. An important migration from North Africa across the Sinai appears to have occurred before the formation of the Natufian.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Wow. Interesting article, and one that deserves a thread of its own, I believe. But let's get back to the topic of ancient and prehistoric Maghrebi ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Your time frames are all jangled up. Do your homework first before you make preposterous claims such as a 15-18kya entry of R lineages in Europe, and a PIE expansion dating to the same time. Where on earth do you get those figures. Do you make them up on the spot or what? As for your other spacey claims, that someone in this thread referred to cold adapted populations ~30kya, or that the first European lineages died out, I'm pretty sure no one even knows what you're talking about.
I think Doug is confusing R1 lineages with R1a which is more properly to be associated with PIE though even then it shouldn't. I also believe Doug is just referring to Euronut claims that have been or still are being made and not to anything specifically state in this thread.
You asked in the previous page whether there are any mtDNA R lineages in Africa, and actually yes there are, specifically R0 which is present in significant frequencies in northeast and eastern Africa. This, along with N1 present in East Africa to suggests that an African origin for L3N may not be as far-fetched as some may think.
I know about mtDNA R0, and mtDNA R0 is not mtDNA R. The relevance for R is that it contains U6. If U6 is going to be seen as entirely autochtonous, as stated by The Explorer, where is indigenous mtDNA R in Africa? I can say the same thing about basal M and N in the Horn. They're absent. Basal L3 is also absent in fossil and modern Europeans. This combined clearly screams out the fact that these two groups separated and both went their ways prior to OOA.
If you take the mtDNA L pool (~60%), NRY E-M78, E-M2 and other paternal haplogroups of clear Sub-Saharan provenance (~90%), you get +70% African ancestry in the Somali population, which is approximately in accord with their blood group ties to Africa. I'm not finding any much higher African heritage credible due to numerous independent indications. A high percentage of SLC24A5 (50%) in the Horn being one of them. SLC24A5 most likely doesn't explain M or U6 in the Horn due to the relatively recent age of SLC24A5. However, it IS correlatable to the rest of their foreign uniparental lineages. Especially mtDNA R0, N1, certain forms of U, W etc.
See Mikkelsen et al (2012) for the Somali mtDNA pool:
Which shouldn't be an issue. Sans the African lineages that were introduced to Eurasia in the Terminal Pleistocene and Holocene, Mesolithic and Neolithic Eurasia are a direct continuation of Palaeolithic Eurasia, temporally, as well as uniparentally.
Red herring.
Nobody spoke of a lack of continuation in European populations in said time frames...and the Mesolithic is not mutually exclusive of the terminal Paleolithic or the Neolithic of the Holocene.
quote: There is no sense in pointing out the modest Palaeolithic fossil aDNA record, when what you're looking for (early Palaeolithic European mtdNA L) is absent in the the Mesolithic and the Neolithic as well. And not to mention, modern Eurasians.
You are the one who made a mole hill of Paleolithic Eurasian fossils, in a bid to downplay any Paleolithic gene flow from Africa into Europe or Eurasia.
Most of the existing variants of contemporary European maternal markers have not been found in Neolithic specimens either, if you want to get technical about it.
It shouldn't be surprising to miss either Paleolithic African L types, or the often implicated Neolithic transmitted African-derived types like U6 and M1 in Neolithic specimens, when they have been introduced in comparatively low doses into preexisting European populations to begin with. Nobody is assuming population replacement here.
The genetic imprint of the "first farmers" itself may have been relatively modest, given the size of the immigrant community vis-a-vis the in situ European populations, but their cultural impact appears to have been far more considerable, thereby forever changing life in Europe.
quote:The inconvenient truth is that the majority of the markers detected by Kefi et al (mtDNA H, V) in the Taforalt specimen dated to 12ky are confirmed as lineages that unquestionably entered Africa around that exact same time, from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge.
...from what evidence?...yep, examining contemporary Maghrebi populations, who did not arrive in the region until some 5,000 years ago, at most!
Given that these contemporary Maghrebians have very little to do with Mesolithic Maghrebi types, what good does it do you to infer the latter's gene pool from the former?
quote:U6 or some mutation that contains it has to be Eurasian at some point, unless you consider mtDNA R to be an African haplogroup.
U6 is not Eurasian at any point! If you want to speak of U6's ancestor itself, well the jury is out on that as well, unless you want to point out the specifics of that ancestral clade, and exactly the parental Eurasian population it emerged in.
Saying that it derives from mtDNA R does not absolve U6 from being an autochthonous northwestern African marker, or as marker of gene flow from Africa to "Eurasia". In fact, many of the ancestors of those maternal markers tagged as "Eurasian" have not been identified...so, it's anyone's guess, where these ancestors exactly emerged. It seems to me that 'western' researchers simply like to attach too much significance to "Eurasia", because otherwise the development of the human species in the main had been in Africa.
Attaching too much emphasis to any distant *ancestor* of U6 (not U6 itself) to Eurasia is almost meaningless in any case, given that any such would-be Eurasians would not have looked like the contemporary types you are trying to link the markers to.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that's the case, you're arriving at a misinformed conclusion yourself, according to your own reasoning. You're using the current Eurasian gene pool as a temperature check for their Palaeolithic possession of (mutations containing) U6 and M1.
Your response here itself is misinformed...since you are missing the context of the post you’re supposed to be replying. It has been determined that contemporary Maghrebi populations have little to do with the Mesolithic types or those before. On the other hand, it is generally taken for granted that contemporary Europeans are a continuation of Paleolithic European populations. Getting the drift yet?
Furthermore, U6 and M1 are largely associated with Neolithic transmission in Europe, although there indications of earlier transfer of said markers into Eurasia.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Didn't you just state that: The oldest uniparental markers inherited by contemporary Maghrebi populations from ancient settlements in the Maghreb happen to be largely autochthonous types? What ''ancient settlements'' are you referring to here, if not the Ibero-Maurusian ones you refer to above?
Again, you are missing context. The EpiPaleolithic Maghreb types had a separate phylogenesis from the contemporary Maghrebi populations. One is not the descendant of the other. Saying that contemporary Maghrebi absorbed a small portion of preexisting elements, is not saying they are a continuation of EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi types. It’s like trying to say that just because some Europeans eventually mixed with some American Indians, that contemporary European-derived populations in America must then be American Indians. It doesn’t make sense, my friend. And what of it anyway, if U6 was present in Mesolithic Maghrebi populations? It’s not like it is a European or “Eurasian” marker.
quote: The biological specific were mentioned on p1.
Then run it by me again, as you have understood it.
quote: If you have any counter evidence/interpretations for their apparent Eurasian AMH affinities (non-linear builds, European AMH-like facial disharmony, distal limb length comparable to Late Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, large hands, broad shoulders, mandible and teeth incongruity with African AMHs at lower latitudes and modern Africans, etc), the stage is all yours.
What do you consider “European AMH-like facial disharmony”. What makes them uniquely European, or prove that they can only be of European origin?
What is a “non-linear” body build?
As for limb proportions, certain published data implicates an “intermediate” average pattern for Mesolithic Maghrebi groups. Elsewhere, I noted as follows:
According to material referenced by Hershkovitz et al. 1995, the limb-proportion means of a pooled EpiPaleolithic northern African sample fell right within the tropical African range [85% for crural index and 77% for brachial index]. Now, since this is a pooled group from a wide geographical expanse, spanning that from Jebel Sahaba to Moroccan territory—i.e. west to east or vice versa, which had all previously been indiscriminately included in the so-called "Mechtoid" taxonomic-construct, it might well be instructive to keep in mind that this pooling would naturally affect the overall mean. The individual indexes actually ranged from 82-88. More of the individual Jebel Sahaba samples are inclined to be in the higher-end ranges of the pooled samples with greater probability than those of their Maghrebi counterparts, considering that aforementioned data on "multivariate" examination on body shape, and the former's relative geographical proximity to the tropical areas. Obviously, 82% index is an example of a low value generally out of the range of the tropical African mean, but in order for the mean to be within the range of the tropical African mean, there would have had to have been enough individual indexes in the pooled sample with great enough values, so as to bring the average to the stated value, which is similar to one that Holliday observed for "sub-Saharan Africans" elsewhere
“broad shoulders”? So only the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi and Europeans have this; according to whom? And what of the mandible? What is so peculiar about this, that makes it virtually impossible for the Mesolithic Maghrebi to be African? Same for teeth. Looks to me, that priority of making a case is all your’s!
Don’t forget to point me to this ancestral European population that the Mesolithic Maghrebi types supposedly descended from, and what culture they brought with them.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: This is about the expansion of R1 lineages in Western Europe which are generally dated to being after the last glacial maximum, ie 19,000 years ago.
According to what hard evidence?
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Hence, the goal of claiming that North Africa was Eurasian 30,000 years ago is to turn logic on its head because by the same logic, Eurasia was primarily African 30,000 years ago. So it doesn't make any sense to say such a thing.
This is weak logic disguised as common sense. When put into context it becomes apparent how dubious it really is. Its like saying that intermarriage between Mexican expats and Siberian locals would be the same as local Siberian unions, just because Amerindians descend from Siberians 12kya.
And I'm just being nice with this Amerindian/Siberian analogy, because its much less extreme than the complexities implied in backflow of Eurasian AMHs into Africa (think archaic human geneflow in the Eurasian AMH genome, much longer divergence times than 12kya, etc.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
There is no evidence for L lineages in the Western Maghreb in the specified period 20-10kya. There is no need for me to argue about Cases et al's perception of what their raw data entails. Even if their dates for their L1b are correct, it still falls short of the Ibero-Maurusian period. Bottom line: zero stereotypical African lineages in Iberia during the Ibero-Maurusian.
If there is no evidence of L lineages in the Maghreb dating to 20 kya, then it is perhaps because of that “little known fact” that I keep referring to; that the proto-Tamazight ancestors of contemporary Maghreb population were not in that region then. The L type lineages that these contemporary populations have, which are outside of L3, are consistent with this comparatively late expansion time frame, from the Neolithic onwards.
As for Casas et al.’s report, it’s about making sure misinformation about their findings does not go unabated. Their findings point to Upper Paleolithic origins of the European L1b, which is what you seem to be having a lot of trouble coming to terms with.
quote: The specifics were given. As is usually the case alTrakruri got the memo instantly, without being need to be held by hand. Don't mean to be a smartass, but I did direct readers to all the specifics, and I assume they do the reading themselves from that point on.
Specifics, like what? Simply providing links for others to go through, and making unsupported claims is not “specifics”. You got one thing right, I’m not someone else, and so, what they do or how they think, is their own business...and no, requesting corroboration is not the same thing as “being led by hand”. That is some bizarre thinking you’ve got going there.
quote:The Russian clade bears the 16175 transition, which follows the L1b1a8, which then identifies Casas et al's L1b (which is followed by transition 16175) with Cerezo et al's L1b1a8.
Just based on that instance of said transition in the Russian haplotype, you assumed that L1b1a8 clades of Cerezo et al.’s study must then necessarily be the same as the L1b clades that Casas et al. reported. It has never occurred to you that this could be one of homoplasic happenstance? Did you see this transition in the other clades implicated in Cerezo et al.’s L1b1a8 clades?
Furthermore, Cerezo et al.’s age estimation spans their entire L1b1a8, while Casas et al.’s refers to their respective entire European L1b, both ones with and without the 16175 transition.
quote: Additionally, this Russian sequence is related to Cases et al's L1b, per their own words: Moreover, the fact that the closest sequences to the two L1b haplotypes with the 16175 transition are not in Africa but in Germany (Richards et al., 2000) and Russia. Then there is the glaringly obvious fact that both Casas et al and Cerezo blatently state that they got their Russian sample from Malyarchuk. Neither Cerezo nor Malyarchuk consider this transition (16175) to be older than the Terminal Pleistocene.
One: Cerezo et al. cite Malyarchuk et al 2008, while Casas et al. cited Malyarchuk’s research team from 2004! Two: While there’s certainly a possibility that Malyarchuk revisited their Russian sample from an earlier study, it should not be taken for granted that this need be the case, unless stated. Nor should it taken for granted either, that Casas et al.'s German haplotype was necessarily of the same L1b sub-clade as the Russian counterpart, or either two with respect to their 2 Iberian haplotypes, and possibly two other European haplotypes. The said 2 Iberian haplotypes may have been included in the overall 4 incidences of this obviously rare association within the L1b clade. The authors language may speak to this prospect...
Nevertheless, the high number of non-shared lineages impedes the determination of the precise African origin. Moreover, the fact that the closest sequences to the two L1b haplotypes with the 16175 transition are not in Africa but in Germany (Richards et al., 2000) and Russia (Malyarchuk et al., 2004) clouds the origin of these haplotypes. - Casas et al. (2006)[/i]
If the clades were exact matches, this is not the language that would likely be used to describe the fact. “Closest” implies that of the haplotypes available, only those which shared the most nucleotide profile were considered, not necessarily entirely identical. On the other hand, the said determination of the “precise African origin”, suggests that the African origin is a given, but that the profiles of Iberian L1b markers didn’t exhibit a sufficiently consistent pattern among themselves or with respect to the African haplotypes; otherwise, it would have been very clear that they carried a modal haplotype that very likely came about after an introduction from Africa.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: This is about the expansion of R1 lineages in Western Europe which are generally dated to being after the last glacial maximum, ie 19,000 years ago.
According to what hard evidence?
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Hence, the goal of claiming that North Africa was Eurasian 30,000 years ago is to turn logic on its head because by the same logic, Eurasia was primarily African 30,000 years ago. So it doesn't make any sense to say such a thing.
This is weak logic disguised as common sense. When put into context it becomes apparent how dubious it really is. Its like saying that intermarriage between Mexican expats and Siberian locals would be the same as local Siberian unions, just because Amerindians descend from Siberians 12kya.
And I'm just being nice with this Amerindian/Siberian analogy, because its much less extreme than the complexities implied in backflow of Eurasian AMHs into Africa (think archaic human geneflow in the Eurasian AMH genome, much longer divergence times than 12kya, etc.
I don't know why you are having a hard time with this. If someone is going to label genetic lineages 30,000 years ago in Africa as Eurasian, based on those lineages having been in Eurasia less than 10kya years or so, then what does that make the parents of those lineages that hit Eurasia and had also only been there for 10kya or so if those lineages came from Africa? Doesn't that make them African? Therefore if you disagree with calling the lineages arriving to Eurasia from Africa as African, then you should also disagree with calling lineages likewise in Africa as Eurasian. It is a nonsensical characterization of the lineages at such an early point in time when humans had only not to long ago left Africa. Sure there were splits in lineages but in all reality you still are talking about a relatively close branch on the family tree. Too close to try and make it seem as if there was a big difference between them on any real level. Those people all still looked like black Africans is my point. And labeling them as Eurasian is just a way of trying to downplay that fact, with the larger agenda being downplaying the fact that all these folks ultimately had features from and derived from Africa not too long before that.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are the one who made a mole hill of Paleolithic Eurasian fossils, in a bid to downplay any Paleolithic gene flow from Africa into Europe or Eurasia.
This is patently false. I've never ruled out potential OOA populations who reached Europe in the Palaeolithic via Northeast Africa. Only thing I said was that peripheral Africa consisted of populations who were (almost exclusively) of lineages contained within mtDNA M and N, and that Eurasians descend from the latter populations. That's a far cry away from denying that African AMHs outside of peripheral Africa, in the Tropics, could have leap frogged over the said peripheral Africans and gained a footing outside Africa.
quote:Most of the existing variants of contemporary European maternal markers have not been found in Neolithic specimens either, if you want to get technical about it.
This is false.. but you're more than welcome to elucidate your claim. Which mtDNA types found in modern Europeans have not been found in Neolithic fossils?
quote:It shouldn't be surprising to miss either Paleolithic African L types, or the often implicated Neolithic transmitted African-derived types like U6 and M1 in Neolithic specimens, when they have been introduced in comparatively low doses into preexisting European populations to begin with.
You're being unreasonable and comparing two totally different things. Of course you're not going to find U6 and M1 in Neolithic era fossils with ease; that's like finding a needle in a haystack. However, its not unreasonable expect to find L lineages in Neolithic Eurasia if they were participants in OOA migrations, because we're dealing with just a couple of founder populations of which all non-Africans are a direct continuation. Hence, if L carriers were present in OOA populations, they would comprise part of the universal Eurasian uniparental parcel, capable of being uncovered by any mtDNA test, from fossils that date to 70kya, to modern non-Africans of today. BTW, did I already mention that this hasn't even happened once?
quote:The genetic imprint of the "first farmers" itself may have been relatively modest, given the size of the immigrant community vis-a-vis the in situ European populations, but their cultural impact appears to have been far more considerable, thereby forever changing life in Europe.
Your reasoning is unsound. The glacial ages decimated the European hunter gatherers. When agriculturalist entered Europe, they were greeted with sparsely populated plains and technologically (and soon numerically) inferior hunter gatherers. Again, the major mtDNA difference of modern Europeans is with European hunter-gatherers, not with European farmers.
quote:...from what evidence?...yep, examining contemporary Maghrebi populations, who did not arrive in the region until some 5,000 years ago, at most!
And that refutes the evidence that the said lineages (H, V, U5) entered the Western Maghreb gradually from the Terminal Pleistocene on, how? They certainly didn't get it from the East Africans where they got their language from, nor did they get it from the oft touted female slaves from the historic period.
quote:Given that these contemporary Maghrebians have very little to do with Mesolithic Maghrebi types, what good does it do you to infer the latter's gene pool from the former?
You'll have to do better than that. Ibero-Maurusians are grossly no different from Northwestern Africans (Moroccans) than North Africans on the other end of the continent (Egyptians) are from the Wadi Kubbaniya/Wadi Halfa groups. And I KNOW you're not going to tell me that modern Egyptians didn't inherit lineages from the said prehistoric Egypto-Nubians. In fact, if we take a peak at Groves (whom you've cited often on the matter) it can be easily seen that the modern North African (Egypt) sample, which can easily stand in for Moroccans, is way closer to Ibero-Maurusians than the used Jebel Sahabans. Oops, didn't see that coming, did you?
quote:Saying that it derives from mtDNA R does not absolve U6 from being an autochthonous northwestern African marker, or as marker of gene flow from Africa to "Eurasia".
This is just semantics and sleight of mouth. In that scenario it may be functionally used as a marker of African migrations if it turns up elsewhere in the globe, but it would still register as Eurasian autosomal ancestry in STRUCTURE, ADMIXTURE and all other clustering methods. No matter how many mutations you'd be down U6. You can add all those fancy 1's and a's and b's and keep telling yourself that they all mutated in Africa. In the real world, however, the polymorphisms that define all those mutations register autosomally as Eurasian.
quote:Attaching too much emphasis to any distant *ancestor* of U6 (not U6 itself) to Eurasia is almost meaningless in any case, given that any such would-be Eurasians would not have looked like the contemporary types you are trying to link the markers to.
It isn't meaningless. Markers are assigned affinity on the basis on their time of divergence from a marker that contains it. As such, the distance between Maghrebi U6 carriers and a U or R carrying Eurasian would be determined by their divergence times, not by what either look like today or in the past. Just give it up, in the scenario that R arose Eurasia (which it most likely did), U6 has nothing to do with contemporary tropical Africans.
quote:It has been determined that contemporary Maghrebi populations have little to do with the Mesolithic types or those before.
I think I'm missing some sort of memo. Determined by what exactly?
quote:The EpiPaleolithic Maghreb types had a separate phylogenesis from the contemporary Maghrebi populations. One is not the descendant of the other.
This is not true of course. Genome wide SNP analysis dwarves their East African signature and what autosomally corresponds to M1, U6, U5, V, H etc, makes up the bulk of their genome-wide ancestry. More of their ancestry derive from prehistoric Iberians and Ibero-Maurusians than from East Africans.
quote:What do you consider “European AMH-like facial disharmony”.
It's not what I consider it to be; its an anthropological character. If you don't know what it entails, simply ask. Its what you get when you plot upper facial height against cranial index. Hence, an excessively broad face and an elongated calvarium produces facial disharmony, while brachycephaly and a tall face produces cranio-facial disharmony as well. The degree in the former version of this trait is what European AMHs and Iberomaurusians were essentially identical in.
quote:“broad shoulders”? So only the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi and Europeans have this; according to whom?[/quite]
See Bergmans rule.
[quote]As for limb proportions
Their somewhat tropical limbs cannot be used as ammunition for either camp. Its consistent with both arguments. It could have arisen locally or due to back migration.
quote:And what of the mandible? What is so peculiar about this
See Vermeersch (2003), Palaeolithic Quarrying Sites in Upper and Middle Egypt.
quote:Same for teeth.
See Coppa et al, Late Pleistocene/Holocene human populations transition in Old World: the analysis of morphological dental traits.
quote:If there is no evidence of L lineages in the Maghreb dating to 20 kya, then it is perhaps because of that “little known fact” that I keep referring to; that the proto-Tamazight ancestors of contemporary Maghreb population were not in that region then.
You're undermining your own case, just like the unfortunate incident above where you attributed U6 and M1 in Maghrebians to prehistoric predecessors, only to later claim (actually, within a few sentences) that none of the Ibero-Maurusian specimen (note how you said specimen), were phylogenetically linked to modern Maghrebians. Your analysis of Kefi 2005, which you upheld as current and valid a few posts ago, included attempts to point out that several of Taforalt HVS segments could be interpreted as belonging to L lineages. Now you're flipping the script and making it seem like it was your point all along that Maghrebi folks brought L lineages to the Western Maghreb just a few millenia ago. You must not have slept well, to be thinking you can use my own position against me. Before you even weighed in, I quoted Frigi on what you're trying to tell me now. What exactly is your point?
quote:Simply providing links for others to go through, and making unsupported claims is not “specifics”.
You implied that I mentioned fig 2 just to point out that a Russian carried the L1b1a8 clade, even though my pointing the forum to fig 2 was clearly for reasons other than pointing out a random Russian. I clearly referred to fig 2 right after explaining that Casas et al's L1b was the same as Cerezo's L1b1a8. The only purpose of fig 2 is to show the mutations that characterize each of their European L1b lineages anyway. Its not a painting that's open to interpretation as to its purpose. If you think that's the same as simply providing a link for others to go through, you may need to get something looked at.
quote:Just based on that instance of said transition in the Russian haplotype, you assumed that L1b1a8 clades of Cerezo et al.’s study must then necessarily be the same as the L1b clades that Casas et al. reported.
You're reaching. What did I just tell you in my previous post? Didn't I tell you Casas said the Russian and German L1b was related to the Medieval Iberian L1b with the 16175 transition: this Russian sequence is related to Cases et al's L1b? How does that amount to ''assuming that L1b1a8 of Cerezo must then necessarily be the same as the L1b clades that Casas et al. reported''. The only thing I said was interchangeable are the clades both authors referred to, not the samples, which may or may not harbor additional mutations.
quote:It has never occurred to you that this could be one of homoplasic happenstance?
Keep your could's to yourself. No one is interested in hearing speculation in the face of certainties.
quote:Did you see this transition in the other clades implicated in Cerezo et al.’s L1b1a8 clades?
I hope, for your sake, that you're not saying that its a problem for identifying those sequences as included within that clade. What exactly is the point of your observation that the Spanish sequences within Cerezo et al.’s L1b1a8 don't include the 16175 transition?
quote:Furthermore, Cerezo et al.’s age estimation spans their entire L1b1a8, while Casas et al.’s refers to their respective entire European L1b, both ones with and without the 16175 transition.
And my latest interpretation of Casas et al implies anything different? If so, point out the specifics.
quote:One: Cerezo et al. cite Malyarchuk et al 2008, while Casas et al. cited Malyarchuk’s research team from 2004!
This is exactly what I mean. You DO need to be held by hand. Again, no one needs your speculations in the face of unequivocal certainties. The Russian sample in Malyarchuk 2004 is none other than the Russian sample in Malyarchuk 2008.
quote:If the clades were exact matches, this is not the language that would likely be used to describe the fact. “Closest” implies that of the haplotypes available, only those which shared the most nucleotide profile were considered, not necessarily entirely identical.
You're setting up strawmen, if not flatout making things up. It occurred only to you that the term 'identical' or a variation thereof was used by me to described the samples in question. I'm scratching my head right now, trying to figure out what's leading you to see what's not there. Apparently, it didn't occur to you that I had used that exact piece in my previous post, trying to tell you the exact thing you're trying to tell me right now.
quote:On the other hand, the said determination of the “precise African origin”, suggests that the African origin is a given, but that the profiles of Iberian L1b markers didn’t exhibit a sufficiently consistent pattern among themselves or with respect to the African haplotypes
That's not at all what the piece says. It clearly says that, on the one hand, the mutual possession of L1b with the 127 mutation makes West Maghrebi populations a likely source of the Iberian Moors that had contact with the MP sample, but that this interpretation is problematic due to the presence of certain Sub Saharan lineages in the Medieval sample that are not shared with the said Maghrebi populations.
quote:otherwise, it would have been very clear that they carried a modal haplotype that very likely came about after an introduction from Africa.
I sincerely have no idea what it is you're trying to say here.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: This is about the expansion of R1 lineages in Western Europe which are generally dated to being after the last glacial maximum, ie 19,000 years ago.
According to what hard evidence?
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Hence, the goal of claiming that North Africa was Eurasian 30,000 years ago is to turn logic on its head because by the same logic, Eurasia was primarily African 30,000 years ago. So it doesn't make any sense to say such a thing.
This is weak logic disguised as common sense. When put into context it becomes apparent how dubious it really is. Its like saying that intermarriage between Mexican expats and Siberian locals would be the same as local Siberian unions, just because Amerindians descend from Siberians 12kya.
And I'm just being nice with this Amerindian/Siberian analogy, because its much less extreme than the complexities implied in backflow of Eurasian AMHs into Africa (think archaic human geneflow in the Eurasian AMH genome, much longer divergence times than 12kya, etc.
I don't know why you are having a hard time with this. If someone is going to label genetic lineages 30,000 years ago in Africa as Eurasian, based on those lineages having been in Eurasia less than 10kya years or so, then what does that make the parents of those lineages that hit Eurasia and had also only been there for 10kya or so if those lineages came from Africa? Doesn't that make them African? Therefore if you disagree with calling the lineages arriving to Eurasia from Africa as African, then you should also disagree with calling lineages likewise in Africa as Eurasian. It is a nonsensical characterization of the lineages at such an early point in time when humans had only not to long ago left Africa. Sure there were splits in lineages but in all reality you still are talking about a relatively close branch on the family tree. Too close to try and make it seem as if there was a big difference between them on any real level. Those people all still looked like black Africans is my point. And labeling them as Eurasian is just a way of trying to downplay that fact, with the larger agenda being downplaying the fact that all these folks ultimately had features from and derived from Africa not too long before that.
''Eurasian'' is a reference to geography, not phenotype, 'race', or ancestry. I have no interest in debating people who think West Asia was populated 10kya by 30.000bc, or people who think that 10ky isn't enough time for unique polymorphisms, and thus, population divergences, to occur. Due to your habit of simplistic thinking, you're also falsely assuming that OOA populations were genetically identical to tropical African AMH prior to moving out. Your divergence time of 10kya of back migrating Eurasians and tropical African AMHs by 30.000bc is pure fantasy, since inner African AMHs would have been genetically distant (at least to some degree) to Northern African AMHs before there even was an OOA. This is common sense due to the ~200ky origin of AMHs coupled with the large size of the continent.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: This is about the expansion of R1 lineages in Western Europe which are generally dated to being after the last glacial maximum, ie 19,000 years ago.
According to what hard evidence?
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Hence, the goal of claiming that North Africa was Eurasian 30,000 years ago is to turn logic on its head because by the same logic, Eurasia was primarily African 30,000 years ago. So it doesn't make any sense to say such a thing.
This is weak logic disguised as common sense. When put into context it becomes apparent how dubious it really is. Its like saying that intermarriage between Mexican expats and Siberian locals would be the same as local Siberian unions, just because Amerindians descend from Siberians 12kya.
And I'm just being nice with this Amerindian/Siberian analogy, because its much less extreme than the complexities implied in backflow of Eurasian AMHs into Africa (think archaic human geneflow in the Eurasian AMH genome, much longer divergence times than 12kya, etc.
I don't know why you are having a hard time with this. If someone is going to label genetic lineages 30,000 years ago in Africa as Eurasian, based on those lineages having been in Eurasia less than 10kya years or so, then what does that make the parents of those lineages that hit Eurasia and had also only been there for 10kya or so if those lineages came from Africa? Doesn't that make them African? Therefore if you disagree with calling the lineages arriving to Eurasia from Africa as African, then you should also disagree with calling lineages likewise in Africa as Eurasian. It is a nonsensical characterization of the lineages at such an early point in time when humans had only not to long ago left Africa. Sure there were splits in lineages but in all reality you still are talking about a relatively close branch on the family tree. Too close to try and make it seem as if there was a big difference between them on any real level. Those people all still looked like black Africans is my point. And labeling them as Eurasian is just a way of trying to downplay that fact, with the larger agenda being downplaying the fact that all these folks ultimately had features from and derived from Africa not too long before that.
''Eurasian'' is a reference to geography, not phenotype, 'race', or ancestry. I have no interest in debating people who think West Asia was populated 10kya by 30.000bc, or people who think that 10ky isn't enough time for unique polymorphisms, and thus, population divergences, to occur. Due to your habit of simplistic thinking, you're also falsely assuming that OOA populations were genetically identical to tropical African AMH prior to moving out. Your divergence time of 10kya of back migrating Eurasians and tropical African AMHs by 30.000bc is pure fantasy, since inner African AMHs would have been genetically distant (at least to some degree) to Northern African AMHs before there even was an OOA. This is common sense due to the ~200ky origin of AMHs coupled with the large size of the continent.
The first populations to settle Europe are dated to 40-50,000 KYA. That is only 10-20KYA before 30,000KYA "Eurasians" in North Africa. My point is that at this time frame there was not the physical distinction in phenotype between Africans who never left Africa and any "proposed" Eurasian populations who came back in order to pretend that this represents an ancient population of folks who look like modern populations in Eurasia. I wasn't directing this at you it was directed at tho philosophy of those who throw such arguments around in trying to claim that North Africans were always white. If it doesn't apply to you then why are you interjecting into it? Of course there were divergences in genetic lineages but those divergences do not equate to differences in phenotype as in the difference between a modern North Asian person and a central African. 30,000 years ago all humans were still generally dark skinned tropically adapted folks. And yes, if you are going to use geography in distinguishing lineages then it still only follows that most populations around the world were African since that is where those 30,000kya lineages originated just 10-20KYA before, especially in Northern Eurasia.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ There is no proto or underived U6* in the 'Near East'. U6 has its highest frequency and diversity in Northwest Africa and only a few U6 haplotypes exist in the Near East. Also, U6 is derived from U which in turn is derived from R which in turn is derived from N. As you may be aware both N and M are associated with OOA and both derived from L3.
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: @Djehuti
And do you have sources on the oldest remains in North Africa besides Egypt?
What you can't read? The article basically tells of an archaeological finding in Morocco that predates the Aterian culture (90k-40kya) of North Africa.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
And do you have sources on the oldest remains in North Africa besides Egypt?
What you can't read? The article basically tells of an archaeological finding in Morocco that predates the Aterian culture (90k-40kya) of North Africa.
I'm an idiot.
So there were people in Africa before 30k..
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Wow. Interesting article, and one that deserves a thread of its own, I believe. But let's get back to the topic of ancient and prehistoric Maghrebi ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Your time frames are all jangled up. Do your homework first before you make preposterous claims such as a 15-18kya entry of R lineages in Europe, and a PIE expansion dating to the same time. Where on earth do you get those figures. Do you make them up on the spot or what? As for your other spacey claims, that someone in this thread referred to cold adapted populations ~30kya, or that the first European lineages died out, I'm pretty sure no one even knows what you're talking about.
I think Doug is confusing R1 lineages with R1a which is more properly to be associated with PIE though even then it shouldn't. I also believe Doug is just referring to Euronut claims that have been or still are being made and not to anything specifically state in this thread.
You asked in the previous page whether there are any mtDNA R lineages in Africa, and actually yes there are, specifically R0 which is present in significant frequencies in northeast and eastern Africa. This, along with N1 present in East Africa to suggests that an African origin for L3N may not be as far-fetched as some may think.
I know about mtDNA R0, and mtDNA R0 is not mtDNA R. The relevance for R is that it contains U6. If U6 is going to be seen as entirely autochtonous, as stated by The Explorer, where is indigenous mtDNA R in Africa? I can say the same thing about basal M and N in the Horn. They're absent. Basal L3 is also absent in fossil and modern Europeans. This combined clearly screams out the fact that these two groups separated and both went their ways prior to OOA.
If you take the mtDNA L pool (~60%), NRY E-M78, E-M2 and other paternal haplogroups of clear Sub-Saharan provenance (~90%), you get +70% African ancestry in the Somali population, which is approximately in accord with their blood group ties to Africa. I'm not finding any much higher African heritage credible due to numerous independent indications. A high percentage of SLC24A5 (50%) in the Horn being one of them. SLC24A5 most likely doesn't explain M or U6 in the Horn due to the relatively recent age of SLC24A5. However, it IS correlatable to the rest of their foreign uniparental lineages. Especially mtDNA R0, N1, certain forms of U, W etc.
See Mikkelsen et al (2012) for the Somali mtDNA pool:
Does anyone have any info on the Coalescent age NRY T in the Horn? Some Somali's apparently carry 82.4% of this haplogroup.
Dire Dawa is notable in that 82.4% of samples belong to haplogroup K* (x L,N1c,O2b,P), a far higher frequency than that found in any other province --Plaster et al (2011), Variation in Y chromosome, mitochondrial DNA and labels of identity on Ethiopia
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I don't know about the form found in the Horn but I've had discussions with folks in other forums in regards to the provenance of NRY T. I believe the clade arose 20k-34kybp, though most sources say it is Asian in origin, I find it peculiar that it has its highest frequency in Africa particularly around the Horn region. Djibouti and northwestern Somalia have the highest frequency thus far. Outside Africa, some indigenous groups in Bangladesh and a few in southeastern India have its highest frequency.
hg T used to be called K2 and here is what Luis et al. said on the issue in his 'The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations' (2004): K2-M70 is believed to have originated in Asia after the emergence of the K-M9 polymorphism (45–30 ky) (Underhill et al. 2001a). As deduced from the collective data (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002; present study), K2-M70 individuals, at some later point, proceeded south to Africa. These chromosomes are seen in relatively high frequencies in Egypt, Oman, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Morocco and are especially prominent in the Fulbe (18% [Scozzari et al. 1997, 1999]), the highest concentration of this haplogroup found so far. The current patchy distribution of K2-M70 in Africa may be a remnant of a more widespread occupation. Subsequent demic events introducing chromosomes carrying the E3b-M35, E3a-M2, G-M201, and J-12f2 haplogroups may have overwhelmed the K2-M70 representatives in some areas. Like the R1*-M173 males, the M70 individuals could represent the relics of an early back migration to Africa from Asia, since these chromosomes are not associated with the G-M201, J-12f2, and R1-M173 derivatives, lineages that represent more-recent Eurasian genetic contributions (Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001b). The K2-M70 expansion estimates in Egypt (17.5–13.7 ky; see table 3) are consistent with an early African diaspora. From the present-day African distribution of K2-M70, it is difficult to determine which of the two Africa/Asia migratory passages, if any, prevailed in its southward journey. However, the BATWING expansion estimates of both the Egyptian and Turkish K2-M70 lineages (13.7 ky and 9.0 ky, respectively) are much older than that of Oman (1.6 ky), which suggests that the Levantine corridor may have been used more extensively in the African dissemination of this lineage as well.
As far as NRY K proper, I've read about its presence in Africa as well but this is the first time I've heard of underived K* being present there.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: I'm an idiot.
LOL You said it, not me! But seriously though, not knowing about certain topics doesn't make you stupid or an idiot, it just means you're ignorant which is something that can be easily cured with education. Just do more research on the topic first. I myself used to be ignorant on certain issues discussed until I did research and learned more. Someone who is really an idiot is one who comes into discussions ignorant but acts as though they know a lot. Case in point, the trolls (lyinass included).
quote:So there were people in Africa before 30k..
Of course. Modern humans are reported to have existed for approximately 200,000 years.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: I'm an idiot.
LOL You said it, not me! But seriously though, not knowing about certain topics doesn't make you stupid or an idiot, it just means you're ignorant which is something that can be easily cured with education. Just do more research on the topic first. I myself used to be ignorant on certain issues discussed until I did research and learned more. Someone who is really an idiot is one who comes into discussions ignorant but acts as though they know a lot. Case in point, the trolls (lyinass included).
quote:So there were people in Africa before 30k..
Of course. Modern humans are reported to have existed for approximately 200,000 years.
Lol!
Yeah, I'm just starting to learn more about genetics and human migrations. I just wanted to be sure.
I came to this site to learn more because there are many intelligent people on this site like you. The more I stay on this site and other sites like Biodiversity the more knowledge I gain.
I just wanted to he sure, because the Maghreb being Eurasian before African sounds fishy. Also HG A is said to develop around Northwest Africa.
Bit anyways, you fan say I'm ignorant. But I'm learning.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
Eurasian Adam (also known as Australian/Eurasian Adam or Out of Africa Adam is a name given to the man who was the common male-line (patrilinial) ancestor of all men with the single nucleotide polymorphism mutation on the Y chromosome known as "M168". In other words he is the most recent common patrilineal ancestor of all men in Haplogroup CT, the haplogroup which is defined by having a common ancestor who had M168.
According to current research, he probably lived in Africa and his descendants and his male line descendants are the only prehistoric one to survive outside of Africa into modern times. They dominate the male population of Africa as well.
This term was developed in imitation of the concept of the more well-known "Y Chromosome Adam" indicating his important status as a second major point in human patrilineal history. However it is important to keep in mind that:
Eurasian Adam is named this way only to indicate his status as a "founding father" of a large male line within humanity; his name is not meant to imply a correspondence with Biblical Adam. Eurasian Adam would have been a distant descendant of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living men. This second scientific "Adam" would not necessarily or likely have been the same man made who first had the M168 mutation. M168 is simply the mutation first discovered that distinguishes his male line from those in Haplogroups A and B.
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, but let's not confuse 'Eurasian' Adam the alleged forefather of all non-Africans with the older Y-chromosomal Adam who is the alleged forefather of all males in general including those populations who stayed in Africa.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is patently false. I've never ruled out potential OOA populations who reached Europe in the Palaeolithic via Northeast Africa. Only thing I said was that peripheral Africa consisted of populations who were (almost exclusively) of lineages contained within mtDNA M and N, and that Eurasians descend from the latter populations. That's a far cry away from denying that African AMHs outside of peripheral Africa, in the Tropics, could have leap frogged over the said peripheral Africans and gained a footing outside Africa.
Be that as it may, your notion that OOA could have only derived from a source population, which you seem to think were “peripheral” Africans, and which “almost exclusively” carried L3M and L3N mtDNA is a highly questionable one, and highly unprobable. If such a population existed in Africa, then one would have to assume they underwent extinction. Do you have proof thereof?
Rare L types have been found in parts of Asia, and far flung places, which have obviously been there longer than any recent gene flow from continental Africa. These could very well be serving as remnants of L types which left the continent with base lineages of the more common “Eurasian” types.
quote:
quote:Most of the existing variants of contemporary European maternal markers have not been found in Neolithic specimens either, if you want to get technical about it.
This is false.. but you're more than welcome to elucidate your claim. Which mtDNA types found in modern Europeans have not been found in Neolithic fossils?
Actually the onus is on you to show me where *existing variants* in Europe have abundantly been identified in Neolithic remains...not merely say that I’m wrong with no basis!
Then we can have a discussion on the basis of my observation.
quote: You're being unreasonable and comparing two totally different things. Of course you're not going to find U6 and M1 in Neolithic era fossils with ease; that's like finding a needle in a haystack. However, its not unreasonable expect to find L lineages in Neolithic Eurasia if they were participants in OOA migrations, because we're dealing with just a couple of founder populations of which all non-Africans are a direct continuation.
OOA occurred at least some 50kya, according to most estimates. That is a far cry from the advent of the Neolithic in the EpiPaleolithic or shortly after ~ 12kya in the Levant. What is not unreasonable, is to envision the prospect of L types becoming rarer, during founder effect events following OOA migrations.
quote:Hence, if L carriers were present in OOA populations, they would comprise part of the universal Eurasian uniparental parcel, capable of being uncovered by any mtDNA test, from fossils that date to 70kya, to modern non-Africans of today. BTW, did I already mention that this hasn't even happened once?
Have I not mentioned that Paleolithic “Eurasian” remains uncovered have generally been in very low quantities? nor have DNA tests been done on every element of this small collection. Top that with the fact that certain tests which had been done thus far, have produced questionable results.
quote:Your reasoning is unsound. The glacial ages decimated the European hunter gatherers. When agriculturalist entered Europe, they were greeted with sparsely populated plains and technologically (and soon numerically) inferior hunter gatherers. Again, the major mtDNA difference of modern Europeans is with European hunter-gatherers, not with European farmers.
Interesting. Show me proof that autochthonous European a.m.h. “hunter gatherers” were “decimated” by glacialization. The last I checked, most academic observers point to certain centers of refugia by affected populations, to wait out the recession of the glacial conditions.
Don’t forget to produce the tangible basis for “first farmers” outnumbering the preexisting European populations. That one too, is new to me.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And that refutes the evidence that the said lineages (H, V, U5) entered the Western Maghreb gradually from the Terminal Pleistocene on, how?
Do yourself service and carefully read what you are replying to, before responding. You have enthusiastically made a point about other studies “being consistent” with reports of Kefi et al., to which I informed you that, those other studies relied on findings obtained from contemporary *living* Maghrebi populations. This type of thinking misses one important element about this though...that these contemporary Maghrebi populations have little to do with EpiPaleolithic populations of the region! So, you cannot say that just because living populations have said lineages, that this can be transplanted onto the EpiPaleolithic predecessors of the region.
If contemporary Maghrebi populations arrived in the region some time after the early mid-Holocene, it then follows that they could not have possibly attained those lineages in the terminal Paleolithic!
quote:They certainly didn't get it from the East Africans where they got their language from, nor did they get it from the oft touted female slaves from the historic period.
Many of the so-called Eurasian markers that contemporary coastal Maghrebi populations carry do look to have come from female slaves!
That is not to say that such could have been the only source, but a significant one nonetheless.
quote:You'll have to do better than that. Ibero-Maurusians are grossly no different from Northwestern Africans (Moroccans) than North Africans on the other end of the continent (Egyptians) are from the Wadi Kubbaniya/Wadi Halfa groups.
I cannot do better than what tangible evidence says. Osteological and genetic data have shown that EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi populations are not the ancestral source population of contemporary Maghrebi populations. If you don’t like that prospect, well then, it falls onto you to prove otherwise.
In the case of Egyptians, who doesn’t know that contemporary populations, while not necessarily entirely discontinuations, have been dramatically modified by years of immigration from and to the region?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I KNOW you're not going to tell me that modern Egyptians didn't inherit lineages from the said prehistoric Egypto-Nubians. In fact, if we take a peak at Groves (whom you've cited often on the matter) it can be easily seen that the modern North African (Egypt) sample, which can easily stand in for Moroccans, is way closer to Ibero-Maurusians than the used Jebel Sahabans. Oops, didn't see that coming, did you?
I’m not sure what makes you think that you making unsubstantiated claims is somehow unpredictable to me! The EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi specimens are no more closer to modern Egyptians than they are to modern Maghrebi populations.
Ps: It’s safe to say that you are entirely unaware of links made between Jebel Sahaban remains and those from EpiPaleolithic/early Holocene Maghreb?
Not that it has anything to do with your questionable claim on this occasion, but I don’t take Groves uncritically at his words, like you do.
quote: This is just semantics and sleight of mouth. In that scenario it may be functionally used as a marker of African migrations if it turns up elsewhere in the globe, but it would still register as Eurasian autosomal ancestry in STRUCTURE, ADMIXTURE and all other clustering methods.
You don’t seem to know the difference between fact and semantics. U6 is an autochthonous northwestern African marker: Fact!
False: your notion that it can be “semantically” called a Eurasian marker, when it doesn’t originate there!
quote: No matter how many mutations you'd be down U6. You can add all those fancy 1's and a's and b's and keep telling yourself that they all mutated in Africa. In the real world, however, the polymorphisms that define all those mutations register autosomally as Eurasian.
I’m not telling myself something that is not reality, you are. You’ve convinced yourself that U6 isn’t African, but when it comes right down to it, you couldn’t provide a lick of proof otherwise.
quote:It isn't meaningless. Markers are assigned affinity on the basis on their time of divergence from a marker that contains it.
It is meaningless, given that you are obviously emotionally-vested in trying to tie it with living “Eurasians”, no matter how painfully meager the objectivity of the notion is. In fact it is meaningless to the point, that you don’t even have a clue what the proto-U6 is supposed to be!
quote:Just give it up, in the scenario that R arose Eurasia (which it most likely did), U6 has nothing to do with contemporary tropical Africans.
You are going off by your imagination that R rose in Eurasia, as you have no tangible proof of it. Worse yet, you are going off by imaginations of other people, i.e. some or the other “western” researcher, who themselves have no definitive proof of such claim.
This why you have some who are excruciatingly surprised at an obviously human-created “anomaly” presented by M1 distribution and other hg M, or by the prospect of a basal clade suggestive of hg M turning up in Africa, “of all places”.
quote:I think I'm missing some sort of memo. Determined by what exactly?
For one, genetic! I knew you were unaware of these basic facts. It shows.
Surely you are not so uninformed that you think there are no apparent osteological data that disassociates the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi remains from those of living ones, are you? Suggestions: Take a guide from say, Brace et al. (2005).
quote: This is not true of course. Genome wide SNP analysis dwarves their East African signature and what autosomally corresponds to M1, U6, U5, V, H etc, makes up the bulk of their genome-wide ancestry. More of their ancestry derive from prehistoric Iberians and Ibero-Maurusians than from East Africans.
Genetics says, and supported by Osteological research, that contemporary Maghrebi populations arrived in the region no earlier than the early mid-Holocene, and you still say that it ain’t so, that EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi have a separate genesis from contemporary counterparts. Are you serious?
What; next you are going to convince yourself that contemporary living Maghrebis are the “living Mechtoids” of our time?
quote: It's not what I consider it to be; its an anthropological character. If you don't know what it entails, simply ask.
I did ask; you are just unfamiliar with what a question is.
quote: Its what you get when you plot upper facial height against cranial index. Hence, an excessively broad face and an elongated calvarium produces facial disharmony, while brachycephaly and a tall face produces cranio-facial disharmony as well. The degree in the former version of this trait is what European AMHs and Iberomaurusians were essentially identical in.
I’d like to see material that suggests that this is a European unique-trait, and where Epipaleolithic Maghrebi populations are implicated in this.
quote:
quote:“broad shoulders”? So only the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi and Europeans have this; according to whom?
See Bergmans rule.
I have, and doesn’t answer my question to you. I take it that you did not know what you were getting at, when you brought the matter up?
quote:Their somewhat tropical limbs cannot be used as ammunition for either camp. Its consistent with both arguments. It could have arisen locally or due to back migration.
It can’t be used as an “ammunition” for the camp that says that they descended from essentially “cold-adapted” Europeans, which is what you had to have been driving at, when you brought up the matter.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:See Vermeersch (2003), Palaeolithic Quarrying Sites in Upper and Middle Egypt.
This must be your way of saying again, that you are merely saying things you have little idea about. If you don’t know what would make it “impossible” for Africans and others to have mandible found Europeans, and supposedly hence forth, Epipaleolithic Maghrebi types, then just admit so.
quote:See Coppa et al, Late Pleistocene/Holocene human populations transition in Old World: the analysis of morphological dental traits.
To get the drill, see above!
quote:You're undermining your own case, just like the unfortunate incident above where you attributed U6 and M1 in Maghrebians to prehistoric predecessors, only to later claim (actually, within a few sentences) that none of the Ibero-Maurusian specimen (note how you said specimen), were phylogenetically linked to modern Maghrebians.
I don’t know how pointing out that the prospect of not finding L types, outside of L3, dating to 20kya in contemporary Maghrebi populations, would not be a surprising one...“undermines” my “case”, given that said populations derive from source populations that only expanded into the region by or after the early mid-Holocene. I’ll have to attribute this to language barrier affecting you.
Even though I tried to educate you, you still have trouble noting the difference between the phyogenetic origins of a group, versus, an incoming group absorbing some elements of a preexisting resident group. Your problem.
quote:Your analysis of Kefi 2005, which you upheld as current and valid a few posts ago, included attempts to point out that several of Taforalt HVS segments could be interpreted as belonging to L lineages. Now you're flipping the script and making it seem like it was your point all along that Maghrebi folks brought L lineages to the Western Maghreb just a few millenia ago. You must not have slept well, to be thinking you can use my own position against me. Before you even weighed in, I quoted Frigi on what you're trying to tell me now. What exactly is your point?
This is unintelligeable rambling.
Okay, I pointed to the prospect, among many, that Kefi et al.’s DNA assignments were not solid, and even they make that quite obvious; so? How does that somehow not become compatible with some as-yet-identified “Maghrebi folks bringing L lineages to the Maghreb”?
The claim about no L types dating to 20kya being associated with the Maghreb, comes from you. Abysmally trying to shift credit, I’d have to say that you’re doing the script-flipping, if anyone is.
I don’t know of any DNA testing done on the local predecessors of the Taforalt group, nor is there any solid DNA reporting on the Taforalt specimens themselves, which was the gist of my response to Kefi et al. to begin with. What more needs to be said!
quote:You implied that I mentioned fig 2 just to point out that a Russian carried the L1b1a8 clade, even though my pointing the forum to fig 2 was clearly for reasons other than pointing out a random Russian.
A figment of your imagination.
quote: I clearly referred to fig 2 right after explaining that Casas et al's L1b was the same as Cerezo's L1b1a8. The only purpose of fig 2 is to show the mutations that characterize each of their European L1b lineages anyway. Its not a painting that's open to interpretation as to its purpose. If you think that's the same as simply providing a link for others to go through, you may need to get something looked at.
As per my recollection, you did not even refer to the figure. That’s apparently too much work in itself. You merely made an unsubstantiated claim, and provided a link, for others to scavenge through.
quote:You're reaching. What did I just tell you in my previous post? Didn't I tell you Casas said the Russian and German L1b was related to the Medieval Iberian L1b with the 16175 transition: this Russian sequence is related to Cases et al's L1b? How does that amount to ''assuming that L1b1a8 of Cerezo must then necessarily be the same as the L1b clades that Casas et al. reported''. The only thing I said was interchangeable are the clades both authors referred to, not the samples, which may or may not harbor additional mutations.
Apparently you are blocking off what I just told you! What did I say about your claims around Casas et al.’s reference to a Russian L1b marker, which you conveniently chopped off in your citation?
quote: Keep your could's to yourself. No one is interested in hearing speculation in the face of certainties.
You call it “speculation”, and I call it a variable that you did not consider in your own speculation.
quote: I hope, for your sake, that you're not saying that its a problem for identifying those sequences as included within that clade. What exactly is the point of your observation that the Spanish sequences within Cerezo et al.’s L1b1a8 don't include the 16175 transition?
Well answer the question: Other than a Russian clade associated with said transition, did you see any association between this transition and the other L1b1a8 clades in Cerezo et al.’s figure?
quote:And my latest interpretation of Casas et al implies anything different? If so, point out the specifics.
Yep. You were driving at downplaying the significance of Casas et al.’ age estimation, by emphasizing Cerezo et al.’s, when it was the former which was cited to support the observation that African L1b markers made it to Europe in the Paleolithic. Apparently, due to your insufficient intuition into the discipline, you did not recognize the futility of that undertaking.
quote:This is exactly what I mean. You DO need to be held by hand. Again, no one needs your speculations in the face of unequivocal certainties. The Russian sample in Malyarchuk 2004 is none other than the Russian sample in Malyarchuk 2008.
Because it is specifically stated where....
quote:You're setting up strawmen, if not flatout making things up. It occurred only to you that the term 'identical' or a variation thereof was used by me to described the samples in question. I'm scratching my head right now, trying to figure out what's leading you to see what's not there. Apparently, it didn't occur to you that I had used that exact piece in my previous post, trying to tell you the exact thing you're trying to tell me right now.
Calm down, man. I did not attribute what you are now replying to you. I was using it to educate you, given the assumption you made about necessarily equating Casas et al.’s L1b haplotypes with Cerezo et al.'s L1b1a8 haplotypes, without substantiation.
quote:That's not at all what the piece says. It clearly says that, on the one hand, the mutual possession of L1b with the 127 mutation makes West Maghrebi populations a likely source of the Iberian Moors that had contact with the MP sample, but that this interpretation is problematic due to the presence of certain Sub Saharan lineages in the Medieval sample that are not shared with the said Maghrebi populations.
Right from the horse’s mouth, again:
The unique sharing of L1b (126 127 189 223 264 278 311) with the Sahara points to this area as the most probable origin. Nevertheless, the high number of non-shared lineages impedes the determination of the precise African origin.
Any clearer yet?
quote:
quote:otherwise, it would have been very clear that they carried a modal haplotype that very likely came about after an introduction from Africa.
I sincerely have no idea what it is you're trying to say here.
Then I can’t help you. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:which you seem to think were “peripheral” Africans, and which “almost exclusively” carried L3M and L3N mtDNA is a highly questionable one
1.No recurrent (accross populations) set of L lineages among the recognized recurrent OOA uniparental parcel (mtDNA U, T, J, R, M, N etc) in most non-Africans.
2.The earliest mtDNA bastions of AMHs outside of Europe (e.g., India) are today abundant in basal M and N, among other lineages. Not a single trace of L.
3.The earliest Europeans show hap U in excess of 80% and other lineages and none of their lineages are a part of the Early Upper Palaeolihic heritage of modern Africans, showing that the ancestors of these AMHs and the AMH ancestors of modern day tropical Africans diverged way before OOA.
4.Additionally, modern Eurasians also don't carry anything pre NRY CT, independent of African admixture. This is further confirmation that all distinct OOA waves were composed of the same or related young population (relative to tropical African AMHs, who would have carried L lineages and pre CT), and that such older populations (Africans who predate the Eurasian maternal and paternal MRCA) had little genetic contact with OOA populations.
5.Non-Africans comprise of several (at least 3 [David Reich et al. 2011]) successful OOA expansions with >25ky in between them (40kya-70kya, and all of them show a broadly consistent mtDNA M, N and NRY CT pattern. This is detrimental to your case for two reasons. 1) it means that there were multiple chances for L lineages to survive founder effect, had the said lineages been a part of the make-up of the peripheral Africans from which non-Africans descend 2) across a 20ky period, participants of distinct OOA events (Europeans and Australians East Asians) are broadly similar if you look at the macro haplogroups to which they belong. It cannot be explained as an accident that non-Africans are all NRY CT and mtDNA N and M. Africa was clearly structured and OOA source populations were distinct from L carrying Africans.
6.If there was mtDNA L among Ibero-Maurusians, it would have spilled over into the Iberian refugium and expanded with other post LGM Iberian lineages, which repopulated Europe after the LGM, but its absent, both in wider Europe and among the most clear descendant population of the Iberian refugium (i.e., Saami). That's at least 4 clear chances for mtDNA L to survive founder effect.
^They can successfully bring the same lineages in to Eurasa at least three times, but L lineages with a supposedly notable frequencies all die out on all three occasions due to founder effect . Your description of the lack of L in Eurasia as ''highly questionable'' is a clear case of emotion-driven denial.
quote:If such a population existed in Africa, then one would have to assume they underwent extinction. Do you have proof thereof?
Last time I checked European hunter gatherer mtDNA hasn't been acknowledged as part of the indigenous Early Upper Palaeolithic mtDNA signature of modern Africans. Since the said European AMHs would nonetheless would have to have come from Africans (they're OOA populations), yeah, I think that would hint at extinction.
quote:Rare L types have been found in parts of Asia, and far flung places, which have obviously been there longer than any recent gene flow from continental Africa.
Post the specifics.
quote:Actually the onus is on you to show me where *existing variants* in Europe have abundantly been identified in Neolithic remains...
You made an ignorant statement, most likely based on a confused interpretation of the aDNA article posted by MOM. That most European mtDNA is attested in Farmer aDNA is implied in the article, is stated in the paper which led to that article, and is confirmed by other aDNA studies. I will not play your 'onus' games, which are evidently ploys to hide your inability to put money where your mouth is. A large portion of the European mtDNA haplogroups (and specific haplotypes) are attested in farmer DNA, and I dare anyone to show otherwise.
quote:What is not unreasonable, is to envision the prospect of L types becoming rarer, during founder effect events following OOA migrations.
You're not looking at the wider picture, which I partly summarized above. Various forms of genetic drift cannot explain all the data. Only a pre OOA split between the ancestors of tropical Africans and the ancestors of non-Africans, explains the data.
quote:Have I not mentioned that Paleolithic “Eurasian” remains uncovered have generally been in very low quantities?
BTW, what do you mean with low quantities? I get the feeling that this too will shortly be revealed to be an unsubstantiated assumption/fabrication.
quote:Show me proof that autochthonous European a.m.h. “hunter gatherers” were “decimated” by glacialization.
Wow, you mean to tell me you didn't know bottlenecks occurred during the LGM? I find that telling.
quote:Don’t forget to produce the tangible basis for “first farmers” outnumbering the preexisting European populations.[quote] I said that? Where?
[quote]Do yourself service and carefully read what you are replying to
Follow your own advice (carefully read what you're replying to). It doesn't follow that a late Westward dispersal of Berber speakers negates the entry of mtDNA H V, U5 from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge following the Terminal Pleistocene. In fact, the fact that modern Maghrebis carry the said lineages only confirms genetic exchanges with older populations in the region, precisely because the late Berber presence in the region rules out direct contact with populations in the Franco-Cantabrian refuge. Do you not understand that, for these lineages to occur in Berber speakers, mediators are required?
quote:Many of the so-called Eurasian markers that contemporary coastal Maghrebi populations carry do look to have come from female slaves!
You must be referring to lineages other than U5b1b, V, H (H1 and H3) then, as, like I said before, these lineages are said to have entered Africa from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge.
quote:Osteological and genetic data have shown that EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi populations are not the ancestral source population of contemporary Maghrebi populations.
Which no one is claiming (i.e., the ''ancestral source'' strawman). Before you start parading your pseudo-scientific 'discontinuity' evidence around, it needs to be substantiated first that the cranio-metric difference observed between Ibero-Maurusians and Berbers is any larger than AMH-late Holocene morphological gaps noted elsewhere.
quote:In the case of Egyptians, who doesn’t know that contemporary populations, while not necessarily entirely discontinuations, have been dramatically modified by years of immigration from and to the region?
Irrelevant. Even dynastic Egyptians show a discontinuity to the folks that preceded them that's similar to the Ibero-Maurusian Berber record.
quote:The EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi specimens are no more closer to modern Egyptians than they are to modern Maghrebi populations.
Exactly. So why is the Ibero-Maurusians-North African distance not substantially different from the distance seen between Cro-Magnons-Norse, in Groves? Could it be that your cranio-metric test for assessing Ibero-Maurusian persistence in Maghrebi populations is wholly made up, arbitrary and pseudo-scientific?
quote:It’s safe to say that you are entirely unaware of links made between Jebel Sahaban remains and those from EpiPaleolithic/early Holocene Maghreb?
Is it safe to say that you're entirely oblivious to the fact that ALL Palaeolithic populations with a retained generalized physique, broadly resemble each other in cranio-metric analysis.
quote:You don’t seem to know the difference between fact and semantics.
You're not making sense. There isn't even a difference; I never said that what you said wasn't true, just that its semantics. Its not unlike the troll tendency to make E-M78 in Greece somehow not African derived/representative of African ancestry, because Greek examples bear ''autochtonous'' mutations.
quote:False: your notion that it can be “semantically” called a Eurasian marker
I have no idea what you're talking about here, or how it relates to my posts (I said the opposite).
quote:but when it comes right down to it, you couldn’t provide a lick of proof otherwise.
I just did. Assuming U6 arose in Africa, the notion that the region of origin of a mutation adds or detracts something from the lineage itself cannot be scientifically justified. You're just another case of a confused person who can't tell the difference between a human made designation (African-specific) and the thing that's designated (which isn't molecularly affected by geography).
quote:Suggestions: Take a guide from say, Brace et al. (2005).
Parrotting Brace will get you nowhere as Brace's own Upper Palaeolithic European sample has been shown to possess affinities with Yomon and Nubian/Somali's BEFORE showing affinities with Europe (Brace 2001). Additionally, the European AMH sample in Brace 2005 doesn't cluster with his Basque sample (who supposedly have the greatest Palaeolithic hunter gatherer genetic signal) either.
quote:I’d like to see material that suggests that this is a European unique-trait, and where Epipaleolithic Maghrebi populations are implicated in this.
quote:I have, and doesn’t answer my question to you.
Thanks for stating the obvious. Everyone can see how pseudo-scientific your question is. Bodyplan informative variables/ratio's are never exclusive to two populations, but broadly correlating with temperature. Hence, my directing you to Bergman's rule, as your question reeks of your ignorance of it.
quote:It can’t be used as an “ammunition” for the camp that says that they descended from essentially “cold-adapted” Europeans, which is what you had to have been driving at
That point was arrived at in conjunction with other bodyplan related data. This is what I mean with the need for directing you to Bergman. You reason in a manner which suggest you're just now getting familiarized with it.
quote:If you don’t know what would make it “impossible” for Africans and others to have mandible found Europeans
Even more pseudo-scientific reasoning. If Ibero-Maurusian specimen could diverge from MSA, LSA and modern Africans in just about every measurement, without implied genetic differences, there wouldn't be any sense to your attempts to show cranio-metric links between Africans and Ibero-Maurusians. Additionally, there wouldn't any sense in pointing out discontinuity between Berbers and Ibero-Maurusians, as there would be nothing ''that would make it impossible'' for Berbers and Ibero-Maurusians to by genetically similar despite cranio-metric distance.
quote:you still have trouble noting the difference between the phyogenetic origins of a group, versus, an incoming group absorbing some elements of a preexisting resident group.
I guess this is where your habit of face saving comes in. Uniparentally it is quite possible for individuals of the Berber group to have phylogenetic links with the Ibero-Maurusian group, just like Ramses III's Y chromosome has a phylogenetic link with many West Africans, despite belonging to the larger Egyptian group. You must be half asleep when you write such retarded fabrications.
quote:How does that somehow not become compatible with some as-yet-identified “Maghrebi folks bringing L lineages to the Maghreb”?
What you left out (typical), is that your last statement didn't just say that Berbers brought L lineages there, what you said was that they were the first to bring lineages there. THATS what's not compatible with your analysis of Kefi, and your insistence on the fairytale that Ibero-Maurusians weren't divorced from Africans.
quote:given that said populations derive from source populations that only expanded into the region by or after the early mid-Holocene.
Another blatant display of a non-sequitor, after your earlier nonsensical claim that H and V couldn't have trickled into the Maghreb in the Terminal Pleistocene, because the Berber populations that carry the said lineages today, weren't near the Maghreb back then, you're now suggesting that Berber populations in East Africa were the only ones in tropical Africa capable of introducing L lineages to Ibero-Maurusians.
quote:As per my recollection, you did not even refer to the figure.
^This is further evidence that you're not mentally fit to be having discussions.
quote:Apparently you are blocking off what I just told you!
Lying again. I didn't block off anything, as the quote ends with the end of your sentence. And my next refutation of what you say thereafter picks off where the said sentence ends. Bottom line: you fabricated that I had claimed that the human samples used by Casas et al and Cerezo et al were identical, even though I had clearly said that the Medieval L1b sample was related to the other 16178 bearing samples.
quote:You call it “speculation”, and I call it a variable that you did not consider in your own speculation.
Just admit it, your homoplasy comment is only something a face-saving douchebag would say. While me and Takruri had figured out the necessary information to infer for ourselves that the Russian sample is indeed identical to the Medieval sample in its HVR 1 sequence, you're still lagging behind, asking stupid sh!t, and speculating like a vegetative slow-poke coon who has to be held by hand and can't get with the program.
quote:Other than a Russian clade associated with said transition, did you see any association between this transition and the other L1b1a8 clades in Cerezo et al.’s figure?
Just admit it. Like a true coon, you were prepared to use the lack of 175 in the other L1b1a8 samples as evidence that the Russian sample was somehow not what Casas et al referred to.
quote:Yep.
***WHERE*** does my latest interpretation of Casas et al fit this description.
quote:Because it is specifically stated where....
In the referenced articles, where else? How would Casas et al know the relatedness of the German and Russian clade 175 bearing clade if not from the articles they cite right after mentioning the German and Russian sample? You probably never traced down an article in your life due to your child-like dependency to wait on people to throw you a bone.
quote:Right from the horse’s mouth, again:
That citation is inconsistent with what I said, how?
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
And do you have sources on the oldest remains in North Africa besides Egypt?
Newcomer in early eurafrican population ?
quote:A complete mandible of Homo erectus was discovered at the Thomas I quarry in Casablanca by a French-Moroccan team co-led by Jean-Paul Raynal, CNRS senior researcher at the PACEA(1) aboratory (CNRS/Université Bordeaux 1/ Ministry of Culture and Communication). This mandible is the oldest human fossil uncovered from scientific excavations in Morocco. The discovery will help better define northern Africa's possible role in first populating southern Europe.
A Homo erectus half-jaw had already been found at the Thomas I quarry in 1969, but it was a chance discovery and therefore with no archeological context.
This is not the case for the fossil discovered May 15, 2008, whose characteristics are very similar to those of the half-jaw found in 1969. The morphology of these remains is different from the three mandibles found at the Tighenif site in Algeria that were used, in 1963, to define the North African variety of Homo erectus, known as Homo mauritanicus, dated to 700,000 B.C.
The mandible from the Thomas I quarry was found in a layer below one where the team has previously found four human teeth (three premolars and one incisor) from Homo erectus, one of which was dated to 500,000 B.C. The human remains were grouped with carved stone tools characteristic of the Acheulian(2) civilization and numerous animal remains (baboons, gazelles, equines, bears, rhinoceroses, and elephants), as well as large numbers of small mammals, which point to a slightly older time frame. Several dating methods are being used to refine the chronology.
The Thomas I quarry in Casablanca confirms its role as one of the most important prehistoric sites for understanding the early population of northwest Africa. The excavations that CNRS and the Institut National des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine du Maroc have led there since 1988 are part of a French-Moroccan collaboration. They have been jointly financed by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs(3), the Department of Human Evolution at the Max Plank Institute in Leipzig (Germany), INSAP(4)(Morocco) and the Aquitaine region.
Photo 1 – Photograph of the fossil human mandible discovered May 15, 2008 at the Thomas I quarry site in Casablanca.
Photo 2 – Jean-Paul Raynal and Professor Fatima-Zohra Sbihi-Alaoui from the Institut National des Sciences de l'Archéologie et du Patrimoine (INSAP-Rabat) free the fossil mandible..fr)
Notes: 1) De la Préhistoire à l'Actuel : Culture, Environnement et Anthropologie (From Prehistory to Present day: Culture, Environment, and Anthropology) 2) Acheulians appeared in Africa around 1.5 million years ago and disappeared about 300,000 years ago, giving way to Middle Stone Age civilizations. Their material culture is characterized by the production of large stone fragments shaped into bifacial pieces and hatchets, and of large sharp-edged objects. 3) (Mission archéologique « littoral » Maroc, led by J.P. Raynal). 4) (INSAP-Rabat) which falls under the authority of the Moroccan Ministry of Cultural Affairs.
Dental Evidence from the Aterian Human Populations of Morocco
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: I'm an idiot.
LOL You said it, not me! But seriously though, not knowing about certain topics doesn't make you stupid or an idiot, it just means you're ignorant which is something that can be easily cured with education. Just do more research on the topic first. I myself used to be ignorant on certain issues discussed until I did research and learned more. Someone who is really an idiot is one who comes into discussions ignorant but acts as though they know a lot. Case in point, the trolls (lyinass included).
quote:So there were people in Africa before 30k..
Of course. Modern humans are reported to have existed for approximately 200,000 years.
Human occupation of Northwest Africa: A review of Middle Palaeolithic to Epipalaeolithic sites in Morocco
quote: This paper provides a summary of all available numerical ages from contexts of the Moroccan Middle Palaeolithic to Epipalaeolithic and reviews some of the most important sites. Particular attention is paid to the so-called “Aterian”, albeit those so-labeled assemblages fail to show any geographical and chronological pattern. For this reason, this phenomenon should not be considered a distinct culture or techno-complex and is referred to hereinafter as Middle Palaeolithic of Aterian type. Whereas anatomical modern humans (AMH) are present in Northwest Africa from about 160 ka onwards, according to current research some Middle Palaeolithic inventories are more than 200 ka. This confirms that, for this period it is impossible to link human forms with artifact material. Perforated shell beads with traces of ochre documented from 80 ka onwards certainly suggest changes in human behavior.
The transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic, here termed Early Upper Palaeolithic – at between 30 and 20 ka – remains the most enigmatic era. However, the still scarce data from this period requires careful and fundamental revision in the frame of any future research. By integrating environmental data in reconstruction of population dynamics, clear correlations become obvious. High resolution data are lacking before 20 ka, and at some sites this period is characterized by the occurrence of sterile layers between Middle Palaeolithic deposits, possibly indicative of shifts in human population. After Heinrich Event 1, there is an enormous increase of data due to the prominent Late Iberomaurusian deposits that contrast strongly from the foregoing accumulations in terms of sedimentological features, fauna and artifact composition. The Younger Dryas shows a remarkable decline of data marking the end of the Palaeolithic. Environmental improvements in the Holocene are associated with an extensive Epipalaeolithic occupation.
Additional evidence on the use of personal ornaments in the Middle Paleolithic of North Africa
Francesco d'Erricoa,b,1, Marian Vanhaerenc, Nick Bartond, Abdeljalil Bouzouggare, Henk Mienisf, Daniel Richterg, Jean-Jacques Hubling, Shannon P. McPherrong and Pierre Lozoueth
quote:Recent investigations into the origins of symbolism indicate that personal ornaments in the form of perforated marine shell beads were used in the Near East, North Africa, and SubSaharan Africa at least 35 ka earlier than any personal ornaments in Europe.
quote:The first argues that modern cognition is unique to our species and the consequence of a genetic mutation that took place 50 ka in Africa among anatomically modern humans (AMH) (1).
Eurasian Adam (also known as Australian/Eurasian Adam or Out of Africa Adam is a name given to the man who was the common male-line (patrilinial) ancestor of all men with the single nucleotide polymorphism mutation on the Y chromosome known as "M168". In other words he is the most recent common patrilineal ancestor of all men in Haplogroup CT, the haplogroup which is defined by having a common ancestor who had M168.
According to current research, he probably lived in Africa and his descendants and his male line descendants are the only prehistoric one to survive outside of Africa into modern times. They dominate the male population of Africa as well.
This term was developed in imitation of the concept of the more well-known "Y Chromosome Adam" indicating his important status as a second major point in human patrilineal history. However it is important to keep in mind that:
Eurasian Adam is named this way only to indicate his status as a "founding father" of a large male line within humanity; his name is not meant to imply a correspondence with Biblical Adam. Eurasian Adam would have been a distant descendant of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living men. This second scientific "Adam" would not necessarily or likely have been the same man made who first had the M168 mutation. M168 is simply the mutation first discovered that distinguishes his male line from those in Haplogroups A and B.
quote: The estimates of their dates overlap (around fifth thousand years ago) and they both probably lived in northeast Africa. Africa? Yes, Africa. Although nearly all EUrasian mtDNA and Y chromosomes currently existing can be traced back to L3 and M168 respectively, M168 and L3 also had African descendants."
--Norman A. Johnson (2007) Darwinian Detectives: Revealing the Natural History of Genes and Genomes pg100
quote:Y-DNA haplogroup A contains lineages deriving from the earliest branching in the human Y chromosome tree. The oldest branching event, separating A0-P305 and A1-V161, is thought to have occurred about 140,000 years ago. Haplogroups A0-P305, A1a-M31 and A1b1a-M14 are restricted to Africa and A1b1b-M32 is nearly restricted to Africa. The haplogroup that would be named A1b2 is composed of haplogroups B through T. The internal branching of haplogroup A1-V161 into A1a-M31, A1b1, and BT (A1b2) may have occurred about 110,000 years ago. A0-P305 is found at low frequency in Central and West Africa. A1a-M31 is observed in northwestern Africans; A1b1a-M14 is seen among click language-speaking Khoisan populations. A1b1b-M32 has a wide distribution including Khoisan speaking and East African populations, and scattered members on the Arabian Peninsula.
Y-DNA haplogroup B, like Y-DNA haplogroup A, is seen only in Africa and is scattered widely, but thinly across the continent. B is thought to have arisen approximately 50,000 years ago. These haplogroups have higher frequencies among hunter-gather groups in Ethiopia and Sudan, and are also seen among click language-speaking populations. The patchy, widespread distribution of these haplogroups may mean that they are remnants of ancient lineages that once had a much wider range but have been largely displaced by more recent population events.
quote:Some geographic structuring is seen between the sub-groups B2a (B-M150) and B2b (B-M112). Sub-group B2b is seen among Central African Pygmies and South African Khoisan. Sub-group B2a is seen among Cameroonians, East Africans, and among South African Bantu speakers. B2a1a (B-M109) is the most commonly seen sub-group of B2a. About 2.3% of African-Americans belong to haplogroup B - with 1.5% of them belonging to the sub-group B2a1a.
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evolutionary history of mtDNA haplogroup structure in African populations inferred from mtDNA d-loop and RFLP analysis.
(A) Relationships among different mtDNA haplogroup lineages inferred from mtDNA d-loop sequences and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies (Kivisild, Metspalu, et al. 2006). Dashed lines indicate previously unresolved relationships.
(B) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, L5, L2, L3, M, and N in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies.
(C) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, and L5 subhaplogroups (excluding L2 and L3) in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies. Haplogroup frequencies from previously published studies include East Africans (Ethiopia [Rosa et al. 2004], Kenya and Sudan [Watson et al. 1997; Rosa et al. 2004]), Mozambique (Pereira et al. 2001; Salas et al. 2002), Hadza (Vigilant et al. 1991), and Sukuma (Knight et al. 2003); South Africans (Botswana !Kung [Vigilant et al. 1991]); Central Africans (Mbenzele Pygmies [Destro-Bisol et al. 2004], Biaka Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991], and Mbuti Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991]); West Africans (Niger, Nigeria [Vigilant et al. 1991; Watson et al. 1997]; and Guinea [Rosa et al. 2004]). L1*, L2*, and L3* from previous studies indicate samples that were not further subdivided into subhaplogroups.
--Norman A. Johnson (2007) Darwinian Detectives: Revealing the Natural History of Genes and Genomes pg100
quote:Genetic evidence of an early exit of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa
The mitochondrial haplogroup M, first regarded as an ancient marker of East-Asian origin4, 5, has been found at high frequency in India6 and Ethiopia7, raising the question of its origin.(A haplogroup is a group of haplotypes that share some sequence variations.) Its variation and geographical distribution suggest that Asian haplogroup M separated from eastern-African haplogroup M more than 50,000 years ago.
Two other variants (489C and 10873C) also support a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa.
These findings, together with the virtual absence of haplogroup M in the Levant and its high frequency in the South-Arabian peninsula, render M the first genetic indicator for the hypothesized exit route from Africa through eastern Africa/western India. This was possibly the only successful early dispersal event of modern humans out of Africa.
And do you have sources on the oldest remains in North Africa besides Egypt?
Newcomer in early eurafrican population ?
quote:A complete mandible of Homo erectus was discovered at the Thomas I quarry in Casablanca by a French-Moroccan team co-led by Jean-Paul Raynal, CNRS senior researcher at the PACEA(1) aboratory (CNRS/Université Bordeaux 1/ Ministry of Culture and Communication). This mandible is the oldest human fossil uncovered from scientific excavations in Morocco. The discovery will help better define northern Africa's possible role in first populating southern Europe.
A Homo erectus half-jaw had already been found at the Thomas I quarry in 1969, but it was a chance discovery and therefore with no archeological context.
This is not the case for the fossil discovered May 15, 2008, whose characteristics are very similar to those of the half-jaw found in 1969. The morphology of these remains is different from the three mandibles found at the Tighenif site in Algeria that were used, in 1963, to define the North African variety of Homo erectus, known as Homo mauritanicus, dated to 700,000 B.C.
The mandible from the Thomas I quarry was found in a layer below one where the team has previously found four human teeth (three premolars and one incisor) from Homo erectus, one of which was dated to 500,000 B.C. The human remains were grouped with carved stone tools characteristic of the Acheulian(2) civilization and numerous animal remains (baboons, gazelles, equines, bears, rhinoceroses, and elephants), as well as large numbers of small mammals, which point to a slightly older time frame. Several dating methods are being used to refine the chronology.
The Thomas I quarry in Casablanca confirms its role as one of the most important prehistoric sites for understanding the early population of northwest Africa. The excavations that CNRS and the Institut National des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine du Maroc have led there since 1988 are part of a French-Moroccan collaboration. They have been jointly financed by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs(3), the Department of Human Evolution at the Max Plank Institute in Leipzig (Germany), INSAP(4)(Morocco) and the Aquitaine region.
Photo 1 – Photograph of the fossil human mandible discovered May 15, 2008 at the Thomas I quarry site in Casablanca.
Photo 2 – Jean-Paul Raynal and Professor Fatima-Zohra Sbihi-Alaoui from the Institut National des Sciences de l'Archéologie et du Patrimoine (INSAP-Rabat) free the fossil mandible..fr)
Notes: 1) De la Préhistoire à l'Actuel : Culture, Environnement et Anthropologie (From Prehistory to Present day: Culture, Environment, and Anthropology) 2) Acheulians appeared in Africa around 1.5 million years ago and disappeared about 300,000 years ago, giving way to Middle Stone Age civilizations. Their material culture is characterized by the production of large stone fragments shaped into bifacial pieces and hatchets, and of large sharp-edged objects. 3) (Mission archéologique « littoral » Maroc, led by J.P. Raynal). 4) (INSAP-Rabat) which falls under the authority of the Moroccan Ministry of Cultural Affairs.
Dental Evidence from the Aterian Human Populations of Morocco
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I don't know about the form found in the Horn but I've had discussions with folks in other forums in regards to the provenance of NRY T. I believe the clade arose 20k-34kybp, though most sources say it is Asian in origin, I find it peculiar that it has its highest frequency in Africa particularly around the Horn region. Djibouti and northwestern Somalia have the highest frequency thus far. Outside Africa, some indigenous groups in Bangladesh and a few in southeastern India have its highest frequency.
hg T used to be called K2 and here is what Luis et al. said on the issue in his 'The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations' (2004): K2-M70 is believed to have originated in Asia after the emergence of the K-M9 polymorphism (45–30 ky) (Underhill et al. 2001a). As deduced from the collective data (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002; present study), K2-M70 individuals, at some later point, proceeded south to Africa. These chromosomes are seen in relatively high frequencies in Egypt, Oman, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Morocco and are especially prominent in the Fulbe (18% [Scozzari et al. 1997, 1999]), the highest concentration of this haplogroup found so far. The current patchy distribution of K2-M70 in Africa may be a remnant of a more widespread occupation. Subsequent demic events introducing chromosomes carrying the E3b-M35, E3a-M2, G-M201, and J-12f2 haplogroups may have overwhelmed the K2-M70 representatives in some areas. Like the R1*-M173 males, the M70 individuals could represent the relics of an early back migration to Africa from Asia, since these chromosomes are not associated with the G-M201, J-12f2, and R1-M173 derivatives, lineages that represent more-recent Eurasian genetic contributions (Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001b). The K2-M70 expansion estimates in Egypt (17.5–13.7 ky; see table 3) are consistent with an early African diaspora. From the present-day African distribution of K2-M70, it is difficult to determine which of the two Africa/Asia migratory passages, if any, prevailed in its southward journey. However, the BATWING expansion estimates of both the Egyptian and Turkish K2-M70 lineages (13.7 ky and 9.0 ky, respectively) are much older than that of Oman (1.6 ky), which suggests that the Levantine corridor may have been used more extensively in the African dissemination of this lineage as well.
As far as NRY K proper, I've read about its presence in Africa as well but this is the first time I've heard of underived K* being present there.
I know the Fulani with this admixture carry this from the Baggara Arabs. I however don't know about the other ethnic groups.
And I do think the Nubian Complex, is becoming more complex.
Arab horseman photographed by French Colonials, at Dékakiré, Chad. c.1910s. From L'Afrique Équatoriale Française: le pays, les habitants, la colonisation, les pouvoirs publics. Préf. de M. Merlin. (published 1918).
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^ You are welcome.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I don't know about the form found in the Horn but I've had discussions with folks in other forums in regards to the provenance of NRY T. I believe the clade arose 20k-34kybp, though most sources say it is Asian in origin, I find it peculiar that it has its highest frequency in Africa particularly around the Horn region. Djibouti and northwestern Somalia have the highest frequency thus far. Outside Africa, some indigenous groups in Bangladesh and a few in southeastern India have its highest frequency.
hg T used to be called K2 and here is what Luis et al. said on the issue in his 'The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations' (2004): K2-M70 is believed to have originated in Asia after the emergence of the K-M9 polymorphism (45–30 ky) (Underhill et al. 2001a). As deduced from the collective data (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002; present study), K2-M70 individuals, at some later point, proceeded south to Africa. These chromosomes are seen in relatively high frequencies in Egypt, Oman, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Morocco and are especially prominent in the Fulbe (18% [Scozzari et al. 1997, 1999]), the highest concentration of this haplogroup found so far. The current patchy distribution of K2-M70 in Africa may be a remnant of a more widespread occupation. Subsequent demic events introducing chromosomes carrying the E3b-M35, E3a-M2, G-M201, and J-12f2 haplogroups may have overwhelmed the K2-M70 representatives in some areas. Like the R1*-M173 males, the M70 individuals could represent the relics of an early back migration to Africa from Asia, since these chromosomes are not associated with the G-M201, J-12f2, and R1-M173 derivatives, lineages that represent more-recent Eurasian genetic contributions (Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001b). The K2-M70 expansion estimates in Egypt (17.5–13.7 ky; see table 3) are consistent with an early African diaspora. From the present-day African distribution of K2-M70, it is difficult to determine which of the two Africa/Asia migratory passages, if any, prevailed in its southward journey. However, the BATWING expansion estimates of both the Egyptian and Turkish K2-M70 lineages (13.7 ky and 9.0 ky, respectively) are much older than that of Oman (1.6 ky), which suggests that the Levantine corridor may have been used more extensively in the African dissemination of this lineage as well.
As far as NRY K proper, I've read about its presence in Africa as well but this is the first time I've heard of underived K* being present there.
I know the Fulani with this admixture carry this from the Baggara Arabs. I however don't know about the other ethnic groups.
And I do think the Nubian Complex, is becoming more complex.
Arab horseman photographed by French Colonials, at Dékakiré, Chad. c.1910s. From L'Afrique Équatoriale Française: le pays, les habitants, la colonisation, les pouvoirs publics. Préf. de M. Merlin. (published 1918).
The funny part is that the Baggara from Sudan and Chad are primarily African with a tiny bit of Arab blood but many researchers play up their Arab identity when it doesn't make any sense.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly enough, the concept of "race" in the Sahel is something that the Europeans are desperate to use in the continued subjugation of Africans in their own countries. It is simply a continuation of the divide and conquer tactics used in the past to promote their interests. So now it is again coming to play in Northern Mali as white folks are desperate to turn this into a case of "white" Tuareg trying to oppress "black" Africans which is a total complete and historical farce. Now how is it that when the Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was being overthrown, the media and everyone else called the Tuareg "blacks" from Southern Libya and Niger. And this was and is being used to promote a system of ethnic cleansing within Libya of native blacks who may or may not have supported Qaddafi. And now these these same clowns, backed by the West are now claiming to be Tuaregs (actually mixed blood Arabs/Tuaregs) and using this as a way to move into Mali. And as usual, the white so-called "scholars" are ready to jump on the bandwagon and try and pretend this idea of Tuaregs as white has some sort of historic if not biological validity when it doesn't.
quote: A History of Race in Muslim West Africa, 1600–1960 ... Rebel demands in Mali for the liberation of the Azawad region (the Saharan area immediately north of the Niger Bend) as a Tuareg and Arab homeland met with similar responses. In a pamphlet published during the conflict by sympathizers of the loyalist black militias created during the war, the territorial claims made by rebel groups were mocked: The Azawad is free. It is not occupied by any Songhay, or by any Fulbe, or Sarakolle. No black sedentary people claim the Azawad [which is nothing but] an expanse of desert. The real aim of the rebel movement, the pamphlet claimed, was the recognition of a right to the villainous appropriation of the land of the regions, the property of the sedentary peoples. The rebels are racists and enslavers. They consider all blacks to be slaves, inferior beings. They want recognition of the right to dominate the black people. The Tuareg have always been bandits, living from theft, raids and brigandage. The people of the North have a foreign body in the social tissue.
The language of slavery was central to the racial framework of the conflict and, as we will see, to the larger history of racial ideas in the wider region. In Mano Dayak’s book, he attempted to downplay the history of slavery in Tuareg society: In times of war, the winner took his booty. The Tuareg frequently took prisoners whom they brought back with them to their camp. But after that, these slaves integrated into Tuareg families. Instead of being treated as slaves, these captives were treated practically in the same manner as everyone else. They could acquire livestock and gain their freedom. Dayak argued that even using the term slaves was a mischaracterization of history, and of the racial situation in the present. They were more domestic servants than slaves. Their descendants are the black-skinned Tuareg that we find amongst us today. For Dayak, [t]he theme of slavery has been, and continues to be, used to stir up the hatred of the people of the South against us. The harsh policy which the governments of Mali and Niger have adopted towards the Tuareg represents nothing more than the continuation of vengeance. They … speak to us again and again about this past in which they were the servants and we were the masters.
The writers of the anti-Tuareg pamphlet had an answer to claims made by those like Dayak: Co-citizens of the North, let us sweep all of the nomadic presence from our towns and villages, from our lands, even the uncultivated lands! Tomorrow the nomads will settle there as a dominating people. Black sedentary peoples, from Nioro to Meneka, let us organize ourselves, and let us arm ourselves for the great battle which is brewing. Let us drive the nomads back into the sands of the Azawad. To end the rebellion, the pamphlet writers proposed a full race war: The only way to put an end to the war is for the black sedentary peoples to rise against the nomads. The authorities and the military know it. The nomads know it also … We must not be naïve. The white Tamachek are not our brothers. They know it and we know it. ...
So in this book you see the clear attempts to claim that the Tuareg are ancient whites of the Sahara and that somehow they have always been people who enslaved the sedentary blacks. Now if that is not more white propaganda masquerading as historical fact, I don't know what is. Now contrast this with the fact that during the Libyan uprising the Tuaregs were called blacks and camel raiders from the South who needed to be killed or capture because of their black skin and you will see a common theme: black folks must be subjugated and oppressed by non blacks. And most of this is openly supported by the West as a way of pushing their agenda of North Africa for "white" Arabs and mixed Tuaregs and blacks as slaves from South of the Sahara.
Now you know for a fact this is historical nonsense because even when the French fought the Tuareg almost ALL of the Tuareg chiefs they encountered were blue black Africans. But now all of a sudden these former blacks of the desert are supposedly white. But this is nothing new, these folks have been trying to turn the Tuaregs into whites for a very long time and it just so happens that there is a large sub clan of mixed Arab-Tuaregs in Mali that they can use to promote their nonsense.
quote: The Iwellemmedan (Iw?ll?m?dan sp. var. Aulliminden, Ouilliminden, Lullemmeden, Iwellemmeden) are one of the seven major Tuareg tribal or clan confederations (called "Drum groups"). Their communities, historically nomadic and intermixed with other ethnic groups are found in an arc from east and north central Mali, through the Azawagh valley into northwestern Niger and south into northern Nigeria. While once a single confederation of dozens of Tuareg clans, subject peoples, and allied groups, since the 18th century they are divided into Kel Ataram (west) and Kel Dinnik (east) confederations. Following colonial rule and independence, the Iwellemmedan homelands cross the Mali/Niger border, and their traditional seasonal migration routes have spread Iwellemmedan communities into Burkina Faso and Nigeria as well.They speak the Tawellemmet variant of the Tamasheq language, although some current or historical sub-clans speak other Tamasheq variants as well as Songhai languages and Arabic dialects.
And these mixed blood Tuaregs are the descendants of Arab Tuareg mixing who moved to the South and occupied parts of Mali in the 17th century. It is possible that they came into conflict with other Tuareg clans precisely due to their mixed ancestry. But leave it to white people to sit up there and claim these are the ancient and pure Tuaregs of old who have always enslaved local blacks. The fact is that for the last 300 years it was partly Islamized Africans who were spreading in West Africa causing the ethnic conflicts between themselves that became the basis of the divide and conquer tactics that fueled the slave trade. It had absolutely nothing to do with skin color. And as I said before, you go north and the Tuaregs are considered and are blacks. But now they have moved some of these lighter skinned Tuaregs from the North to the South in order to try and claim Tuareg history for lighter skinned people as a result of the Libyan rebellion which was openly racist and supported by white people. And this is the basis of the current rebellion in Mali. They are just using the Tuareg as a front to push their agenda and justify military intervention.
quote: Since the first shots were fired in the armed rebellion against Muammar Gadhafi, opposition groups have accused the Libyan strongman of hiring black African mercenaries. These accusations led to public anger in rebel-held cities and brutal attacks by local Arabs against common laborers from sub-Saharan Africa, forcing many to hide indoors rather than risk walking to the borders.
The mysterious dark-complexioned soldiers are with a secret commando unit trained under a Pentagon anti-terrorism project in Libya. Though their nationalities vary, the majority of these desert warriors are Tuaregs from the deep Sahara, including parts of Algeria, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and Libya. These nomadic tribesmen, better known as the "blue men," are familiar figures on adventure programs from Discovery Channel and National Geographic, guiding camel caravans or herding sheep through the dunes and stony wastelands. In recent years, they have become the frontline fighters against the fugitive Osama bin Laden and the group Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).
At remote gunnery ranges outside of Sabha, a military town in the southwestern Fezzan region, the Tuareg commandos receive training from American special-forces instructors in automatic-weapons-handling, sniper marksmanship and communications. These masters of desert survival need no outside training in tracking and outmaneuvering the AQIM, who in the Sahara region are called the Salafists. The counter-terrorism cooperation between the U.S. and Libya, two countries with a history of rocky relations, is kept out of media view. Neither is this joint project ever mentioned in the U. S. Africa Command's Trans-Sahara Terrorism Program, which openly includes every other country of the vast arid region.
Though the Libyan Tuaregs' clandestine mission is kept under wraps by the Pentagon, a similar taste of desert warfare can be gained (courtesy of WikiLeaks) from December 2009 diplomatic cables out of the U.S. Embassy in Bamako, Mali, describing a Timbuktu boot camp run by U.S. Army trainers from Fort Carson, Colorado. "The (Malian) colonel called over one rather unimpressive soldier, an older rail-thin man with a scraggly beard and bloodshot eyes who had been lounging against a motorbike, explaining that in spite of appearances this was one of his best men and noting that he had been one of the few survivors of a July 4 ambush of a Malian Army patrol by AQIM. The soldier said the Salafists would never confront the Army head-on, and if the Army engaged, they would flee, but if there is not proper security, they will creep back and murder you in the most cruel, unimaginable ways."
The oldest veterans among the clandestine Libyan unit are re-enlistees from a long-since disbanded unit called the Islamic Pan-African Legion, which fought major battles against French forces in Chad during the 1980s. How these Tuareg fighters were regrouped and bolstered by younger tribesmen goes back to the beginnings of the Afghan War, immediately after the 9/11 attacks.
Bin Laden's Escape from Tora Bora
Early in the Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda chieftain Osama bin Laden took shelter from U.S. bombing raids inside a warren of caves dug into the mountains of Tora Bora, near the Afghan-Pakistan border. As American ground troops tightened the noose, militant commanders decided that their "emir" and his family should leave the battlefield to ensure the spread of the global jihad against infidels and Muslim hypocrites.
A members of the Taliban inner circle told me—inside a borderland tribal area that autumn, just days after the daring escape—Bin Laden's party of 26 aides and family members retreated to "south of Afghanistan," where they were picked up by a jet owned by a longtime business friend. The irony, as the militants put it, was that the airplane was provided by one of Bin Laden's closest business partners, who happened to be Jewish.
"In the world as it really is, not as people believe it to be, business is business and politics is a lesser matter. War, elections, disputes— these last only for a short time, but business is for the rest of your life. A mature businessman knows the difference regardless of his own political beliefs," said a Taliban elder with an aura of gravity.
"So where did he go?" I asked casually, so as not to show any of the eagerness of rookie journalists and war hounds.
"To Africa, to the Sahara."
Rebooting the War for Blood Diamonds
Over several months in the United Arab Emirates, I traced Bin Laden's rescue plane to a Russian arms dealer depicted as the fictional "Yuri Orlov" in the Nicholas Cage movie "Lord of War." Now in federal custody after his extradition from Thailand last year, Victor Bout fit the description to a tee: a Bukharan Jew born in Tajikistan, he was also the owner of Ariana Airlines, the national Afghan carrier under Taliban rule.
The Russian smuggler had earlier teamed up with Bin Laden's Sunni fighters—along with Israeli intelligence agents—to wrestle away the blood diamond trade from Lebanese Shiite merchants in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire and Burkina Faso. The Israelis allied with the Sunni radicals because their secret service "could not tolerate the fact that Jewish diamond merchants in Antwerp were financing suicide bombings in Gaza," an Afghan middleman for the Taliban in the gem trade told me.
The escape plane landed in Sharjah, U.A.E, where Bin Laden parted company with his family and took a second flight with his aides to an undisclosed point in East Africa—most likely Mogadishu, Somalia. From there, with the assistance of lieutenants from the blood diamond wars, his party crossed into the Sahel, the semi-arid borderlands of the Sahara, where he vanished from sight.
My 2002 article, "Bin Laden Escaped to Africa," was published in the Hong Kong-based newsmagazine Yazhou Zhoukan to a skeptical readership. It took several years for the Pentagon to catch up, after the Defense Intelligence Agency came to recognize the accuracy of the details —an eternity when considering the priority put on capturing America's most-wanted "dead or alive."
By 2006, when the Pentagon drew up plans for a new Africa Command (AFRICOM), Bin Laden's team was running a recruitment program and setting up bases across the Sahara, a region nearly as large as the United States, adding onto that a third more space in the Sahel, plus the Horn of Africa as their backyard. The Salafists had by then formed a network of alliances with regional drug-smuggling rings, which were moving Colombian contraband into Europe.
By the time AFRICOM, under its first commander General William "Kip" Ward, opened its headquarters in Morocco in 2008 and got American boots onto the sand, the militants were demanding ransoms for Western hostages and infiltrating dozens of cells into urban centers across Northern Africa, including major cities in Morocco, Tunisia and Libya.
Blue Men and Their Strong Women
The only staunch force that stood between the religious extremists and their goal was the Tuareg, the men in indigo blue robes, but at the time they were waging their own rebellions in Mali and Niger. Gadhafi had to personally intervene to urge the Tuareg to end their guerrilla war. The Libyan leader had earned the respect of the Tuareg in the 1980s by designating their ethnic status as Arabs instead of second-class Berbers. Jobless Tuareg fighters from Mali and Niger eagerly joined the new American-trained Libyan unit headquartered at Sabha's Fort Elena, built during the Italian colonial era (when it was called Fortezza Margherita). The oasis town was a hospitable place for these desert dwellers, having served as a caravanserai for many centuries.
The traditional friction between the blue men and the Salafists is based on religion, culture, ecology and race. In contrast to the purist orthodox believers, with their veneration of patriarchy and fundamentalism, the Tuareg retain much of their ancient matriarchal culture. By Tuareg tradition, only women—not men—are allowed to read and write; and men —not women—are required to wear a veil. Their version of Islam is intermixed with pre-conversion shamanism.
The only trait that dark-complexioned Tuareg share in common with the light-skinned Salafists is the glorification of combat, making the two sides as natural of enemies as venomous adders and sharp-clawed falcons.
Their cultural differences proved to be a serious impediment to discipline in the Pentagon's earlier covert demolition-training program in Libya during the late 1970s and early 1980s, run by "rogue" CIA agent Edwin Wilson and his band of Green Berets. The boot camp was located in Benghazi, which like the rest of eastern Libya, is a stronghold of the orthodox Sanusi sect affiliated with the Salafi movement on the Saudi Peninsula. In the Libyan attack on Chad, the combination of Arab officers and Tuareg infantrymen proved disastrous. Washington's covert campaign to roll back France's expansionism in Africa was routed, as explained to me by a veteran of the French Foreign Legion, due to the order from Paris to send in elite paratroopers disguised as Chadians.
The very existence of a new Tuareg brigade came into the spotlight when dozens were killed or captured by the Al Qaeda–linked Islamic Fighting Group rebels in Libya's east. Inside the labyrinths of coastal cities, these desert warriors are at a tactical disadvantage against battle-hardened infiltrators from Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Gaza and as far away as Iraq and Afghanistan. Western diplomats watch in horror and confusion at the reported atrocities committed by "black mercenaries," forgetting as if in a haze of hashish smoke that their own forces are waging merciless combat against Al Qaeda in Iraq, Afghanistan and New York City.
(The site was down when I found the page but I used google cache to get the content)
quote: Since the beginning of last year's insurgency against longtime Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi, weapons have streamed out of Libya, looted from depots and sold on the black market. Difficult to track and impossible to quantify, they move in many directions.
Smugglers from Zintan in the northwest move south with ease into the remote regions straddling Chad and Niger, selling munitions to militants in the Sahel region south of the Sahara desert. Israeli officials say that weapons have flowed into the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, pouring out from Egypt through tunnels. The North African-based Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, through long-established links to drug dealers and gunrunners, reportedly acquired Libyan arms as early as March 2011.
According to a United Nations report released in late January, smuggled weapons include "rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns with antiaircraft visors, automatic rifles, ammunition, grenades, explosives (Semtex), and light antiaircraft artillery (light-caliber bi-tubes) mounted on vehicles."
Substantial numbers of weapons have moved south, ending up in Mali, the report says, bought by Malian Tuareg mercenaries who fought for Kadafi.
Racked by drought and food shortages, the Sahara-Sahel strip is host to some of the world's busiest smuggling routes. People. Weapons. Colombian cocaine. All pass through this sweltering desert expanse.
The U.N. Security Council has called on Libya's interim authorities to take action to stem the flow of weapons, fearing transnational destabilization in the Sahel, which is experiencing a severe food crisis and political turmoil.
"We are concerned about the porous nature of the border between Chad, Niger and Libya and the risk of weapons, including MANPADS [shoulder-launched missiles capable of downing a low-flying airliner], moving across those borders," Rosemary DiCarlo, the U.S. deputy representative to the United Nations, said this year during a Security Council briefing in New York.
"These weapons, in the hands of terrorists, could further destabilize already fragile areas of the Sahel and surrounding regions," DiCarlo said.
Yet it is not just the militias aiming to retake the north that have their eye on Mali’s ethnic fault lines. On November 24, the jihadist forum Ansar al-Mujahideen published a statement in Arabic by the ‘Majlis Shura al-Mujahidin in Gao’ following the outbreak of fighting in Gao between the MNLA and the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO), a splinter group of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). This fighting, which broke out on November 16 near Ansongo and Ménaka, appears to have ended in defeat for the MNLA in the movement's last major stronghold. While both sides and third parties have given dramatically different tolls from the fighting, witnesses and town notables have indicated that MUJAO forces executed some of those involved in defending the town, including the president of the local cercle, Alwabégat Ag Salakatou.
In the forum statement, the 'Majlis Shura al-Mujahidin' – indicating the leadership council for MUJAO, whom Gao inhabitants generally refer to simply as "the mujahidin" – justified their combat against the MNLA, saying in an English translation posted several days later by the Ansar al-Mujahideen English Forum: "we [are] in our war with the MNLA (National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad) this secular movement that doesn’t want the implementation of the Islamic Sharia…the mujahidin fought it because they became like the Tawagit [tyrants]". It continued: "we call them to resort to the Sharia [law] of Allah but they refuse" and claimed the MNLA was oppressing Muslims "by taking their money unjustly and killing them and their dividing of the Muslims".
In addition to the theft of property and other alleged crimes, however, the statement adds that for the MNLA: "the black has no right and the white has right, when the messenger of Allah peace and blessings of Allah be upon him said: O people, your Lord is one, and your father (Adam) is one, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety'."
In an interview just a week later with the Mauritanian newspaper al-Akhbar, Ahmed Ould a member of MUJWA’s leadership council and the head of its "Osama bin Laden" katiba used nearly the same language and the same religious reference when discussing the MNLA. The U.S. State Department today labelled Ould Amir, known alternately as Ahmed el-Tilemsi or Ahmed al-Telmasi, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.
While racial equality in Islam is a common theme in discourse from across the spectrum of Muslim belief, the language of "white" and "black" has specific resonance in Mali and the broader Sahel, where Tuareg and Arabs are often referred to as "white". And MUJAO and its allies have previously proven adept at playing to and operating within local racial and ethnic politics.
quote: In addition to the large numbers of Africans who come to Libya to work, many native Libyans, such as the nomadic Tuaregs of southern Libya, are Black.
The roots of this conflict go back to French Colonial West Africa when the area from Libya in the North to Niger in the South were colonized and ceded to France after the Berlin conference. The French were likely behind Qaddafi's assassination and they were behind the recent coup in Ivory Coast. It is the French who created the national boundaries in the region with no clear homeland for the Tuareg. It is the Tuareg who fought against the French in the early 1900s. And even then these folks were seen as blacks with some mixed bloods among them.
But the real issue here is the mines in the areas between Mali, Niger and Senegal.
quote: On November 20, six gunmen abducted a Portuguese-born Frenchman from the town of Diema in the western Kayes region, which borders Senegal and Mauritania. This indicates a southward geographical expansion of jihadist activity from bases in the northern regions of Gao, Timbuktu and Kidal. The militant Islamist group, Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO), claimed responsibility for the kidnap. The hostage is currently being held near Timbuktu, about 700km from Diema.
The expansion of the group’s operations to new areas has been facilitated by their prolonged control of parts of northern Mali and motivated by a shortage of kidnap targets in the north. Further, ethnic Tuaregs, particularly, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA), have opposed the Islamist groups and looked to retake territory. In mid-November, MNLA launched an unsuccessful offensive to recover the town of Menaka from MUJAO, close to the borders with Burkina Faso and Niger.
Burkina Faso’s President Blaise Compaore, who is leading ECOWAS' mediation efforts, is likely to propose an end to hostilities between the MNLA and Islamists Ansar Dine, much of whose leadership is Tuareg. On December 3, representatives from the Malian government travelled to Ouagadougou to engage in dialogue for the first time with the two groups. However, negotiations are unlikely to be successful without significant concessions by all sides.
Ansar Dine’s renouncement of relations with MUJAO and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and possible cooperation with MNLA would increase risks of kidnap and targeted attacks against mining assets in southern Mali, including Kayes, but would probably restrict MUJAO and AQIM access to Burkina Faso and Niger. The risk of improvised explosive device (IED) attacks on commercial and diplomatic assets in Bamako would also increase. French assets are particularly likely to be targeted, given France's continuing support for the proposed ECOWAS military intervention.
The gold mines of Mali, the ancient source of the Wealth of the Africans is now in the hands of foreigners, mainly French and others, which is why the region is so poor.
quote: Mining
Mining has long been an important aspect of the Malian economy. Gold, the third largest source of Malian exports, is still mined in the southern region: at the end of the 20th century Mali had the third highest gold production in Africa (after South Africa and Ghana).[3] These goldfields, the largest of which lie in the Bambouk Mountains in western Mali (Kenieba Cercle), were a major source of wealth and trade as far back as the Ghana Empire. As well, salt mining in the far north, especially in the Saharan oases of Taoudenni and Taghaza have been a crucial part of the Malian economy for at least seven hundred years. Both resources were vital components of the Trans-Saharan trade, stretching back to the time of the Roman Empire.
From the 1960s to the 1990s state owned mining—especially for gold—expanded, followed by a period of expansion by international contract mining.
In 1991, following the lead of the International Development Association, Mali relaxed the enforcement of mining codes which led to greater foreign investment in the mining industry.[4] From 1994 to 2007, national and foreign companies were granted around 150 operating licences along with more than 25 certificates for exploitation and more than 200 research permits. Gold mining in Mali has increased dramatically, with more than 50 tonnes in 2007 from less than half a tonne produced annually at the end of the 1980s. Mining revenue totaled some 300 billion CFA francs in 2007 more than a thirty times increase from the 1995 total national mining revenue of less than 10 billion CFA. Government revenues from mining contracts, less than 1% of the state income in 1989 were almost 18% in 2007.[5] Gold
Gold accounted for some 80% of mining activity in the mid 2000s, while there remain considerable proven reserves of other minerals not currently exploited. Gold has become Mali's third-largest export, after cotton—historically the basis of Mali's export industry—and livestock. The emergence of gold as Mali's leading export product since 1999 has helped mitigate some of the negative impacts caused by fluctuations in world cotton markets and loss of trade from the Ivorian Civil War to the south.[6] Large private investments in gold mining include Anglogold-Ashanti ($250 million) in Sadiola and Yatela, and Randgold Resources ($140 million) in Morila - both multinational South African companies located respectively in the north-western and southern parts of the country.
Now of course there are some lighter skinned folks among the Tuareg, but this idea that these lighter skinned people are original and "pure" Tuareg is purely a boatload of b.s. created by the white racists over the last few hundred years.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Interestingly enough, the concept of "race" in the Sahel is something that the Europeans are desperate to use in the continued subjugation of Africans in their own countries. It is simply a continuation of the divide and conquer tactics used in the past to promote their interests. So now it is again coming to play in Northern Mali as white folks are desperate to turn this into a case of "white" Tuareg trying to oppress "black" Africans which is a total complete and historical farce.
There's no need to divide an conquer in Mali. Many Tuareg are already fighting to divide into a separate state. If the U.S. wanted to divide Mali they would support the Tuareg separtists but I don't think that is happening.
Review the leadership of the Turaeg and the government of Mali
The Tuareg separatists are currently led by the secular MNLA ( National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad) and the Islamic fundamnetalist group Ansar Dine heavily armed jihadists have control of more than half of Mali. They are applying strict Sharia – with shocking results similar to those of the Taliban in Afghanistan – and have stated their intent to continue to spread
posted
Yes Doug this is so true. You can clearly see European propaganda and misunderstanding of African History/Islamic Colorism in their contradictory attempts to make the Tauregs the evil scary black men in Gadaffi's Mercenary Army and White slavers in the Mali Conflict.
The fact is that while Colorism does play a role it has nothing to do with the European concept of Race, the idea that white people are intellectually culturally and physically and distinct people who have the divine right to Rule over dark races. Hell Europeans at one time did not consider Africans and Indians humans and to this day many Europeans don't see themselves the same as non whites, as sharing a common ancestry.
The fact is in Islam to be a "Bidane" was to occupy the lands of Dar Islam, that is the Med. and the Middle East. People considered these lands to be the ideal place for Civilization. Bidane has nothing to do with White in the Eurocentric Enlightenment definition. Many Black people were native to the Med. Many were present in these lands as natives and many Africans/Blacks Ruled in these lands.
Go To India and Indo China, go to the Maldives, Go to Morocco, Tunis, Egypt, Iran/Persia anywhere in "Dar Islam" and you will find Africans who ruled, African Saints, African Culture, Architecture etc. Why are Whites so slow to tell this story?? Why are they so obsessed with slavery?? Why not spend so much energy and time on the Millions of their Brothers/Sisters who where enslaved in North Africa alone let alone the white Slaves who went in the East.
Everytime I open a history book on Africans all I hear is slave this slave that, yet Europeans somehow forget to add their own long history of being enslaved.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Now of course there are some lighter skinned folks among the Tuareg, but this idea that these lighter skinned people are original and "pure" Tuareg is purely a boatload of b.s. created by the white racists over the last few hundred years.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of this goes back to European Colonial meddling. The fact is the image of some Pale White person was completely Foreign to many Saharans historically..
In fact, Adams claims that he excited "uncommon curiosity" among the Moors who captured him because they "had never seen [a white man] before" (229). At the same time, the scribe parenthetically notes that Adams was "a very dark man, with short curly black hair" (229).
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Juba II (King of Mauretania, 25 BC-AD 23)
An aging prince
This full face portrait with high forehead and long, sunken cheeks, is framed by a mass of short, rather wild curls, held in place by a headband. The arch of the eyebrows overshadows the inner corner of the downward slanting eyes. The nose is broad, the mouth full and sensual, and there is a deep cleft in the chin.
Despite the damage it has incurred, the features of this tired face are recognizable as those of Juba II at the age of about sixty. When the head was discovered it was immediately identified as such; this suggestion was confirmed after comparison with effigies on coins and other portraits of the prince, whose strong features, wide-set eyes, and thick hair are clearly recognizable.
Hellenistic art
The classical culture of King Juba II is apparent in this portrait of the philhellenic king, which portrays him like a Hellenistic sovereign: beardless, short-haired, and wearing a royal headband. Hellenistic art also inspired the carefully modeled flesh and the idealization (which does not, however, overlook the subject's human qualities or ethnic group).
_______ Juba II Numidian African ____________ Typical Euro-Roman
The Numidian differs from the European in all the stereotypical hair and facial features. The hair is thicker and "wilder." The eye is larger and rounder. The cheek bones are higher and more protruding. The nose is flatter and broader with nostrils tending to round/oval rather than oblong/slit shape. The lips are thicker and more everted. King Juba II's antecedents thus seem the type of black autochthonous to littoral North Africa.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Explorer said: U6 is not Eurasian at any point! If you want to speak of U6's ancestor itself, well the jury is out on that as well, unless you want to point out the specifics of that ancestral clade, and exactly the parental Eurasian population it emerged in.
Saying that it derives from mtDNA R does not absolve U6 from being an autochthonous northwestern African marker, or as marker of gene flow from Africa to "Eurasia". In fact, many of the ancestors of those maternal markers tagged as "Eurasian" have not been identified...so, it's anyone's guess, where these ancestors exactly emerged. It seems to me that 'western' researchers simply like to attach too much significance to "Eurasia", because otherwise the development of the human species in the main had been in Africa.
^^How a marker of gene flow from Africa to Eurasia? Are you saying that the gene flow went forth initially that was autochthonous U6, or proto U6 from Africa?
Pennarun et al argue that the jury is still out on the origin of U6.
Divorcing the Late Upper Palaeolithic demographic histories of mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 in Africa Pennarun et al 2012 BMC Evolutionary Biology 2012, 12:234 "a haplogroup that has been termed “the main indigenous North African cluster” [13], and, to a lesser extent the variation in M1, which is more predominantly found in Eastern Africa/Ethiopia [14-16]. U6 and M1 both share the feature of being African-specific sub clades of haplogroups otherwise spread only in non-African populations.
Whilst backed bladelet production is broadly shared across the different regions of North and East Africa, there was also a level of regional cultural diversity during this period, possibly mirroring a diversification of populations. The Sahara Desert expanded considerably during the LGM, perhaps concentrating human groups along the North African coastal belt and the Nile Valley. Climatic conditions improved in North Africa ~15 KYA, marking the beginning of a dramatic arid-to-humid transition [25]. This increase in humidity may have opened up ecological corridors, connecting North and Sub-Saharan Africa and allowing population dispersals between the two regions. An additional arid-humid transition occurred at 11.5–11 KYA [25]; this period coincides with a widespread change in the archaeological record that marks the beginning of Capsian lithic technologies. The Capsian is argued to have developed in situ in North Africa, marking a continuity from the Iberomaurusian and Oranian into the Capsian [21,24,26].
A Southwest Asian origin has been proposed for U6 and M1 [27-29]. Yet, this claim remains speculative unless some novel “earlier” Southwest Asian-specific clades, distinct from the known haplogroups, are found in which the described so far M1 and U6 lineages are nested. Claims for basal mutations shared with M1 have recently been made in the case of haplogroup M51 and M20 (both East Asian-specific clades [40,41]): They share a root mutation (C14110T) with M1. However, one should be cautious with phylogenetic inferences drawn from these findings because this mutation is not unique in the phylogeny of mtDNA: it also occurs in the background of non-M haplogroups and therefore identity by descent within haplogroup M remains uncertain. Unfortunately, the sampling of extant populations of Africa and West Asia may not solve the question of their origin.
Assuming that M1 and U6 were introduced to Africa by a dispersal event from Asia, it would be difficult to accept their involvement in the first demographic spread of anatomically modern humans around 40–45 KYA, as suggested by Olivieri et al. (2006), [29] who associated these two clades with the spread of Dabban industry in Africa. It has indeed been previously suggested that the colonisation of North Africa from the Levant took place during the early Upper Paleolithic, as marked by the “Dabban” industry in North Africa [42]. However, comparison of early Upper Palaeolithic artefacts from Haua Fteah and Ksar Akil does not support the notion that the early Dabban of Cyrenaica is an evidence of a population migration from the Levant into North Africa [43]. Marks [44] also noted differences between the two areas in terms of the methods of blade production, further arguing against a demographic connection between the regions. Likewise, the new coalescent date estimates for M1 obtained in this study are not compatible with the model implying the spread of M1 in Africa during the Early Upper Palaeolithic, 40–45 KYA.
Given the sequence data from 242 complete sequences and genotype data of 222 mtDNAs, we were unable to find conclusive evidence that any of the geographic regions of Africa or Concerning haplogroup M1 individually, a significant correlation with languages was observed. Furthermore, within M1, it appears that the correlation is mostly due to M1a. However, given the small sample size of M1b, any potential signal correlating with language might not be detectable. Interestingly, M1a has a likely East African origin, but its coalescent age of ~21 KYA still largely predates that of the proto-AA. Maybe a sub-clade of M1a would still give a similar correlation, but there are not sufficient samples to allow splitting M1a into its various sub-clades, and to test for a correlation. Although we found a correlation, limited sample sizes do not allow drawing unambiguous connection between genes and languages. Furthermore, it is also possible that this putative sub-clade of M1 does not testify for the expansion of AA speaking people, but was already present among the people who inhabited the area before the spread of the AA languages.
Our analyses do not support the model according to which mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 represent an early dispersal event of anatomically modern humans at around 40–45 KYA in association with the spread of Dabban industry in North Africa as proposed earlier [28,29]. A West Asian origin for these haplogroups still remains a viable hypothesis as sister clades of U (and ancestral to it, macro-hg N (including R)) and M are spread overwhelmingly outside Africa, notably in Eurasia, even though the phylogeographic data on extant populations do not present a clear support for it.
No southwest Asian specific clades for M1 or U6 were discovered. U6 and M1 frequencies in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe do not follow similar patterns, and their sub- clade divisions do not appear to be compatible with their shared history reaching back to the Early Upper Palaeolithic.
-------------------- 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: 5920 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL! The war in Mali is a war based on Arabs calling themselves Tuareg and moving south to reconquer and plunder Timbuktu in the name of Islam and to assist those white supremacists who are supporting them in order to push this nonsense that all these people in North Africa were historically white. Yet how is it that these folks are calling the Tuareg white in Mali, a black country, yet then turn around and call the Tuareg of Libya black? Because it is an agenda to decimate black people in North Africa. The Arabs in Sudan are doing it with the assistance of the Arabs and the same in Somalia. This is all about destabilizing West Africa and the West using the Arabs or arabized Africans to create a buffer in North Africa against blacks and pushing them further and further south. At no time in history did anyone ever describe Tuareg as white except in the mouths of the racist whites who did everything they could to put whites on top of the Tuaregs, whether this was reality or not, because this is how whites believe it is supposed to be.
quote: Reprisals against Libyan Tuareg who supported Gaddafi The Tuareg of one Libyan town are discovering there are serious consequences for the support some of them gave to Colonel Gaddafi.
"Really, Mr Justin, now we are in good condition. Believe me, I am too happy to see you. My God, now I feel shy."
The exuberant greetings are one of the great joys of travelling in Libya.
In this case, my old friend Mohammed Ali from the southern Libyan oasis town of Ghadames was particularly effusive, having heard that I had just been released by my Tuareg kidnappers after being held captive in the desert.
We had not seen each other in almost 13 years.
I had wanted to travel south from Tripoli to meet old friends from a desert expedition years before.
I had also wanted to look into stories I had been hearing about conflict breaking out in Ghadames between the town's mixed Arab-Berber population and the Tuareg.
Held hostage
The two populations have lived together, sometimes uneasily, for centuries.
Gaddafi's use of the Tuareg as local enforcers during the revolution had stirred up these divisions. Now that the town had risen up and expelled them, reprisals were in the air.
There has always been a desire by some Arab groups in North Africa to use the Tuaregs history of warfare and rebellion as a cover to move south and to pose as Tuareg revolutionaries in order to push Arab rule further south. And this is exactly what is happening here, with Qaddafi himself having a lot to do with promoting this as many of the Tuaregs he supported had "leaders" who were lighter skinned and labeled by Qadafi as "arabs".
Any clown can wrap a turban around their head and call themselves a tuareg but that does not make them a TRUE Tuareg in any real sense.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] LOL! The war in Mali is a war based on Arabs calling themselves Tuareg and moving south to reconquer and plunder Timbuktu in the name of Islam and to assist those white supremacists who are supporting them in order to push this nonsense that all these people in North Africa were historically white. Yet how is it that these folks are calling the Tuareg white in Mali, a black country, yet then turn around and call the Tuareg of Libya black? Because it is an agenda to decimate black people in North Africa. The Arabs in Sudan are doing it with the assistance of the Arabs and the same in Somalia. This is all about destabilizing West Africa and the West using the Arabs or arabized Africans to create a buffer in North Africa against blacks and pushing them further and further south. At no time in history did anyone ever describe Tuareg as white except in the mouths of the racist whites who did everything they could to put whites on top of the Tuaregs, whether this was reality or not, because this is how whites believe it is supposed to be.
Below are some of the most powerful influential Mali Tuaregs at present. I don't know if you consider them "Arabs" or not but they are leaders. if you think they are "clowns" and anybody can wrap a turban around their head" you are sadly mistaken and have not researched Tuareg power structure at all, especially form a current events perspective.
In Mauritania people with a skin tone similar to the Tuaregs below are called by people in Mauritania "white Moors" or Beidane. It's wrong to assume 'white' in American/European sense. In North Africa it means people like the Tuaregs below who are lighter brown sometimes with a yellowish tone. It's a relative thing. There are millions of people who look like the below and also called Berbers. There are also darker Berbers and darker Tuareg Berbers. They are part of tribes and thinking one is fake and the other is real is completely irrelevant AA persoective especially considering that the leadership tends to be lighter and so do the slave owners, something which still goes on today in Mali and Mauritania. There are also dark skinned Tuaregs who own slaves but they tend to be more lighter skinned. I know they look cool in their blue robes and riding camels but they are an independant movement and have political agendas and they may not be perfect human beings entirely innocent. The Moors for instance were radical Islamic fundamenatlists from the start in Morocco and Mauritania and you can read about it in Molefi Kete Asante's book. In Mali the Tuareg have a mixture of skin tones, light brown, dark brown etc. The Malians who are not Tuareg all look dark like Sanogo.
In fact if you were to look deeply at the issue the Tuaregs who are a variety of skin tones form light to dark brown have felt that they were not being respected from the other Malians, the majority, the ones who run the government and who are all dark. So there are a number of color issues that have been going on for a long time in addition to outside attempts by foreign power who might try to manipulate the situation. However I would not say that race is the primary conflict, it's power and radical Islam. The U.S. has historically had good relations with the Malian government and not supported the Tuareg. Only recently has the U.S. cut relations with Mali due to the coup, not the Turaegs but the a miltary coup within the Malian army.
Consider this, The Tropic of Capricorn runs through the Kalahari desert. Tha San who have been living there for thousands of years are notably lighter skinned due to the fact that they are further form the Equator. Even note the complexion of Nelson and Winnie Mandela not as dark as equatorial Africans. Now look in the other direction, North of the equator but the exact same distance from the equator, The Tropic of Capricorn. It passes through Northern Mali, Southern Algeria and Southern Libya. Some of the Tuareg live in these areas as well as more South and darker skinned. if you wnat to talk about Libya mre than 3/4ths of it is above the Tropic of Cancer. Skin tone darkness/lightness , with some dietary exceptions and depending on how long people have been living in an area largely corresponds to latitude. With a few exceptions the broad pattern is that Africans who live closer to the equator are darker than Africans who live further form the equator. The San, a perfect example
Make no mistake the Tuareg have been multiethnic nomads for many hundreds of years. There have been lighter skinned Tuareg in North Africa for many hundreds of years. One of the major Tuareg separatist groups are Muslim but not radcial and not in support if sharia law, the MNLA. However half of Mali is run by jihadists. What has happened recently is that radical Islamic fundamentalist Tuareg group Aswar Dine, their leader below, Iyad Ag Ghali had been fighting for separatism but also collaborating with Al Queda arabs and their Sharia law agenda. They were cooperting for a while but now Al Queda has taken a lot of power and they are now having problems with their own ally. And the jihaists have taken over half of Mali.
_______________________________________________
The Tuareg separatists are currently led by the secular MNLA ( National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad) and the Islamic fundamnetalist group Ansar Dine heavily armed jihadists have control of more than half of Mali. They are applying strict Sharia – with shocking results similar to those of the Taliban in Afghanistan – and have stated their intent to continue to spread
posted
Like I said, these movements just popped up recently and are primarily made up of mixed blood Arabs/Tuaregs using the plight of the Tuareg as a front to come in and cause conflict and impose Arab/mulatto rule in the region and has nothing to do with traditional "real" Tuareg identity or power. Tuareg identity and power is based on the Kels or clans of the Tuareg and has absolutely nothing to do with these bogus movements. That is exactly what I mean by mixed bloods and Islamists using the influence and weapons from the outside to usurp Tuareg identity in Mali and cause conflict.....
Yes there are lighter skinned Tuareg, but for anyone to claim these are "white" people or that these lighter skinned Tuareg represent the historic "white" ruling class of the Tuareg or that tuareg noble lines are historically "white" or lighter skinned is pure absolute NON SENSE.
quote: The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad or the Azawad National Liberation Movement , formerly National Movement of Azawad is a political and military organisation based in Azawad/northern Mali. The movement is made up of Tuareg, and some of them are believed to have previously fought in the Libyan army, during the 2011 Libyan civil war (though other Tuareg MNLA fighters were also on the side of the National Transitional Council) and returned to Mali after that war. The movement was founded in October 2011 and had stated that it includes other Saharan peoples. The Malian government has accused the movement of having links to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. However, the MNLA deny the claims. By 1 April, the MNLA, along with Ansar Dine, were in control of virtually all of northern Mali, including the three biggest cities of Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu. However, tensions between the two factions continued to rise, culminating in the Battle of Gao, in which the MNLA lost control of northern Mali's cities to Ansar Dine and Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa.
Claiming that these people represent "the Tuareg" outside of the traditional Kels and Clans of the Tuareg is nonsense. They represent the money and weapons that outsiders have given them to bring conflict and chaos to Mali. Period. It is all simply a set up to justify foreigners to go into Mali and re colonize and allows these white folks to start promoting this nonsense about white Tuareg identity as some historical "race" separate from the rest of the Tuareg.....
The Tuareg do not distinguish Tuareg identity based on skin color. Tuareg identity is based on Clan and Kels and relationships within those clans. Any clown trying to turn this into a case of Lighter skinned "whites" over darker skinned blacks is simply promoting a racist agenda and a revision of history. They want to turn Africans into outsiders in their own continent and history. They promoted the Libyan rebels who they knew were racists to go in and start killing the native blacks of Libya, then they sent these same sorts of folks South to then usurp the identity of the Tuareg and try and impose the same kind of racist framework further South and to steal the history and culture of the ancient people and towns of Timbuktu under their banner. And of course the whites love this because it allows them to continue promoting their fantasy world views of history that North Africa was always populated by Eurasians who enslaved and subjugated blacks.
Now if you don't believe that is what is happening note this even more recent movie about the Tuaregs from the Italians. Now if "warrior of the desert" wasnt bad enough with a white European actor as the main star, then what about this one with more white European actors:
http://www.wikideep.it/cat/film-d%27avventura/le-quattro-porte-del-deserto/ This film is supposed to be about the Tuareg encountered by Charles Foucald in Africa. Now there are still pictures of Dassine floating around on the web, and she never looked anywhere near as light as this white woman playing her. There is an agenda here, there always has been and they are still pushing it.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. Your description of the lack of L in Eurasia as ''highly questionable'' is a clear case of emotion-driven denial.
Printer-friendly view of this topic