quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: yes, it's a limb ratios study, Mechta-Afalou is a cold adapted robustly proportioned population as were the Taforalt Hg H carriers, more so than modern Europeans, clustering withartic peoples, clearly a refugia popualtion
Capsians that followed them were more gracile. I have since read the entire article
Modern Europeans and Natufuians, have limb ratios intermediate between Afalou/Inuit and Africans
Apparently the point I raised went over your head as usual. Exactly how well does Afalou bou Rummel represent all Oranians or El Wad all Natufians when both populations were heterogeneous. This is why Afalou samples differed from Mechta samples in that they had skulls that displayed brachycephally and more orthognathous. The typical Mechta skulls are dolichocephalic and prognathous along with other African traits. The same can be said about Natufians. Again, can you show that the Mechta el Arbi peoples displayed cold-adaption post-cranially?? What about Natufians from other sites in the Levant?
Holliday's study is based on certain samples. How can you say that the Afalou bou Rummel sample represents ALL Mechta-Afalou peoples??
Also do you have evidence that the Mechta el Arbi carried mitochondrial hg H?? I don't doubt the possibility, we know how you just make claims without any substantiation.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I made a statement about Afalou backed by a scientfic article They were a population at extreme opposite in limb ratio to Africans. They lived in North Africa for about 10,000 years. There are numerous other articles and book chapters I am not going to entertain to politically correct rhetorical questions at this point
It is time for you to post data and references ( I said Djehuti not you Ish)
data refuting that there was a settlement of people with cold adapted proportions living for thousands of years in prehistoric North Africa and another similar population at Taforalt that carried haplogroup H the most common mtDNA haplogroup of both modern Europeans and berbers
_______________________
You tried to make it seem like it was an "influence" , that the Afalou were basically Africans and a three Eurasians showed up one day and mingled in
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a misconception that, because the Afalou and Taforalt samples were cold adapted overall, they necessarily must have had cold adapted limbs,
Remember what I said in 2013
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: yet it icould be consistent with the Brenna Henn back migration hypothesis, the reason for the cold adapted limb ratios and also brachycephalism of some of the Afalou ( as well as Achilli 2005 finding common U5 hgs between Lapps (Saami) and berber)
Agree, but it should be noted that the Ibero-Maurusians are likely not cold-adapted in their limbs. Mesolithic European and East Asians fossils also have relatively high limb proportions. In fact, Mesolithic Europeans have much higher crural and brachial indices than Ibero-Maurusians. Their crural and brachial index are at 85.5% and 77.5 respectively per Holiday 1997. Its simply a pleisiomorphic trait from their Upper Palaeolithic ancestors, and ultimate from Africans. What you want to look at is their bodyplan in its entirety or their absolute limb length, both of which are unlikely to retain a plesiomorphic state for as long as limb proportions.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There is a misconception that, because the Afalou and Taforalt samples were cold adapted overall, they necessarily must have had cold adapted limbs,
There is not a misconception because the Afalou sample does have cold adapted limbs
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fig 1 and 2 of the Holliday 2013 paper, the Afalou sample has long radial bones and tibiae that cluster with the Jebel Sahaba sample (in terms of their length).
posted
^ I recall you explaining this several times before not just in this thread.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^ politically correct rhetoric.
I made a statement about Afalou backed by a scientfic article They were a population at extreme opposite in limb ratio to Africans. They lived in North Africa for about 10,000 years. There are numerous other articles and book chapters I am not going to entertain to politically correct rhetorical questions at this point
It is time for you to post data and references ( I said Djehuti not you Ish)
data refuting that there was a settlement of people with cold adapted proportions living for thousands of years in prehistoric North Africa and another similar population at Taforalt that carried haplogroup H the most common mtDNA haplogroup of both modern Europeans and berbers
_______________________
You tried to make it seem like it was an "influence" , that the Afalou were basically Africans and a three Eurasians showed up one day and mingled in
LOL @ "politically correct". I don't know what politics has anything to do with it however you like xyz just make conjectures you think is based on scientific papers.
What I know about about Mechta-Afalou limb data comes from material cited in this forum. Before that, all studies I've read simply say Afalou crania resemble European Cromagnon except with more pronounced African features. Metrically overall the Mechta-Afalou show an intermediate position between Africa and Europe.
I'd rather take Swenet's intereptations and overall word than yours. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In fig 1 and 2 of the Holliday 2013 paper, the Afalou sample has long radial bones and tibiae that cluster with the Jebel Sahaba sample (in terms of their length).
Explanation?
Five postcranial measurements are included in the analysis: ______________
femoral antero-posterior head diameter (M-19; FHAP),
femoral bicondylar length (M-2; FL),
tibial maximum length (M-1; TL),
humeral maximum length (M-1; HL) and
radius maximum length (M-1; RL).
_____________
figure 1 and 2, charts in the article are femoral antero-posterior head diameter Figure 2 is tibial length regressed on femoral diameter
A ratio of limb proportions is calculated by dividing the forelimb length (humerus length + radius length) by the length of the hindlimb (femur length + tibia length).
The NJ tree based on the five postcranial shape variables is displayed in Figure 5
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Truthcentric: [qb] I have just downloaded this new limb proportion study onto my laptop at UCSD. If anyone's interested in taking a look, PM me your e-mail so I can send it to you.
To give you a preview of the findings, here's a dendrogram showing similarities in limb proportions between the populations measured:
The Nubian sample is of Christian Nubia. The fact that they are not in close proximity to East Africa/Kerma Sudan suggest Roman admixture. Between the Roman Empire and Nubia there was a relationship and interaction that lasted nearly seven centuries, from the first century BC to the sixth century AD.
Ba statue of the Viceroy Maloton, from Karanog, the Romano-Nubian cemetery Nubia, Meriotic Period, sandstone African, located in the Egyptian National Museum, Cairo, Bridgeman Images/Alinari Archives
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: figure 1 and 2, charts in the article are femoral antero-posterior head diameter Figure 2 is tibial length regressed on femoral diameter
Leaving out the horizontal axes of fig 1 and 2 for a moment (which plot femoral head diameter, which is a measure of how stocky the upper body of that individual is), we can focus on the vertical axes of fig 1 and 2 and see that they respectively plot lower arm and shin bone length. That's what we're interested in for now: the vertical axes of fig 1 and 2.
You're right that they're just linear measurements and not limb ratios, but still, you cannot ignore that their distal limb lengths are mostly in the same range as the Jebel Sahaba sample. Only a minority of European and Circumpolar samples plot there.
While you're at it, see how Djehuti's comment about Natufian limb ratio heterogeneity is evident in fig 1 and 2. While this specific Natufian sample is distant from Africans in their overall bodyplan, we can see in fig 1 and 2 that some of the Natufians' distal limbs approach North Africans. Especially their radial bone lengths show this heterogeneity.
Also: these Natufian and Afalou samples have an overall cold adapted bodyplan, but for different reasons. The Natufian sample has on average shorter limbs but not so stocky builds (i.e. smaller femoral heads). The Afalou sample has longer limbs but very stocky builds (i.e. large femoral heads). Most of the Jebel Sahaba sample, on the other hand, lacks cold adaptation in BOTH variables; they tend to plot in the upper left corner of fig 1 and 2 where we see individuals with very linear builds and long limbs.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: figure 1 and 2, charts in the article are femoral antero-posterior head diameter Figure 2 is tibial length regressed on femoral diameter
Leaving out the horizontal axes of fig 1 and 2 for a moment (which plot femoral head diameter, which is a measure of how stocky the upper body of that individual is), we can focus on the vertical axes of fig 1 and 2 and see that they respectively plot lower arm and shin bone length. That's what we're interested in for now: the vertical axes of fig 1 and 2.
You're right that they're just linear measurements and not limb ratios, but still, you cannot ignore that their distal limb lengths are mostly in the same range as the Jebel Sahaba sample. Only a minority of European and Circumpolar samples plot there.
While you're at it, see how Djehuti's comment about Natufian limb ratio heterogeneity is evident in fig 1 and 2. While this specific Natufian sample is distant from Africans in their overall bodyplan, we can see in fig 1 and 2 that some of the Natufians' distal limbs approach North Africans. Especially their radial bone lengths show this heterogeneity.
Also: these Natufian and Afalou samples have an overall cold adapted bodyplan, but for different reasons. The Natufian sample has on average shorter limbs but not so stocky builds (i.e. smaller femoral heads). The Afalou sample has longer limbs but very stocky builds (i.e. large femoral heads). Most of the Jebel Sahaba sample, on the other hand, lacks cold adaptation in BOTH variables; they tend to plot in the upper left corner of fig 1 and 2 where we see individuals with very linear builds and long limbs.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Metrically overall the Mechta-Afalou show an intermediate position between Africa and Europe.
I'd rather take Swenet's intereptations and overall word than yours.
Swenet is that your interpretation that metrically overall the Mechta-Afalou show an intermediate position between Africa and Europe?
Or do you think Mechta-Afalou were more cold adapted than Europeans and cluster with Arctic people?
overall
yes or no, if you don't mind
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Long answer: Mechta-Afalou is a so-called physical type. It's not the same thing as the Afalou sample. Therefore, your position (mostly Eurasian, and overall cold-adapted Afalou) and his position (African influences in Mechta-Afalou samples) are not in contradiction. You already know what you both think about the Afalou sample. You haven't discussed the remaining Mechta-Afalou samples.
I myself subscribe to both points. Although I still stand by my older point from 2013 that African-like influences among Mechta-Afalou samples don't all have to be recent African influences. This is because all OOA populations had African-like metric features for obvious reasons. Some can be recent African influences, some can be plesiomorphic traits inherited from OOA people.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Short answer: yes.
If the Afalou, as per all 5 variables cluster with Arctic peoples as we see in figure 5 and the closely related Taforalt remains carried haplogroup H and U
were they indigenous Africans or had they originally come from outside of Africa?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: I now think E-V257 (which contains M81) has an old (around the time of the LGM) presence in [the Maghreb]. I adopted this view based on certain clues in Trombetta et al 2015 and how this fits with other data.
And
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: Another slight alteration is that I now make a distinction between the widely studied Taforalt and Afalou samples vs their ancestors in the region. I still think these specific Taforalt and Afalou samples have a lot of Eurasian ancestry. But I also think their ancestors [in the Maghreb] had that to a lesser degree, being more associated with E-V257, L3k, etc (as opposed to mtDNA H1, H3, V, U5, etc).
And:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: E-V257 has all the right features of being old in the Maghreb, as opposed to having just an early/mid holocene presence [in the Maghreb]
posted
individuals in their samples who were E-V257, but not E-M81. A Borana from Kenya, a Marrakesh Berber, a Corsican, a Sardinian, a southern Spaniard and a Cantabrian. As mentioned above, Trombetta et al. 2011 propose that the absence of E-V257* in the Middle East makes a maritime movement from northern Africa to southern Europe the most plausible hypothesis so far to explain its distribution.
___________________
E-V257 is newly discovered and barely known about
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: If the Afalou, as per all 5 variables cluster with Arctic peoples as we see in figure 5 and the closely related Taforalt remains carried haplogroup H and U
BTW, sometimes when you're given longer answers, it's for a reason. What you may think of as long-winded and unnecessary to the point at hand can help you understand a larger picture that is needed to understand a smaller question.
For instance, if you heeded the larger picture explained here and here, you would have known that H and U carrying Eurasians and Iberomaurusians did not necessarily have the same pattern of cold adaptation. So, just because there is an overall cold adaptation among the Taforalt and Afalou, it doesn't mean that ALL of it can be explained by H and U carrying Eurasians.
Admixture with Mesolithic Europeans might increase limb ratios (more 'African'), while increasing pelvic bone width (less 'African'). If Mesolithic Europeans were less stocky than Afalou and Taforalt, admixture could also decrease femoral head diameter (more 'African'). This is why when we're discussing populations who have retained OOA phenotypes, it's important to just focus on the fact that the overall pattern is cold adapted, as opposed to focusing on isolated variables.
Nazlet Khater has a brachial index of 76. That's not high, but also not low. But it's lower than the brachial index of the general Mesolithic European sample. A literal interpretation of this would lead to the clumsy conclusion that Mesolithic Europeans are more African than Nazlet.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Another slight alteration is that I now make a distinction between the widely studied Taforalt and Afalou samples vs their ancestors in the region. I still think these specific Taforalt and Afalou samples have a lot of Eurasian ancestry. But I also think their ancestors [in the Maghreb] had that to a lesser degree, being more associated with E-V257, L3k, etc (as opposed to mtDNA H1, H3, V, U5, etc).
So you know that there was opportunity for a degree of local cold adaptation in Iberomaurusian sites. I don't see why any of this should confuse you, unless you're trolling. So please explain what is so confusing that you have to ask the same question multiple times..?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: were the Iberomaurusians indigenous to North Africa?
It's a simple and basic question. Is the foundation population of Iberomaurusians indigenous to Africa?
If you are unsure say so
Their morphology is highly different from other African populations and I have read this in book after book, article after article. and the question is , why is it different, not how which you keep harping on
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Short answer: yes.
Long answer: Mechta-Afalou is a so-called physical type. It's not the same thing as the Afalou sample. Therefore, your position (mostly Eurasian, and overall cold-adapted Afalou) and his position (African influences in Mechta-Afalou samples) are not in contradiction. You already know what you both think about the Afalou sample. You haven't discussed the remaining Mechta-Afalou samples.
I myself subscribe to both points. Although I still stand by my older point from 2013 that African-like influences among Mechta-Afalou samples don't *all* have to be recent African influences. This is because all OOA populations had African-like metric features for obvious reasons. Some can be recent African influences, some can be plesiomorphic traits inherited from OOA people.
^ The above is a perfectly concise and succinct answer, yet Lioness goes on with more questions.
Either she is dumb or she is simply trolling. Perhaps both. LMAO
It seems she still doesn't understand the difference between the Afalou sample i.e. Afalou bou Rummel and the overall Mechta-Afalou population. LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Nubian sample is of Christian Nubia. The fact that they are not in close proximity to East Africa/Kerma Sudan suggest Roman admixture. Between the Roman Empire and Nubia there was a relationship and interaction that lasted nearly seven centuries, from the first century BC to the sixth century AD.
Ba statue of the Viceroy Maloton, from Karanog, the Romano-Nubian cemetery Nubia, Meriotic Period, sandstone African, located in the Egyptian National Museum, Cairo, Bridgeman Images/Alinari Archives
There you go again throwing out conjectures without any substantiation. Can you prove that this distance from Kerman samples is due to Eurasian admixture let alone "Roman admixture"?? You realize that there were three Christian kingdoms in Nubia-- Nobatia, Makuria, and Alodia. All three were founded by nomadic groups from the West who were totally different peoples from the Kermans/Meroites. So are you saying these Saharan groups were Roman-mixed?? LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
So are you saying these Saharan groups were Roman-mixed?? LOL
of course, they intermarried with Romans
how long will you perpetuate the idea that foreigners have never set foot in North Africa?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my book, being mostly of African extraction makes you indigenous.
And even if they weren't mostly African, if they remained ideologically and culturally the same despite admixture, there is still a continuity there that you can hardly call 'non indigenous'. There was no population replacement by colonists. That's the point. South African Boers and other 'Rhodesian' colonists are examples of non-indigenous populations.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] In my book, being mostly of African extraction makes you indigenous.
So the Iberomaurusian were mostly African rather than mostly a population that came from outside of Africa?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
So are you saying these Saharan groups were Roman-mixed?? LOL
of course, they intermarried with Romans
how long will you perpetuate the idea that foreigners have never set foot in North Africa?
Strawman argument. I never said that foreigners never set foot in Africa let alone never intermarry or mingle with the natives.
I merely said prove that the skeletal sample was that of someone with Roman ancestry.
Funny how you love to demand evidence for others claims but never yield anything for your own claims. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] The Nubian sample is of Christian Nubia. The fact that they are not in close proximity to East Africa/Kerma Sudan suggest Roman admixture. Between the Roman Empire and Nubia there was a relationship and interaction that lasted nearly seven centuries, from the first century BC to the sixth century AD.
Refer to what I said I said their position on the chart suggests Roman admixture, "suggests" does not mean "proves"
Again, you try to hard
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So the Iberomaurusian were mostly African rather than mostly a population that came from outside of Africa?
Well how else do you explain why there are just as many differences between them and Eurasians as there are between them and Africans if not more so phenotypically, and better yet why the very Iberomaurusian culture shows affinities with other African cultures than anything in Europe i.e. back-bladelets and rituals of incisor avulsion??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Refer to what I said I said their position on the chart suggests Roman admixture, "suggests" does not mean "proves"
Again, you try to hard
But why suggest anything at all unless the evidence itself suggests it. Being a Christian Nubian sample does not mean Roman admixture.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Refer to what I said I said their position on the chart suggests Roman admixture, "suggests" does not mean "proves"
Again, you try to hard
But why suggest anything at all unless the evidence itself suggests it.
Because I have studied the topic in books and know that Nubians intermarried with Romans
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL @ you "studying the topic in books". Then who did the Germans intermarry with for them to be distant from Bohemians?? By the way, the Romans were never able to conquer Rome the way they did Egypt so while there was obviously a Roman presence in Nubia which I never denied, how significant was it, according to you?
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In my book, being mostly of African extraction makes you indigenous.
So the Iberomaurusian were mostly African rather than mostly a population that came from outside of Africa?
The first Iberomaurusians were a subset of eastern Saharan variations 25ky ago. Yet, when we find the Afalou and Taforalt samples 10ky later they fit more easily with UP Europeans.
Eastern Saharan Wadi Kubbaniya easier to distinguish from UP Europeans, generally 'preferring' older, regional, 'North African' AMHs over UP Europeans and UP Levantines:
quote:Procrustes distance tree further shows Irhoud 1, DS5, the two Qafzeh specimens, and Wadi Kubbaniya clustering together in one of the two modern human branches [...]
Later Iberomaurusians, on the other hand, harder to distinguish from UP Europeans:
quote:The Iberomaurusian specimens, on the other hand, are in both cases placed with the recent human groups and close to the Upper Paleolithic Europeans.
posted
Origins of the Iberomaurusian in NW Africa: New AMS radiocarbon dating of the Middle and Later Stone Age deposits at Taforalt Cave, Morocco R.N.E. Barton a,
Discussion The AMS record of 54 dates for Taforalt provides the largest coherent set of radiocarbon determinations yet available for this period in the Maghreb and is an important baseline for under- standing the development of this LSA technology and its relation- ship with stratigraphically older industries here and across North Africa. The unmodelled ages indicate a timespan of at least 9000 calendar years for Iberomaurusian occupation, beginning abruptly and with no obvious antecedents at 22,093e21,420 Cal BP (the earliest Sector 9 sample at two s) and ending in this cave (Sector 8) at 12,698e12,548 Cal BP (at two s), though younger ages at other sites indicate a prolonged existence in the region (Bouzouggar et al., 2008; Linstädter et al., 2012).
According to published studies, the earliest conventional radiocarbon ages for the Iberomaurusian come from Grotte des Pigeons (Taforalt), Morocco and Tamar Hat in Algeria. At Taforalt, Roche (1976) recorded two very early ages from ‘terre charbonneuse’ (charcoal- rich sediments) of 21,900 ` 400 BP (Gif-2587) and 21,100 ` 400 BP (Gif-2586). But, for reasons that will be discussed below, both of these are now regarded as highly doubtful. Elsewhere in the Maghreb, the oldest radiocarbon date recorded for the Iber- omaurusian is (MC-822) 20,600 ` 500 BP from Layer 84/5 at Tamar Hat (Saxon et al., 1974).
Outside the Maghreb, the best dating for the oldest Iberomaurusian still comes from the Haua Fteah in Cyrenaica, where layers excavated by McBurney can be shown to be no older than two radiocarbon dates of 16,070 ` 100 BP (GrN-2586) and 18,620 ` 150 BP (GrN-2585) (Close, 1986). Nonetheless the dating was again based on bulked charcoal samples and therefore susceptible to similar doubts over reliability.
____________________________
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
The first Iberomaurusians were a subset of eastern Saharan variations 25ky ago....
Afalou and Taforalt samples 10ky later they fit more easily with UP Europeans.
Does " Saharan variations " mean a population that did not come from outside of Africa?
If not Taforalt, Grotte des Pigeons what particular site remains are you talking about?
If an older population in that region was gracile and a later one is cold adapted. that is two different populations, one would be African the other not African. That would be replacement not continuity The older population is Aterian preceded by Mousterian
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Outside the Maghreb, the best dating for the oldest Iberomaurusian still comes from the Haua Fteah in Cyrenaica, where layers excavated by McBurney can be shown to be no older than two radiocarbon dates of 16,070 ` 100 BP (GrN-2586) and 18,620 ` 150 BP (GrN-2585) (Close, 1986).
Your google session came up short because you don't know the right keywords. Try to learn about a subject before jumping in discussions using google as your lifeline. Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL She should take a cue from her boss Mathilda who at least is knowledgeable in pertinent info before making conjectures.
Hey Lioness, answer my question: Who did the Germans intermarry for them to be distant from next-door Bohemmians??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Outside the Maghreb, the best dating for the oldest Iberomaurusian still comes from the Haua Fteah in Cyrenaica, where layers excavated by McBurney can be shown to be no older than two radiocarbon dates of 16,070 ` 100 BP (GrN-2586) and 18,620 ` 150 BP (GrN-2585) (Close, 1986).
Your google session came up short because you don't know the right keywords. Try to learn about a subject before jumping in discussions using google as your lifeline.
That is a quote from a relatively recent 2013 peer reviewed article on the origin of the Iberomaurusian
It was not written by google.
Face the information not search engines
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to continue this with you here. I have a blogpost scheduled for this which I will publish in the near future. But you have no point. That's all you need to know.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Why not? Don't you want to have some fun with Mathilda's girl??
Hey Lioness..
In the above dendogram Germans are distant from Bohemians as well so who did they mix with for them to branch that far away from next-door neighbors according to your mixed-up logic??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I'm still waiting for an answer to the above question, lioness.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That moment of cricket chirps when you know she's not responding because she doesn't have answers. That's when you know she knows you hit a softspot.
Don't let her off the hook on this one, DJ. Lol.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question assumes Germans had to mix with someone to become distant from the Bohemians, but among the higher latitude groups in the study the Germans are tied to the exclusively African cluster by a medium length branch to the Nubian sample. So if mixture explains all variation as you theorize, the question would be why did the Bohemians mix with not the Germans.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Hey twit, "mixture explains all variation" as I theorize??!! It was YOU who assumed the Christian Nubians had to be "Roman admixed" to be as distant as they are from Kermans!! So when Germans are distant from Bohemians it is due to inherent variation but when Christian Nubians are distant from Kermans it is due to European admixture! Your double-think as well as your projection are all too embarassing! Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
So when Germans are distant from Bohemians it is due to inherent variation but when Christian Nubians are distant from Kermans it is due to European admixture!
Why do you assume when Germans are distant from Bohemians it is due to inherent variation?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not assuming anything unlike YOU! I merely asked you why YOU think Christian Nubians position in the dendogram is due to admixture while you don't assume the same for Germans? Come now Lioness, if you're digging yourself a hole don't you dare drag me in with you!
Mathilda needs to fire your ass as you are not at all a good agent.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I am not assuming anything unlike YOU! I merely asked you why YOU think Christian Nubians position in the dendogram is due to admixture while you don't assume the same for Germans? Come now Lioness, if you're digging yourself a hole don't you dare drag me in with you!
Mathilda needs to fire your ass as you are not at all a good agent.
I never said anything about Germans when you asked that. So that is a straw man argument. You mentioned Bohemians. I haven't studied Bohemians so I don't know about their background and relation to Germans.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The Nubians here may not even be Africans, Nubians by nationality perhaps of European or Near Eastern descent. Southern Europeans are not included in the sample
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Again, you make such presumptions without any basis. Instead of assuming such a distance from Kerma is the result of inherent diversity you assume it is due to admixture with non-Africans or even complete non-Africans. Again Christian Nubians are descended from recent immigrants from the Western Deserts NOT Rome or the Mediterranean!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I never said anything about Germans when you asked that. So that is a straw man argument. You mentioned Bohemians. I haven't studied Bohemians so I don't know about their background and relation to Germans.
Bohemia is the old name for the country that is now the Czech Republic. It is right next to Germany. Yet Germans in the same dendogram are also just as distant from next-door Bohemians. So why don't you assume their distance is due to admixture with say Africans??
Of course you don't because you are Eurocentric hypocrite. Take your sorry ass back to Mathilda.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Again for the extremely thick. The Christian Nubian sample here may not be of Africans at all, it may be Southern Europeans or West Asians who were there in Nubia
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And again for the exremely brain-dead, that is your presumption based on what?? By your same logic the German sample may not be actual Germans but African migrants living in Germany!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic