I remember reading (I think here) that some new evidence has been provided that argued that the various waves of human migrations out of Africa did not happen via Yemen, but through the Nile-Valley, via Egypt, through the Levant outward. I can't seem to find this information in my notes and I want to know if any of you recall what I am saying and can direct me to the source? (if it indeed does exist and I did not read that incorrectly).
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: various waves of human migrations out of Africa did not happen via Yemen, but through the Nile-Valley, via Egypt, through the Levant outward.
Most contemporary sources mention both regions as being a possibility. The way I see it, both could be right.
In term of genetics and haplogroup lineages (as well as autosomally) the situation is fortunately very simple (due to the large gaps of years between the OOA migrations and any kind of back migrations/admixtures into Africa):
Y-DNA:
MtDNA: Other African L haplogroups such as L0, L1 and L2 were not included in this image since they clearly weren't part of the OOA migrations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Contemporary thinking is there was "several" waves "OOA".
DNATribes Jan-Sept 2014 put the last Neolithic/ EEF wave through the Nile then Levant. First wave OOA through Yemen.
Most researchers have the "first" wave through Yemen. This is based on the most "likely" route since Java man was in Asia 40kya. But most researchers agree that there is no empirical evidence through Yemen. No genetic, no skeletal remains. Take it from there......
Also, Melenesians and Cambodians do not carry African Haplogroups but GWAS show Unusual high modern African connection BUT not to a specific African population.
So what does this all mean? Swenet? Since you are one of the smarter one.
What does this have to do with OP?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice. The latest genetic paper (2015) have the (Neolithic Africans) Sub Saharans/North Africans creating cities in Mesopotamia 4000BC.
They are coming around.
For those who don't know or hasn't connected the dots. Southern Arabia/Yemen is geographically and genetically structured the same as Africa. SSA to the south and NAfricans to North(Levant).( Bedoiuns) MtDNA L in Yemen similar but of different Haplotype to L in Africa. It is as if Africa and Arabia was ONE giant landmass. So the question becomes ....was the 1st OOA really through Yemen?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
First Eurasians left Africa up to 130,000 years ago -- ScienceDaily
source:
Genomic and cranial phenotype data support multiple modern human dispersals from Africa and a southern route into Asia. PNAS
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Can you point me to the 2015 paper you speak of? Thank you in advance.
The oldest mixture events appear to be between populations related to sub-Saharan Africans and West Europeans occurring ~3,800 BCE, followed closely by mixture of Sardinian and Caucasus-related populations. Later, several mixture events occurred from 3,000-1,200 BCE involving diverse Eurasian populations (Table 1, Figure 3). We compared patterns of admixture in Armenians to other regional populations and detected signals of RECENT admixture in most other populations. For example, we find 7.9% (±0.4) East Asian ancestry in Turks from admixture occurring 800 (±170). We also detect sub-Saharan African gene flow 850 (±85) years ago in Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians
posted
As you can see the first development of cities coincide with appearance of Sub-saharan Africa genes.
Maybe they were sub-saharan slaves brought in to build the cities of Mesopotamia.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: I may have found it.
The First Human Diaspora: Basal Eurasians and the Horn of Africa
Background: Out of Africa Migrations and Early Population Structure
DNA Tribes.
Will continue reading to make sure this is it.
DNA Tribes, a private testing company is not the peer reviewed source
Their main reference, the following source article
Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans 2014 Iosif Lazaridis,
We sequenced the genomes of a ~7,000-year-old farmer from Germany and eight ~8,000-year-old hunter-gatherers from Luxembourg and Sweden. We analysed these and other ancient genomes1, 2, 3, 4 with 2,345 contemporary humans to show that most present-day Europeans derive from at least three highly differentiated populations: west European hunter-gatherers, who contributed ancestry to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners; ancient north Eurasians related to Upper Palaeolithic Siberians3, who contributed to both Europeans and Near Easterners; and early European farmers, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harboured west European hunter-gatherer related ancestry. We model these populations’ deep relationships and show that early European farmers had ~44% ancestry from a ‘basal Eurasian’ population that split before the diversification of other non-African lineages.
posted
Quick ....save your stuff in this thread before Sage throws a fit and either delete or move the thread. There is no important or cited stuff posted here.
Academics don't want to read this thread.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maaaan you are a MF…..you needed to stick that in there. Lol.
DNATribes does not conduct studies so there is no need for “peer review”. They are doing what some of us are doing ie analyzing peer reviewed published data. The advantage DNA Tribes has is that they have acess to a database of genetic data from many global modern populations as a result they can do comaparisons. They are not the only “private” company that has that type of database. FTDNA, 23andme, FBI are examples. These other companies can do the same type of comparison and publish like DNATribes. This is not rocket science
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: [qb] DNA Tribes, a private testing company is not the peer reviewed source
Their main reference, the following source article
(skip the first dumb thread "Nordic beauty" )
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You act like moving a thread = deleting it.
But you know what? I'd rather see E & AE merged back together. There's no use for a moderated E forum. Not enough knowledgeable posters. Folk like you see no need to be polite. Intolerant people bashing outgroups.
To hell with it.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quick ....save your stuff in this thread before Sage throws a fit and either delete or move the thread. There is no important or cited stuff posted here.
Academics don't want to read this thread.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
DNAtribes was at the forefront using their extensive database for use outside of making money through DNA Testing. They published a very important monthly Digest. Only recently 23andMe published something along those lines. Anyone know what that paper is?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
I have already the "Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans 2014 Iosif Lazaridis," article and it is one of my sources for a piece I'm writing.
All of this will be used, along with other sources, in establishing what we know based on linguistics, that Proto-Indo-European derives from African languages by way of convergence (punctuated equilibrium, Dixon model). The IBM study also helps to establish the back-migration and development of the so-called "black Arabs"
Semitic Bedawin, Hadramawt, Southern Arabia
Semitic languages are the result of a convergence of Negro-Egyptian languages and some other languages in the Levant. Christopher Ehret, in his 2011 study, is finally on the African side of linguistics as it regards the origins of Semitic: i.e., the Levant and not in Africa proper.
There is more to the discussion, but all of the pieces are coming together nicely.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: [QB] I appreciate all of the responses. Thank you to you all. I ended up finding the source of what I was looking for.
The Genographic Project Confirms Humans Migrated Out of Africa through Arabia New analytical method approaches the unstudied 99% of the human genome
I don't get it. In the first post you said you wanted something for the Levant route now you're saying you were looking for something on the Arabian route?
quote: All of this will be used, along with other sources, in establishing what we know based on linguistics, that Proto-Indo-European derives from African languages by way of convergence (punctuated equilibrium, Dixon model). The IBM study also helps to establish the back-migration and development of the so-called "black Arabs"
I have no respect for that kind of crap.
It's unfortunate because you started on the right foot by studying the relationship between Kemet and other African civilizations like Kongo.
But now you fall back into the trap of trying to link Kemet (their language) to Europeans and even Arabs. What a pity!
Don't get me wrong Europeans, Jews and Arabs, as any people, are great people and they have a wonderful history but there's no need to steal anything from them. Our own history is also great to study by itself without trying to claim other people's languages and civilizations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you would read what I said you would get what I am saying. Nowhere did I suggest anything that you said in your post above. Negro-Egyptian is a language FAMILY; not Old, Middle, New Kingdom or Coptic Egyptian. Secondly, I am a scientist, I am not one of these laymen on this forum posing as a scholar. I could care less about people's opinions. My allegiance is to the evidence and the evidence ONLY. That's how science works. So if new findings and more robust methods reveal new data and linkages that were thought not to exist before, an honest scholar rolls with it after much scrutiny. Only religious folks hold on to old paradigms because it doesn't feel right to them.
Thirdly, this has nothing to do with "stealing" anyone's history. You have not read anything from me trying to make these people "black." I don't do psuedo studies like that, looking for Blackness everywhere.
Fourthly, there are several books by qualified linguists who have already established the relationship between Indo-European and African languages. What was missing is detailed genetic studies to provide a framework for what we are detecting in the linguistic data. The linguistic data matches perfectly with the genetic data.
There were two routes out of Africa. The first major route is alleged to be Arabia into India. As we can see from the IBM data, those from India back-migrated into the Levant and Arabia. Another group migrated into Turkey and the Caucuses. The linguistic data informs us that three waves of Negro-Egyptian speakers traveled into the Levant and Turkey by way of Egypt before 5000 BCE. One group converged with the native population and Semitic was the result (what we call the kikuki branch). Another group continued upwards into Turkey and the Caucuses and converged with the natives and PIE is the result. All of these studies of "admixture" events in relatively recent history only support what the linguistic data shows. This is not about making them "black" or ancient Egyptians.
It is a matter of history. This goes to my study on all of these "Bantu" words in I-E and PIE. For example
quote:The oldest mixture events appear to be between populations related to sub-Saharan Africans and West Europeans occurring ~3,800 BCE, followed closely by mixture of Sardinian and Caucasus-related populations. Later, several mixture events occurred from 3,000-1,200 BCE involving diverse Eurasian populations (Table 1, Figure 3). We compared patterns of admixture in Armenians to other regional populations and detected signals of RECENT admixture in most other populations. For example, we find 7.9% (±0.4) East Asian ancestry in Turks from admixture occurring 800 (±170). We also detect sub-Saharan African gene flow 850 (±85) years ago in Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians
The linguistic and archeological evidence inform us that they were there well before 3800 BCE. Either way, this is a conservative estimate. PIE is believed to have begun anywhere between 5500-4500. The lower end is not too far off from the estimates in the above cited article.
This is from my new book _Where is the Love? How language can reorient us back to love's purpose (2015)_
quote:Negro-Egyptian and Proto-Indo-European
The French linguist Andre Martinet (2005) had attempted to reconstruct a very early state of PIE and found consonants that are typically African: e.g., African consonants such as labiovelar kp and prenasalised mp. Campbell-Dunn (2006: 57) notes these labiovelars also west of an Armenian center. Using this as a starting point, Mboli went on to examine PIE terms against his reconstructions in N-E with surprising results. The following examples are a summary of the examples provided by Mboli (2010) starting on page 542. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but to provide some insights into the types of comparisons that will be done throughout this text, which grounds us firmly in the comparative method.
Martinet, Campbell-Dunn, and Mboli all acknowledge these African consonants in this Armenian center. And when we examine the words for which these sounds are attached to, we find them in-tact in Africa. How do we explain this? The genetic data helps to explain why we are seeing these African features and fossilizations in the languages of these areas.
The point about the Arabs has to deal with another argument.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Well, you have right to do what you want to do obviously, but I stand by my opinion. It's clear to me you're going out of your way to link the Negro-Egyptian language of Obenga with the European people through their language. It's a fringe theory that most linguists wouldn't abide to. That's a fact.
What's next for you? To claim Europeans are also genetically like Ancient Egyptians and African people? Also cheapening the strong current indication that Ancient Egyptians were truly Africans (aka from the haplogroup A, B, E and L, autosomally similar to Great Lakes, Southern African populations etc people). You get me?
For my interests in African history. This fringe theory of yours kind of cheapens Obenga's theory about the Negro-Egyptian language who otherwise stand on solid footing despite being a fringe theory too. I know by his written that he wouldn't abide by your theory. Obenga doesn't even believe Semitic languages, Khoisan and Ethio-Semitic language are part of the Negro-Egyptian phylum, we can only imagine Indo-Europeans languages!!
It cheapens Obenga's theory about Negro-Egyptians because, most importantly, it makes it implausible and also because it tries to link it to Europeans instead of only to native African people.
As I said many times on this forum Obenga's theory stand on solid footing in term of genetics. We must just ask ourselves what was the language spoken by the people in which was born the patriarch of the E-P2 haplogroup (the first human from the E-P2 haplogroup). The answer could very much be Obenga's Negro-Egyptian language phyllum. Of course, it could also be a language too far deep in time to trace. But what is sure is that the E-P2 population, the ancestors of Niger-Kordofanian (P2/e1b1a), Cushitic and Chadic (P2/e1b1b) people, spoke a language. Thus the Negro-Egyptian phylum is plausible in that sense (along with other paleo languages theory, so Obenga's is not more Fringe than any of the other paleo language sometimes discussed by linguists).
Frankly, I'm a bit disappointment in you but only because you started very well with the Kongo connection for example, so I had high hope. There's so many connections between African populations still to be studied and explored but instead you're wasting your time trying to link Indo-Europeans and African languages. What's next? You trying to prove that Europeans are also genetically like Ancient Egyptians/Africans?
At the end of it we will be able to say Ancient Egyptians are like Europeans and African people, two closely related populations (by languages and genetics!!). Ridiculous.
I will stick with Obenga's theory about the Negro-Egyptian language. Something that actually make sense.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to be expected, you're thinking too hard. Indo-Europeans are genetically different than ancient Egyptians. If you want to speculate that, go ahead. In the future, only comment on what I said, not what you think I may say in the future. It will save you some frustration.
Secondly, Obenga's opinion holds little weight. What he's able to demonstrate scientifically is all that matters. Although Obenga did a good start, his method, ultimately, was poor. He did not establish conclusively, using the comparative method, his Negro-Egyptian family. He showed relatedness, but he did not do the work that would establish his family. He did not stick to a strict set of languages and compared complete paradigms, reconstructed the parent language, and then offered his N-E. That's what you're supposed to do. He didn't do it. This has been brought up several times on this website concerning Obenga. For example:
have several problems with OBENGA's (TO) 1993 classification:
The conclusions of his work are the following.
The linguistic map of Africa can be separated in four families: -Négro-Egyptien (Niger Congo, Nilo Saharan, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian) -Ethio-Semitic (he doesn't consider Arabic to be native to Africa) -Berber -Khoisan His argumentation is based on the following points; I am going to point out some things I disagree with:
1) Semitic, Berber & Egyptian aren't related to each other:
-TO Gives 25+ examples of elements of the basic vocabulary HE ARBITRARILY CHOSE which are said to be different in the three branches. Problem is that many of them can actually be found in those branches as show by several AA comparative studies, he would have known this he had done exhaustive research or wasn't biased.
-In the same vein, one could do the same with as much other basic vocabulary's words ONE ARBITRARILY CHOSE attested in Semitic, Berber & Egyptian yet TO doesn't mention them;
-Also to make -NC & NS look closer to Eg. than Sem & Ber, TO often restricts the semantic value of the words to the exact Egyptian one, while he sometimes uses a much (and sometimes ridiculously) larger semantic field to find his NC & NS cognates;
-TO "forgets" to mention several striking similarities between Eg., Ber. & Sem. For example the whole paradigm of "Old Perfective" which is used and identical in form and referent in Egyptian & Semitic is just ignored;
-He also gives only one Semitic form from only ONE lect out of all the Semitic and or Berber languages, while he compares Egyptian forms from the whole NC phylum, from West-Atlantic to Southern Bantu;
2)Egyptian is related to Niger Congo and Nilo Saharan:
-TO cites the personal pronouns of his "langues négro-africaines modernes" as a proof of their relationship with Egyptian. For example he points out that the third person pronouns are the same in Wolof, referring to it as a striking similarity, while the WHOLE Egyptian paradigm is paralleled in Berber and Semitic;
-His evidence, whether it is about lexicon, sound correspondences or grammar is never paradigmatic (i.e. presenting linked and mutually substituable elements in a regular way);
-Thus, his evidence, for example often based on monosyllabic examples (since he doesn't rely on systematic phonemic correspondences) doesn't differ than similarities that can be found in typologically related yet genetically unrelated languages, like languages favoring monosyllabic roots.
In conclusion, I would say that since TO doesn't provide any convincing (being possibly distinguishable of typological traits) evidence to show a relationship between Niger-Congo Nilo-Saharan & Egyptian, and fails at showing the unrelatedness of Semitic, Berber & Egyptian, his classification cannot be objectively accepted by any scholar aware of modern knowledge about genetic and typological linguistics, and African linguistics.
Again, these fundamental issues prevents Obenga's N-E from being proved. Important 1993 work, but lacked in major areas of methodology. Mboli didn't make Obenga's mistake. Mboli officially establishes the language family and discovers patterns and isoglosses that would not have been detectable using Obenga's method.
And again, if you're going to comment about my post, only include information for which I have stated. I never claimed Khoisan, Berber, or Semitic were a part of Negro-Egyptian. Where did you get that from? Indo-European is not being claimed as a branch of Negro-Egyptian either. You obviously haven't read the material and you're making stuff up out of your head.
To put it in plain English for you. Negro-Egyptian is a family. It has three branches: kikuki, kekwe, kweke. The Kekwe and Kweke branches are where we get Wolof, Sango, M-E, Coptic, Zande, Yoruba, Fulani, Bantu, etc. The kikuki (tri-syllable branch) is the branch that ultimate moves out of Africa and converges with indigenous languages in the Levant and this is how we get Semitic. The kekwe and kweke branches converge in the Nile Valley and produce the languages we see that I mentioned and more. Two new dialects of N-E emerge: beer and bere. Some languages, we don't know which languages, from these branches, in three separate waves, move into Eurasia, again, it also converges with the native local languages, those that derive from India (via the IBM and other data) and becomes PIE. These languages begin as creoles, to an extent, and become unique languages unto themselves. They no longer hold the structure that defines N-E. No different than the Khoisan, who genetically we all come from, who we from Africa are all related to, but whose languages are far removed from Khoisan type languages. N-E is not related to Khoisan languages, but the people are related to the Khoisan genetically. Indo-Europeans are related to Africans genetically, but not linguistically to where you can say that PIE is a branch unto itself of N-E.
Plain and simple, N-E languages are responsible for the formation of PIE, but PIE is not closely related to N-E languages. Structure and grammar define languages. What we are detecting linguistically is the fossilization of N-E grammar, and the presence of vocabulary and culture that can ONLY be explained by African languages. The DNA evidence, cited in a dozen peer-reviewed papers, backs-up the linguistic data. It is what it is. So be it.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^With that explanation I still feel you're going out of your way to link the Indo-European language family with Obenga's Negro-Egyptian phylum.
What I understand from what you said above is that you don't claim Indo-Europeans languages like English and Russian are languages from the Negro-Egyptian family. You claim that IE somehow at its beginning was some kind of creole language with some small amount of Negro-Egyptian words/grammar influencing it during it's formation. The other major influence at that time being the native language(s) of the proto-Indo-European speakers before and where the Proto-IE language was born. On the other hand, you agree, I think, that Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan, Cushite and Chadic languages are genetically related languages part of the Negro-Egyptian family. Is that it?
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
No different than the Khoisan, who genetically we all come from, who we from Africa are all related to, but whose languages are far removed from Khoisan type languages. N-E is not related to Khoisan languages, but the people are related to the Khoisan genetically.
I often see this error.
It's very important in population structure to understand that we don't come from Khoisans. Not more for example, than Khoisans come from us (us being other Africans, Europeans, etc aka all non-Khoisans people).
Saying we come from Khoisans is as absurd as saying Khoisans come from us.
It is as absurd as saying you come from your blood brother!!
You share parents with your brothers but you don't come from them!
We, aka all non-Khoisan people, just share common parents ancestors with Khoisan people. It's a brother-brother type of relationship not parent-children relationship.
Since the time of our common ancestors with Khoisans, our Khoisans brothers had more than enough time to become their own people, develop their own culture and develop their own languages!!
The language now spoken by the Khoisan may be completely different than the language spoken by the common ancestors of all humans (our common parents). In fact, it's possible that some characteristics of non-Khoisan languages like Indo-Europeans or Negro-Egyptians languages may be more similar to the ancient language spoken by the first humans (125kya).
More likely is that all modern languages (including Khoisans) are relatively completely different than the languages spoken by the first humans groups (about 125kya). Some characteristic of the ancient languages could have been lost then reappeared again by pure coincidence and the fact that we can't make millions of different sounds with our mouth or even elaborate millions of different grammar form (for example we either place the subject before or after the verb. There's only 2 options at best. For "SVO" there's only 6 options SVO, OVS, SOV, OSV, VSO, VOS ). The repertoire of different sounds and grammar forms is extensive but still limited and thus some coincidental similarities are possible between modern languages and with past languages.
As a side note the only characteristic of the Khoisans which could favor them to retain some ancient traits (genetic or linguistic) would be that they (possibly) went through less bottleneck situations (sharp decrease in population sizes). If you always maintain large populations, you have a bigger chance of retaining the diversity of some ancient features which wouldn't be wiped away at the same time of the sharp decrease in population size. Still, as I said, it's more likely that almost everything changed since 125kya for every modern populations. The only retained features by IE, NE or Khoisans would be purely coincidental or at best very random.
quote: Indo-Europeans are related to Africans genetically,
What?!? What do you mean by this?
Indo-Europeans are not related to Africans beside through our common ancestors at the moment of the OOA migrations (some 65kya) and recent admixtures (20kya to be generous if not 12kya). That means there's a 65-20=45kya gaps minimally between the OOA migrations and any kind of back migration and admixtures between modern Africans and Eurasians. Of course, everything is relative. All humans are related, as we share common ancestors in Africa (125kya and later).
I just want to repeat it again. You share common parent(s) with your blood brothers (like Khoisan people are brothers to us) you don't come from your brothers or you from them!! It's basic but important.
Do you call your brother 'Daddy'. No, I don't think so. Khoisans are not your daddy!
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Indo-Europeans are not related to Africans beside through our common ancestors at the moment of the OOA migrations (some 65kya)
^I advise everyone to routinely fact-check Amun Ra's posts--especially when he goes against people who know more than him and who have a long record of arguing based on evidence as opposed to his known preconceived emotion-based style of challenging data/ views. He's known for habitually blurting out claims on matters he knows absolutely nothing about. Rely on his posts at your own risk.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: New Developments in Siberian Archreology
By CHESTER S. CHARD
v. P. Alekseev discussed the racial types of the Altai-Sayan uplands during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. On the basis of geological and palreo climatic evidence, he feels that the initial human settlement of the area could have taken place as far back as the Lower Palreolithic (which in Soviet usage includes the Mousterian). Judging by the Afontova Gora II cranial fragment, the Upper Palreolithic population evidently must be assigned to the Mongoloid race. The Europeoid component begins to penetrate into certain areas during the Neolithic-especially into the southern part of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. Alekseev identifies in this latter area a morphologically Negroid type which would indicate contact with_ southern regions.
Russian Source Materials for the Racial History of Northern Eurasia Author(s): Chester S. ChardSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1962), pp. 117-125
Along with many Mongoloid features it displays prognathism and a wide nose. The latter confirm previous evidence from this area suggesting that there was a southern element (Negroid- Australoid) in the Neolithic population here which persisted into the Bronze Age.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
The Palaeolithic of the Urals and the Peopling of the North Author(s): O. N. Bader and Richard G. KleinSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1965), pp. 77-90
In the Holocene, when the continental glacier disappeared from the north and the immediate consequences of the glaciations were overcome, ancient Mesolithic hunters of the region of the Urals settled in the peri-Arctic territory leaving traces of their stay even in the Bol'shezemel'skaia tundra (Chernov 1948). In the region of the Urals, as apparently in the forested zone of Siberia, the transition to the Mesolithic was accomplished by macrolithic tool users (Golii Kamen1 near Nizhnii Tagil) and only later, as the consequences of glaciation were gradually overcome and the landscape zones were displaced to the north, were the Urals settled on both flanks by people with a well-developed microlithic technique (Bader I960). These people came from the south - from the Ponto-Caspian region. This southern wave probably strengthened the Europoid element in the Urals and possibly brought with it an attenuated Negroid type which later is found west of the Urals in the late Neolithic (Gavrilovka), in the Bronze Age (the Algashinskii burial ground of the Abashevo culture), and even in the Iron Age (the Mari burial grounds).
posted
An ancient Indo-European language family does not exist.
There was no Indo-European homeland in the Steppes, because,there was never any population speaking Proto-Indo-European languages .The exile of Greeks in Pakistan by the Persians, and the use of Greek as a language of culture and, Roman and Greek administration in the European regions ruled by the Greeks and Romans account for the Greek elements in the I-E member languages.
Personally, I don’t see any influence of Proto-Indo-European languages on Negro-Egyptian because the I-E family is not prehistoric in origin.
The I-E languages can be explained by historical factors, mainly the spread of Greek Civilization by Alexander the Great, and the exile of Greeks in Pakistan, by the Persians. It was in Pakistan that the Greek language was probably corporated into Sanskrit. Many of the rules for Sanskrit were codified by Panini, who was born in Salatura, in Northwest Pakistan. Panini's grammar contains 4000 rules.
When Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit, it was spoken by the elites in the area. Greek was also popular when Panini wrote the Sanskrit grammar. The Greeks were called Yunani or Yavana. Thus we learn from Agrawala (1953) that the Yavanani lipi (edict) was well known in Gandahara, and even Panini mentions the Yavana in his grammar
The term Yauna meant Ionian (Woodcock, 1966).The history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting. When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327 B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By 180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline,the Greek Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander (d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila. The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966). See: https://www.academia.edu/1898458/Greek_influence_on_Sanskrit http://bafsudralam.blogspot.com/2010/03/sanskrit-and-greek-language.html
The Greeks took over many parts of Europe. This led to many Europeans adopting Greek as a lingua franca. The Romans also used Greek as the language of culture and administration in its European colonies. As a result, many Greek terms were probably lexicalized and nativised by speake of European languages spoken by people under first Greek and later Roman rule.
Given the historical evidence of Greeks in India/Pakistan when Pannini wrote his grammar and the role of Greek in administration and culture both under Greek, and later Roman rule, explains the origin of the Indo-European languages, since the language uniting the I-E group is Greek.
I-E languages have many African loan words. This results from the fact that the I-E people were nomads. As nomads they lacked science and the arts. As a result, when Europeans enslaved the Africans they conquered in Europe they adopted the culture items invented by these Blacks and the names Africans gave to these culture items. .
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: The linguist Guus Kroonen of Copenhagen University, in his essay "Non-Indo-European root nouns in Germanic: evidence in support of the Agricultural Substrate Hypothesis" (2012), provide some interesting insights into the Germanic languages and their influences from outside Indo-European. However, unlike Cambpell-Dunn, Bernal, or Bomhard, he does not propose the origins of this substrate with African languages. Kroonen notes that during the course of the twentieth century, it has become increasingly evident that a significant part - by some estimated as much as one third of the Germanic lexicon (cf. Rifkin 2007: 55) - lacks a solid Indo-European background. He acknowledges that many of these terms are probably innovations in Germanic, but that internal derivation processes cannot explain the sheer number of these unattested lexemes. Thus, it is proposed that an indigenous language was replaced by Indo-European and that traces of the indigenous lexicon remained to form Proto-Germanic.
Everywhere we go, Indo-European linguists are acknowledging non-indo-european influence on I-E. We've been able to explain these conundrums in I-E with African languages. What we are trying to do is paint a more accurate picture of human history. Our histories are more connected than we think and the evidences from various fields of inquiry are bringing this to light.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting links. The morphology seem to support the emerging genetics
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: New Developments in Siberian Archreology
By CHESTER S. CHARD
v. P. Alekseev discussed the racial types of the Altai-Sayan uplands during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. On the basis of geological and palreo climatic evidence, he feels that the initial human settlement of the area could have taken place as far back as the Lower Palreolithic (which in Soviet usage includes the Mousterian). Judging by the Afontova Gora II cranial fragment, the Upper Palreolithic population evidently must be assigned to the Mongoloid race. The Europeoid component begins to penetrate into certain areas during the Neolithic-especially into the southern part of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. Alekseev identifies in this latter area a morphologically Negroid type which would indicate contact with_ southern regions.
Russian Source Materials for the Racial History of Northern Eurasia Author(s): Chester S. ChardSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1962), pp. 117-125
Along with many Mongoloid features it displays prognathism and a wide nose. The latter confirm previous evidence from this area suggesting that there was a southern element (Negroid- Australoid) in the Neolithic population here which persisted into the Bronze Age.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
The Palaeolithic of the Urals and the Peopling of the North Author(s): O. N. Bader and Richard G. KleinSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1965), pp. 77-90
In the Holocene, when the continental glacier disappeared from the north and the immediate consequences of the glaciations were overcome, ancient Mesolithic hunters of the region of the Urals settled in the peri-Arctic territory leaving traces of their stay even in the Bol'shezemel'skaia tundra (Chernov 1948). In the region of the Urals, as apparently in the forested zone of Siberia, the transition to the Mesolithic was accomplished by macrolithic tool users (Golii Kamen1 near Nizhnii Tagil) and only later, as the consequences of glaciation were gradually overcome and the landscape zones were displaced to the north, were the Urals settled on both flanks by people with a well-developed microlithic technique (Bader I960). These people came from the south - from the Ponto-Caspian region. This southern wave probably strengthened the Europoid element in the Urals and possibly brought with it an attenuated Negroid type which later is found west of the Urals in the late Neolithic (Gavrilovka), in the Bronze Age (the Algashinskii burial ground of the Abashevo culture), and even in the Iron Age (the Mari burial grounds).
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Indo-Europeans are not related to Africans beside through our common ancestors at the moment of the OOA migrations (some 65kya)
^I advise everyone to routinely fact-check Amun Ra's posts--especially when he goes against people who know more than him and who have a long record of arguing based on evidence as opposed to his known preconceived emotion-based style of challenging data/ views. He's known for habitually blurting out claims on matters he knows absolutely nothing about. Rely on his posts at your own risk.
Don't mind this idiot. He's still mad the autosomal profile of Ancient Egyptians mummies (BMJ study, JAMA study, DNA Tribes analysis) matches the Great Lakes, Southern and Western African regions more than any others and he's still mad Ramses III is E1b1a not E1b1b (BMJ study). Of course other mummies could be E1b1b since E1b1b is closely related to E1b1a (google PN2 Bridge by Keita) or autosomally matches other regions of Africa.
Although it's important to fact check everything you find on this forum, the web and even in studies (by using other studies and reliable sources). For anything I say on this forum, I always presume people will verify things from themselves that's why I often post links and sources of information (like the BMJ study, JAMA, etc shown above) from which I based my analysis. Even studies by reliable sources often contradict themselves, science is always evolving and new studies and analysis always provide new informations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: New Developments in Siberian Archreology
By CHESTER S. CHARD
v. P. Alekseev discussed the racial types of the Altai-Sayan uplands during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. On the basis of geological and palreo climatic evidence, he feels that the initial human settlement of the area could have taken place as far back as the Lower Palreolithic (which in Soviet usage includes the Mousterian). Judging by the Afontova Gora II cranial fragment, the Upper Palreolithic population evidently must be assigned to the Mongoloid race. The Europeoid component begins to penetrate into certain areas during the Neolithic-especially into the southern part of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. Alekseev identifies in this latter area a morphologically Negroid type which would indicate contact with_ southern regions.
Russian Source Materials for the Racial History of Northern Eurasia Author(s): Chester S. ChardSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1962), pp. 117-125
Along with many Mongoloid features it displays prognathism and a wide nose. The latter confirm previous evidence from this area suggesting that there was a southern element (Negroid- Australoid) in the Neolithic population here which persisted into the Bronze Age.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
The Palaeolithic of the Urals and the Peopling of the North Author(s): O. N. Bader and Richard G. KleinSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1965), pp. 77-90
In the Holocene, when the continental glacier disappeared from the north and the immediate consequences of the glaciations were overcome, ancient Mesolithic hunters of the region of the Urals settled in the peri-Arctic territory leaving traces of their stay even in the Bol'shezemel'skaia tundra (Chernov 1948). In the region of the Urals, as apparently in the forested zone of Siberia, the transition to the Mesolithic was accomplished by macrolithic tool users (Golii Kamen1 near Nizhnii Tagil) and only later, as the consequences of glaciation were gradually overcome and the landscape zones were displaced to the north, were the Urals settled on both flanks by people with a well-developed microlithic technique (Bader I960). These people came from the south - from the Ponto-Caspian region. This southern wave probably strengthened the Europoid element in the Urals and possibly brought with it an attenuated Negroid type which later is found west of the Urals in the late Neolithic (Gavrilovka), in the Bronze Age (the Algashinskii burial ground of the Abashevo culture), and even in the Iron Age (the Mari burial grounds).
posted
Here's for you Asar Imhotep a study (from Nature) about the Khoisan which discuss a bit what I said earlier:
Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history
Abstract
The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago . In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations
- Khoisans and their ancestors split from non-Khoisans (Bantu, Europeans, etc) between 100 000-150 000 years ago.
Of course the exact dating is not important here. It always depend on the mutation rate chosen. What is important for you and any people to understand is that Khoisan ancestors split from other African (and non-African) populations a long time ago. So it's pretty obvious that non-Khoisan populations don't descend from them. Linguistically the language spoken by the Khoisan ancestors (after their split from other non-Khoisan ancestor populations) would have no direct impact to the language spoken by Niger-Kordofanian/Bantu speakers and Indo-European speakers at their formative proto stage.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the same study you can also gather (I assume people have downloaded and are reading it):
- Non- Africans represent a subpopulation split from the ancestral non- Khoisan African population3,8,15, and their genetic diversity further dramatically decreased during their migration from Africa to Eurasia.
This is consistent with the graph I posted at the beginning of this thread. A and B populations (composed of Khoisan and else) having split before the CT populations (Niger-Kordofanian, Cushitic, Chadic, Eurasians).
Khoisans having gone through less bottleneck situations than Niger-Kordofanian speakers(Bantu/West Africans) and Indo-Europeans speakers, in this order. They have a higher genetic diversity, so it's plausible they could also have maintained their higher "linguistic diversity" (like their sound inventory) due to the fact didn't went through the same level of population bottlenecks (dramatic size reductions) than Niger-Kordofanian speakers and Indo-Europeans speakers. Although it could also be through recent innovations (less plausible imo).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again for you Asar Imhotep (and other people interested into that subject):
In general, basic genetic analysis (using the admixture software for example). An example can be seen in Figure 1 on page 3 of the same Khoisan study posted above;
Don't show us a high level of admixtures of African DNA in non-Africans population like Indo-Europeans speakers (labelled CEI in Figure 1) and the Southern Indian individual (labelled SAIF).
You can also see in Figure 1, the Southern Indian individual is mostly related to Indo-Europeans speakers (yellow color) with some substantial level of Asian admixture (green color).
All this to say that genetically (using autosomal SNP), Indo-Europeans speakers don't have a substantial level of African admixtures. So it seems unlikely Negro-Egyptians speakers would have a high impact on the Indo-European language family at its formative years during the proto stage.
From various studies you can gather, the African (Negro-Egyptian speakers) admixtures in Indo-Europeans speakers is not zero, but it is very small and the time period probably relatively recent (after the proto-Indo-European stage) because it is almost absent in many modern Indo-European speakers. So it seems unlikely based on DNA, that the Negro-Egyptians language would have substantial impact on the Indo-European language family at its proto-stage. If NE speakers had any impact on the proto-IE language, it was NOT accompanied by substantial level of genetic admixtures.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: New Developments in Siberian Archreology
By CHESTER S. CHARD
v. P. Alekseev discussed the racial types of the Altai-Sayan uplands during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. On the basis of geological and palreo climatic evidence, he feels that the initial human settlement of the area could have taken place as far back as the Lower Palreolithic (which in Soviet usage includes the Mousterian). Judging by the Afontova Gora II cranial fragment, the Upper Palreolithic population evidently must be assigned to the Mongoloid race. The Europeoid component begins to penetrate into certain areas during the Neolithic-especially into the southern part of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. Alekseev identifies in this latter area a morphologically Negroid type which would indicate contact with_ southern regions.
Russian Source Materials for the Racial History of Northern Eurasia Author(s): Chester S. ChardSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1962), pp. 117-125
Along with many Mongoloid features it displays prognathism and a wide nose. The latter confirm previous evidence from this area suggesting that there was a southern element (Negroid- Australoid) in the Neolithic population here which persisted into the Bronze Age.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
The Palaeolithic of the Urals and the Peopling of the North Author(s): O. N. Bader and Richard G. KleinSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1965), pp. 77-90
In the Holocene, when the continental glacier disappeared from the north and the immediate consequences of the glaciations were overcome, ancient Mesolithic hunters of the region of the Urals settled in the peri-Arctic territory leaving traces of their stay even in the Bol'shezemel'skaia tundra (Chernov 1948). In the region of the Urals, as apparently in the forested zone of Siberia, the transition to the Mesolithic was accomplished by macrolithic tool users (Golii Kamen1 near Nizhnii Tagil) and only later, as the consequences of glaciation were gradually overcome and the landscape zones were displaced to the north, were the Urals settled on both flanks by people with a well-developed microlithic technique (Bader I960). These people came from the south - from the Ponto-Caspian region. This southern wave probably strengthened the Europoid element in the Urals and possibly brought with it an attenuated Negroid type which later is found west of the Urals in the late Neolithic (Gavrilovka), in the Bronze Age (the Algashinskii burial ground of the Abashevo culture), and even in the Iron Age (the Mari burial grounds).
Come on man. Any study that starts with the vague and ambiguous term 'Eurasian' as a genetic type cannot be taken seriously. Eurasia as a continent hosts many genetic lineages and many different populations with different features. So what is a Eurasian gene? Does it mean far east Asian, Central Asian, South Asian, Western European or Levantine? Which populations are we talking about? Ultimately what they are trying to claim these people were 'Europeans' but Europe is a small part of Eurasia so how does Eurasian gene turn into European genes? So now we are not really talking about Eurasia as opposed to Europe, meaning western Europe.... Same old game, different day. South Arabia is not "Europe" but these European scholars are so desperate to contradict OOA and the implications that they use all sorts of mental gymnastics to suggest that 1) South Arabia is in Eurasia and 2) therefore part of the Eurasian gene pool which means 3) South Arabians are/were "Eurasians" meaning closely related to Europeans (any European, but specifically West Europeans). Now here is the trick. The first Southern Arabians were Africans who migrated out of Africa. So when did those people in South Arabia stop being Africans and become "Eurasians" and why don't we call all lineages originating in Africa that crossed into Arabia "African"? And the bigger question is when did African lineages in South Arabia become Eurasian? Because the point here is that Eurasian genes originate in Africa in the first damn place and South Arabia (And North Arabia) was the obvious point of entry for those genes FROM Africa. So if we can call any gene in Eurasia "Eurasian" then why aren't those African genes that left Africa called "African"?
quote: We show that all of these populations have some ancestry most closely related to Europeans and Middle Easterners and use this to reconstruct the history of population movements between Eurasia, eastern Africa, and southern Africa.
Not only that, but you have in that image the suggestion that Neanderthal interbreeding took place in Europe and then these people made their way into the cradle of civilization between Arabia, Persia, the Euphrates and Egypt. Seriously? Implying that what makes Eurasians special in terms of genetics being their mixture with Neanderthals and of course, this unique "Western European" mixture was in the cradle of civilizations..... Right. When the fact is that again, these areas were in the path of the first humans out of Africa carrying African genes that later became "Eurasian" But here is the problem, there were no "Eurasian" genes 40,000 years ago. Oh. But we got a solution for that! We will say that the Neanderthal mixture took place right after the entrance of Africans into Europe and that is the signature marker for "Eurasian" genes versus the original "African" genetic lineages. Right. Because anybody with sense would question how African populations just leaving Africa and arriving in Europe become "Eurasians" and not simply "Africans".
Not to mention that many modern Khoisan people are mixed with later European settlers, whether they admit it or not. The Griqua being one notable example, but there are others and that goes for all Southern African populations.
quote: "These are very special, isolated populations, carrying what are probably the most ancient lineages in human populations today," says David Reich of Harvard University. "For a lot of our genetic studies we had treated them as groups that had split from all other present-day humans before they had split from each other."
So he and his colleagues were not expecting to find signs of western Eurasian genes in 32 individuals belonging to a variety of Khoisan tribes. "I think we were shocked," says Reich.
The unexpected snippets of DNA most resembled sequences from southern Europeans, including Sardinians, Italians and people from the Basque region (see "Back to Africa – but from where?"). Dating methods suggested they made their way into the Khoisan DNA sometime between 900 and 1800 years ago – well before known European contact with southern Africa (see map).
Archaeological and linguistic studies of the region can make sense of the discovery. They suggest that a subset of the Khoisan, known as the Khoe-Kwadi speakers, arrived in southern Africa from east Africa around 2200 years ago. Khoe-Kwadi speakers were – and remain – pastoralists who make their living from herding cows and sheep. The suggestion is that they introduced herding to a region that was otherwise dominated by hunter-gatherers.
Now if this is indeed true, then does that mean Southern Arabians are genetically linked to Italians? And where does that linkage originate? My argument is that all the original populations who exited Africa and settled in Europe, the Levant and Arabia ultimately would have a genetic relationship to Africa. So why aren't they showing that relationship that predated any potential return to Africa. Also, over that 40,000 year period of Africans migrating out of Africa, of course there were two way trips. So again, why are they calling this out as special?
Finally, in the actual study, nowhere is it listed what haplogtypes or haplogroups listed that they are calling "Eurasian". Another telltale sign of a red herring.
Trying to compare the fact that all modern human lineages 100% originate in Africa with some minor fraction of some haplogroup which may or may not have originated in non African populations,as opposed to originating in closely related African populations right across the red sea in Arabia is nonsense. Like I said before, all human lineages are in reality African lineages, especially going back 40,000 years to the first exit of humans from Africa. But they don't call those lineages African, they call them Eurasian, yet they sit right here and turn around and claim that genes in Europe which descend from Africans are "Eurasian" and stay "Eurasian" no matter how tiny the amount in African populations..... These clowns are ridiculous. They are still playing the same old game of arbitrarily identifying certain haplogroups as Eurasian and then trying to link that to a 'Eurasian' model of evolution. This model of evolution is based on CUTTING the relationship between Africans and Europeans by saying that after Africans left Europe they became magically cut off and instantly started evolving into separate haplogroups and mixed with Neanderthals making them non Africans anymore. When the fact is that those people in Europe were Africans by every meaning of the word for thousands of years and had been going back and forth during that time as well. But they can not and will not admit that those original lineages in Europe were African, but they have to create some kind of way to play up Eurasian lineages everywhere else in order to obfuscate and hide the fact that the populations we are talking about were all Africans to begin with for most of that history up until major differentiation began to take place maybe 20,0000 years ago or less.
Not to mention the "Negroid" element in Asia still persists to this day and is found all over Asia.....
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The 37,000-year-old body of a man found in 1954 in south-west Russia has delivered the oldest European DNA. The analysis of his genome, published this week, shows that much of Europe's diverse genetic makeup stretches back over 30,000 years and survived the last ice age.
The study is the latest in a slew of attempts to tease apart the origins of modern Europeans. We know that modern humans left Africa around 60,000 years ago at least, and that an early group migrated east, possibly along the coast, to south-east Asia and Oceania. We also know that Europeans and Asians parted ways more recently.
Today, Europeans are a hybrid breed that show traces of DNA from several distinct early populations. How Europeans came to acquire their diverse genetic heritage is something that several groups studying ancient human DNA are currently trying to decipher. Merry threesome
A leading proposal is that Europeans hail from three separate populations that migrated into Europe and mated with each other at different times in history.
To add to our understanding, a group of scientists led by the Centre for GeoGenetics at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark delved into the DNA of Kostenki-14, a man whose 37,000-year-old body was found on the banks of the Don river in southern Russia, several hundred kilometres from the border with Ukraine.
They compared markers in his DNA to other ancient humans found in Eurasia and to modern humans. They found that Kostenki-14's DNA was closely related to early European hunter-gatherers, contemporary Europeans and some contemporary Siberians. What they did not find was any relation to East Asians, suggesting that by the time Kostenki-14 was born the European and Asian lineages had already split from each other.
By contrast, another ancient genome published just a few weeks ago, belonging to a 45,000-year-old west-Siberian known as Ust'-Ishim, was related to both Europeans and Asians. That suggests the two groups parted ways between 45,000 and 37,000 years ago and makes Kostenki-14 the oldest European to have his genome sequenced
Now of course any humans in this time period were still primarily Africoid but that is not obvious from this kind of research. And of course, the lineages they carried still primarily of African origin.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Come on man. Any study that starts with the vague and ambiguous term 'Eurasian' as a genetic type cannot be taken seriously. Eurasia as a continent hosts many genetic lineages and many different populations with different features. So what is a Eurasian gene? Does it mean far east Asian, Central Asian, South Asian, Western European or Levantine? Which populations are we talking about?
Eurasia is a land mass. If you want the particulars read the original primary source scientific study which cites the particular haplotypes regions they are talking about
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Ultimately what they are trying to claim these people were 'Europeans' but Europe is a small part of Eurasia so how does Eurasian gene turn into European genes?
Who said Eurasian genes = European genes? Use quotes
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
South Arabia is not "Europe" but these European scholars are so desperate to contradict OOA and the implications that they use all sorts of mental gymnastics to suggest that 1) South Arabia is in Eurasia
Eurasia is a contiguous landmass.
There is no barrier between Europe and Asia
There is no barrier between Africa and Eurasia either but it's only a restively very small connection point, Egypt to the Middle East
South Arabia is not "Europe" yet it is part of a landmass "Eurasia"
You say this is a contradiction of the OOA. Do you realize that OOA means Out of Africa?
That means Not in Africa
That means Africans who went there evolved into non-Africans Not as more advanced, but as people adapted to a different climate
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
and 2) therefore part of the Eurasian gene pool which means 3) South Arabians are/were "Eurasians" meaning closely related to Europeans (any European, but specifically West Europeans).
wrong some Eurasians are closely related to Europeans others are not
On a relative basis Europeans are more closely related to Africans than East Asians are
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Now here is the trick. The first Southern Arabians were Africans who migrated out of Africa. So when did those people in South Arabia stop being Africans and become "Eurasians" and why don't we call all lineages originating in Africa that crossed into Arabia "African"? And the bigger question is when did African lineages in South Arabia become Eurasian?
when they attained genotypes that distinguished them
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Because the point here is that Eurasian genes originate in Africa in the first damn place and South Arabia (And North Arabia) was the obvious point of entry for those genes FROM Africa. So if we can call any gene in Eurasia "Eurasian" then why aren't those African genes that left Africa called "African"?
because some are different genes
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Not only that, but you have in that image the suggestion that Neanderthal interbreeding took place in Europe and then these people made their way into the cradle of civilization between Arabia, Persia, the Euphrates and Egypt.
While there are many Neanderthal sites in Europe some the interbreeding with humans is said to have taken place in the Middle East. Admixture with humans estimated 1-4% Some recent articles suggest that Neanderthal admixture may be greater in Asians. The people who have the highest percentage of Neanderthal genes are the Papua New Guinians 5-5.5%. It actually a similar to Neanderthal species called Denisova and interestingly the site where DNA was recovered for Denisova was not in Oceania but in Siberia. Some of the Papua New Guinians look somewhat African. Yet genetically, not dependent on 5% Denisova ancestry, they and Australians have been out of Africa 50K or longer and therefore have evolved into Eurasians genetically
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Seriously? Implying that what makes Eurasians special in terms of genetics being their mixture with Neanderthals and of course, this unique "Western European" mixture was in the cradle of civilizations..... Right.
The term "Cradle of Civilization" is usually a term associated with the Near East/Mesoptamia
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
When the fact is that again, these areas were in the path of the first humans out of Africa carrying African genes that later became "Eurasian" But here is the problem, there were no "Eurasian" genes 40,000 years ago.
Incorrect
Nature 514, 445–449 (23 October 2014) doi:10.1038/nature13810
Genome sequence of a 45,000-year-old modern human from western Siberia
Not to mention that many modern Khoisan people are mixed with later European settlers, whether they admit it or not. The Griqua being one notable example, but there are others and that goes for all Southern African populations.
And you have evidence that this was at a significantly higher rate than other places in Africa ?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote: "These are very special, isolated populations, carrying what are probably the most ancient lineages in human populations today," says David Reich of Harvard University. "For a lot of our genetic studies we had treated them as groups that had split from all other present-day humans before they had split from each other."
So he and his colleagues were not expecting to find signs of western Eurasian genes in 32 individuals belonging to a variety of Khoisan tribes. "I think we were shocked," says Reich.
The unexpected snippets of DNA most resembled sequences from southern Europeans, including Sardinians, Italians and people from the Basque region (see "Back to Africa – but from where?"). Dating methods suggested they made their way into the Khoisan DNA sometime between 900 and 1800 years ago – well before known European contact with southern Africa (see map).
Archaeological and linguistic studies of the region can make sense of the discovery. They suggest that a subset of the Khoisan, known as the Khoe-Kwadi speakers, arrived in southern Africa from east Africa around 2200 years ago. Khoe-Kwadi speakers were – and remain – pastoralists who make their living from herding cows and sheep. The suggestion is that they introduced herding to a region that was otherwise dominated by hunter-gatherers.
Now if this is indeed true, then does that mean Southern Arabians are genetically linked to Italians?
You were talking about Khoisan there is no relation
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
And where does that linkage originate? My argument is that all the original populations who exited Africa and settled in Europe, the Levant and Arabia ultimately would have a genetic relationship to Africa. So why aren't they showing that relationship that predated any potential return to Africa. Also, over that 40,000 year period of Africans migrating out of Africa, of course there were two way trips. So again, why are they calling this out as special?
evolution
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Finally, in the actual study, nowhere is it listed what haplotypes or haplogroups listed that they are calling "Eurasian". Another telltale sign of a red herring.
Trying to compare the fact that all modern human lineages 100% originate in Africa with some minor fraction of some haplogroup which may or may not have originated in non African populations,as opposed to originating in closely related African populations right across the red sea in Arabia is nonsense. Like I said before, all human lineages are in reality African lineages, especially going back 40,000 years to the first exit of humans from Africa. But they don't call those lineages African, they call them Eurasian, yet they sit right here and turn around and claim that genes in Europe which descend from Africans are "Eurasian" and stay "Eurasian" no matter how tiny the amount in African populations..... These clowns are ridiculous. [/QB]
So in your opinion Europeans and Asians are biologically Africans
Humans have been out of Africa 60-125 K That is sufficient time for new haplotypes to have formed
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another point for those who don't get it. Not to long ago, the researchers were saying that the Khoi and the San have some of the oldest genetic lineages on the planet.
Now if that is true and those lineages are older than any lineages outside of Africa, then how on earth does science now do a 180 degree turn and now say that these same people, who have lineages older than any outside Africa, are part Eurasian? How does that make sense? Here is the point I am making. European scholars cannot accept that the African lineages and populations are the oldest on the planet and the basis of all others. Therefore, they will do anything and everything in their power through trickery and slight of hand to make it seem as if 'Eurasian' lineages are 'widespread' as in Eurasians lineages are more mobile and widespread (not counting colonization) than African lineages. But that is a contradiction. If all lineages come from Africa, then how on earth can 'Eurasian' lineages be more widespread than 'African' lineages? The point being when did the first populations in 'Eurasia' stop being genetically African if the first populations in Eurasia were all carrying African lineages?
On top of that, we know full damn well that Africans have been moving around Africa for hundreds of thousands of years. So obviously, the San are not the only people in Africa with ancient genetic lineages. This is ludicrous. And certainly Africans did not get to South Africa 2,000 years ago, as all the finds at blombos cave make obvious. So why the obsession a) with the San and b) with potential 'Eurasian' admixture, when we know that the history of African migrations WITHIN Africa is older and longer than the existence of any OUTSIDE of Africa.
And on top of that, when Africans did move out of Africa, they moved to regions relatively close to Africa. And aside from those who moved far away, as in the Aborigines of Australia, many populations went back and forth. How much 2 way travel was going on between Africa and the Levant or Africa and Europe over the 40,000 years since Africans left? To suggest that these populations suddenly stopped moving is ludicrous as well.
And most of all, if the foundation of all genetic lineages is fundamentally African, dating back to a time 40,000 years ago when African founder populations created those lineages, then to speak of Eurasian lineages that are 60,000 years old is to speak of African lineages as the populations in that time frame were still African by any definition of the term. So again, how are they defining Eurasian?
quote: One of the most ancient lineages of the modern human has been uncovered by the sequencing of genes of a Southern African tribe.
The Khoisan tribe, made popular by The Gods Must Be Crazy movie series has been the biggest group of living humans for most of the last 150,000 years.
Scientists from Nanyang Technological University and Penn State University sequenced the genome of five living individuals of the Khoisan hunter/gatherer tribe and compared them with 420,000 genetic variants across 1,462 genomes from 48 ethnic groups of the global population.
The group was found to be genetically distinct not only from Europeans and Asians, but also from all other Africans.
Some individuals of the tribe exhibited traits showing their ancestors did not breed with other ethnic groups for 150,000 years
The study shows how genetic sequencing can reveal the ancestral lineage of any ethnic group up to 200,000 years ago.
The work will enable scientists to better understand how the human genome has evolved and lead to more effective treatment options for certain genetic diseases.
Khoisan hunter/gatherers in Southern Africa have always perceived themselves as the oldest people.
"Our study proves that they truly belong to one of mankind's most ancient lineages, and these high quality genome sequences obtained from the tribesmen will help us better understand human population history, especially the understudied branch of mankind such as the Khoisan," said Prof Schuster, an NTU scientist at the Singapore Centre on Environmental Life Sciences Engineering and a former Penn State University professor.
So, if humans were making paint in Blombos cave 100,00 years ago, where did they go and what lineages did they carry and what modern populations in Africa carry traces of those lineages? Or are we to believe these people just up and disappeared?
quote: The hoard includes red and yellow pigments, shell containers, and the grinding cobbles and bone spatulas to work up a paste - everything an ancient artist might need in their workshop.
This extraordinary discovery is reported in the journal Science.
It is proof, say researchers, of our early ancestors' complexity of thought.
"This is significant because it is pushing back the boundaries of our understanding of when Homo sapiens - people like us - first became modern," said Prof Christopher Henshilwood from the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
"These finds indicate that humans were certainly thinking in a modern way, in a way that is cognitively advanced, at least 100,000 years ago," he told BBC News.
And here is what I am getting at, these Europeans are now going to try and ressurect multiregional 'races' or 'mixtures' based on trace genetic lineages to play up this idea that homo sapiens from different regions have different markers based on different mixtures with different hominid species. That is what they are trying to do with this whole 'Eurasian' gene bag. They are trying to claim that the 'neanderthal' mix in Europe is what Eurasians DIFFERENT from Africans. And that is the point. Again, if all genetic lineages originated in Africa because all humans originated in Africa, then what is the meaning of a 'Eurasian' lineage that is 60,000 years old if that lineage goes back to populations recently emerged from Africa. Put it this way, if Europe or Eurasia was the home of modern humans, these people would claim all lineages as Eurasian lineages no matter how many mutations have ocurred and how far away. Because at the end of the day, European anthropology has always been about showing that Europe is the pinnacle of human biological evolution. And that is what is going on here, albeit in a more subtle way, as they play games with words to try and suggest that "Eurasian" lineages are more dominant in humanity (again leave out colonization). Meaning that Eurasian 'genes' can never be diluted or mutate and not still be Eurasian. This allows them to totally erase and downplay the fact that most of human history is African history around the world, starting before Africans migrated out of Africa and lasting many thousands of years after Africans left Africa. Again, these are the same people who produced the images of monkeys and apes evolving into white European men and Women, even now long after the African origins of humans has been proven.
This isn't just about genetic evolution, it is about trying to find some 'special' marker for Europeans and Asians that in a subtle way, they can claim makes them 'special', 'distinct' and 'unique', even if 99.99999% of all those genes originate in Africa that .00001% makes them special.
quote: Stringer states that the paradigm for human evolution must be changed with the emergence of these new discoveries. For the present, he remains focused on Africa as the birthplace of our species. It is commonplace for Westerners to picture Africa almost as a single spot, but it is larger than Europe and western Asia combined. Similarly, one might tend to imagine the “Stone Age” as a single unchanging episode, but it lasted hundreds of times longer than all of recorded history. Stringer suggests that across this vast space and time, a sort of multiregional interbreeding resulted in the rise of H. sapiens.
This evolution occurred all across Africa before the founding group of moderns departed. There are new findings that may place very early H. sapiens in ancient Morocco. Evidence is accumulating that its southern coast may have been the refuge where H. sapiens survived the expansion of the ice that covered most of northern Europe and that produced the population bottleneck seen in the record of our DNA. New DNA research hints at contributions to our genome from previously unknown sources, possibly humans who came back to Africa in the long period after the first archaic dispersal. Taken all together, Stringer finds the origin of modern humans to be much more complex than previously envisioned, and he suggests this complexity will increase as more evidence is discovered.
posted
It is all games. Khoe did not get their genes from Europeans just as Bantus are not "admixed" with Europeans. Yes, these populations may contain similar genes to Europeans BUT the genes went FROM Africans TO Europeans as part of OOA. That is where TReeMix comes in to determine "direction" ie events.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
It's obvious to me by reading your posts above that you have limited knowledge about population genetics. I ask you to please don't try to confuse people reading this forum with your ignorance.
You can't blame geneticists and researchers if YOU have limited knowledge and if YOU don't understand the basic of genetics.
And this thread is certainly not a good thread for me, or other people, to school you about the basic of population genetics. Anyway along the years you 2 have shown your constant unwillingness to learn the basics of population genetics and your posts are only good at confusing people with unsourced opinions based on your ignorance. Your posts belong to the Ancient Egypt forum, not here.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: To Doug M and xyyman.
It's obvious to me by reading your posts above that you have limited knowledge about population genetics. I ask you to please don't try to confuse people reading this forum with your ignorance.
You can't blame geneticists and researchers if YOU have limited knowledge and if YOU don't understand the basic of genetics.
And this thread is certainly not a good thread for me, or other people, to school you about the basic of population genetics. Anyway along the years you 2 have shown your constant unwillingness to learn the basics of population genetics and your posts are only good at confusing people with unsourced opinions based on your ignorance. Your posts belong to the Ancient Egypt forum, not here.
Please school me.
I want to know like I asked, when the African populations who migrated to Europe and Asia stopped being African? Simple question.
What is the yardstick you use for defining a "Eurasian" gene? And why is that siginificant considering that ALL the root genotypes came from Africa in the first place? So if you can label genetic lineages as "Eurasian" even if they exist outside Europe, then why can we not claim the same for African genes outside of Europe?
This is a simple point. And obviously it has to do with Egypt in that if you can arbitrarily and misleadingly claim a lineage as Eurasian and so-called 'isolated' populations in South Africa as 'mixed' with Eurasians then any part of Africa can be claimed as mixed with Eurasians in prehistory.
Human genetics is a tree. The trunk of that tree is in Africa. So wouldn't the main branches of that tree be African as well? Doesn't that only make logical common sense? But you got people taking twigs and branches and trying to claim those twigs and branches are as old as or are more significant in terms of the growth of the tree than the trunk itself. With no trunk there is no tree.
So I want to understand the yardstick being used here. Because any moron with half a brain knows full damn well that those populations who carried Early mutations of major lineages in Europe and Asia 40,000 and 60,000 years ago for all intents and purposes physically looked very much like their African ancestors. You are talking about many many small genetic chemical codes that do not necessarily have any impact on the outward appearance of the individual. Hence, mutations have been occurring in Africa since before humans left there.
So again, when did Eurasians lineages stop being African lineages? What is the yardstick being used here? Because I find it odd that Europeans have a hard time finding African lineages in Europe and Asia but have no problem finding Eurasian genes in Africa.... and I am talking about old genes not new ones.
Case in point. Look at the following page on wikipedia:
quote: Defining African admixture
Generally lineages used to characterize African admixture are those that are specific to Africa. Some DNA polymorphisms are shared by Europeans, West Asians, North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans. Examples of such variants include the y-chromosomal haplogroup E1b1b and mitochondrial haplogroup M1.[10]
This sharing of polymorphisms is the result of long distance movements of peoples between Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia that involved traversing North Africa and sometimes the Middle East. Consequently the definitions of "African", "Sub-Saharan African" and "North African" will depend on the time frame of reference or the semantic preferences of any particular scientist. Due to prehistoric migrations in and out of Africa, North African populations tend to exhibit allele frequencies that are intermediate between Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia.[13][14] Due to this complex genetic profile of Africa, African admixture in Europe could be the result of direct contact with Sub-Saharan Africans or indirectly through contact with North Africans with Sub-Saharan affiliations.
In some cases, lineages found in Africa and Europe may have a common origin in Asia (for example Y haplogroups R1, T) and Haplogroup U. One clade of haplogroup U, U6a1 is known to have expanded from North and East Africa back into Europe[15][16] even though haplogroup U6 is considered to have originated in the Middle East. Other lineages are known to have moved from Europe directly into Africa (for example mitochondrial haplogroups H1, H3.[5][17] Such back migrations between Africa and Eurasia also complicate defining admixture.
Which starts with the following, where they claim that Europeans started with Cro-Magnons, not Africans. Don't you see the contradiction and hypocrisy?
quote: According to the leading evolutionary theory of human origins, known as the Out of Africa theory, anatomically-modern humans first emerged in Africa 150,000-200,000 years ago. All non-Africans are descended from at least one group of humans who migrated out of Africa into western Asia 50,000-70,000 years ago. The first modern humans in Europe, the Cro-Magnon, was first found in southern Italy, and may have completely replaced the previous inhabitants, the Neanderthals, or mixed into them through mutual cooperation. Cro-Magnons were in the Middle East (Lebanon) by 45,000 years ago and in Eastern Europe by 40,000 years ago. By 30,000 years ago, the Cro-Magnon people had populated much of Europe. This was however not the last major human migration into Europe and this paleolithic population was to some extent replaced by later migrations to be discussed below.
And here is an even better page, which gets right to the point. If we are going to label genes and features based on their point of origin then why arent the first humans in Europe called Africans carrying African genes?
quote: Where Did EMH Come From?
In Africa, early modern humans appeared at least as long ago as 160,000 years BP at sites such as Bouri in Ethiopia, and perhaps as long ago as 195,000 years ago, if the dating of Omo Kibish, also in Ethiopia, is correct. The earliest sites outside of Africa with early modern humans are at Skhul and Qafzeh caves in what is now Israel about 100,000 years ago. There's a large gap in the record for Asia and Europe, between 100,000 and 40,000 years ago, a period in which the Middle East seems to have been occupied by Neanderthals; but around 50,000 years ago, the EMH appear again and flow back into Europe.
This is problematic, because there's very little data for these periods of time. In addition, the relationship between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens is hotly debated in some circles. Behaviorally, in Africa and the Middle East, the Neanderthals and EMH were pretty much the same; they were physically quite different and different scholars debate on our exact relationship with them.
Before the return of EMH to the Middle East and Europe, early technological glimmers of modern behavior are in evidence at several South African sites of the Still Bay/Howiesons Poort tradition, about 75,000-65,000 years ago. But it wasn't until about 50,000 years ago or so, that a difference in tools, in burial methods, in the presence of art and music, and probably some changes in social behaviors as well, became apparent. At the same time, early modern humans left Africa. What were the Tools Like?
Beginning about 50,000 years ago, the tool kit associated with EMH is the Aurignacian, characterized by what archaeologists call a 'blade industry'. In blade technology, the knapper has sufficient skill to purposefully produce a long thin sliver of stone that is triangular in cross-section. Blades were then converted into all kinds of tools, sort of the Swiss army knife of early modern humans.
Other things associated with early modern humans include ritual burials, such as that at Abrigo do Lagar Velho, Portugal, where a child's body was covered with red ochre before being interred 24,000 years ago. The invention of the atlatl was at least as long as 17,500 years ago, the earliest having been recovered from the site of Combe Sauniere. Venus figurines are attributed to early modern humans of about 30,000 years ago; and of course, let's not forget the amazing Lascaux Cave. So Why Don't We Still Call Them Cro-Magnon?
The more we learn about early modern humans, the less we feel confident about the early classification systems we developed more than 130 years ago. The term Cro-Magnon doesn't refer to a particular taxonomy or even a particular group located in a particular place. The word is not precise enough, and so most paleontologists prefer to use Anatomically Modern or Early Modern Humans.
What the hell is a cro magnon if the first humans in Europe came from Africa? Why is the water so muddy if OOA is a proven fact? Why are all alternate naming conventions being used for modern humans outside of Africa that down play and diminish the fact that they are Africans?
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Because I find it odd that Europeans have a hard time finding African lineages in Europe and Asia but have no problem finding Eurasian genes in Africa....
There's African lineages (lineages which appeared in Africa AFTER the OOA migrations) found all over Europe (usually in small proportions). There's a high proportion of the African E lineage in the Balkans (see Cruciani). Einstein is said to be from the African E lineage too.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Because I find it odd that Europeans have a hard time finding African lineages in Europe and Asia but have no problem finding Eurasian genes in Africa....
There's African lineages (lineages which appeared in Africa AFTER the OOA migrations) found all over Europe (usually in small proportions). There's a high proportion of the African E lineage in the Balkans (see Cruciani). Einstein is said to be from the African E lineage too.
Yes. I agree but those are all after OOA. What were the OOA lineages and their immediate downstream mutations?
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^C'mon man. Do you really think he knows? He's just going to google what you're asking him. His lecturing posture on ES is sustained by Google. It's his lifeline.
His whole MO is to get attention going against people whose views have already crystallized a long time ago, while his views are forming as you're schooling him and as he's scouring Google to keep up with you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I figure that everyone is African under the skin, but before 37ma, human ancestors were not in Africa, they must have been in EurAsia, and most probably did not have black skin.
posted
?? where do this nuts come from? When you make such outrageous claims it is a good idea to back it up...cite some sources. Pre-human ancestors are now Eurasians who were white then migrated to Africa then turned black. Colorado or Washington?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: [q] Can you point me to the 2015 paper you speak of? Thank you in advance. [/qb]
The oldest mixture events appear to be between populations related to sub-Saharan Africans and West Europeans occurring ~3,800 BCE, followed closely by mixture of Sardinian and Caucasus-related populations. Later, several mixture events occurred from 3,000-1,200 BCE involving diverse Eurasian populations (Table 1, Figure 3). We compared patterns of admixture in Armenians to other regional populations and detected signals of RECENT admixture in most other populations. For example, we find 7.9% (±0.4) East Asian ancestry in Turks from admixture occurring 800 (±170). We also detect sub-Saharan African gene flow 850 (±85) years ago in Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic