posted
there is a reason I am ignoring your post. You don't know what you are looking at. I will explain it to you later. Not now. Basal Eurasian/EEF is a FCAT now. The debate has moved on to the Steppes. which is also falling flat on it face as we speak. Why? They are parsing out a FRACTION of the remaining "non-Basal Eurasian" ie the other 20% to try to justify European origin from the STEPPES. Hope you understand that?
quote:Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So what does all this mean? There is no race. There never was. It is called isolation by distance ie gnetic surfing. Sergio was correct..mostly. Coon was correct…mostly. Neolithics that make up most Euroepans has an African origin most likely close to the Great lake….anyone saying Malawi? DNA is prving them to be correct. Europeans are depigmented Africans. A subset of Africans. Can wait for that Malawi paper of LSA Africans.
lol. You cannot be proposing IBD if you're saying Europeans are up to 80% EEF (who you think are Africans). The model I propose is IBD, hence why I support the cultural transmission model of farming (with small-scale neighbouring amount of gene flow from Levant > Europe). We're now getting ancient DNA on Neolithic Baltics which shows EEF admixture in them is negligible to non-existent. This supports IBD and the cultural transmission model rather than those people arguing for large scale admixture or near population replacement.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Seems the abstract in the OP is beginning to make sense now in light of this^ and all the other things I've posted.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: has Egyptian cultural associations
This is also why one should be careful with evoking slavery. It speaks for itself that slavery should be considered as a last option when trying to explain migration. But some people just can't help themselves when it comes to Africans.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: The recent peak of the founder scan for L3, dating to ∼1.8 ka in Eastern Africa, mainly comprises L3b and L3d lineages in the corresponding partition in table 2 (founders F8, F16, F17, and F25 in supplementary table S4, Supplementary Material online). Many of these lineages are also present in Southern Africa, with founder age estimates indicating that they arrived very recently, probably again within the last two millennia. The frequency of these four lineages is higher in the southern part of Eastern Africa (9% in Tanzania, 4.7% in Somalia, and 3.2% in Kenya) than to the north (2.3% in Ethiopia and 0.78% in Sudan). Together with the age estimates, this points to a genetic input from West/Central Africa into Eastern Africa within the last few thousand years, into regions that now have many Bantu-speaking populations.
Think that explains part of the post-Roman increase of SSA ancestry mentioned by the abstract in the OP.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but I remember from that discussion that you kept saying 'L3' every time I said 'L3f'.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: 2) What is the corresponding male DNA to the L3 ?
The corresponding male YDNA to L3 is CT or something close in age. But what you presumably meant to ask is what, in my view, the male counterpart of the original Berbers and/or L3fb16 is.
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Nodnard you make an EXCELLENT point. Which is ONE of the MANY reasons why I brought up Benin sickle cell found in Egypt. I think I remember Keita saying the early UPPER Egyptian remains had a more "broad" characteristics more similar to stereotypical SSA like Nilotic Nilo-Saharans while Lower Egyptians seemed more similar to Ethio/Horner type characteristics.
I'm going based off of memory for this one. Maybe either you ro @Swenet can confirm.
But anyways I agree that if the ancestors of West Africans were able to move up to the Maghreb apparently then it should have been EASIER for Nilotics to move to Upper Egypt. Heck I THINK I remember poster Djehuti saying Nilotics lived more northern in Sudan.
West Africans have been traveling back and forth between North Africa and West Africa since before there was a Sahara. This nonsense about SSA as some "special" distinction in African population history should stop. Most of West Africa was hardly even settled because of the environment up until relatively recently in African terms. Prior to that these people moved between Lake Chad, the Nile, the Sahara, Northern Africa and elsewhere as a result of environmental conditions. Even today the Fulani can be found from West Africa all the way into Sudan. And not only that but West African muslims regularly travel back and forth to Sudan and there is a strong historic connection between early West African societies and Sudan via Chad and the now dry Nile Tributaries in western Sudan.
Technically if we want to be accurate we should be speaking more of geographic regions from which various populations may have been moving into AE at various times. Including Saharans moving East, Nilotics Moving North, Chadians moving West, Extreme North Africans moving south and even nomadic west Africans moving East and Horners moving North. Each of these populations have implications in terms of a genetic signature which is more meaningful and useful than "SSA".
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: [qb] @Nodnard you make an EXCELLENT point. Which is ONE of the MANY reasons why I brought up Benin sickle cell found in Egypt. I think I remember Keita saying the early UPPER Egyptian remains had a more "broad" characteristics more similar to stereotypical SSA like Nilotic Nilo-Saharans while Lower Egyptians seemed more similar to Ethio/Horner type characteristics.
I'm going based off of memory for this one. Maybe either you ro @Swenet can confirm.
But anyways I agree that if the ancestors of West Africans were able to move up to the Maghreb apparently then it should have been EASIER for Nilotics to move to Upper Egypt. Heck I THINK I remember poster Djehuti saying Nilotics lived more northern in Sudan.
West Africans have been traveling back and forth between North Africa and West Africa since before there was a Sahara. This nonsense about SSA as some "special" distinction in African population history should stop. Most of West Africa was hardly even settled because of the environment up until relatively recently in African terms. Prior to that these people moved between Lake Chad, the Nile, the Sahara, Northern Africa and elsewhere as a result of environmental conditions. Even today the Fulani can be found from West Africa all the way into Sudan. And not only that but West African muslims regularly travel back and forth to Sudan and there is a strong historic connection between early West African societies and Sudan via Chad and the now dry Nile Tributaries in western Sudan.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Another aspect is wondering where does this Saharo-Sudanese/Sahara-Sahel-Nile culture start.
If you consider the ceramic pottery as the starting point of the culture. Ounjougou in Southern Mali seems to be where it does start. It holds the oldest known ceramic pottery in Africa which then spread across the green Sahara.
As the text mentions: The pottery types at Tagalagal in Niger, the earliest known for this region [edit:Central Sahara], were already quite diversified when they first appeared, perhaps confirming the adoption of the use of pottery from another place of origin. That is in Southern Mali part of the "Sahelo-Sudanian" region. Notice the direction: From Southern Mali toward the Central Sahara.
As the text mentions, people from southeastern sub-Saharan zone moved toward the Sahara when the Monsoon rains began to shift northward greening the previously arid Sahara desert of the late Pleistocene.
A cultural influx from the southeastern sub-Saharan zone toward the Sahara could explain the spread of quartz microlithic industries across West Africa. First observed in Cameroon at Shum Laka (30,600-29,000 BC), we next find them in the Ivory Coast at Bingerville (14,100-13,400 BC), in Nigeria at Iwo Eleru (11,460-11,050 BC) and finally at Ounjougou (phase 1: 10th mill. BC).
So the spread of the West African microlithic industries slowly shifted northward to finally reach the Southern Mali location where it evolves into ceramic making neolithic culture which then spread toward the rest of the greening Sahara.
quote: The beginning of the Holocene at Ounjougou
Introduction
The Ogolian, an extremely arid episode beginning in West Africa around 23,000 BP, is represented at Ounjougou by a significant sedimentary and archaeological hiatus. It is not until the return of humid climatic conditions at the beginning of the Holocene that we once again find evidence for humans in this part of the continent. It is thus in a context of heavy rains and recolonization of the vegetal cover, at the beginning of the 10th millennium BC, that a new population was established on the Bandiagara Plateau. At the Ounjougou site complex, several sites have made it possible to define two occupation phases chronologically situated between 10,000 and 7,000 cal BC. Strikingly, the presence of pottery is attested from the first half of the 10th mill. BC. This is the earliest evidence for pottery in sub-Saharan Africa. The use of stone milling material is confirmed from the 8th mill. BC by the discovery of a millstone and grinder.
Issues and objectives
It is thus within a context of climatic and environmental change, of migrations and repopulation of a region of Africa abandoned for several thousand years that the craft of making pottery and the use of milling emerged. Our aims are to better understand the material culture of these Early Holocene populations, to determine their origins and identify their development, and finally to clarify the paleoenvironmental context in which they were established and evolved. Understanding of the mechanisms in which humans invented pottery and milling tools clearly lie at the heart of our research problem. Our main objective is therefore to excavate stratified sites located in the valley base, geologically in situ, to obtain the broadest sample possible of material remains, to situate the site in relative and absolute chronologies and to place them in relation to the geomorphological and archaeobotanical sequence. By comparison to the rare contemporaneous assemblages in West and Saharan Africa, we hope to retrace the route of humans after the vegetation had returned at the beginning of the Holocene. Finally, via systematic survey, we hope to discover contemporaneous site yielding complementary data on these populations, in terms of subsistence economy or the use of space.
The 10th and 9th millennia BC (Phase 1 of the Holocene of Ounjougou)
It is at the site of Ravin de la Mouche that we identify the first Holocene sedimentary sequence, in the form of a channel cut into the yellow Pleistocene silts, infilled with coarse sand and gravel. The chronological placement of the upper layers of this first group has been determined by 12 radiocarbon dates and 3 OSL dates between 9,400 and 8,400 cal BC. The lithic industry discovered in stratigraphic position shows that unidirectional reduction predominates, but other techniques, such as bipolar reduction on anvil and multidirectional, were also employed. Quartz was the main raw material used and the typological range includes small retouched flakes, borers and especially an original type of bifacial armatures with covering retouch.
Three ceramic sherds are linked to this industry. They all come from the base of the HA1A stratigraphic unit. Their thickness ranges between 4.5 and 7 mm. The only way is refundable on board simple hemispherical bowl of 21 cm diameter. One sherd shows a roulette decoration, which could not be further identified. Microscopic analysis of two samples revealed that they contain a silicate matrix, without carbonates, with 20-30% of non-plastic inclusions. These consist mainly of single crystal quartz well rounded with an edge of recrystallization, with a fine to very fine diameter. These quartz are quite similar to those found in local sandstone and clays. Mineralogical analysis of the nearest clay deposits by X-ray diffraction revealed the presence of kaolinite, whose absence in ceramics indicates a cooking temperature above 550 � C. The pastes were prepared using non-calcareous clays with little prior treatment, as shown by their texture somewhat chaotic. The serial structure indicates that no temper has been added. Only one sherd contains fragments of grog, with a maximum diameter of 4 mm. However, this low percentage may indicate involuntary incorporation during the preparation of the paste.
The 8th millennium BC (Phase 2 of the Holocene of Ounjougou)
The next part of the Holocene sequence is documented at two principal sites – the Ravin du Hibou and Damatoumou. The archaeological layers are chronologically situated by an OSL date and 7 radiocarbon dates (8,000-7,000 cal BC). The lithic industry is characterized by reduction of quartz cobbles by unidirectional, bidirectional, multidirectional, peripheral and bipolar on anvil reduction techniques. The assemblage is composed mainly of microlithic tools: borers, backed points, notches, denticulates, sidescrapers, retouched flakes and geometric microliths.
The next part of the Holocene sequence is documented at two principal sites – the Ravin du Hibou and Damatoumou. The archaeological layers are chronologically situated by an OSL date and 7 radiocarbon dates (8,000-7,000 cal BC). The lithic industry is characterized by reduction of quartz cobbles by unidirectional, bidirectional, multidirectional, peripheral and bipolar on anvil reduction techniques. The assemblage is composed mainly of microlithic tools: borers, backed points, notches, denticulates, sidescrapers, retouched flakes and geometric microliths.
West African and Saharan context
The ceramics and grinding material from phases 1 and 2 at Ounjougou are the earliest evidence of this type currently known in sub-Saharan Africa. In our present state of knowledge, this pottery at Ounjougou may have resulted from a center of invention in the current Sahelo-Sudanian zone with exportation somewhat later toward the Central Sahara, where it is known from the 9th millennium BC. The pottery types at Tagalagal in Niger, the earliest known for this region, were already quite diversified when they first appeared, perhaps confirming the adoption of the use of pottery from another place of origin. The lithic industry of phases 1 and 2 is characterized by southern affinities, including quartz microliths using bipolar reduction on anvil proper to the "sub-Saharan microlithic technocomplex" defined by K. MacDonald, except for the bifacial armatures which are only found in the north, in the Saharan zone, at slightly younger sites. A cultural influx from the southeastern sub-Saharan zone toward the Sahara could explain the spread of quartz microlithic industries across West Africa. First observed in Cameroon at Shum Laka (30,600-29,000 BC), we next find them in the Ivory Coast at Bingerville (14,100-13,400 BC), in Nigeria at Iwo Eleru (11,460-11,050 BC) and finally at Ounjougou (phase 1: 10th mill. BC).
You and Obenga were right about Negro-Egyptian all along.
It just wasn't what you thought it was because the remaining Egyptian samples are not especially close to it . Let alone to the SSA samples (exception being the Tigrean sample).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Nodnard you make an EXCELLENT point. Which is ONE of the MANY reasons why I brought up Benin sickle cell found in Egypt. I think I remember Keita saying the early UPPER Egyptian remains had a more "broad" characteristics more similar to stereotypical SSA like Nilotic Nilo-Saharans while Lower Egyptians seemed more similar to Ethio/Horner type characteristics.
I'm going based off of memory for this one. Maybe either you ro @Swenet can confirm.
But anyways I agree that if the ancestors of West Africans were able to move up to the Maghreb apparently then it should have been EASIER for Nilotics to move to Upper Egypt. Heck I THINK I remember poster Djehuti saying Nilotics lived more northern in Sudan.
West Africans have been traveling back and forth between North Africa and West Africa since before there was a Sahara. This nonsense about SSA as some "special" distinction in African population history should stop. Most of West Africa was hardly even settled because of the environment up until relatively recently in African terms. Prior to that these people moved between Lake Chad, the Nile, the Sahara, Northern Africa and elsewhere as a result of environmental conditions. Even today the Fulani can be found from West Africa all the way into Sudan. And not only that but West African muslims regularly travel back and forth to Sudan and there is a strong historic connection between early West African societies and Sudan via Chad and the now dry Nile Tributaries in western Sudan.
Technically if we want to be accurate we should be speaking more of geographic regions from which various populations may have been moving into AE at various times. Including Saharans moving East, Nilotics Moving North, Chadians moving West, Extreme North Africans moving south and even nomadic west Africans moving East and Horners moving North. Each of these populations have implications in terms of a genetic signature which is more meaningful and useful than "SSA".
Good post and I agree 100%. I do believe lake Chad would have been used as a "refugee spot" when the Sahara was drying as the ancestors of West Africans then migrated down to West Africa. And some even to the Nile to Sudan probably.
@Swenet I know this is a VERY newbie question but what is the concept about "Negro-Egyptian", because I keep hearing the term.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Negro-Egyptian is the name of Obenga's language construct. However, this Egyptian skeletal sample from near the Egypto-Nubian border is called 'Egyptian Negro'. There is no relation between both names (presumably) but since some here would jump on this as a vindication of Obenga and Clyde, I was poking fun at them. This sample is an outlier from predynastic Egyptian samples and even more distant from dynastic Egyptians.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Nodnard you make an EXCELLENT point. Which is ONE of the MANY reasons why I brought up Benin sickle cell found in Egypt. I think I remember Keita saying the early UPPER Egyptian remains had a more "broad" characteristics more similar to stereotypical SSA like Nilotic Nilo-Saharans while Lower Egyptians seemed more similar to Ethio/Horner type characteristics.
I'm going based off of memory for this one. Maybe either you ro @Swenet can confirm.
But anyways I agree that if the ancestors of West Africans were able to move up to the Maghreb apparently then it should have been EASIER for Nilotics to move to Upper Egypt. Heck I THINK I remember poster Djehuti saying Nilotics lived more northern in Sudan.
West Africans have been traveling back and forth between North Africa and West Africa since before there was a Sahara. This nonsense about SSA as some "special" distinction in African population history should stop. Most of West Africa was hardly even settled because of the environment up until relatively recently in African terms. Prior to that these people moved between Lake Chad, the Nile, the Sahara, Northern Africa and elsewhere as a result of environmental conditions. Even today the Fulani can be found from West Africa all the way into Sudan. And not only that but West African muslims regularly travel back and forth to Sudan and there is a strong historic connection between early West African societies and Sudan via Chad and the now dry Nile Tributaries in western Sudan.
Technically if we want to be accurate we should be speaking more of geographic regions from which various populations may have been moving into AE at various times. Including Saharans moving East, Nilotics Moving North, Chadians moving West, Extreme North Africans moving south and even nomadic west Africans moving East and Horners moving North. Each of these populations have implications in terms of a genetic signature which is more meaningful and useful than "SSA".
Good post and I agree 100%. I do believe lake Chad would have been used as a "refugee spot" when the Sahara was drying as the ancestors of West Africans then migrated down to West Africa. And some even to the Nile to Sudan probably.
There was definitely migration between the Lake Chad basin and the Sudanese Nile. In the medieval period the Fur of Darfur were notably known to be related to the Bornu of Nigeria. And this route between Sudan and Nigeria via Chad is an old trade route as well. There has been evidence found of trade markers from the Ancient Egyptian era somewhere in the same region of the Sudanese Nile and Sahara. Nile Valley traditions influenced that of the West Africans in this way.
quote: A trade route called Darb El Arba("the Way of Forty") passed through Kharga in the south and Asyut in the north It was a long caravan route running north-south between Middle Egypt and the Sudan. It was used from as early as the Old Kingdom of Egypt for the transport and trade of gold, ivory, spices, wheat, animals and plants. The maximum extent of Darb El Arba`īn was northward from Kobbei in Darfur, 25 miles north of al-Fashir, passing through the desert, through Bir Natrum and Wadi Howar, and ending in Egypt.
posted
There's no evidence the "Egyptian Negroes" sample in Mukherjee et al (1955) is Roman period; the latter source gives Kitson (1931) as a reference for the sample and here's what is briefly said:
"No particulars relating to the origin of the series are given: they are classed as 'moderne' [Schmidt, 1887]."
Because the series immediately follows one in Schmidt (1887) listed as "dynastic", Mukherjee et al jump to conclusions and think the 'moderne' sample in context must be very late dynastic or Roman, but there's no proof for this. These crania could be medieval, or even more recent date and Kitson (1931) also mentions "modern era".
Kitson (1931) notes because the nasal index is significantly higher than ancient and modern Egyptian samples, the "Egyptian Negroes" are intrusive migrants to the region.
On this topic, I also noticed an error in Mukherjee's plot for 7 craniometric variables [far too few IMO], although this has already been corrected by Irish & Konigsberg (2006).
"Mukherjee and associates placed their Badarian Egyptian sample within the sub-Saharan cluster, while puzzling over this unexpected affinity (Mukherjee et al., 1955: 86). Inspection of the original D2 matrix (their Table 5.6: 84) does, in reality, indicate a Badarian affiliation to North Africans, not sub-Saharan samples. It is therefore likely that an error was made in construction of their original figure when converting inter-sample distances to x- and y-coordinates."
I find Afrocentrists though spamming the plot trying to prove Badarians were "Negroid".
While I've criticized this study for lack of cranial variables, note that Nubians do no cluster with Egyptians, although they are closer than nearly all Sub-Saharan African populations, with the exception of Tigray. Upper Egyptian samples would fill the spaces between Sedment/Gizeh (Lower Egypt) and Nubia, so you see the gradient/cline I was talking about. That cline runs into south Levant since these Sedment and Gizeh samples show ties with east Mediterranean populations, like Upper Egyptians do with Nubians. Problem with Afrocentrists is they are prepared to discuss the Upper Egyptian ties to Nubians, but not Lower Egyptian to Levant. The latter conflicts with their "pan-Africanism".
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
"Phoebe A. Hearst from the Museum of Anthropology had suggested that in order to acquire such high-priced and rare paints, the artists must have relied on a vast trading network." - - - (That would be Phoenician/Phoenix/Phuinduix/Poindexter/pintura/paste.l/finger-point|paint|ink/pamphlet/ebembe.) - - -
"Now, with new technology, archaeologists are able to look at the wooden images by studying the pigments, brush strokes, and the wood used to create the pieces. What the researchers discovered actually surprised them because the first pigments had been artificially manufactured. As for the bright colors, it was believed that the artists used them as the final top layer of paint.
However, these wooden portraits had been hidden beneath other colors. After further analysis, researchers realized why the artists paid so much for the pigments as their base coat – the red lead pigment used on the wooden portraits were tested and shown as having come from as far away as Spain. Other pigments used appeared to have been imported from Keos, Greece, and the wood that the portraits were painted on were imported from Central Europe.
Under all of the layers of red and yellow paint, the researchers found that the artists had sketched out the work with a certain pigment called Egyptian Blue, which was very valuable at the time. However, those bright colors were hidden under all the other colors"
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not too long he was trying to lecture Nodnarb about how E carriers must necessarily be SSA in autosomal makeup. A week later the same turd flip flopped from lecturing, to asking questions how come Natufians don't cluster like a typical hybrid SSA population in light of their E haplogroups. One cannot know and not know at the same time. Either you know, or you don't know. Typical newbie trying to flip flop flop from lecturing to leeching information (which he will then use to lecture people again a day later). Amun Ra all over again.
Wow I completely missed this before, way to dry quote me... -I had no clue what this man was even referring to so I did some backtracking and started to investigate my previous posts-... I'm guessing, this is where I told Nodnarb that ALL E carriers are "Autosomally Subsaharan African" ... I don't know if I should think of you as confused, or an untruthful P.O.S. for misquoting me intentionally. Also, I'm guessing Right here is where I'm asking "how come Natufians don't cluster...etc." granted that yes, it might have been lazy to not just speak on the issue in the first place... But I was asking a question I already knew the answer to, which should have been evident by my follow up response, but like I said, confused or dishonest...
Moving on though, since that last "quote" was relevant nonetheless, ..for the benefit of readership.
The YRI – Natufian relationship is important because it highlights something which at its core displays the issues we have in a lack of understanding/exposure to prehistoric African events, whether it is migration, expansion, mortality etc. Typically we’ll see genetic distance between SSA(YRI) and non-Africans consistent with a drop off of diversity or a bottleneck probably 70-50,kya +/- geneflow from neighboring African regions. Natufians have diverged OOA roughly >14,000 ya (predicted Yhg diverged 17.5-19kya), from a presumably African population, yet displays a strong distance from supposed African populations. (According to Lazaridis et al 2016. more distance than CHG for example, a population predicted to have diverged over 50kya.) This distance was probably generated by drift, indicative of a small baseline population prior to divergence. The affinity for Eurasian population groups such as East Asian is due to geneflow from early Eurasian Hunter Gatherers, which of course would also drag Natufian distance away from Africans, (Mota). Sources cited. ^
Off course disparity is amplified by a more Diverse initial sample set as well.
But now we have to ask ourselves, if EEF/ENF (Early Farmers) diverged after the great bottlenecks from OOA and were probably originally in Africa how can they achieve such high levels of drift? I won’t blame anyone for postulating that an Isolated Green Saharan culture is responsible, but I haven’t seen strong evidence for that outside of a loose interpretation of Ehrets proto- Afroasiatic Model. Lazaridis skipped out on North African populations but where are the remaining African population display of admixture from this source 20-14kya? Basal Eurasian might have had its origins within Africa but it seems (to me at least) Undeniable that it became refined OOA. This is why I believe that it will be hard to distinguish the phantom Pre-OOA EEF, for if the genetic event happened outside of the continent, what’ll be the explanation for indigenous population’s carrying those signatures.
West African populations haven’t been static since the dispersals of OOA populations, they most likely were part of demographic shifts and multiple mixtures from waves of migrations, and we can easily see that by looking at the Yhgs represented in the West African samples, it’s not an unchanging population. High levels of diversity and variation was retained by a large population size and waves of recombination. With that being said it’d be foolish to treat the YRI/West African sample set like we would a Eurasian one… for example, coming to the conclusion that some Yorubans migrated to India because the population draws a closer affinity to YRI than usual. Granted looking at lazaridis et al. 2016, most will figure, West Africans were probably mixing at low levels with Levantines because YRI outscores MOTA for natufian. But not really, most likely what’s happening is a younger population mixed with EEF with “YRI-like” ancestry and or the results are of a parallel instance of geneflow (flow from a single source in both YRI and EEF).
From my position based on the pattern I see over all, I’m estimating that an “undefined” population indistinguishable in E.Bantu or Nilo-Saharan populations, and other eastern Africans, served as a primer between what we consider West Africa and the east-north east Africa, during or before the Bantu expansion. The enigmatic source of Eurasian admixture in East Africa is also peculiar, as for what it’s worth, these signals are from the “Near east,” no further than the Levant in the Luhya (LWK). Luhya for example shows evidence of “Eurasian” admixture but like Basal European shows no/low Neanderthal ancestry.
quote: “The last edge added corresponds to a mixture of an Iceman-related population and the Bantu-speaking Luhya (LWK) from Eastern Africa (w= 0.03). The LWK have previously been reported as showing a signal of gene flow of possible Neolithic Middle Eastern or European origin” – M. Sikora 2014.
10.1073/pnas.1313787111
10.1371/journal.pgen.1004353.g004
At the end of the day to simplify things, any recent YRI-Like signals found in the ancient Neolithic will be shared with some east African groups who might even show more affinity to ancient samples. (Not saying LWK = PreOOA Basal Eurasian… but it is evident that they have more admixture from populations “involved” in north & east Africa.) For example, E-Bantu-like ancestry > YRI for western North African admixture dating to an estimate 1.3kya (see img below). We won’t be finding ancient E-M33/E-m132 west African haplogroups on the north eastern corner of the continent or Levant, nor would we find Atlantic A groups that are a part of the west African genome (YRI), but we will find downstream B-M182 dispersed accordingly throughout the Near East AND East Africa (incl. LWK) for example. And we will also find more recent post-P-N2 Hgs, in fact we have found M2 in north eastern Africa, the oldest E-M2 specimen in the world so far was discovered on the Nile. (sources cited on ES... by everyone) 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002397
---
It seems like a mistake to use YRI as the end it all so-called “SSA” admixture indicator, due to the fact that it oversimplifies said demographic. YRI will form its own cluster for the simple fact that its variation trumps most other non-African and admixed African populations. So it’s approached as an Anti-Eurasian Sample set, The LWK however simultaneously shows signals for admixture, but still shows more variation unshared with global populations… So what does that tells us?
posted
Might as well have posted a picture of a steaming turd because this is just crap.
People interested in what I mean when I say he keeps updating his views silently in response to what posters say (instead of proactively reading books/papers), go to the 'black' thread and watch how he was cheerleading against points I was making in that thread. Now he's trying to lecture people on those points he's been leeching silently. This whole post above me is full of things he googled after watching me or someone else talk about it. That's why it's little more than a bunch of poorly understood, hastily googled, jargon-filled, crap.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look at one of his first posts in this thread:
quote:Whats surprising is the fact that supposed SSA ancestry increases during the Roman period.... Not the fact that the subjects were of Eurasian decent.
Notice how he silently moved away from his position that this aDNA "proves" an increase of SSA ancestry during the Roman period. It doesn't even say this. What it says is that there was an increase during the post-Roman period). The significance here is that he tried to pass off these samples as Eurasian immigrants with Egyptian ancestry, with the Roman SSA ancestry supposedly being the Egyptian ancestry. This is a complete fabrication.
It's normal of course to change your views and it's normal to learn from others. But he comes in spewing his usual bs, silently updates his views based on sound points made by others. Then he tries to lecture you on those same newfound points. In his mind, that's the point where I'm supposed to "play along" and take him seriously, like he's some sort of 'vet'. He wants me to "debate points" with him. Why? So he can google everything I say and try to lecture me on more of his poorly understood newfound points?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Look at one of his first posts in this thread:
quote:Whats surprising is the fact that supposed SSA ancestry increases during the Roman period.... Not the fact that the subjects were of Eurasian decent.
Notice how he silently moved away from his position that this aDNA "proves" an increase of SSA ancestry during the Roman period (it says an increase for these samples during the post-Roman period). The significance here is that he tried to pass off these samples as Eurasian immigrants with Egyptian ancestry, with the Roman SSA ancestry being the Egyptian ancestry. This is a complete fabrication. It's normal of course to change your views and it's normal to learn from others.
But he comes in spewing his usual bs, silently updates his views based on sound points made by others, then he tries to lecture you on those same newfound points. In his mind, that's the point where I'm supposed to "play along" and take him seriously, like he's some sort of 'vet'.
Again, I never implied this stop misquoting me with your micro-analysis... I have no interest in discrediting you as you do me, but I will call you out Everytime you come at my head. Way to overreact to an immediate response to a PARAGRAPH posted by Beyoku... Mind you, I made it quite clear that I'm a youngin,' so I don't understand the context your malcontent.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course you have no interest in discrediting me. You have an interest on googling everything I and others say for crumbs (or watching debates from a distance) so you can further your pretentious presentation here. You registered in 2016 and tried to lecture from day 1. I stopped talking to you for that reason since I've had people here before who did that and wasted my time. Stop playing a victim. You know very well what you're doing.
quote:Thanks so far you guys, special shout outs to Swenet and XyzMan... Keep arguing with each other!!
^This sums up your intentions. Scavenging for crumbs on forums so you can continue lecturing. You can stop talking to me, trying to get me to "debate points". Try someone else who is falling for your ploy.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
...a man shoveth then tells the shoved not to play victim.
over and over.... a man's in love
look, insult all you want, like I have to say over and over to you, I don't have a need to speak to you, with you, or about you especially in personal terms... But please don't Misquote me, I hate that ****. pls n thnx.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Wow its like you could tell the future. What you posted correlates with the study in the OP.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right now they're doing this on google, searching for crumbs on the finding of I2 in ancient Egypt:
5 days from now you'll see them having updated their argument with ancient Egyptian I2 integrated in it, lecturing people on what it means after supposedly learning about it back in 2013.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I believe that the sample in this upcoming paper has near eastern ancestry.
.... I'm getting the impression that not every here does. .... ..... I'm addressing the unlikelihood of them stating that the samples are near Eastern when they aren't.
.... I have the same views as I did when I posted my very first comment on this page.
posted
Lol I said that thing about Switzerland HG and Mota. The next moment he's an expert on CHG and EHG. Trying to lecture on what it means. Same thing with Natufian Fst distances. Now he's an expert an tries to lecture me on that, too.
Then they want to play victim. I don't know who these people think they're kidding.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
More of the Egyptian MtDNA samples are I2'3 not I2 and there's no (frequency) data for the former in modern populations.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole argument is stupid because bottom line you are trying to find a needle in a haystack for something that really is designed to hide the haystack itself. Meaning Early European Farmers is simply a phrase designed to hide the key component (the haystack) which is the African component, which is descended from populations who migrated from Africa carrying a toolkit that made the development of agriculture possible. But rather than simply label this population as "Early African proto farmers", they had to call it something else to hide the origins. Now folks are trying to distinguish this one subset of Africans that developed into European farmers later after migrating outside of Africa, by the later genes of the downstream mixed population. As if the upstream population carried some special genetic marker that would distinguish it from the other Africans in a way predict their migration out of Africa later and separate them from other Africans. Seriously?
There was already an extensive debate on this in the when to use black and not to thread.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Doug this (biased labeling) is kinda what I mean by Eurocentrism in scholarship. Overstating the presence of modern Europeans in the ancient world and omitting/reducing other groups of people is often in the language they use to describe places or people. "Eurasian" "Early Europeans" "Caucasoid" --all of this provides direct imagery that modern Europeans or involves them.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Honestly, in my experience many of those we call "Eurocentrics" are less interested in claiming AE for Europeans than in dissociating it from the Africans many would call "black". Many of them are perfectly comfortable with things like agriculture and other facets of "civilization" coming to Europe from the Middle East even though the latter is populated by tan-skinned people. It's when dark-skinned Africans get implicated as a source of influences on European civilization (insofar as Egyptian culture influenced that of the Greeks and Romans) that they feel threatened.
Along with that, ancient Egypt receives a lot of romanticism from the Western public that would be "tarnished" if it turned out to be a fundamentally black African civilization. Egypt is commonly perceived as exotically glamorous, so you can imagine how racist whites would react if it turned out to be populated by the kind of people they would expect to find in the ghetto.
Either way, I see anti-African animus as more important to these "Eurocentrics" than claiming AE for Europe per se.
Honestly, in my experience many of those we call "Eurocentrics" are less interested in claiming AE for Europeans than in dissociating it from the Africans many would call "black". Many of them are perfectly comfortable with things like agriculture and other facets of "civilization" coming to Europe from the Middle East even though the latter is populated by tan-skinned people.
Many Eurocentrics don't care about the ancient middle east bringing agriculture to Europe because they believe in ancient times, that's where they were. It's 2017 and they STILL get excited when they hear hoaxes that say Tut is European. They still believe Jesus, the Hebrews, all the disciples, Moses and any of the other biblical heroes they love and worship would've been directly ancestral to (or at least looked) more like modern Europeans than Middle Easterners. They see no hypocrisy in worshiping people from the Middle East, or taking a Middle Eastern religion while hating anybody from that part of the world. I wonder why that is.
I agree there is an anti-African tone among Eurocentrics that shows they would be happy to place Egypt's origins anywhere except Africa. But the scenario they seem to be vying for the most places them in Egypt. It fosters for a Eurocentric a narrative he's been taught to be comfortable with--one of white saviors for the world (particularly Africa) and colonial beliefs of "taming the negro." If some non-white foreigners were responsible for AE, it wouldn't be as ideal, but it wouldn't threaten Eurocentric philosophy the way that a self-sufficient group of Africans would. A reliant Africa is a staple if not foundation of of the white savior complex. Even if everyone else can prove sufficiency, there is the belief that Africans can reinforce this form of self concept. So in a sense I guess even a foreign origin is often part of Eurocentrism. It boils down to motive on that part. Still, the ideal is a white Egypt. Or at least a white (colonialist) noble class.
quote:Either way, I see anti-African animus as more important to these "Eurocentrics" than claiming AE for Europe per se.
Understandable, but I don't think that Eurocentrism is removed from the ideal of placing Egypt with modern Europeans.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The whole argument is stupid because bottom line you are trying to find a needle in a haystack for something that really is designed to hide the haystack itself. Meaning Early European Farmers is simply a phrase designed to hide the key component (the haystack) which is the African component, which is descended from populations who migrated from Africa carrying a toolkit that made the development of agriculture possible. But rather than simply label this population as "Early African proto farmers", they had to call it something else to hide the origins. Now folks are trying to distinguish this one subset of Africans that developed into European farmers later after migrating outside of Africa, by the later genes of the downstream mixed population. As if the upstream population carried some special genetic marker that would distinguish it from the other Africans in a way predict their migration out of Africa later and separate them from other Africans. Seriously?
There was already an extensive debate on this in the when to use black and not to thread.
Unless you can show how this applies when looking at modern and ancient DNA studies with Africans and Eurasians.....you are talking bullshit. "I don't like the results so they are bogus....PS. white folks are racist" does not fly in 2017.
What are you going to do if or when early dynastic or even predynastic mummies show the same thing?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
didn't you have data on a computer with data that could in large part also be attributed to the Sahara? Even if you cannot remember the name of the study (which is...weird since I'm not sure why a search on what was posted brought up nothing), are you anticipating that early dynastic mummies would show the same thing?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: didn't you have data on a computer with data that could in large part also be attributed to the Sahara? Even if you cannot remember the name of the study (which is...weird since I'm not sure why a search on what was posted brought up nothing), are you anticipating that early dynastic mummies would show the same thing?
I have a few theories on why the data could be what it is. But My theory is not really what is under scrutiny. The collective doctrine of ES is. When i ask questions here people dodge them, or reply with a spiel on why Europeans are racists and or why they should be willing to risk life and limb and get decapitated by extremists in the Sahara and Sahel attempting to do genetic research.
This is a question for you, yes YOU. How would you hypothesize genetic affinity Levantine populations around 12-14,000 years ago? Around THIS TIME
Now as a follow up question, how would you characterize Horn of African ancestry that is not of local Eastern Sub Saharan Stock? Is it Eurasian? When did it arrive?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: This is a question for you, yes YOU. How would you hypothesize genetic affinity Levantine populations around 12-14,000 years ago? Around THIS TIME
Note "practically uninhabitable" in regards to the Sahara. Because of periods like these terms like SSA have a very real meaning, although not without their own problems (like most other terms).
For some reason, people like Doug think the ancestors of modern day SSA groups traveled "back and forth" all over the continent all the time. He says this was in response to climatic change, but ironically says that Africans were able to go everywhere. Well, climatic change can also inhibit movement, not just push people out or attract them to new resourceful lands.
Also, aDNA of Central Africans has been posted. These people seem to have had a severe lack of continuity with modern day inhabitants of this region. The ancestors of modern day Central Africans hadn't even absorbed/displaced these nearby populations in SSA, but Doug wants to claim they were "everywhere" and "back and forth" in the Sahara". How can they be everywhere in the Sahara when they weren't even everywhere in their own homeland in Central Africa?
C'mon Doug. Have to step up at this point. These science fiction narratives you post about "moving around all the time" have little backup by aDNA. With the exception of Omotic speakers, ancestors of modern day Sub-Saharans have not been found in African aDNA so far. They were clearly not "everywhere".
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I would PERSONALLY characterize the non-local Horn of African ancestry as basel Eurasian probably similar to "Natufian-like." I hope I make sense.
@Swenet
I know Doug can argue for himself, but I think he personally means is just the Sahara and Sahel West Africa when he means "moving around everywhere." Again I know he can argue for himself but just saying based on what he said to me in the posts in this thread.
posted
Ok, let's look at the Sahara then. We have pottery spreading over the Sahara as a very early marker of SSA-affiliated groups. Ok, we all know that's a clear example of what Doug is talking about (at least in terms of cultural influence).
What about before this period? Would be interesting to see substantial specifics of that. And before people start moving the goal post. The period before the period in the map below is the goal post:
posted
^Again just going by what I discussed with Doug.
And yeah it would be interesting to see how populations moved before the Sahara was lush. People seem to forget that there was a Sahara desert BEFORE it became lush and then dried up again.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The whole argument is stupid because bottom line you are trying to find a needle in a haystack for something that really is designed to hide the haystack itself. Meaning Early European Farmers is simply a phrase designed to hide the key component (the haystack) which is the African component, which is descended from populations who migrated from Africa carrying a toolkit that made the development of agriculture possible. But rather than simply label this population as "Early African proto farmers", they had to call it something else to hide the origins. Now folks are trying to distinguish this one subset of Africans that developed into European farmers later after migrating outside of Africa, by the later genes of the downstream mixed population. As if the upstream population carried some special genetic marker that would distinguish it from the other Africans in a way predict their migration out of Africa later and separate them from other Africans. Seriously?
There was already an extensive debate on this in the when to use black and not to thread.
Unless you can show how this applies when looking at modern and ancient DNA studies with Africans and Eurasians.....you are talking bullshit. "I don't like the results so they are bogus....PS. white folks are racist" does not fly in 2017.
What are you going to do if or when early dynastic or even predynastic mummies show the same thing?
Please. Don't start with that whole science is objective and has nothing to do with racism nonsense. And yes this has everything to do with DNA. If the KEY DNA component of these populations came from Africa why are they calling it "Early European". First it is not European and second it is not early as these populations migrated into Eurasia rather late and on top of that these populations were in the Levant not Europe proper. But somehow I guess you have a problem with calling things what they are using language that is unambiguous and to the point. That is as much of a skill as DNA analysis. And what is the point if you cant say what you mean? Again, "Early African Proto Farmers" or even "Early African First Farmers" are better labels.
The stupid part is as I mentioned when you go looking in Africa for some "European" population before they migrated out of Africa...... Because that is a contradiction in terms and not even supported by any DNA. DNA in Africa doesn't turn into European DNA because some folks carrying these genes migrated into Europe carrying a survival toolkit that laid the foundation for modern farming.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I'm sorry but saying science is "racist" is not a good look... The data ITSELF can not be "racist."
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The whole argument is stupid because bottom line you are trying to find a needle in a haystack for something that really is designed to hide the haystack itself. Meaning Early European Farmers is simply a phrase designed to hide the key component (the haystack) which is the African component, which is descended from populations who migrated from Africa carrying a toolkit that made the development of agriculture possible. But rather than simply label this population as "Early African proto farmers", they had to call it something else to hide the origins. Now folks are trying to distinguish this one subset of Africans that developed into European farmers later after migrating outside of Africa, by the later genes of the downstream mixed population. As if the upstream population carried some special genetic marker that would distinguish it from the other Africans in a way predict their migration out of Africa later and separate them from other Africans. Seriously?
There was already an extensive debate on this in the when to use black and not to thread.
+100
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no "KEY DNA component of these populations came from Africa" in EEF, we already have many ancient DNA samples, observe Natufian and Neolithic Levant (orange):
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^I'm sorry but saying science is "racist" is not a good look... The data ITSELF can not be "racist."
Data is not racist, people are. The point being that people can twist data based on agenda or point of view. Otherwise, if data was so straightforward and accurate, why does this site exist? Why is there a troll on the thread telling us that the data sayz the Egyptians wuz not black folks? And where are so many sites on the net saying the same thing even with their own DATA?
And why are you so actively pursuing research into DNA if all the data is so OBVIOUS on its own accord? What is it that you feel you need to address by delving into it? Surely you aren't doing this so you can lecture me about racism.
Somehow your whole attitude is a walking contradiction in terms.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The whole argument is stupid because bottom line you are trying to find a needle in a haystack for something that really is designed to hide the haystack itself. Meaning Early European Farmers is simply a phrase designed to hide the key component (the haystack) which is the African component, which is descended from populations who migrated from Africa carrying a toolkit that made the development of agriculture possible. But rather than simply label this population as "Early African proto farmers", they had to call it something else to hide the origins. Now folks are trying to distinguish this one subset of Africans that developed into European farmers later after migrating outside of Africa, by the later genes of the downstream mixed population. As if the upstream population carried some special genetic marker that would distinguish it from the other Africans in a way predict their migration out of Africa later and separate them from other Africans. Seriously?
There was already an extensive debate on this in the when to use black and not to thread.
Unless you can show how this applies when looking at modern and ancient DNA studies with Africans and Eurasians.....you are talking bullshit. "I don't like the results so they are bogus....PS. white folks are racist" does not fly in 2017.
What are you going to do if or when early dynastic or even predynastic mummies show the same thing?
Please. Don't start with that whole science is objective and has nothing to do with racism nonsense. And yes this has everything to do with DNA. If the KEY DNA component of these populations came from Africa why are they calling it "Early European". First it is not European and second it is not early as these populations migrated into Eurasia rather late and on top of that these populations were in the Levant not Europe proper. But somehow I guess you have a problem with calling things what they are using language that is unambiguous and to the point. That is as much of a skill as DNA analysis. And what is the point if you cant say what you mean? Again, "Early African Proto Farmers" or even "Early African First Farmers" are better labels.
The stupid part is as I mentioned when you go looking in Africa for some "European" population before they migrated out of Africa...... Because that is a contradiction in terms and not even supported by any DNA. DNA in Africa doesn't turn into European DNA because some folks carrying these genes migrated into Europe carrying a survival toolkit that laid the foundation for modern farming.
You are not using your intelligence and knowledge of Genetics to show how you would correctly interpret the data. You are not using your intelligence and knowledge of Genetics to demonstrate and alternative narrative based on what more Ancient DNA would tell us, or based on what Modern DNA tells us. You are just ranting and moaning about White people and in the process greatly overestimating their collective intelligence.
When Diop was at the international UNESCO conference guess what......he didnt come pissing and moaning and complaining about white scholarship. NO, he came with HIS OWN data, and came with his own African centered interpretation of modern data and historical facts. You are speaking in vague and generic terms and nobody here really know what specific genetic components you are talking about. This is why you are getting owned by /Cass.
Please tell us which population migrated from Africa into Europe and brought farming?
Please gives us solid dates on WHEN Africans are farming compared to Europeans and populations in the Middle East....who as far as I am concerned there is an almost 5000 year OR MORE distinction on when Africans adopt farming as opposed to populations in the middle East.
"They are racist" is not an acceptable alternative to your analysis of Ancient DNA. I doesnt matter if they are racists...That would be like you saying "the justice system is racists" and using that excuse as to why you robbed a bank! The fact that Negro-centrists argue that "Vikings were Black" and "American Negroes are the real Hebrews" does not counter the evidence of Rameses III E1b1a.
I applaud the few posters here that have tried to make meaning of Abstract. Everyone else is proving what ES is a joke. It looks like I am going to have to flee back to the "Racist" and Eurasian focused Anthropology boards to see some meaningful discussion on ancient AFRICAN dna.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Owned by me and I don't even know much at all about genetics. What does that make poor old doug? Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The whole argument is stupid because bottom line you are trying to find a needle in a haystack for something that really is designed to hide the haystack itself. Meaning Early European Farmers is simply a phrase designed to hide the key component (the haystack) which is the African component, which is descended from populations who migrated from Africa carrying a toolkit that made the development of agriculture possible. But rather than simply label this population as "Early African proto farmers", they had to call it something else to hide the origins. Now folks are trying to distinguish this one subset of Africans that developed into European farmers later after migrating outside of Africa, by the later genes of the downstream mixed population. As if the upstream population carried some special genetic marker that would distinguish it from the other Africans in a way predict their migration out of Africa later and separate them from other Africans. Seriously?
There was already an extensive debate on this in the when to use black and not to thread.
Unless you can show how this applies when looking at modern and ancient DNA studies with Africans and Eurasians.....you are talking bullshit. "I don't like the results so they are bogus....PS. white folks are racist" does not fly in 2017.
What are you going to do if or when early dynastic or even predynastic mummies show the same thing?
Please. Don't start with that whole science is objective and has nothing to do with racism nonsense. And yes this has everything to do with DNA. If the KEY DNA component of these populations came from Africa why are they calling it "Early European". First it is not European and second it is not early as these populations migrated into Eurasia rather late and on top of that these populations were in the Levant not Europe proper. But somehow I guess you have a problem with calling things what they are using language that is unambiguous and to the point. That is as much of a skill as DNA analysis. And what is the point if you cant say what you mean? Again, "Early African Proto Farmers" or even "Early African First Farmers" are better labels.
The stupid part is as I mentioned when you go looking in Africa for some "European" population before they migrated out of Africa...... Because that is a contradiction in terms and not even supported by any DNA. DNA in Africa doesn't turn into European DNA because some folks carrying these genes migrated into Europe carrying a survival toolkit that laid the foundation for modern farming.
You are not using your intelligence and knowledge of Genetics to show how you would correctly interpret the data. You are not using your intelligence and knowledge of Genetics to demonstrate and alternative narrative based on what more Ancient DNA would tell us, or based on what Modern DNA tells us. You are just ranting and moaning about White people and in the process greatly overestimating their collective intelligence.
When Diop was at the international UNESCO conference guess what......he didnt come pissing and moaning and complaining about white scholarship. NO, he came with HIS OWN data, and came with his own African centered interpretation of modern data and historical facts. You are speaking in vague and generic terms and nobody here really know what specific genetic components you are talking about. This is why you are getting owned by /Cass.
Please tell us which population migrated from Africa into Europe and brought farming?
Please gives us solid dates on WHEN Africans are farming compared to Europeans and populations in the Middle East....who as far as I am concerned there is an almost 5000 year OR MORE distinction on when Africans adopt farming as opposed to populations in the middle East.
"They are racist" is not an acceptable alternative to your analysis of Ancient DNA. I doesnt matter if they are racists...That would be like you saying "the justice system is racists" and using that excuse as to why you robbed a bank! The fact that Negro-centrists argue that "Vikings were Black" and "American Negroes are the real Hebrews" does not counter the evidence of Rameses III E1b1a.
I applaud the few posters here that have tried to make meaning of Abstract. Everyone else is proving what ES is a joke. It looks like I am going to have to flee back to the "Racist" and Eurasian focused Anthropology boards to see some meaningful discussion on ancient AFRICAN dna.
Dude. I never said anything about racism. Don't you get it? You are the one sitting here contradicting yourself on that point. Because if there wasn't racism within the scientific community why are you engaging in debate about science about human populations in Africa? What is it you are debating? And don't sit here and tell me you are engaging in debates about DNA because of an objective interest in science and not specifically because of the documented history of distortion by racists. YOU contradict yourself. So stop with your phony lectures about when to call out racists and when not to.
So back to the point, why are we looking for phantom Europeans in ancient Africans as opposed to simply African continuity within Africa of populations carrying certain toolkits and survival strategies which most likely do not map neatly to any single genetic marker? Again the point is about terminology and how you are labeling populations in terms of identifying them. And like I said what on earth would make populations of Africans who never left Africa into something that can be labeled as "not African" or god forbid "European". There is no science that can even supports this nonsense.
Again, the issue here is those populations of AFRICANS who formed the core of the early populations in the Levant who developed farming. The DATA suggests that these populations of AFRICANS carried a toolkit that laid the basis for the evolution of farming in the Levant. And there is a further possibility that these populations of Africans were part of a group of AFRICANs who were already doing some level of plant domestication BEFORE leaving Africa. Of course this is a very small population and that population is what we are calling the African Proto Farming community. The question becomes if we can identify this population by genetic markers alone or via archaeological evidence in Africa and how isolated was this population from other surrounding Africans. Much of what we know about farming in Africa is that the spread took place after the development in the Levant. But is it possible that there was a smaller parallel development in Africa along the lines of the early domestication that took place among the ancestors and those who left Africa and migrated to the Levant. This is what I am calling the needle in a haystack. But make no mistake the needle and the haystack is African in terms of the DNA we are talking about.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Owned by me and I don't even know much at all about genetics. What does that make poor old doug?
I dont know what it is. Its almost seems like they are scared. "Racism" is an easy target, its obvious its there so they attack that. (Secret: Black folks love at times to divert real arguments and talk about how white folks are racists and we should all stick together.) I think since they have stayed stagnant on ES so long and are literally YEARS behind their contemporary History/Bio/Anthro forum brethren, when they finally have to address the data they are scared because they haven't really been paying attention. For the last 5 years ES just masturbating over DNA Tribes Amarna and Ramesses III, and Ancient Europeans skin color.
NOW, when the genetic community hits them with this Abstract they are like: Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Owned by me and I don't even know much at all about genetics. What does that make poor old doug?
I dont know what it is. Its almost seems like they are scared. "Racism" is an easy target, its obvious its there so they attack that. (Secret: Black folks love at times to divert real arguments and talk about how white folks are racists and we should all stick together.) I think since they have stayed stagnant on ES so long and are literally YEARS behind their contemporary History/Bio/Anthro forum brethren, when they finally have to address the data they are scared because they haven't really been paying attention. For the last 5 years ES just masturbating over DNA Tribes Amarna and Ramesses III, and Ancient Europeans skin color.
NOW, when the genetic community hits them with this Abstract they are like:
Still waiting on your DNA evidence of ancient Africans evolving markers for being "Non African" without migrating out of Africa or receiving any genetic influence from outside Africa.....
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
. Let alone to the SSA samples (exception being the Tigrean sample).
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic