quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Some West African ethnic groups related to the Moors, especially those from south of the Sahara and Sahel. And in fact more Kel live at the South than the North.
Its not just me. I suspect you could do it with anyone.
Population Group Probability Eurasia 86.5% North Africa 11.9% Asia 1.1% Near East 0.4% Sub-Saharan Africa 0.1%
African-American Person Population Group Probability Sub-Saharan Africa 99.9% Eurasia 0.1% Asia 0%
Population Group Probability North Africa 50.1% Sub-Saharan Africa 42.1% Eurasia 6.3% Asia 1% Near East 0.4%
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Your miniFiler STR profile popSTR global (Old World ) results slightly favor Africa over E Asia. Your complete profile is in Africa, E Asia, CS Asia, Europe, and the Levant.
PopSTR indicates Kenya BaNtu have the highest frequency for four of your alleles and one locus.
Biaka is your popSTR 2nd place holder.
Upper Egypt & Mzab get the bronze.
Sudan & Somali show but Yoruba is nondescript. It just has the profile without any of it's alleles in the hi-freq zone like the above.
Mbuti, Mandenka, and S Afr BaNtu didn't have all 16 alleles though they have some hi-freq alleles, even some hi-freq loci.
San were actually missing three whole loci. They total 8 missing alleles from your profile.
DNAtribes jumped on your Biaka-like locale? Popaffiliator on your Upper Egypt & 'Mzab-proxy'?
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Well, you probably got some Amazigh up in you. So stuff your allele values in that popSTR PM I sent ya and let's see.
Bias database. One country in Europe has more samples than all of Africa. Nationalgeographic does the same to a lesser extent. Popaffiliator would probably do the same with most Americans.
Thats why I said Dnatribes MLI score FTW. It predicted that I was an American from West Africa. Popaffiliator thinks I'm a Moor. Hmmm, Mike might appreciate that.
thanks again I see why you prefer popSTR.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I supplemented a Jan2016 popSTR download with the Babiker2011 and Omram2009 papers. It's sketchy compared to your 'tribes selection. Mandenka STRs failed to catch Guinea-Bissau.
Yo Ish
A runnin the same game with another name.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one has ever called Somalis or Ethiopians "Caucasoid" or "White" (at least not senso stricto); this is a straw-man Afrocentrists invented. What physical anthropologists like Coon (1965) said is Horn Africa is a mixture of "Caucasoids" and "Negroids"; the percentages vary in different tribes/ethnic groups:
quote:Peoples of the Horn of Africa
AT THE OTHER END of the Red Sea from Suez, the Bab el Mandeb has also served as a major corridor between Western Asia and Africa. As its name, "The Gate of Tears," indicates, traffic flows in both directions, with Arabs moving westward and African slaves eastward. West of the Bab el Mandeb rises the steep escarpment of the Ethiopian highlands, a refuge of prime historical importance, and between the highlands and the Red Sea stretches the Dankali Desert, parts of which lie below sea level. It is one of the hottest places on earth.
The peoples of this region are or nearly all products, in various degrees and in different forms, of a mixture between Caucasoids and Negroids. Except for slaves recently imported from the steamy marshes of the lower Sudan, the most Negroid people are the Wattas, hippopotamus hunters along the rivers of Somaliland and southern Ethiopia. They are an endogamous caste feared as magicians and despised because they et hippopotamus meat. As far as we know, they have been neither measured nor subjected blood-groups.
Next most Negroid are the sedentary peoples of western Ethiopia who speak Central Cushitic languages: the Kafacitos, Soddo Galla, Sidamos, Agaus, and Falasha(Black Jews). These people are curly-or frizzy-haired, have dark brown skins, and are relatively short in stature. Their mean stature is about 164cm(5 feet 4 1/2 inches). their facial features are partly Negroid.
The least Negroid peoples of the highlands are the Ethiopians proper--who speak Amharic, Tigre, and Tigrinya--and the Gallas. The former are descended from southern Arabians who invaded Ethiopia during the first millennium B.C., and the latter from the cattle people who entered the highlands from the west in the 16th century A.D.
- Living Races of ManPosts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Meanwhile we may note that a detailed analysis of 571 modern Negro crania, made by advanced mathematical techniques, has shown that these crania gravitate between two poles, a Mediterranean Caucasoid and a Pygmy one. The former type is again divisible into an ordinary Mediterranean and a Western Asian type, which suggests more than a single northern point of origin for the Caucasoid element. As we shall in greater detail in Chapter 8 and 9, the Negroes resemble Caucasoids closely a number of genetic traits that are inherited in a simple fashion. Examples of these are fingerprints, types of earwax, and the major blood groups. The Negroes also have some of the same local, predominantly African, blood types as the Pygmies. " This evidence suggests that the Negroes are not a primary sub-species but rather a product of mixture between invading Caucasoids and Pygmies who lived on the edges of the forest, which at the end of the Pleistocene extended farther north and east than it does now.
The Living Races of Man by Carleton S. Coon
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Can you post your comments to go along with your quote? Why did you post it?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The "Negroid" morphotype is recent (early Holocene); Iwo Eleru is supposedly the oldest "Negroid" skull (11200 ± 200 BP), but badly damaged. Most the analyses of Iwo Eleru are anthroposcopy (i.e. visual assessment with no measurements), instead of multivariate craniometry. So its questionable if Iwo Eleru is even "Negroid".
If you look at the pre-Holocene (Pleistocene) fossil record in Africa: you usually find crania that don't show any close ties to a single living/recent African population. There is a "mosaic" morphology; the skulls are generalized or undifferentiated and contain a mixture of Negroid & Bushmenoid traits/variables. Good examples include Nazlet Khater & Singa. This is why physical anthropologists (Coon, 1962) once erroneously thought Bushmen inhabited the entire continent.
The "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" morphotypes pre-date the "Negroid". Middle Upper Palaeolithic skulls from Europe (like Cro-Magnon 1) are close[st] to living/recent Europeans.
Reread your own statement, see how this makes no sense.
See how your ignorance is oblivious and bigoted. Your ass was already beaten severely on Cro Magnon. Now this?
If the Iwo Eleru is the oldest remains found going back circa 12Kya, it means they most likely moved from some other place to that region, since it is well known that the gene pool carried by these people in West Africa originated in East Africa / Sudan region.
quote: Skull points to a more complex human evolution in Africa
Reanalysis of the 13,000-year-old skull from a cave in West Africa reveals a skull more primitive-looking than its age suggests.
The result suggests that the ancestors of early humans did not die out quickly in Africa, but instead lived alongside their descendents and bred with them until comparatively recently.
The skull, found in the Iwo Eleru cave in Nigeria in 1965, does not look like a modern human. It is longer and flatter with a strong brow ridge; features closer to a much older skull from Tanzania, thought to be around 140,000 years old.
quote: The Iwo Eleru burial was excavated from the Iwo Eleru rock shelter, south-western Nigeria, in 1965 by Thurstan Shaw and his team (Figure 1). The skeleton, preserving a calvaria, mandible and some postcranial remains, was found at a depth between 82 and 100 cm from the surface in an undisturbed Later Stone Age (hereafter LSA) context. Radiocarbon analysis of charcoal from the immediate vicinity of the burial resulted in an age estimate of 11,200±200 BP (∼13 ka calibrated). The skull was reconstructed and studied by Brothwell [1] (Figure 1)], who linked it to recent West African populations, though he recognized that its lower vault and frontal profile were unusual, and that the mandible was robust. The specimen is complete along the entire midline from nasion to beyond opisthocranion. Although it slightly asymmetric it shows no major distortions and the relatively well preserved mandible constrains its basal breadth. A preliminary multivariate analysis of cranial measurements by Peter Andrews (in [1]) suggested that the Iwo Eleru specimen was distinct from recent African groups.
A more extensive analysis of the cranial measurements of the original Iwo Eleru specimen was conducted by Chris Stringer, who included this cranium in univariate and multivariate (Canonical Variates, Generalised Distance) analyses for his doctoral thesis [2], [3]. Coefficients of separate determination in a cranial analysis using 17 of Howells' measures showed that the main discriminators from an Upper Paleolithic sample were low frontal subtense, low vertex radius, high cranial breadth, high bifrontal breadth, high cranial length and low parietal subtense, against Neanderthals they were primarily low supraorbital projection, low frontal fraction, high parietal chord, high frontal chord, low frontal subtense and low vertex radius, while against Zhoukoudian Homo erectus they were low supraorbital projection, high parietal chord, high bifrontal breadth, high vertex radius, high frontal chord and low frontal subtense. Overall it appeared that the cranium was “modern” in its low supraorbital projection, and long frontal and parietal chords, but “archaic” in its high cranial length, low vertex radius, and low frontal and parietal subtenses. Stringer's results highlighted apparent archaic aspects in the specimen in its long and rather low cranial shape, and although modern overall, it also resembled fossils such as Omo Kibish 2, Saccopastore 1 and Ngandong in several respects, falling closer to them than to Upper Palaeolithic and recent samples in some analyses (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Visualization of the results of Stringer's multivariate analyses [2], [3], showing the position of the Iwo Eleru calvaria.
In light of the redating of the LSA to a much deeper time depth than originally thought, and of the scarcity of LSA human skeletal remains from Africa in general and from West Africa in particular, we undertook a renewed study of the Iwo Eleru cranium with the aim of better determining its affinities and geological age [4], [5]. A primary replica of the cranial vault of the Iwo Eleru specimen, produced before its return to Nigeria, was digitized by one of the authors (KH). Comparisons of Stringer's measurements on the original and the replica show a maximum discrepancy of 1 mm, suggesting the replica accurately reflects the original shape of the cranium. The 3-D coordinates collected were included in an extensive comparative dataset of Middle, Late Pleistocene and Holocene humans, and a multivariate statistical analysis was undertaken with the goal of assessing its affinities and phylogenetic / population relationships in the context of geographic and temporal human cranial variation. Furthermore, in order to check the possibility that the associated radiocarbon age did not date the specimen, one of us (AF) provided a long bone cortical fragment approximate 1 cm square for a new age estimate. Unfortunately the lack of collagen prevented a direct radiocarbon determination at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator, so Uranium-Series dating of the fragment was carried out instead.
The results of the canonical variates analysis (CVA) were consistent with those of the PCA (Figure 3). The first canonical axis (49.7%) separated archaic from modern specimens, with late archaic or early modern humans (the Irhoud specimens, Qafzeh 6, Singa, LH18) generally falling in an intermediate position. Iwo Eleru, as well as Upper Cave 101, also fell in this region, with the former and LH18 being just at the outskirts of the Neanderthal confidence ellipse. The Mahalanobis squared distances among the predefined groups are reported in Table S2. Iwo Eleru showed large distances from all other groups. The smallest distance was to the Upper Cave specimens, themselves a very small group of just two individuals. Relatively small squared distances were also shown between Iwo Eleru and the Qafzeh-Skull group, Neanderthals and H. erectus (s.l.).
The departure of Iwo Eleru from the modern human average cranial shape was further underlined by the comparison of its landmark configuration to the mean configuration of modern humans (Figure 4A). Iwo Eleru was characterized by a more elongated cranial vault and flattened frontal and parietal bones. Its browridge was also slightly more forward projecting than the average modern human shape. Iwo Eleru was more comparable to the mean LPA landmark configuration in its elongated and low cranial shape and the degree of browridge projection (Figure 4B). Its nearest recent human neighbor, an Australian female (Figure 4C), also showed a relatively low vault and pronounced browridges. However, the latter specimen exhibited an overall more curved sagittal profile than Iwo Eleru, with a more steeply rising frontal bone, an expanded and more curved parietal and a more rounded occipital with a lower position of inion, all typical modern human conditions.
Discussion
Our analysis indicates that Iwo Eleru possesses neurocranial morphology intermediate in shape between archaic hominins (Neanderthals and Homo erectus) and modern humans. This morphology is outside the range of modern human variability in the PCA and CVA analyses, and is most similar to that shown by LPA individuals from Africa and the early anatomically modern specimens from Skhul and Qafzeh. Iwo Eleru is distinct from the recent African samples used here (although the range of recent modern human variation encompasses relatively low and elongated cranial shapes approaching this condition). Past work has suggested that neurocranial shape reflects population history relatively reliably among modern human populations [14], [15]. Although we did not find unambiguous strong affinities between Iwo Eleru and the samples used here, its overall morphological similarities with early modern humans suggest a link to these early populations and possibly a late Middle-early Late Pleistocene chronology. Nonetheless, the archaeological setting, stratigraphy, previous radiocarbon [see 4] and our new U-series dating indicate a much younger, terminal Pleistocene age for this cranium. Such a late chronology for the Iwo Eleru cranium implies that the transition to anatomical modernity in Africa was more complicated than previously thought, with late survival of “archaic” features and possibly deep population substructure in Africa during this time.
Thus our restudy of the Iwo Eleru cranium confirms previously noted archaic cranial shape aspects, and the U-series age estimates on its skeleton support the previously proposed terminal Pleistocene date for this burial. Our findings also support suggestions of deep population substructure in Africa and a complex evolutionary process for the origin of modern humans [16], [17], [7], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Perhaps most importantly, our analysis highlights the dearth of hominin finds from West Africa, and underscores our real lack of knowledge of human evolution in that region, as well as others. As also indicated by restudy of the Ishango (Congo) fossils [22], Later Stone Age fossils from at least two regions of Africa retain significant archaic aspects in their skeletons. We hope that the next stage of this research will extend studies to the Iwo Eleru mandible and postcrania, and to comparative materials such as those from Ishango.
--Chris Stringer et al.
The Later Stone Age Calvaria from Iwo Eleru, Nigeria: Morphology and Chronology
quote:"Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: ”Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average.” The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry."
--Thoma A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khater man, Journal of Human Evolution, vol 13, 1984.
quote:Morphological variation
Table 3 lists morphological features exhibited by NK 2, OAS 1, OAS 2, and HOF. Those traits that are defined as being ‘‘archaic’’ are shared with Early and Middle Pleistocene Homo to the exclusion of anatomically mod- ern humans. We have differentiated between archaic fea- tures that are manifestly associated with the mastica- tory apparatus, and those that may be independent of it. Following Friess (1999) and Lieberman et al. (2002), we consider the traits that are likely related to mastication as a single, complex feature. The low position of maximum cranial breadth in NK 2 may be an archaic feature (Dean et al., 1998), insofar as it is present in African and Asian archaic Homo (Grimaud, 1982), although this occurs quite frequently (39%, n 5 28) in the African Epipaleolithic samples from Wadi Halfa and Jebel Sahaba (Crevecoeur, 2008).
--Isabelle Crevecoeur, et al.
Modern Human Cranial Diversity in the Late Pleistocene of Africa and Eurasia: Evidence From Nazlet Khater, Pes$tera cu Oase, and Hofmeyr
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Can you post your comments to go along with your quote? Why did you post it?
She's basically trying to give credence to the same kind of outdated literature that Cass is so fond of without actually putting herself on the line.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I supplemented a Jan2016 popSTR download with the Babiker2011 and Omram2009 papers. It's sketchy compared to your 'tribes selection. Mandenka STRs failed to catch Guinea-Bissau.
Yo Ish
A runnin the same game with another name.
I see.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
The "Negroid" morphotype is recent (early Holocene); Iwo Eleru is supposedly the oldest "Negroid" skull (11200 ± 200 BP), but badly damaged. Most the analyses of Iwo Eleru are anthroposcopy (i.e. visual assessment with no measurements), instead of multivariate craniometry. So its questionable if Iwo Eleru is even "Negroid".
If you look at the pre-Holocene (Pleistocene) fossil record in Africa: you usually find crania that don't show any close ties to a single living/recent African population. There is a "mosaic" morphology; the skulls are generalized or undifferentiated and contain a mixture of Negroid & Bushmenoid traits/variables. Good examples include Nazlet Khater & Singa. This is why physical anthropologists (Coon, 1962) once erroneously thought Bushmen inhabited the entire continent.
The "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" morphotypes pre-date the "Negroid". Middle Upper Palaeolithic skulls from Europe (like Cro-Magnon 1) are close[st] to living/recent Europeans.
Reread your own statement, see how this makes no sense.
See how your ignorance is oblivious and bigoted.
This is why you must encourage the Opposition to update & make refined arguments rather than reengage in bogus or uninspired & tired debates lol.
check it out, in the age of Genetics we know, modern west Africans & Bantus for the most part are not descendant from Forest HG's, pygmy nor Bushmen. If there were no noticeable contemporary African during the Pleistocene, where might they have come from, according to Cass' Model? Mind you, he notes that the mongoloid & Caucasoid like Morphology predates Negroid, I'm guessing he's relying on Multiregionalism... but This model inadvertently clumps some populations together by a common ancestor.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
The "Negroid" morphotype is recent (early Holocene); Iwo Eleru is supposedly the oldest "Negroid" skull (11200 ± 200 BP), but badly damaged. Most the analyses of Iwo Eleru are anthroposcopy (i.e. visual assessment with no measurements), instead of multivariate craniometry. So its questionable if Iwo Eleru is even "Negroid".
If you look at the pre-Holocene (Pleistocene) fossil record in Africa: you usually find crania that don't show any close ties to a single living/recent African population. There is a "mosaic" morphology; the skulls are generalized or undifferentiated and contain a mixture of Negroid & Bushmenoid traits/variables. Good examples include Nazlet Khater & Singa. This is why physical anthropologists (Coon, 1962) once erroneously thought Bushmen inhabited the entire continent.
The "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" morphotypes pre-date the "Negroid". Middle Upper Palaeolithic skulls from Europe (like Cro-Magnon 1) are close[st] to living/recent Europeans.
Reread your own statement, see how this makes no sense.
See how your ignorance is oblivious and bigoted.
This is why you must encourage the Opposition to update & make refined arguments rather than reengage in bogus or uninspired & tired debates lol.
check it out, in the age of Genetics we know, modern west Africans & Bantus for the most part are not descendant from Forest HG's, pygmy nor Bushmen. If there were no noticeable contemporary African during the Pleistocene, where might they have come from, according to Cass' Model? Mind you, he notes that the mongoloid & Caucasoid like Morphology predates Negroid, I'm guessing he's relying on Multiregionalism... but This model inadvertently clumps some populations together by a common ancestor.
The dude implies on revamping the old stuff over-and-over.
quote:
"This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.
[...]
"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Lines: 369 to 3770.0pt PgVar Normal PagePgEnds: TEX [554], Saharan genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill2 et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniog¢lu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniog¢lu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003;6 Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al.7 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward10 to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.
"Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt—such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semal 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980)—show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic–early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations."
--F X Ricaut · M Waelkens
Article: Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements
Human Biology 11/2008; 80(5):535-64. DOI:10.3378/1534-6617-80.5.535 · 1.52 Impact Factor
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: No one has ever called Somalis or Ethiopians "Caucasoid" or "White" (at least not senso stricto); this is a straw-man Afrocentrists invented. What physical anthropologists like Coon (1965) said is Horn Africa is a mixture of "Caucasoids" and "Negroids"; the percentages vary in different tribes/ethnic groups:
quote:Peoples of the Horn of Africa
AT THE OTHER END of the Red Sea from Suez, the Bab el Mandeb has also served as a major corridor between Western Asia and Africa. As its name, "The Gate of Tears," indicates, traffic flows in both directions, with Arabs moving westward and African slaves eastward. West of the Bab el Mandeb rises the steep escarpment of the Ethiopian highlands, a refuge of prime historical importance, and between the highlands and the Red Sea stretches the Dankali Desert, parts of which lie below sea level. It is one of the hottest places on earth.
The peoples of this region are or nearly all products, in various degrees and in different forms, of a mixture between Caucasoids and Negroids. Except for slaves recently imported from the steamy marshes of the lower Sudan, the most Negroid people are the Wattas, hippopotamus hunters along the rivers of Somaliland and southern Ethiopia. They are an endogamous caste feared as magicians and despised because they et hippopotamus meat. As far as we know, they have been neither measured nor subjected blood-groups.
Next most Negroid are the sedentary peoples of western Ethiopia who speak Central Cushitic languages: the Kafacitos, Soddo Galla, Sidamos, Agaus, and Falasha(Black Jews). These people are curly-or frizzy-haired, have dark brown skins, and are relatively short in stature. Their mean stature is about 164cm(5 feet 4 1/2 inches). their facial features are partly Negroid.
The least Negroid peoples of the highlands are the Ethiopians proper--who speak Amharic, Tigre, and Tigrinya--and the Gallas. The former are descended from southern Arabians who invaded Ethiopia during the first millennium B.C., and the latter from the cattle people who entered the highlands from the west in the 16th century A.D.
- Living Races of Man
Stop making yourself look like a fool. It was whites who made this, get that in your Euroloon head.
English: Somali man of Ethiopid Caucasoid type. Date 1948 (sculptures commissioned from 1929) Source Races of Mankind, Chapter "Description of Races", p. 318 [1] Author Henry Field; Malvina Hoffman (sculptor)
quote:The professional Nigerian nationalist historiography which emerged in reaction against the imperialist Hamitic Hypothesis – the assertion that Africa's history had been made only by foreigners – is rooted in a complex West African tradition of critical dialogue with European ideas. From the mid-nineteenth century, western-educated Africans have re-worked European ideas into distinctive Hamitic Hypotheses suited to their colonial location. This account developed within the constraints set by changing European and African-American ideas about West African origins and the evolving character of the Nigerian intelligentsia. West Africans first identified themselves not as victims of Hamitic invasion but as the degenerate heirs of classical civilizations, to establish their potential to create a modern, Christian society. At the turn of the century various authors argued for past development within West Africa rather than mere degeneration. Edward Blyden appropriated African-American thought to posit a distinct racial history. Samuel Johnson elaborated on Yoruba traditions of a golden age. Inter-war writers such as J. O. Lucas and Ladipo Solanke built on both arguments, but as race science declined they again invoked universal historical patterns. Facing the arrival of Nigeria as a nation-state, later writers such as S. O. Biobaku developed these ideas to argue that Hamitic invasions had created Nigeria's proto-national culture. In the heightened identity politics of the 1950s, local historians adopted Hamites to compete for historical primacy among Nigerian communities. The Hamitic Hypothesis declined in post-colonial conditions, in part because the concern to define ultimate identities along a colonial axis was displaced by the need to understand identity politics within the Nigerian sphere. The Nigerian Hamitic Hypothesis had a complex career, promoting élite ambitions, Christian identities, Nigerian nationalism and communal rivalries. New treatments of African colonial historiography – and intellectual history – must incorporate the complexities illus-trated here.
--Philip S. Zachernuk (a1) Volume 35, Issue 3 November 1994, pp. 427-455 Of Origins and Colonial Order: Southern Nigerian Historians and the ‘Hamitic Hypothesis’ c. 1870–19701
Can you post your comments to go along with your quote? Why did you post it?
She's basically trying to give credence to the same kind of outdated literature that Cass is so fond of without actually putting herself on the line.
I would be surprised if Lioness co-signs that. But then again, Lioness' bar for accepting something can become quite low when it comes from bloggers like Razib who have been influenced strongly by Coon et al.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: "Meanwhile we may note that a detailed analysis of 571 modern Negro crania, made by advanced mathematical techniques, has shown that these crania gravitate between two poles, a Mediterranean Caucasoid and a Pygmy one. The former type is again divisible into an ordinary Mediterranean and a Western Asian type, which suggests more than a single northern point of origin for the Caucasoid element. As we shall in greater detail in Chapter 8 and 9, the Negroes resemble Caucasoids closely a number of genetic traits that are inherited in a simple fashion. Examples of these are fingerprints, types of earwax, and the major blood groups. The Negroes also have some of the same local, predominantly African, blood types as the Pygmies. " This evidence suggests that the Negroes are not a primary sub-species but rather a product of mixture between invading Caucasoids and Pygmies who lived on the edges of the forest, which at the end of the Pleistocene extended farther north and east than it does now.
The Living Races of Man by Carleton S. Coon
I posted this because it dovetails with xyymian theory
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: This evidence suggests that the Negroes are not a primary sub-species but rather a product of mixture between invading Caucasoids and Pygmies who lived on the edges of the forest, which at the end of the Pleistocene extended farther north and east than it does now.
The Living Races of Man by Carleton S. Coon
Just as in the Weidner map, this is at the back of the corrected Eurasian genome present through all Africa report or Gurdasani's recent report.
We can't be naive and believe geneticists were never exposed to such mainstream 20th century anthropology nor it influencing interpretation.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Aren't you guys obsessed with (mean) phenotypic variation in Africa being the highest? If so, then because of in situ heterogeneity -a prediction is morphological sub-structure in Africa would be the most recent (Holocene):
"Emergence of Distinctive Regional Groups in Africa [T]here was a very long delay until the appearance of individuals who can not be distinguished metrically and morphologically from the living inhabitants of each part of Africa. In fact, almost all Africa Late Pleistocene hominins are easily distinguished from living Africans (Anderson, 1968; Brothwell and Shaw, 1971; Gramly and Rightmire, 1973; Twiesselmann, 1991; Muteti et al., 2010; Angel et al., 1980; de Villiers and Fatti, 1982; Angel and Olsen Kelly, 1986; Habgood, 1989; Howells, 1989; Boaz et al., 1990; Allsworth-Jones et al., 2010), and it is not until the Holocene that this situation changes (Rightmire, 1975, 1978b, 1984b; de Villiers and Fatti, 1982; Bräuer, 1984b; Habgood, 1989)." - Pearson, 2013
Working with MRE I explain this by greater population-size(s) in Africa throughout the Pleistocene; OOA can explain the same observation, but by different factors (although Tishkoff an OOA proponent takes into account larger population size in Pleistocene Africa).
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Stop making yourself look like a fool. It was whites who made this, get that in your Euroloon head.
Yes, and if you go read Henry Field's race work [that those busts were based on], he describes Northeast Africa as a mixture of "Caucasoids" and "Negroids" like Coon did. The description of a Somali as a "Caucasoid" is senso lato not senso stricto; even Seligman described "Negroid" mixture in Somalis. All the Hamites in Africa were always recognised as having "Negroid" mixture, but it varied in estimated percentage for different tribes.
"The peoples of this region [Horn of Africa] are or nearly all products, in various degrees and in different forms, of a mixture between Caucasoids and Negroids." - Coon, 1965
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
The "Negroid" morphotype is recent (early Holocene); Iwo Eleru is supposedly the oldest "Negroid" skull (11200 ± 200 BP), but badly damaged. Most the analyses of Iwo Eleru are anthroposcopy (i.e. visual assessment with no measurements), instead of multivariate craniometry. So its questionable if Iwo Eleru is even "Negroid".
So what was the African facial morphotype for the other 100,000+ years? Why are Europeans like yourself trying to owe these features to mixtures with "Eurasians" if the average African would've had these features until 11200 BP?
Aren't you guys obsessed with (mean) phenotypic variation in Africa being the highest? If so, then because of in situ heterogeneity -a prediction is morphological sub-structure in Africa would be the most recent (Holocene):
"Emergence of Distinctive Regional Groups in Africa [T]here was a very long delay until the appearance of individuals who can not be distinguished metrically and morphologically from the living inhabitants of each part of Africa. In fact, almost all Africa Late Pleistocene hominins are easily distinguished from living Africans (Anderson, 1968; Brothwell and Shaw, 1971; Gramly and Rightmire, 1973; Twiesselmann, 1991; Muteti et al., 2010; Angel et al., 1980; de Villiers and Fatti, 1982; Angel and Olsen Kelly, 1986; Habgood, 1989; Howells, 1989; Boaz et al., 1990; Allsworth-Jones et al., 2010), and it is not until the Holocene that this situation changes (Rightmire, 1975, 1978b, 1984b; de Villiers and Fatti, 1982; Bräuer, 1984b; Habgood, 1989)." - Pearson, 2013
Working with MRE I explain this by greater population-size(s) in Africa throughout the Pleistocene; OOA can explain the same observation, but by different factors (although Tishkoff an OOA proponent takes into account larger population size in Pleistocene Africa).
"not until the Holocene that this situation changes"
So what happend during the Holocene was climate change. This brings adaptation in nutrition and enviorment along, even bacteria (diseases). These are components important for physical and genetic change causing morphological sub-structure in Africa.
quote: Radiocarbon data from 150 archaeological excavations in the now hyper-arid Eastern Sahara of Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and Chad reveal close links between climatic variations and prehistoric occupation during the past 12,000 years. Synoptic multiple-indicator views for major time slices demonstrate the transition from initial settlement after the sudden onset of humid conditions at 8500 B.C.E. to the exodus resulting from gradual desiccation since 5300 B.C.E. Southward shifting of the desert margin helped trigger the emergence of pharaonic civilization along the Nile, influenced the spread of pastoralism throughout the continent, and affects sub-Saharan Africa to the present day.
[…]
Time transgressive drying of the Eastern Sahara. The chronology of radiocarbon dates from early and mid-Holocene occupation sites along a north-south transect through the Eastern Sahara provides a spatial and temporal synthesis of the directional trend in shifting human populations (Fig. 1 and fig. S1). It was compiled from almost 500 radiometric results from about 150 excavations at non-oasis sites, supplemented by condensed chronologies for Nabta and Kiseiba (4), the Egyptian oases (16, 17), and the Nile valley (18). The general array of radiocarbon dates, with older dates in the north and the bulk of younger dates in the south, clearly indicates (i) a movement of prehistoric populations toward the present-day Sahelian zone; (ii) a dearth of early Holocene data from the Nile valley at a time when human presence in the Eastern Sahara is well documented; and (iii) a sharp break of settlement in the Egyptian Sahara at about 5300 B.C.E. (except for some ecologically favored refuges such as the Gilf Kebir Plateau), the time when Neolithic and predynastic farming communities began flourishing in the Nile valley.
—Rudolph Kuper, Stefan Kröpelin
Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa's Evolution
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Stop making yourself look like a fool. It was whites who made this, get that in your Euroloon head.
Yes, and if you go read Henry Field's race work [that those busts were based on], he describes Northeast Africa as a mixture of "Caucasoids" and "Negroids" like Coon did. The description of a Somali as a "Caucasoid" is senso lato not senso stricto; even Seligman described "Negroid" mixture in Somalis. All the Hamites in Africa were always recognised as having "Negroid" mixture, but it varied in estimated percentage for different tribes.
"The peoples of this region [Horn of Africa] are or nearly all products, in various degrees and in different forms, of a mixture between Caucasoids and Negroids." - Coon, 1965
Do you realize how funny that sounds / reads.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
If I had time and money I'd finance and resource a team to look into African archaic genome survival s in modern Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: @ Ish Gebor
The "Negroid" morphotype is recent (early Holocene); Iwo Eleru is supposedly the oldest "Negroid" skull (11200 ± 200 BP), but badly damaged. Most the analyses of Iwo Eleru are anthroposcopy (i.e. visual assessment with no measurements), instead of multivariate craniometry. So its questionable if Iwo Eleru is even "Negroid".
If you look at the pre-Holocene (Pleistocene) fossil record in Africa: you usually find crania that don't show any close ties to a single living/recent African population. There is a "mosaic" morphology; the skulls are generalized or undifferentiated and contain a mixture of Negroid & Bushmenoid traits/variables. Good examples include Nazlet Khater & Singa. This is why physical anthropologists (Coon, 1962) once erroneously thought Bushmen inhabited the entire continent.
The "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" morphotypes pre-date the "Negroid". Middle Upper Palaeolithic skulls from Europe (like Cro-Magnon 1) are close[st] to living/recent Europeans.
Reread your own statement, see how this makes no sense.
See how your ignorance is oblivious and bigoted.
This is why you must encourage the Opposition to update & make refined arguments rather than reengage in bogus or uninspired & tired debates lol.
check it out, in the age of Genetics we know, modern west Africans & Bantus for the most part are not descendant from Forest HG's, pygmy nor Bushmen. If there were no noticeable contemporary African during the Pleistocene, where might they have come from, according to Cass' Model? Mind you, he notes that the mongoloid & Caucasoid like Morphology predates Negroid, I'm guessing he's relying on Multiregionalism... but This model inadvertently clumps some populations together by a common ancestor.
The dude implies on revamping the old stuff over-and-over.
quote:
"This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.
[...]
"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Lines: 369 to 3770.0pt PgVar Normal PagePgEnds: TEX [554], Saharan genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill2 et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniog¢lu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniog¢lu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003;6 Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al.7 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward10 to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.
"Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt—such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semal 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980)—show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic–early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations."
--F X Ricaut · M Waelkens
Article: Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements
Human Biology 11/2008; 80(5):535-64. DOI:10.3378/1534-6617-80.5.535 · 1.52 Impact Factor
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Aren't you guys obsessed with (mean) phenotypic variation in Africa being the highest? If so, then because of in situ heterogeneity -a prediction is morphological sub-structure in Africa would be the most recent (Holocene):
posted
If we all had the money..... Europeans are not interested in the truth. Even the "liberal" ones. They may be the most treacherous
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: If I had time and money I'd finance and resource a team to look into African archaic genome survival s in modern Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: @ Ish Gebor
The "Negroid" morphotype is recent (early Holocene); Iwo Eleru is supposedly the oldest "Negroid" skull (11200 ± 200 BP), but badly damaged. Most the analyses of Iwo Eleru are anthroposcopy (i.e. visual assessment with no measurements), instead of multivariate craniometry. So its questionable if Iwo Eleru is even "Negroid".
If you look at the pre-Holocene (Pleistocene) fossil record in Africa: you usually find crania that don't show any close ties to a single living/recent African population. There is a "mosaic" morphology; the skulls are generalized or undifferentiated and contain a mixture of Negroid & Bushmenoid traits/variables. Good examples include Nazlet Khater & Singa. This is why physical anthropologists (Coon, 1962) once erroneously thought Bushmen inhabited the entire continent.
The "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" morphotypes pre-date the "Negroid". Middle Upper Palaeolithic skulls from Europe (like Cro-Magnon 1) are close[st] to living/recent Europeans.
Reread your own statement, see how this makes no sense. :D
See how your ignorance is oblivious and bigoted.
This is why you must encourage the Opposition to update & make refined arguments rather than reengage in bogus or uninspired & tired debates lol.
check it out, in the age of Genetics we know, modern west Africans & Bantus for the most part are not descendant from Forest HG's, pygmy nor Bushmen. If there were no noticeable contemporary African during the Pleistocene, where might they have come from, according to Cass' Model? Mind you, he notes that the mongoloid & Caucasoid like Morphology predates Negroid, I'm guessing he's relying on Multiregionalism... but This model inadvertently clumps some populations together by a common ancestor.
The dude implies on revamping the old stuff over-and-over.
quote:
"This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.
[...]
"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Lines: 369 to 3770.0pt PgVar Normal PagePgEnds: TEX [554], Saharan genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill2 et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniog¢lu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniog¢lu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003;6 Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al.7 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward10 to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.
"Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt—such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semal 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980)—show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic–early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations."
--F X Ricaut · M Waelkens
Article: Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements
Human Biology 11/2008; 80(5):535-64. DOI:10.3378/1534-6617-80.5.535 · 1.52 Impact Factor
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
You've mentioned to me that you believe this Abusir sample represents an early development of the modern Coptic pattern of affinity. Which it might, but I remember that while the Coptic immigrants in Sudan had less West African or Nilotic affinity than other Northeast African populations, they also had a lot less unambiguously "Arab" ancestry than either modern Egyptians or Qataris. Their predominant component was a dark green one which was also present in some of the Northeast African populations but had a Eurasian (or possibly pre-OOA) affinity. On the other hand, this new Abusir sample seems to be more Near Eastern all around; I remember one of the leaked graphs showing a particularly close resemblance to modern Jordanians (who are an Arabized population like modern Egyptians and Qataris too). So what gives?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
PCAs can be very misleading. The other slide is more reliable as far as population affinities.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Because I'm not sure how to read the graph on the right side. Is that what you're referring to?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Lets try this again and use this thread as a placeholder when the data is release.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote: Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
Would immigration of Libyans and Nubians in these Mid Intermediate dynasties have an significant effect on the DNA as per these mummies? Those are the Libyan and Nubian dynasties periods
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Because I'm not sure how to read the graph on the right side. Is that what you're referring to?
The top plot (the one labeled A) only lights up with ancient farmer samples (brown), not so much with modern samples in the Middle East (yellow). Therefore, the Abusir samples vicinity to modern day arabs in PCA (assuming you read it correctly; I'm not squinting my eyeballs that image) is only approximate.
Remember when some character used PCA to claim Mota was closely related to Hadza as opposed to Omotic speakers? It's the same thing. A single PCA doesn't necessarily give the whole story.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: If we all had the money..... Europeans are not interested in the truth. Even the "liberal" ones. They may be the most treacherous
Correct. They know they are lying, that's why they had to have the Mota man data about 6-7% Eurasian genomes in West and Central Africans. Riech understood that this data had to be eliminated, because there is no evidence of Eurasians migrating into West and Central Africa, so this meant that Central Africans had to have carried the so-called Eurasian genes to Eurasia.
You don't need money to show our actual phylogeography and history. You have to read the supplementary data, and compare the ancient Eurasian craniomentrics and archaeology to African material and you see where Eurasians originated.
It is sad that most of the young people here can not think for themselves and instead relie on Europeans to tell them their history. .
. Reich is a master at masking African genes in Eurasians and Native Americans, I am sure he has analyzed ancient African DNA, and knows that the first OOA migrants were already carrying the so-called Eurasian haplogroups. But they will hide this data so they can maintain the status quo.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I am sure he has analyzed ancient African DNA, and knows that the first OOA migrants were already carrying the so-called Eurasian haplogroups. But they will hide this data so they can maintain the status quo.
. [/QB]
this comes out of the magical point of view that after humans left Africa they lost the ability to mutate new haplogroups
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I am sure he has analyzed ancient African DNA, and knows that the first OOA migrants were already carrying the so-called Eurasian haplogroups. But they will hide this data so they can maintain the status quo.
.
this comes out of the magical point of view that after humans left Africa they lost the ability to mutate new haplogroups [/QB]
LOL. Not really. The ancient Eurasians are carrying the same genes Africans carry today, so there were no new mutations after the OOA.For example, in 2010, R-V88 was originally named R1b1a and it was renamed R1b1a2 . The samples from Samara identified as V88, are labled Rlbla--not R1b1a2. This shows that although researchers change the names of African haplogroups to cause confusion the truth is out there.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I am sure he has analyzed ancient African DNA, and knows that the first OOA migrants were already carrying the so-called Eurasian haplogroups. But they will hide this data so they can maintain the status quo.
.
this comes out of the magical point of view that after humans left Africa they lost the ability to mutate new haplogroups [/QB]
That reads weird. A bit pseudoscience like. But I am not surprised it comes from someone who writes Ph.D as PHd.
quote: According to the current data East Africa is home to nearly 2/3 of the world genetic diversity independent of sampling effect. Similar figure have been suggested for sub-Saharan Africa populations [1].
[...]
Figure S2 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). The 2nd and 3rd coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 nuclear microsatellite loci from 469 individuals of 24 world populations. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. The figure, besides a separate clustering of east Africans, indicates the substantial contribution of Africans and east Africans to the founding of populations of Europe and Asia. (TIF)
--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
The Episode of Genetic Drift Defining the Migration of Humans out of Africa Is Derived from a Large East African Population Size
PLoS One. 2014; 9(5): e97674. Published online 2014 May 20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097674
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: LOL!!!!!!
This is nice on so many levels.
It's real, but also unreal. But with a few altercations, anything is possible. All it needs is a few flips to make it look convincing.
It also shows fragmentation, into how all dogs can do flips.
Nice very nice philosophical approach.
Nyeah. PCA (PC1, PC2) is less reliable. Now Schueneman et al are dipping into afrolunacy I guess.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Reich is a master at masking African genes in Eurasians and Native Americans, I am sure he has analyzed ancient African DNA, and knows that the first OOA migrants were already carrying the so-called Eurasian haplogroups. But they will hide this data so they can maintain the status quo.
I have noticed that too.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I am sure he has analyzed ancient African DNA, and knows that the first OOA migrants were already carrying the so-called Eurasian haplogroups. But they will hide this data so they can maintain the status quo.
For sure he has. He (and others) understands blacks don't have these resources and facilities to verify the materials.
This speaks on so many levels, in terms of science, economics, sociology etc.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Will we use genetics to validate Linguistics
While at the same time using linguistics to explain genetics.
Snake eats one end of the another snake eating the former.
Phylogentic placement of Afrasian OOA makes sense, just as much sense as placing it in Africa. The arguments on both sides are fine, but what needs to be refined is the phylum itself.
If you look at Berber and how it represents a distant branch in Afroasiatic simultaneously with how they genetically represent an early split from soon to be Neolithic populations, MtDNA U, etc. you'll see it makes perfect sense, and supports an early back-migration.
But once again, we act as if languages can't converge, as genomes can, when two populations meet and culturally exchange concepts... lets take it east and look at Omotic and Cushitic and the "Nilo-Saharan/Eastafrican" roots both linguistically and genetically... Is there no pattern? if there is lets revisit the nile and the Geographical history as well as the Demographic history and see which groups could have possible converged there, what would that say about AfroAsiatic, as it relates to the genetic under tone.
I will get heat for this on here but I'll come straight out and say it. I personally feel like we can't put Semetic in east africa or the Sahara, or Africa at all. Afroasiatic as a phylum however is a work in progress, period.
I only see this post now. The map is very well done.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic