quote: Elliot Smith reported finding differences between Dynastic and Predynastic skeletal remains. However, his interpretation of these findings was formed by his reliance on concepts of 'racial' types prevalent at the time. More recent studies have, however, confirmed that there were significant phenotypic differences between Early Dynastic populations in Upper and Lower Egypt (Hillson 1978; Keita 1988, 1992, 1995, 1996). The timing and origin of these differences still needs to be determined. The most parsimonious explanation is that they reflect long-term differentiation between small groups operating in different environments within Egypt as postulated by Hassan (1998) and Debono and Mortensen (1990). Alternatively the differences may have resulted from the arrival of a distinct ethnic group, either in the Neolithic, associated with the introduction of domestic plants and animals by nomadic pastorialists-- or in a later period when inter-regional trade became important.
quote: "For Upper Egypt and Nubia, there is good archeological and bio-anthropological evidence for population continuity from the Mesolithic to recent times. The diachronic changes reported for Nubians conform to those predicted for micro-evolutionary change in situ (Carlson and van Gerven 1977; Nielson 1970. Morphometric characteristics from all periods are significantly different to those of their near contemporaries in the Levant and North Africa (Hershkovitz 1981: Hershkovitz et al. 1987; P. Smith 1979, 1988).
quote: Morant (1925) and Batrawi (1946) also found significant differences between Predynastic Upper Egyptians and, represented by Naqada and those from Lower Egypt, represented by Giza. Subsequent investigations using different sets of variables and more sophisticated statistical analysis, have confirmed that marked differences existed between Predynastic and Early Dynastic samples from the north and south of Egypt, and that these differences decreased in later period (Chichton 1966; Hillson 1978; Keita 1002, 1995, 1996).
quote:... Keita (1992) found that distance between populations from Badari, Naqada and Abydos, as calculated from metrical parameters, correlated well with chronology rather than geographical distance.
quote: The findings presented here indicate that the north-south differences reported for Predynastic and Early Dynastic populations in Egypt were not due to large-scale population movements out of the southern Levant in the Neolithic or Predynastic period. Rather, they appear to reflect the long-term effect of differentiation between small, localized groups of hunters and gatherers exploiting different ecological niches. Having said this, it must be emphasized that these results are constrained by the small sample sizes available for the sites discussed here, and the limited number of sites represented.
posted
This paper makes no sense. The people in the Levant and Egypt were both sub-Saharan Africans so there was no admixture. You can not have any admixture if the populations are the same.
Holliday's research proves the populations were the same in the Levant and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-4,000 years ago),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area.
Below are a few quotes from the paper by Holliday they show that the population at this time were Negroid in Southwest Asia.
"In this light, some of the more robust assignments (albeit not 95% of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids to the sub-Saharan African sample (e.g., Qafzeh 8 at 85%, Skhul 4 at 71%) are remarkable indeed" (p. 62).
"The Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have sometimes been refered to as "Proto-CroMagnons" (e.g., Howell 1957; Vandermeersch 1996) because of their presumed similarity to the famous Aurignacian-associated hominids from Western Europe....Specifically [Brace], he notes that "in both the details of its dental and craniological size and from Qafzeh is an unlikely proto-Cro-Magnon, but it makes a fine model for the ancestors of modern sub-Saharan Africans"(p.63).
"taken as a whole, the work of Tchernov seems to support the findings of the current research that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have their origins in Africa, while the Neanderthals are from cold to temperate biomes"(p.64).
"The current study demonstrates African-like affinities in the body shape of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This finding is consistent with craniofacial evidence (Brace 1996) and with zooarchaeological data indicating the presence of African fauna at Qafzeh (Rabinovich and Tchernov 1995; Tchernov 1988, 1992)" (p.64).\
The findings of Holliday make it clear that as different African populations migrated into the Levant they maintained their African culture. As a result, instead of new haplogroups arising in the Levant, Africans just introduced the haplogroups that had already originated on the African continent.
.
References:
Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This paper makes no sense. The people in the Levant and Egypt were both sub-Saharan Africans so there was no admixture. You can not have any admixture if the populations are the same.
Holliday's research proves the populations were the same in the Levant and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-4,000 years ago),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area.
Below are a few quotes from the paper by Holliday they show that the population at this time were Negroid in Southwest Asia.
"In this light, some of the more robust assignments (albeit not 95% of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids to the sub-Saharan African sample (e.g., Qafzeh 8 at 85%, Skhul 4 at 71%) are remarkable indeed" (p. 62).
"The Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have sometimes been refered to as "Proto-CroMagnons" (e.g., Howell 1957; Vandermeersch 1996) because of their presumed similarity to the famous Aurignacian-associated hominids from Western Europe....Specifically [Brace], he notes that "in both the details of its dental and craniological size and from Qafzeh is an unlikely proto-Cro-Magnon, but it makes a fine model for the ancestors of modern sub-Saharan Africans"(p.63).
"taken as a whole, the work of Tchernov seems to support the findings of the current research that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have their origins in Africa, while the Neanderthals are from cold to temperate biomes"(p.64).
"The current study demonstrates African-like affinities in the body shape of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This finding is consistent with craniofacial evidence (Brace 1996) and with zooarchaeological data indicating the presence of African fauna at Qafzeh (Rabinovich and Tchernov 1995; Tchernov 1988, 1992)" (p.64).\
The findings of Holliday make it clear that as different African populations migrated into the Levant they maintained their African culture. As a result, instead of new haplogroups arising in the Levant, Africans just introduced the haplogroups that had already originated on the African continent.
.
References:
Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) .
If you go back far enough people outside of Africa had more African proportions, the quotes above on Qafzeh-Skhul hominids.
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample (Holliday 2013)
^ However as Holliday shows here and in similar articles he did earlier Natufians at the El Wad site in Israel have limb ratios clustering with Europeans
quote: Craniometric analyses have suggested that the Natufians may have migrated 186 from north or sub-Saharan Africa25,26, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome 187 analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations 188 carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other 189 ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, no 190 affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as 191 present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other 192 ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1)
-- The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers Iosif Lazaridis et al , 2016
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This paper makes no sense. The people in the Levant and Egypt were both sub-Saharan Africans so there was no admixture. You can not have any admixture if the populations are the same.
Holliday's research proves the populations were the same in the Levant and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-4,000 years ago),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area.
Below are a few quotes from the paper by Holliday they show that the population at this time were Negroid in Southwest Asia.
"In this light, some of the more robust assignments (albeit not 95% of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids to the sub-Saharan African sample (e.g., Qafzeh 8 at 85%, Skhul 4 at 71%) are remarkable indeed" (p. 62).
"The Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have sometimes been refered to as "Proto-CroMagnons" (e.g., Howell 1957; Vandermeersch 1996) because of their presumed similarity to the famous Aurignacian-associated hominids from Western Europe....Specifically [Brace], he notes that "in both the details of its dental and craniological size and from Qafzeh is an unlikely proto-Cro-Magnon, but it makes a fine model for the ancestors of modern sub-Saharan Africans"(p.63).
"taken as a whole, the work of Tchernov seems to support the findings of the current research that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have their origins in Africa, while the Neanderthals are from cold to temperate biomes"(p.64).
"The current study demonstrates African-like affinities in the body shape of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This finding is consistent with craniofacial evidence (Brace 1996) and with zooarchaeological data indicating the presence of African fauna at Qafzeh (Rabinovich and Tchernov 1995; Tchernov 1988, 1992)" (p.64).\
The findings of Holliday make it clear that as different African populations migrated into the Levant they maintained their African culture. As a result, instead of new haplogroups arising in the Levant, Africans just introduced the haplogroups that had already originated on the African continent.
.
References:
Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) .
If you go back far enough people outside of Africa had more African proportions, the quotes above on Qafzeh-Skhul hominids.
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample (Holliday 2013)
^ However as Holliday shows here and in similar articles he did earlier Natufians at the El Wad site in Israel have limb ratios clustering with Europeans
quote: Craniometric analyses have suggested that the Natufians may have migrated 186 from north or sub-Saharan Africa25,26, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome 187 analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations 188 carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other 189 ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, no 190 affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as 191 present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other 192 ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1)
-- The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers Iosif Lazaridis et al , 2016
This does not contradict my point. Of course the " no 190 affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as 191 present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other 192 ancient Eurasians" ,because they both belonged to the same population.
In 2010, R-V88 was originally named R1b1a and ; R-V8, was named R1b1a2. Today R-V88 is named R1b1a2, and R1b1a is renamed R-L754. The ancient Europeans and Africans share R-L278 and R-L754. The earliest carrier of R-L278 in Europe was Villabruna man in Italy. Villabruna man lived 12kya. This would place Africans carrying R-L278 in Europe long before the origination of the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya cultures.
Given the wide distribution of M269, V88 and R-L278 in Africa and ancient Europe, the carriers of these haplogroup were probably also Africans since the Bell Beaker people/culture originated in Morocco as noted by Turek (2012). The Bell Beaker culture expanded from Tagua region of Iberia into Ireland and Scandinavia between 2800-2700 BC (Haak et al, 2015).
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
This does not contradict my point. Of course the " no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians" ,because they both belonged to the same population.
If they both belonged to the same population there would be a genetic affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans.
But: "no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis
therefore your comment doesn't make sense
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
This does not contradict my point. Of course the " no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians" ,because they both belonged to the same population.
If they both belonged to the same population there would be a genetic affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans.
But: "no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis
therefore your comment doesn't make sense
Yes it does let's look at the entire quote: "Craniometric analyses have suggested that the Natufians may have migrated 186 from north or sub-Saharan Africa25,26, a result that finds some support from Y-chromosome 187 analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations 188 carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin".
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So no discussion on differentiation between the north and south's adaptions? Suggestions that predynastic Egypt was made of small communities of people with different ecologies? These small differentiated groups add credence to the potential of a long term cline effect in Egypt, and would not require mass migration. Though they do mention this differentiation between the north and south apparently saw reductions the longer Egypt had been unified.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic