posted
Haber, Marc et al. (2016) Chad Genetic Diversity Reveals an African History Marked by Multiple Holocene Eurasian Migrations, (The American Journal of Human Genetics , Volume 99 , Issue 6 , 1316 – 1324) web page argues that R1bla proves a back migration of R1 from Eurasia. Haber et al (2016) wrote:
quote:
However, we found that the African and Eurasian R1b lineages diverged 17,900–23,000 ya, suggesting that genetic structure was already established between the groups who expanded to Europe and Africa. R1b-V88 was previously found in Central and West Africa and was associated with a mid-Holocene migration of Afro-asiatic speakers through the central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin.8 In the populations we examined, we found R1b in the Toubou and Sara, who speak Nilo-Saharan languages, and also in the Laal people, who speak an unclassified language. This suggests that R1b penetrated Africa independently of the Afro-asiatic language spread or passed to other groups through admixture.
This is pure speculation. V88 is not just carried by Cushitic–Chadic speakers. Haber et al (2017) present no archaeological evidence supporting this conclusion. The archaeology indicates that the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya cultures originated in Africa and was taken to Europe by the Kushites.
R1bla is nothing more than V88. V88 is found throughout Africa especially among the Niger-Congo speakers whoes ancestors were the Kushites who settled Europe after the great flood.Cruciani et al (2010), web page noted that: " Among the Niger-Congo-speaking populations, the frequency of the haplogroup R-V88 ranged between 0.0 and 66.7%." As you can see V88 is not just a feature of Afro-Asiatic speakers.
To imply that V88 is the result of a back migration, because Ethiopians don't carry V88,but it is carried by the Cushitic–Chadic speakers is ludicrous.
Jones et al,Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians web page, believed that there was continuity between the ancient and modern Europeans populations---this phenomena is exactly what the researchers found.
Jones et al made several observations, they wrote
quote: EF share greater genetic affinity to populations from southern Europe than to those from northern Europe with an inverted pattern for WHG1,2,3,4,5. Surprisingly, we find that CHG influence is stronger in northern than Southern Europe (Fig. 4a and Supplementary Fig. 3A) despite the closer relationship between CHG and EF compared with WHG, suggesting an increase of CHG ancestry in Western Europeans subsequent to the early Neolithic period. We investigated this further using D-statistics of the form D(Yoruba, Kotias; EF, modern Western European population), which confirmed a significant introgression from CHG into modern northern European genomes after the early Neolithic period (Supplementary Fig. 4).
Next they noted:
quote: We investigated the temporal stratigraphy of CHG influence by comparing these data to previously published ancient genomes. We find that CHG, or a population close to them, contributed to the genetic makeup of individuals from the Yamnaya culture, which have been implicated as vectors for the profound influx of Pontic steppe ancestry that spread westwards into Europe and east into central Asia with metallurgy, horseriding and probably Indo-European languages in the third millenium BC5,7. CHG ancestry in these groups is supported by ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 1b) and admixture f3-statistics14,25 (Fig. 5), which best describe the Yamnaya as a mix of CHG and Eastern European hunter-gatherers. The Yamnaya were semi-nomadic pastoralists, mainly dependent on stock-keeping but with some evidence for agriculture, including incorporation of a plow into one burial26
The culture traits of the CHG : horseback riding , meyallurgy and etc., are of Kushite, not Indo-European in origin. The only problem with the theory Jones et al, is that the earliest rulers of the land where these culkture traits originated were Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke a non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush). The Hattic people, may be related to the Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes. Many archaeologist believe that the Tehenu people were related to the C-Group people. The Hattic language is closely related to African and Dravidian languages for example:
English Hattic Egyptian Malinke (Mande language)
powerful ur wr'great,big' fara
protect $uh swh solo-
head tup tp tu 'strike the head'
up,upper tufa tp dya, tu 'raising ground'
to stretch put pd pe, bamba
to prosper falfat -- find'ya
pour duq --- du 'to dispense'
child pin,pinu den
Mother na-a -- na
lord sa -- sa
place -ka -ka
The languages have similar syntax Hattic le fil 'his house'; Mande a falu 'his ]father's house'.
This suggest that the CHG were Kushites, a view supported by the Hattic name for themselves: Kashka.
The I-E speaking Hittites adopted much of Hattic culture after 1400 BC. There were other languages spoken in Anatolia, including Palaic Luwian and Hurrian. Palaic and Luwian were probably languages spoken by whites. The languages of the Hittites: Nesa, was a lingua franca used by the Luwian and Palaic speakers. This was long after the Yamnaya culture/CHG had spread into Europe from Africa.
The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language. Formerly, linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods, chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian.
This made the Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians good support for an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers. This theory held high regards until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, and not the other way around.
At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic. Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers.
Next Jones et al acknowledges that:
quote: Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe. The separation of these populations is one that stretches back before the Holocene, as indicated by local continuity through the Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic boundary and deep coalescence estimates, which date to around the LGM and earlier. Several analyses show that CHG are distinct from another inferred minor ancestral population, ANE, making them a divergent fourth strand of European ancestry that expands the model of the human colonization of that continent.
The separation between CHG and both EF and WHG ended during the Early Bronze Age when a major ancestral component linked to CHG was carried west by migrating herders from the Eurasian Steppe. The foundation group for this seismic change was the Yamnaya, who we estimate to owe half of their ancestry to CHG-linked sources. These sources may be linked to the Maikop culture, which predated the Yamnaya and was located further south, closer to the Southern Caucasus. Through the Yamanya, the CHG ancestral strand contributed to most modern European populations, especially in the northern part of the continent.
Jones et al, make it clear that ”Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia”. the African origin of these Levantines is supported by Holliday. 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 (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area. (See: Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1)) .
As I have noted previously, the The Niger-Congo and Dravidian speakers were Kushites and belonged to the C-Group culture. The Kushites made corded ware and Red-and-black pottery. .
.
By 3500 BC the Dravidian and Mande tribes began to migrate out of Africa. Dr. Menges was the first archaeologist to argue that some Dravidians landed in Iran and migrated into India and the Indus Valley. These Kushites were the ancestors of the Yamnaya or CHG culture bearers. They were the people who practiced horseback riding and etc.
The movement of the Kushite group is supported by the spread of BRW from Nubia to the Indus Valley and the South Indian megalithic.; and the Dravidian substratum in the prakrit, puranas and other languages in Eurasia. .
The Yamnaya and or CHG introduced the Agro-Pastoral traditions of the CHG. It was also the Kushites who introduced the R haplogroup carried by the CHG and the presence of V88 in early Europe. The African origin of the CHG is supported by the following evidence:
1. The Kushites began to replace the Anu after the Great Flood, i.e., after 4000BC.
2. There is archaeological evidence of Kushites migrating into Eurasia from Middle Africa 6kya.The Kushites were the rounded headed cattle herders depicted in Saharan Rock art. They belonged to the C-Group . The C-Group was primarially composed of Niger-congo and Dravidian speakers.
'
'
3. there is no archaeological evidence for a back migration of Eurasians back into Africa.
4. Cattle domestication may have appeared first in the Neat East--but evidence for the first cattle herders appears in Middle African Rock art --not the Near East. These Africans took their Agro-Pastoral traditions into Eurasia.
5. Africans domesticated the horse before the I-E people as evident in the Saharan rock art.
6. Kushites introduced chariot riding and horseback riding to the world.
7. The Corded Ware pottery traditions began in Africa among the Kushites
8. The culture terms used by the I-E speakers are of Dravidian and Niger-Congo origin.
9. The I-E people were a bunch of nomads lacking any culture as supported by the so-called Proto- I.E., terms that are not of kushite origin. The I-E speakers remained isolated in Central Asia, until they attacked Kusite centers in Western Europe and Pakistan-India after 1400BC
10. R1b1a is nothing more than V88. This haplogroup is found throughout Africa. Given its frequency in Africa it can not be the result of a back migration.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Did it ever occur to you that there wouldn't have been no black Hebrew Israelites, Nation of Islam etc. if not for the constant terrorisms on the black community, by whites involved in the KKK and other aforementioned terrorist groups.
No. The reason for black nationalist/supremacist and white nationalist/supremacist movements in the US is the fact the West-African and European 'diasporas' there are a heterogeneous mix of different ethnic groups and have become "Americanized" through cultural assimilation. This is why White Americans cannot relate to say separate English, Swedish, French or German nationalism(s) etc., for them it can only be "white nationalism" because they're a mixture of different ethnic groups from Europe, predominantly Northern and Central Europe. For example only 5% of White Americans with German ancestry, can actually speak the German language.
Originally when the colonists from Europe settled North America they retained their own cultures and did not mix together, forming their own ethnic enclaves. Over time however, they all mixed and there was an "Americanization" cultural assimilation process where the English language was adopted; the culture that became most wide-spread was that of the English settlers because of the influence of colonial America during British rule. However, "Americanization" included some original aspects; American English is different to the English language and includes Native American loanwords. And over the centuries an American culture formed, yet the problems are since people of this culture are heterogeneous ethnically, it lacks features of other cultures. For example there is no 'myth of common descent', a type of tradition that is an essential characteristic of cultures where there is an ancient cultural heritage. This is because American culture was formed only in the last few hundred years and by such a diverse group of people. I could go on, but my point is because White Americans are a melting pot of different ethnic groups, and their culture is of recent origin, means they suffer from an identity crisis, hence the stupidity of "white nationalism". Also, Shriver et al. (2003) showed that 1/3 of White Americans have on average 2% African-American ancestry through admixture. Mongrels.
The situation was very similar for black slaves taken to the US; they at first came from different tribes/ethnic groups from West Africa. Over time they mixed, and later African-Americans became "Americanized" through American-English. Anyway, African-Americans have no real sense of identity either, hence they invented black nationalism, pan-Africanism etc., too confused and mongrelised to identify with a single ethnic group. Of course it has to be remembered in terms of their ancestry they're additionally heavily mixed with Europeans; 99% of African-Americans have on average 24% European ancestry. That is, most white slave-owners slept with their slaves like Thomas Jefferson, then mixing continued after slavery was abolished, even to this day.
So yea, basically just look at America to see what is wrong with the world. I don't want to see my country turn like a melting pot, although this is happening. Still time though to prevent it.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Did it ever occur to you that there wouldn't have been no black Hebrew Israelites, Nation of Islam etc. if not for the constant terrorisms on the black community, by whites involved in the KKK and other aforementioned terrorist groups.
No. The reason for black nationalist/supremacist and white nationalist/supremacist movements in the US is the fact the West-African and European 'diasporas' there are a heterogeneous mix of different ethnic groups and have become "Americanized" through cultural assimilation. This is why White Americans cannot relate to say separate English, Swedish, French or German nationalism(s) etc., for them it can only be "white nationalism" because they're a mixture of different ethnic groups from Europe, predominantly Northern and Central Europe. For example only 5% of White Americans with German ancestry, can actually speak the German language.
Originally when the colonists from Europe settled North America they retained their own cultures and did not mix together, forming their own ethnic enclaves. Over time however, they all mixed and there was an "Americanization" cultural assimilation process where the English language was adopted; the culture that became most wide-spread was that of the English settlers because of the influence of colonial America during British rule. However, "Americanization" included some original aspects; American English is different to the English language and includes Native American loanwords. And over the centuries an American culture formed, yet the problems are since people of this culture are heterogeneous ethnically, it lacks features of other cultures. For example there is no 'myth of common descent', a type of tradition that is an essential characteristic of cultures where there is an ancient cultural heritage. This is because American culture was formed only in the last few hundred years and by such a diverse group of people. I could go on, but my point is because White Americans are a melting pot of different ethnic groups, and their culture is of recent origin, means they suffer from an identity crisis, hence the stupidity of "white nationalism". Also, Shriver et al. (2003) showed that 1/3 of White Americans have on average 2% African-American ancestry through admixture. Mongrels.
The situation was very similar for black slaves taken to the US; they at first came from different tribes/ethnic groups from West Africa. Over time they mixed, and later African-Americans became "Americanized" through American-English. Anyway, African-Americans have no real sense of identity either, hence they invented black nationalism, pan-Africanism etc., too confused and mongrelised to identify with a single ethnic group. Of course it has to be remembered in terms of their ancestry they're additionally heavily mixed with Europeans; 99% of African-Americans have on average 24% European ancestry. That is, most white slave-owners slept with their slaves like Thomas Jefferson, then mixing continued after slavery was abolished, even to this day.
So yea, basically just look at America to see what is wrong with the world. I don't want to see my country turn like a melting pot, although this is happening. Still time though to prevent it.
Stupid Euroloon. AAs carry 24% R1. This is not due to European admixture it is the result of many Black Native Americans carrying R1, and the influence of the AA slaves that came from the Senegambia and Guinea-Bissau .
Cruciani et al (2010), web page noted that: " Among the Niger-Congo-speaking populations, the frequency of the haplogroup R-V88 ranged between 0.0 and 66.7%." As you can see V88 is not just a feature of Afro-Asiatic speakers.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
AAs carry 24% R1. This is not due to European admixture
R1 in Africa is under 1% including R-V88 and all other R clades
LOL. Stupid. The frequency was higher in areas where North American slaves came from and among Black Native Americans.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
AAs carry 24% R1. This is not due to European admixture
R1 in Africa is under 1% including R-V88 and all other R clades
LOL. Stupid. The frequency was higher in areas where North American slaves came from and among Black Native Americans.
No jackass AA's are vastly E1 carriers
furthermore historically African Americans as a whole have had a lot more exposure to Europeans than to Native Americans
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: stop trying to separate fruits and vegetables from plants, they are all plants.
Mendel's law of segregation?
quote: The Principle of Segregation describes how pairs of gene variants are separated into reproductive cells. The segregation of gene variants, called alleles, and their corresponding traits was first observed by Gregor Mendel in 1865. Mendel was studying genetics by performing mating crosses in pea plants. He crossed two heterozygous pea plants, which means that each plant had two different alleles at a particular genetic position. He discovered that the traits in the offspring of his crosses did not always match the traits in the parental plants. This meant that the pair of alleles encoding the traits in each parental plant had separated or segregated from one another during the formation of the reproductive cells. From his data, Mendel formulated the Principle of Segregation. We now know that the segregation of genes occurs during meiosis in eukaryotes, which is a process that produces reproductive cells called gametes.
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: Didn't the original North Africans used to be "black"?
Originally, of course there was not such term. But as I said before, the people of the Saharan people (Sahraoui) are called Aswahdi. The root word is Aswad (black). Internally there is not such distinctions as what Cass and his masters (he cites) make it out to be, though there are color descriptors of course just internally. The separation is actually based more on tribalization than anything else. Just like an African-American is an African-American.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Bottom line the game being played here is mislabeling African origins of many ancient DNA lineages as "Eurasian admixture".... And no Africas genetic diversity is not fully documented. So to have folks talking about "Afrocentric" distortion but not pointing out the obvious Eurasiacentric distortion is simply hypocritical....
Do a search for West African DNA history and you will get more articles about Eurasian backmigration than you will about West African DNA....
And this is why reports like this can come out and not be challenged:
quote: Introduction
African genetic diversity is still incompletely understood, and vast regions in Africa remain genetically undocumented. Chad, for example, makes up ∼5% of Africa’s surface area, and its central location, connecting sub-Saharan Africa with North and East Africa, positions it to play an important role as a crossroad or barrier to human migrations. However, Chad has been little studied at a whole-genome level, and its position within African genetic diversity is not well known. With 200 ethnic groups and more than 120 indigenous languages and dialects, Chad has extensive ethnolinguistic diversity.1 It has been suggested that this diversity can be attributed to Lake Chad, which has attracted human populations to its fertile surroundings since prehistoric times, especially after the progressive desiccation of the Sahara starting ∼7,000 years ago (ya).2 ; 3
Important questions about Africa’s ethnic diversity are the relationships among the different groups and the relationships between cultural groups and existing genetic structures. In the present study, we analyzed four Chadian populations with different ethnicities, languages, and modes of subsistence. Our samples are likely to capture recent genetic signals of migration and mixing and also have the potential to show ancestral genomic relationships that are shared among Chadians and other populations. An additional major question relates to the prehistoric Eurasian migrations to Africa: what was the extent of these migrations, how have they affected African genetic diversity, and what present-day populations harbor genetic signals from the ancient migrating Eurasians? We have previously reported evidence of gene flow from the Near East to East Africa ∼3,000 ya, as well as subsequent selection in Ethiopians on non-African-derived alleles related to light skin pigmentation.4 A recent attempt to quantify the extent of such backflow into Africa more generally, by using ancient DNA (aDNA), suggested that the impact of the Eurasian migration was mostly limited to East Africa.5 However, previous studies using mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome in populations from the Chad Basin found some with an East African6 or Mediterranean and Eurasian influence,7 ; 8 and analysis based on genome-wide data9 found a non-African component (suggested to be from East Africa) in central Sahelian populations. Thus, studying diverse Chadian populations on a whole-genome level presents an opportunity to shed more light on the history of African-Eurasian mixtures, including whether or not selection after admixture is a widespread phenomenon in Africa and how the historical events in Chad are related to events that have occurred elsewhere in Africa and the Near East.
Hence the Sub Saharan genetic ghetto where ancient DNA diversity is simply chalked up to "EUrasian backmigration" with no serious effort to go any further.
Wow, that is much revealing and in line with what Sarah Tishkoff and others said on Africas genetic diversity. It also explains that many of these back-migration apologist geneticists have been altering data in their advantage, trying to rewrite history once again.
Fact is, Sarah Tishkoff has the largest sample set on Africans, yet has only revealed a small portion of it in publications.
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]. The antiquity of the east African gene pool could be viewed not only from the perspective of the amount of genetic diversity endowed within it but also by signals of uni-modal distribution in their mitochondrial DNA (Hassan et al., unpublished) usually taken as an indication of populations that have passed through ‘‘recent’’ demographic expansion [33], although in this case, may in fact be considered a sign of extended shared history of in situ evolution where alleles are exchanged between neighboring demes [34].
—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
quote:"however, the time and the extent of genetic divergence between populations north and south of the Sahara remain poorly understood"
--Brenna Henn Published: January 12, 2012DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002397:
"Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations"
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde Winters is in denial. Both White-Americans and African-Americans are mongrels, hence their identity crisis (KKK, Stormfront, Afrocentrism, black panthers, black Hebrew Israelites, national of Islam etc.)
"Genome-wide ancestry estimates of African Americans show average proportions of 73.2% African, 24.0% European, and 0.8% Native American ancestry." (Bryc et al. 2014)
White American mongrels too!
"Sociologist and anthropologist Robert Stuckert examined census and fertility data to estimate how many blacks in America had passed as white, and how many whites had African ancestry as a result. His statistical tables showed that during the 1940s, 15,550 light-skinned blacks per year crossed over to live as whites, for a total of about 155,500 for the decade. Based on these figures, he determined that by 1950, some 21% of whites (about 28 million people then) had black ancestry within the last four generations, and he predicted that this number would only grow in the decades to come." - Stuckert, Robert S. (1958) "African Ancestry of the White American Population". Ohio Journal of Science. 55:155-160
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the United States, almost no one can trace their ancestry back to just one place. And for many, the past may hold some surprises, according to a new study. Researchers have found that a significant percentage of African-Americans, European Americans, and Latinos carry ancestry from outside their self-identified ethnicity. The average African-American genome, for example, is nearly a quarter European, and almost 4% of European Americans carry African ancestry.
~ The actual number of White Americans with African-American ancestry is 30% (Shriver et al. 2003). The above 2014 study excluded those with 0.1-0.9% and started at a 1% threshold, equivalent to having one African-American ancestor >11 generations ago.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: "You cannot separate fruits from vegetables because not all fruit is the same."
"There is too much diversity in bicycles, so you can't separate them from chariots." —Said no one outside of ES
"You can't lump bicycles within the same category because that implies they're a monolith." —Said no one outside of ES
"Every time you want to mention a bicycle, you have to go through the effort to specify the type of bicycle you're talking about, otherwise you're implying they're all the same." —Said no one outside of ES
"Calling these vehicles 'bicycle' is just wrong. Because of their diversity, we have to call them non-chariot." —Said no one outside of ES
"There were chariots in Europe after this technology emerged in Asia in the Bronze Age. Therefore, you cannot say chariots originated in Asia. You have to conclude that chariots are both European and Asian." —Said no one outside of ES
posted
Oshun has been here since something like 2011.
In all that time they never called AE's "Saharans" or "North Africans".
You can't erase your pan-Africanism in your post history for the past 6 years. Sorry. I've never once seen Oshun discuss ancient Egyptians in a Saharan context. When the Sahara is mentioned Oshun tries argues those boundaries never existed and Saharan's should not be distinguished from SSA's. Suddenly now they are criticizing people for "sociopoliticalizing" geographical terms, despite the fact they've been doing this with pan-Africanism for the past 6 years.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Oshun has been here since something like 2011.
In all that time they never called AE's "Saharans" or "North Africans".
I've said that AE have adaptations that responded to multiple ecological niches: The main research I've seen has been focused on Tropical and arid desert adaptations.
quote:When the Sahara is mentioned Oshun tries argues those boundaries never existed and Saharan's should not be distinguished from SSA's.
I never said that people living in the Sahara can't have distinctions from other biomes. People in other biomes that aren't the Sahara have different adaptations among themselves. How are they then a singular mass that collectively conform to the adaptions tailored to the Sahara? You're the one whose been straining to portray Africans living outside the Sahara as one people so that you can compare them to the people living in the Sahara.
I do not believe in classifying on a regular basis all other biomes collectively as "SSA". It seems to be seldom if ever appropriate. Despite this, I've already said several times that my disagreement will not make most groups of people living in other biomes appear any closer to Egyptians genetically or phenotypically than they were before. Certainly none that shared my ancestry. Saying "Sahel" or "Tropical equitorial" instead of "Sub Saharan African" isn't automatically trying to say that the people living in those stated biomes are any more closely related than before.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] "You cannot separate fruits from vegetables because not all fruit is the same."
"There is too much diversity in bicycles, so you can't separate them from chariots." —Said no one outside of ES
Responding to another person's response to me is still attempting to respond to me by proxy. I thought you were leaving, you back already but want to come back on the low?? lol. To compare a bicycles to chariots, one must decide that something what makes a bicycle a bicycle to compare it to a chariot in the first place. It must meet certain criteria that all classified bicycles will have. Biologically, what is the criteria SSA collectively meet to be compared collectively under that label against Saharans? What collective biome are they adapting towards? If no one's trying to argue that SSA is one biome that the rest of Africa has been adapting to, why has Cass been struggling with trying to make SSA a singular biome time and time again? What was his latest attempt? A selected rendition of the Afrotropical realm that captured the subtropics of Africa below the Sahara but not in North Africa, and included the southern and eastern fringes of the Arabian Peninsula, southern Iran, extreme southwestern Pakistan and the islands of the western Indian Ocean.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Oshun has been here since something like 2011.
In all that time they never called AE's "Saharans" or "North Africans".
You can't erase your pan-Africanism in your post history for the past 6 years. Sorry. I've never once seen Oshun discuss ancient Egyptians in a Saharan context. When the Sahara is mentioned Oshun tries argues those boundaries never existed and Saharan's should not be distinguished from SSA's. Suddenly now they are criticizing people for "sociopoliticalizing" geographical terms, despite the fact they've been doing this with pan-Africanism for the past 6 years.
You are delusional, most members here stated that the origin of ancient Egypt is at the South, Sahara-Sahel. Oshun was in a learning stage. Hence all of his questions on the origin.
You lie and are dishonest. It was you who posted about some Nordics etc….
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Clyde Winters is in denial. Both White-Americans and African-Americans are mongrels, hence their identity crisis (KKK, Stormfront, Afrocentrism, black panthers, black Hebrew Israelites, national of Islam etc.)
"Genome-wide ancestry estimates of African Americans show average proportions of 73.2% African, 24.0% European, and 0.8% Native American ancestry." (Bryc et al. 2014)
White American mongrels too!
"Sociologist and anthropologist Robert Stuckert examined census and fertility data to estimate how many blacks in America had passed as white, and how many whites had African ancestry as a result. His statistical tables showed that during the 1940s, 15,550 light-skinned blacks per year crossed over to live as whites, for a total of about 155,500 for the decade. Based on these figures, he determined that by 1950, some 21% of whites (about 28 million people then) had black ancestry within the last four generations, and he predicted that this number would only grow in the decades to come." - Stuckert, Robert S. (1958) "African Ancestry of the White American Population". Ohio Journal of Science. 55:155-160
quote:In the United States, almost no one can trace their ancestry back to just one place. And for many, the past may hold some surprises, according to a new study. Researchers have found that a significant percentage of African-Americans, European Americans, and Latinos carry ancestry from outside their self-identified ethnicity. The average African-American genome, for example, is nearly a quarter European, and almost 4% of European Americans carry African ancestry.
~ The actual number of White Americans with African-American ancestry is 30% (Shriver et al. 2003). The above 2014 study excluded those with 0.1-0.9% and started at a 1% threshold, equivalent to having one African-American ancestor >11 generations ago.
You are touching a complicated issue, not complicit which you try to minimize by using simplistic reasoning.
Actually what the story tells is that the gradient level is due to rape of black women of different (lighter) complexions. And those of lightest (fair) complexion eventually integrated in "white communities" (because they could) called passing for white. The way these people have been described was like: Quadroons; Octoroons; Sacatra and Griffe. So in appearance they practically looked like all other "whites", but they had African ancestry, which they kept hidden. This is how black / African ancestry got into so many "Southern whites" and spread for there into non-southern whites.
The 'white' slave children of New Orleans: Images of pale mixed-race slaves used to drum up sympathy among wealthy donors in 1860s
So, all these stories about rape of African females by European males and the sneaking out of the house by white females to have a nasty time with the Africa male slaves,… it is all true.
It also explains how some "blacks" could own slaves, in America.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Oshun. So you think "Eurasian" is a valid grouping for the various and numerous genetic variants that diverged outside, or now only exist outside of the African continent?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Bottom line the game being played here is mislabeling African origins of many ancient DNA lineages as "Eurasian admixture".... And no Africas genetic diversity is not fully documented. So to have folks talking about "Afrocentric" distortion but not pointing out the obvious Eurasiacentric distortion is simply hypocritical....
I read a study that originally argued west African mixture, but it turned out it was an error.
That is the point. They are over generalizing and using flawed methods to try and estimate mixture but over emphasizing "backflow" without documenting the corresponding outflow from Africa to Eurasia. According to these studies you would think Africans just sat in their "sub saharan" ghettoes for thousands of years and didn't move anywhere and hence are only diverse because of Eurasian admixture. As if Eurasia was genetically isolated from Africa after OOA.
But hey, this seems obvious to me.
I don't think that geneticists are suggesting Africa (especially SSA) needs Eurasia to be diverse. We also know from the Tichitt tradition that Africans in the Sahara did move south. I don't want to assume everyone in academia has a nefarious interest but I don't agree SSA/Sahara is a good genetic dichotomy or a ecological one. I do think it may be fair to at least consider the Sahara as an ecological construct with localized adaptations. But the Sahara as an ecological construct wouldn't validate everything below it to be a singular unit.
There is no real split. The reason for the split is because European scholars claim that M and U haplogroups in North Africa came from Eurasian back migration. That is the reason for the split. Otherwise, they would simply be Africans. The issue becomes did those M and U lineages really split outside Africa or did they arise within Africa?
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Bottom line the game being played here is mislabeling African origins of many ancient DNA lineages as "Eurasian admixture".... And no Africas genetic diversity is not fully documented. So to have folks talking about "Afrocentric" distortion but not pointing out the obvious Eurasiacentric distortion is simply hypocritical....
I read a study that originally argued west African mixture, but it turned out it was an error.
That is the point. They are over generalizing and using flawed methods to try and estimate mixture but over emphasizing "backflow" without documenting the corresponding outflow from Africa to Eurasia. According to these studies you would think Africans just sat in their "sub saharan" ghettoes for thousands of years and didn't move anywhere and hence are only diverse because of Eurasian admixture. As if Eurasia was genetically isolated from Africa after OOA.
But hey, this seems obvious to me.
I don't think that geneticists are suggesting Africa (especially SSA) needs Eurasia to be diverse. We also know from the Tichitt tradition that Africans in the Sahara did move south. I don't want to assume everyone in academia has a nefarious interest but I don't agree SSA/Sahara is a good genetic dichotomy or a ecological one. I do think it may be fair to at least consider the Sahara as an ecological construct with localized adaptations. But the Sahara as an ecological construct wouldn't validate everything below it to be a singular unit.
There is no real split. The reason for the split is because European scholars claim that M and U haplogroups in North Africa came from Eurasian back migration. That is the reason for the split. Otherwise, they would simply be Africans. The issue becomes did those M and U lineages really split outside Africa or did they arise within Africa?
Therefore so-called "Sub Saharan" DNA in Africa is represented by all the upstream L lineages (L0 - L3) which are the parents of M, N, R, U etc. All of these other lineages are postulated to have arisen outside Africa and hence all North Africans are the result of ancient Eurasian back migration carrying these genes.
Ultimately the issue becomes what genes were carried by the populations of OOA. And this is where "Basal Eurasian" comes into play. But as I said, they have already warped the data to imply the genes of OOA are "Non African". Meaning they don't even attempt to label whatever genes were carried by OOA as "African". Instead, any and all genes carried by OOA are labeled in some way shape or form to downplay or downright ignore the fact that they came from Africa. Because originally they theorized these OOA populations mixed with Neanderthals. Now since "basal Eurasian" has less Neanderthal ancestry than expected, it becomes a mystery gene and "ghost population". Anything but African. So OOA Africans just magically become Eurasian in an instant, like "poof". Hence "back migration" of these "magical instant overnight Eurasian" genes become the basis for the presence of these ancient lineages in Africa. As if from 30,000 - 20,000 KYA there was any real difference between populations in or outside Africa.
quote: Background
The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling. It has been proposed that the east African clade M1 supports a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa. To test the validity of that hypothesis, the phylogeographic analysis of 13 complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and 261 partial sequences belonging to haplogroup M1 was carried out. Results
The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated. Conclusion
This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.
quote: Clearly, the fossil record in East Asia would be more compatible with a model proposing an earlier exit from Africa of modern humans that arrived to China following a northern route, around 100 kya. Indeed, this northern route model was evidenced from the relative relationships obtained for worldwide human populations using classical genetic markers [24, 25] and by the archaeological record [26]. Based on the phylogeography of mtDNA macrohaplogroup N, the existence of a northern route from the Levant that colonized Asia and carried modern humans to Australia was also inferred long ago [27]. However, this idea was ignored or considered a simplistic interpretation [28]. On the contrary, since the beginning, the coastal southern route hypothesis has only received occasional criticism from the genetics field [29], and discrepancies with other disciplines were mainly based on the age of exit from Africa of modern humans [30]. However, subsequent research from the fields of genetics, archaeology and paleoanthropology [31], have given additional support to the early northern route alternative. At this respect, a recent whole-genome analysis evaluating the presence of ancient Eurasian components in Egyptians and Ethiopians pointed to Egypt and Sinai as the more likely gateway in the exodus of modern humans out of Africa [32]. Furthermore, after a thoroughly revision of the evidence in support of a northern route signaled by mtDNA macrohaplogroup N [31], we realized that the phylogeny and phylogeography of mtDNA macrohaplogroup M fit better to a northern route accompanied by N than a southern coastal route as was previously suggested [27]. In fact, M in the Arabian Peninsula seems to have a recent historical implantation as in all western Eurasia. Moreover, the founder age of M in India is younger than in eastern Asia and Near Oceania and so, southern Asia might better be perceived as a receiver more than an emissary of M lineages. Recently, the unexpected detection of M lineages in Late Pleistocene European hunter-gatherers [33] has been explained as result of a back migration from the East, possibly mirroring the arrival to Africa of the haplogroup M1 in Paleolithic times [34–36], although a more ambitious interpretation has been formulated by others [37]. In this study, we propose a more conciliatory model to explain the history of Homo sapiens in Eurasia under the premise of an early exit from Africa following a sole northern route across the Levant to colonize the Old World.
Note they keep referring to a "Northern Route" out of Africa via Egypt. Keep this in mind relative to the discussion on Eurasian and their obsession with "backmigration" and "basal Eurasian". Because if this northern route is accurate then we should at some point be able to identify the African lineages carried by these folks.
If ancient Africans were indeed impacted by the Saharan pump theory, then the current distribution of M1 in North Africa and its presence in Europe could well be the result of migrations of Africans into Europe with the current distribution of M lineages being the echo of those population movements.
quote: About the origin of the North African haplogroup M1
The existence of haplogroup M lineages in Africa was first detected in Ethiopian populations by RFLP analysis. Although an Asian influence was contemplated to explain the presence of this M component on the maternal Ethiopian pool, the dearth of M lineages in the Levant and its abundance in south Asia gave strength to the hypothesis that haplogroup M1 in Ethiopia was a genetic indicator of the southern route out of Africa. In addition, it was pointed out that probably this was the only successful early dispersal . However, the limited geographic range and genetic diversity of M in Africa compared to India was used as an argument against this hypothesis, instead proposing M1 as a signal of backflow to Africa from the Indian subcontinent. However, after extensive phylogenetic and phylogeographic analyses for this marker, the supposed India to Africa connection was not found.
---- snip-----
Geographical structure of the macrohaplogroup M genealogy
At global level, the mtDNA variation is phylogeographically structured . For macrohaplogroup M, the regions of South Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia have their characteristic sets of haplogroups with only minor overlapping. The same occurs in Melanesia and Australia. It is of paramount importance point out that these sets of haplogroups only share diagnostic mutations defining the basic M* node. This picture is interpreted as the result of secondary expansions from several geographically isolated centers which were reached by carriers of basic M* lineages during the primary earlier migrations. Congruently, the AMOVA analysis of 176 populations covering the main regions of Asia, Melanesia and Australia Additional file 2: Table S4, shows that 85 % of the variance was found within populations and 15 % among the major regions p<0.0001. Furthermore, when populations were successively partitioned into k-clusters in order to minimize the within-cluster variance, the best partition was obtained for k=5 Table 1. The major regional differences explained 90.55 % of the variance. At this level, three clusters grouped together populations only belonging to Australia, Melanesia and South Asia respectively, a fourth cluster joined all Central Asian populations and the majority of the East and North Asian populations together with a few Mainland 4 and Island 8 southeast Asian populations. Finally, the fifth cluster comprised the majority of the Mainland and Island southeast Asian populations and a few East 2 and South 3 Asian populations. These results are graphically visualized in the PCA plot Fig. 1 where the first and second components accounted for 58 % of the variability. South Asia, Melanesia and Australia are nearly disjoint areas whereas the rest show important overlapping. As these regional genealogies can be transformed in coalescence ages, the relative role of each sub-continental area in the primitive human migrations can be approached.
www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5105315/
Keeping in mind that Mtdna lineage M is associated with the Southern route of human migration into Australia, Melanesia and South Asia.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
What was his latest attempt? A selected rendition of the Afrotropical realm that captured the subtropics of Africa below the Sahara but not in North Africa, and included the southern and eastern fringes of the Arabian Peninsula, southern Iran, extreme southwestern Pakistan and the islands of the western Indian Ocean.
No. I posted that to poke fun at the Afrocentrics who claim that scientists who separate Egypt from the rest of the continent are somehow evil "white supremacists".
The Saharan desert is dry-heat, while below predominantly humid-heat. That's why excluding some Horn African populations [who have heavy Arab ancestry], virtually all Sub-Saharan Africans have broad noses adapted to the humid-heat. Sub-Saharan Africa is valid ecologically, hence the map in Beals et al. 1984 basically divides Africa into two: "dry-heat" and "wet-heat" when discussing climatic adaptation.
SSA is an invalid biological cluster, but I am only discussing things like nasal index and climate when I use it (not genetics).
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Oshun. So you think "Eurasian" is a valid grouping for the various and numerous genetic variants that diverged outside, or now only exist outside of the African continent?
I think OOA lineages would probably be better descriptor. All of those lineages descend from historical periods of migration. But haplogroups are not automatically bound to any land or ecological location. Sometimes you can get a situation where a haplogroup will fit inside of a geological or ecological area, but this is is not always the case though.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: --Contrary to ES expectations Afalou have little SSA mtDNAs --Contrary to ES expectations Taforalt have little SSA mtDNAs --Contrary to ES expectations random Eurasians (e.g. Han Chinese) are closer to the recently sampled Natufians than SSA groups are --Contrary to ES expectations OOA individuals have little to no SSA ancestry --Contrary to ES expectations early farmers with E-M78 (eastern Saharan ancestry) have little SSA ancestry --Contrary to ES expectations the R-V88 carrier among early farmers in Spain has little SSA autosomal ancestry --Contrary to ES expectations aboriginal Canary Islanders have little SSA mtDNAs and Y chromosomes --Contrary to ES expectations Abusir mummies have little SSA mtDNAs and autosomal ancestry --Contrary to ES expectations Bronze Age Armenian with E-M34 (eastern Saharan Y DNA) has little SSA autosomal ancestry --We see SSA mtDNAs in Syrians and Iberians but contrary to expectations, autosomally these people are closer to modern inhabitants than SSA groups
To this list of aDNA samples that testify to the low level of SSA ancestry in samples with probable (in some cases) and known North African ancestry, we can add:
--The medieval Kushite/Upper Nubian KulR17 sample --Bronze Age Jordanian sample --Bronze Age Lebanese sample
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
What was his latest attempt? A selected rendition of the Afrotropical realm that captured the subtropics of Africa below the Sahara but not in North Africa, and included the southern and eastern fringes of the Arabian Peninsula, southern Iran, extreme southwestern Pakistan and the islands of the western Indian Ocean.
No. I posted that to poke fun at the Afrocentrics who claim that scientists who separate Egypt from the rest of the continent are somehow evil "white supremacists".
Sure. Why did they include in their map parts of subtropical Africa below the Sahara? Why does subtropical Africa count below the Sahara but not subtropical North Africa. You were already asked this.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Oshun. So you think "Eurasian" is a valid grouping for the various and numerous genetic variants that diverged outside, or now only exist outside of the African continent?
I think OOA lineages would probably be better descriptor. All of those lineages descend from historical periods of migration. But haplogroups are not automatically bound to any land or ecological location. Sometimes you can get a situation where a haplogroup will fit inside of a geological or ecological area, but this is is not always the case though.
First or all these lineages are not historical but I guess you can call it OOA when speaking of a specific haplogroup if that lets you sleep better at night. I fail to see the point though. If you take a haplogroup like O, P or N why even bring up "Africa" when it has nothing to do with the spread or origin of the lineage in question? Why make it about Africa?
There is only one person subscribing to multi regionalism so as far as averyine else goes it's a given that it's an OOA lineage. I fail to see how you are hung up terminology that is ultimately unimportant if you KNOW that the lineage originates on a large land mass we call "Eurasian". Your disagreement is alsmost in the Eurocentric camp of arguing about the etymology of the word "African" and how it really is about the Northern part is the continent.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
What was his latest attempt? A selected rendition of the Afrotropical realm that captured the subtropics of Africa below the Sahara but not in North Africa, and included the southern and eastern fringes of the Arabian Peninsula, southern Iran, extreme southwestern Pakistan and the islands of the western Indian Ocean.
No. I posted that to poke fun at the Afrocentrics who claim that scientists who separate Egypt from the rest of the continent are somehow evil "white supremacists".
The Saharan desert is dry-heat, while below predominantly humid-heat. That's why excluding some Horn African populations [who have heavy Arab ancestry], virtually all Sub-Saharan Africans have broad noses adapted to the humid-heat. Sub-Saharan Africa is valid ecologically, hence the map in Beals et al. 1984 basically divides Africa into two: "dry-heat" and "wet-heat" when discussing climatic adaptation.
SSA is an invalid biological cluster, but I am only discussing things like nasal index and climate when I use it (not genetics).
Your theory is dismissed by the Sahara-Sahelian belt. And not always was there a Sahara.
I will post this again for you:
quote: The study on the partial calvarium discovered at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel (dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 kyr BP, Hershkovitz et al. 2015), revealed close morphological affinity with recent African skulls as well as with early Upper Paleolithic European skulls, but less so with earlier anatomically modern humans from the Levant (e.g., Skhul). The ongoing fieldwork at the Manot Cave has resulted in the discovery of several new hominin teeth. These include a lower incisor (I1), a right lower first deciduous molar (dm1), a left upper first deciduous molar (dm1) and an upper second molar (M2) all from area C (>32 kyr) and a right upper second molar (M2) from area E (>36 kyr). The current study presents metric and morphological data on the new Manot Cave teeth. These new data combined with our already existing knowledge on the Manot skull may provide an important insight on the Upper Paleolithic population of the Levant, its origin and dietary habits.
—Author(s): Rachel Sarig ; Ofer Marder ; Omry Barzilai ; Bruce Latimer ; Israel Hershkovitz
The Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Manot Cave: the dental perspective (Year: 2017)
quote: African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).
Within Africa, the most private alleles were in southern Africa, reflecting those in southern African Khoesan (SAK) San and !Xun/Khwe populations (fig. S6C) (12).
Eastern and Saharan Africans shared the most alleles absent from other African populations examined (fig. S6D).
—Sarah A. Tishkoff, et al.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:: Sure. Why did they include in their map parts of subtropical Africa below the Sahara? Why does subtropical Africa count below the Sahara but not subtropical North Africa. You were already asked this. [/QB]
Who knows, but if you look up floristic kingdoms you see it:
- Good (1947)
The above is sometimes modified to this:
- Takhtajan (1986) [but here again the small non-tropical part of southern Africa is classified as "Afro-tropical"]
The fact is though in zoogeographical, biogeographical realms & floristic kingdoms, Egypt is separated from lands to the south.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:: Sure. Why did they include in their map parts of subtropical Africa below the Sahara? Why does subtropical Africa count below the Sahara but not subtropical North Africa. You were already asked this.
Who knows, but if you look up floristic kingdoms you see it:
- Good (1947)
The above is sometimes modified to this:
- Takhtajan (1986) [but here again the small non-tropical part of southern Africa is classified as "Afro-tropical"]
The fact is though in zoogeographical, biogeographical realms & floristic kingdoms, Egypt is separated from lands to the south. [/QB]
—AA Zaidi (2017)
Investigating the case of human nose shape and climate adaptation
More realistic.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/:
The fact is though in zoogeographical, biogeographical realms & floristic kingdoms, Egypt is separated from lands to the south.
You are full of shyt.
The origin is Central Sudan, ignorant troll. I have see no physical border in the Sahara at Wadi Halfa - Wadi Kubbaniya, it was all the same landmass of sand-dunes, so what he hell are you talking about?
This goes into the Sahara-Sahel belt, and these regions were always inhabited by several AFRICAN ethnic groups who still till this day live there. It was a Nile Valley culture.
quote: Large-scale climate change forms the backdrop to the beginnings of food production in northeastern Africa (Kröpelin et al. 2008).[ Hunter-gatherer communities deserted most of the northern interior of the continent during the arid glacial maximum and took refuge along the North African coast, the Nile Valley, and the southern fringes of the Sahara (Barich and Garcea 2008; Garcea 2006; Kuper and Kröpelin 2006). During the subsequent Early Holocene African humid phase, from the mid-eleventh to the early ninth millennium cal BP, ceramic-using hunter-gatherers took advantage of more favorable savanna conditions to resettle much of northeastern Africa (Holl 2005; Kuper and Kröpelin 2006). Evidence of domestic animals first appeared in sites in the Western Desert of Egypt, the Khartoum region of the Nile, northern Niger, the Acacus Mountains of Libya, and Wadi Howar (Garcea 2004, 2006; Pöllath and Peters 2007; fig. 1).
--Fiona Marshall and Lior Weissbrod
Domestication Processes and Morphological Change Through the Lens of the Donkey and African Pastoralism
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:: Sure. Why did they include in their map parts of subtropical Africa below the Sahara? Why does subtropical Africa count below the Sahara but not subtropical North Africa. You were already asked this.
Who knows, but if you look up floristic kingdoms you see it:
- Good (1947)
The above is sometimes modified to this:
- Takhtajan (1986) [but here again the small non-tropical part of southern Africa is classified as "Afro-tropical"
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cultural Convergence in the Neolithic of the Nile Valley: A Prehistoric Perspective on Egypt’s Place in Africa David Wengrow, Michael Dee, Sarah Foster, Alice Stevenson, Christopher Bronk Ramsey
posted
Ish clearly has mental problems. I simply posted the different zoogeographical & biogeographical realms. I never came up with these, ecologists, botanists and zoologists etc did. There's no sort of "waycist" conspiracy theory behind these. In all of them Egypt is separated from lands further south. Sorry that doesn't play into your "pan-Africanism"... Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Ish clearly has mental problems. I simply posted the different zoogeographical & biogeographical realms. I never came up with these, ecologists, botanists and zoologists etc did. There's no sort of "waycist" conspiracy theory behind these. In all of them Egypt is separated from lands further south. Sorry that doesn't play into your "pan-Africanism"...
Eurocetric nut-job. Multiple ethnic groups have resided and still reside in the region till this day. You have your head spinning like the exorcist. You simply try distorted African history by your loony theories, "thinking you are some expert" on the regions climate and the regions history. You posted bullshyt from a 3/4 century ago, crazy coke-sniffer.
quote:"Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa's Evolution"
"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."
—Kuper R1, Kröpelin S.
Climate-controlled Holocene occupation in the Sahara: motor of Africa's evolution
Science. 2006 Aug 11;313(5788):803-7. Epub 2006 Jul 20.
But Kröpelin wasn't convinced. The concept of an abrupt climate switch didn't mesh with his previous research on ancient settlements in the eastern Sahara3. “There is evidence from thousands of archaeological sites throughout the Sahara that prehistoric human settlements weren't abandoned within a few decades or so,” he says.
He was also piqued that deMenocal reached his conclusion without ever setting foot in the desert, and used a single marine record to make generalizations about the entire Sahara. “The idea of catastrophically fast climate change is untenable — it can only come from someone who doesn't know the Sahara,” says Kröpelin.
[…]
The results from Lake Yoa crown a long list of discoveries that Kröpelin has made in the region. In one of his earliest major finds, Kröpelin established that the dry valley known as Wadi Howar, which sits in an extremely arid part of northern Sudan, was once one of Africa's largest rivers and a tributary to the Nile7. This extinct river flowed from about 9,500–4,500 years ago and supported a rich savannah that was home to a host of animals, including antelopes, giraffes, zebras and elephants.
The above ironically correlates with other data I have posted on Central Sudan as the origin for ancient Egypt.
You're an ignorant eurolooooon, with pseudo theories! Yet, you have the nerve to call others mental. How serious can I take a mentally challenge individual such as yourself? Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Ish clearly has mental problems. I simply posted the different zoogeographical & biogeographical realms. I never came up with these, ecologists, botanists and zoologists etc did. There's no sort of "waycist" conspiracy theory behind these. In all of them Egypt is separated from lands further south. Sorry that doesn't play into your "pan-Africanism"…
Retarded one, so stupid you actually think you make valid points!
quote:
The Sahara and civilization And of climate change.
“Almost everything breaks in the desert,” Kröpelin began. He showed trucks mired in sand, one vehicle blown up by a land mine, and a Unimog with an impossibly, hopelessly broken axle. (Using the attached backhoe, it hunched its way 50 miles back to civilization.)
The eastern Sahara remains one of the least explored places on Earth, and it is full of wonders. Every year for 40 years Kröpelin has made multi-month expeditions to figure out the paleoclimatological changes and human saga in the region over the last 17,000 years. There are no guides, no roads. When you find something—astonishing rock art (there are thousands of sites), an amazing geological feature—you know you’re the first human to see it in thousands of years.
A great river, 7 miles wide, 650 miles long, once flowed into the Nile from the desert. Now called Wadi Howar, its rich, still unstudied archeological sites show it used to be a thoroughfare from the deep desert. A vast spectacular plateau called the Ennedi Highlands, as big as Switzerland, has exquisite rock art detailing pastoral herds of cattle and even dress and hair styles. Mouflon (wild sheep) and crocodiles still survive there.
Most remarkable of all are the remote Ounianga Lakes, some of them kept charged with ancient deep-aquifer fresh water because of the draw of intense evaporation from a hypersaline central lake. In 1999 Kröpelin began a stratigraphic study of another lake’s sediment, eventually collecting a treasure for climate study---a 52-foot core sample which shows every season for the last 11,000 years.
For Kröpelin, many strands of evidence spell out the sequence of events in the eastern Sahara. From 17,000 to 10,500 BP (before the present), there were only a few human settlements along the Nile. But the Sahara was gradually getting wetter in the period 10,500 to 9,000 BP, and people moved up from the south. The peak of the African Humid Period, when the Sahara was green and widely occupied, was 9,000 to 7,300 years ago. Then a gradual desiccation from 7,300 to 5,500 BP drove people to the Nile, and the first farms appeared there. From 5,500 BP on, the Nile’s pharaonic civilization got going and lasted 3,000 years.
Unique artifacts such black-rimmed pots and asymmetric stone knives, once used in the far desert, turn up in the settlements that created Egypt. Kröpelin concluded: “Egypt was a gift of the Nile, but it was also a gift of the desert.”
—Stewart Brand
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:: Sure. Why did they include in their map parts of subtropical Africa below the Sahara? Why does subtropical Africa count below the Sahara but not subtropical North Africa. You were already asked this.
Who knows
Durrrr who knows? If your going to argue a classification system, it'd help to be capable of discussing basic questions for why you think the parts of it that are relevant to the conversation to be valid. On a climate map outlining the tropics and subtropics, the southern part of Africa is not in the tropical zone. So why is it classified as part of the same ecological area tropical? And if "tropical" includes the sub tropics now, why isn't the northern part of Africa included? This is a map you stand by, go ahead and defend it.
quote:but if you look up floristic kingdoms you see it:
- Good (1947)
The above is sometimes modified to this:
- Takhtajan (1986) [but here again the small non-tropical part of southern Africa is classified as "Afro-tropical"]
The fact is though in zoogeographical, biogeographical realms & floristic kingdoms, Egypt is separated from lands to the south. [/QB]
I wasn't arguing Egypt had to be considered in the same climate zone. The point was that SSA is not a valid ecological construct. Your maps generally fail to establish SSA as a valid ecological region. Those that may be trying, you can't defend. Oh and about that second image, why is the climate/ecological descriptor Sino-Japanese? Maybe I'm incorrect in my skepticism of this and you can explain this, but it sounds a bit like they may have had at least a little sense of feeling on how humans are divided. Some of these location, even if they may have ecological differences, the map doesn't go into stating what type of ecological structures makes them distinct, merely that the division was made. Like with Afrotropical...I kinda sorta get that they were going for making divisions based on a tropical climate. But there isn't that level of clarity with some of these descriptors. That doesn't seem like it's sticking enough to ecological description to explain why the location is unique from the rest.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] @Oshun. So you think "Eurasian" is a valid grouping for the various and numerous genetic variants that diverged outside, or now only exist outside of the African continent?
I think OOA lineages would probably be better descriptor. All of those lineages descend from historical periods of migration. But haplogroups are not automatically bound to any land or ecological location. Sometimes you can get a situation where a haplogroup will fit inside of a geological or ecological area, but this is is not always the case though.
First or all these lineages are not historical but I guess you can call it OOA when speaking of a specific haplogroup if that lets you sleep better at night. I fail to see the point though. If you take a haplogroup like O, P or N why even bring up "Africa" when it has nothing to do with the spread or origin of the lineage in question? Why make it about Africa?
-Eurasia is a present place that many people sharing the same haplogroups don't live in. OOA discusses Africa, but only within the context of a common historical event leaving a certain place. It's not saying they're from there, or where they're from. It just mentions a common sort of event that happened there that connect the lineages and that they don't live there but Eurasia centers a location that many people sharing the same haplogroups don't live.
-Yes the haplogroup may have originated in Eurasia but then you brought up the point that genetic groups that could've once existed in Africa now only exist outside of it. So if that were the case would those haplogroups be considered "African?" I would think not. They would be associated with modern Africans. And if a genetic group hypothetically had remains that suggest they originated in the location of "Sub Saharan Africa" but nobody from that genetic lineage lives there anymore, would they be called "SSA?" No. Because in addition to all the other problems with that, then the "SSA" with no relationship to that lineage would go running around thinking they have a lineage in common.
I guess if people want to identify the haplogroups of modern people by where their haplogroup technically originated that might be doable (might) if a time period of specified? For example Upper Paleolithic ____. I'm still not sure about the idea, but it might work a bit better.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look at the humidity map Ish Gebor posted; the Sahara is hot-arid (dry), the Sahel is a transitional zone while Sub-Saharan Africa is mostly hot sub-humid/humid. That's why SSA's (with very few exceptions) are broad nosed:
"Applying the first four criteria, which are quantifiable, to a series of 607 skulls from all sub-Saharan Africa (8% West Africa, 38% Central Africa, 42% East Africa, 12% South Africa). It is found that only the first two, platyrrhiny (broad nose), 86.4%, and dolichocephaly or elongated skull, 53.4%, taken individually, correspond to more than half the subjects." - Froment, A. (1998). "Le peuplement de l'Afrique centrale: contribution de l'anthropologie". In: Delneuf, M., Essomba, J-M. & Froment, A. (eds) Paleo-anthropologie en Afrique centrale: Un bilan de l'archeologie au Cameroun: 13-90. Paris.
So why is SSA not valid when discussing humid-heat climate? You keep running away from this:
"An increase in nose breadth and a decrease in nose height was associated with increasing rainfall among sub-Saharan African populations." (Bennett, 1979)
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
The truth is there would be little problem using broad/continental geographical labels as a "crude first-order approximation to the geographically structured phenotypic variation in the human species" (Relethford, 2009). However, it should be recognised there are "sub-regional refinements such as Western European, Eastern African, Southeast Asian" (Brace, 2000). The problem with Afrocentrics is those sub-regional refinements are not recognised. For example, when I called ancient Egyptians "Saharanoids", Zaharan protested. These pan-Africanists simply don't want to recognise any substructure inside Africa because it conflicts with their politcs.
These pan-Africanist loons go as far as saying there should be no border/immigration controls between countries in Africa-
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Look at the humidity map Ish Gebor posted; the Sahara is hot-arid (dry), the Sahel is a transitional zone while Sub-Saharan Africa is mostly hot sub-humid/humid. That's why SSA's (with very few exceptions) are broad nosed:
"Applying the first four criteria, which are quantifiable, to a series of 607 skulls from all sub-Saharan Africa (8% West Africa, 38% Central Africa, 42% East Africa, 12% South Africa). It is found that only the first two, platyrrhiny (broad nose), 86.4%, and dolichocephaly or elongated skull, 53.4%, taken individually, correspond to more than half the subjects." - Froment, A. (1998). "Le peuplement de l'Afrique centrale: contribution de l'anthropologie". In: Delneuf, M., Essomba, J-M. & Froment, A. (eds) Paleo-anthropologie en Afrique centrale: Un bilan de l'archeologie au Cameroun: 13-90. Paris.
So why is SSA not valid when discussing humid-heat climate? You keep running away from this:
"An increase in nose breadth and a decrease in nose height was associated with increasing rainfall among sub-Saharan African populations." (Bennett, 1979)
You are contradicting yourself as usually.
2015
2009
2014
—AA Zaidi (2017)
Investigating the case of human nose shape and climate adaptation
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: The truth is there would be little problem using broad/continental geographical labels as a "crude first-order approximation to the geographically structured phenotypic variation in the human species" (Relethford, 2009). However, it should be recognised there are "sub-regional refinements such as Western European, Eastern African, Southeast Asian" (Brace, 2000). The problem with Afrocentrics is those sub-regional refinements are not recognised. For example, when I called ancient Egyptians "Saharanoids", Zaharan protested. These pan-Africanists simply don't want to recognise any substructure inside Africa because it conflicts with their politcs.
These pan-Africanist loons go as far as saying there should be no border/immigration controls between countries in Africa-
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Damn. Ish u bn workn out -
I think this following more important than we can suspect right now, R-V88.
quote: The Sahara Desert is the most extensive desert on Earth but during the Holocene it was home to some of the largest freshwater lakes on Earth; of these, palaeolake Megachad was the biggest. Landsat TM images and Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) digital topographic data reveal numerous shorelines around palaeolake Megachad. At its peak sometime before 7000 years ago the lake was over 173 m deep with an area of at least 400 000 km2, bigger than the Caspian Sea, the biggest lake on Earth today. The morphology of the shorelines indicates two dominant winds, one northeasterly that is consistent with the present-day winds in the region. The other originated from the southwest. We attribute it to an enhanced monsoon caused by a precessionally driven increase in Northern Hemisphere insolation. Subsequent desiccation of the palaeolake is recorded by numerous regressive shorelines in the Sahara Desert.
--Nick Drake Charlie Bristow Shorelines in the Sahara: geomorphological evidence for an enhanced monsoon from palaeolake Megachad
quote: Researchers from Royal Holloway, Birkbeck and Kings College, University of London used satellite images to map abandoned shore lines around Palaeolake Mega-Chad, and analysed sediments to calculate the age of these shore lines, producing a lake level history spanning the last 15,000 years.
At its peak around 6,000 years ago, Palaeolake Mega-Chad was the largest freshwater lake on Earth, with an area of 360,000 km2. Now today's Lake Chad is reduced to a fraction of that size, at only 355 km2. The drying of Lake Mega-Chad reveals a story of dramatic climate change in the southern Sahara, with a rapid change from a giant lake to desert dunes and dust, due to changes in rainfall from the West African Monsoon. The research, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences confirms earlier suggestions that the climate change was abrupt, with the southern Sahara drying in just a few hundred years.
Part of the Palaeolake Mega-Chad basin that has dried completely is the Bodélé depression, which lies in remote northern Chad. The Bodélé depression is the World's single greatest source of atmospheric dust, with dust being blown across the Atlantic to South America, where it is believed to be helping to maintain the fertility of tropical rainforests. However, the University of London team's research shows that a small lake persisted in the Bodélé depression until about 1,000 years ago. This lake covered the parts of the Bodélé depression which currently produce most dust, limiting the dust potential until recent times.
"The Amazon tropical forest is like a giant hanging basket," explains Dr Simon Armitage from the Department of Geography at Royal Holloway. "In a hanging basket, daily watering quickly washes soluble nutrients out of the soil, and these need to be replaced using fertiliser if the plants are to survive. Similarly, heavy washout of soluble minerals from the Amazon basin means that an external source of nutrients must be maintaining soil fertility. As the World's most vigorous dust source, the Bodélé depression has often been cited as a likely source of these nutrients, but our findings indicate that this can only be true for the last 1,000 years," he added.
Largest freshwater lake on Earth was reduced to desert dunes in just a few hundred years (2015)
quote: From the deglacial period to the mid-Holocene, North Africa was characterized by much wetter conditions than today. The broad timing of this period, termed the African Humid Period, is well known. However, the rapidity of the onset and termination of the African Humid Period are contested, with strong evidence for both abrupt and gradual change. We use optically stimulated luminescence dating of dunes, shorelines, and fluviolacustrine deposits to reconstruct the fluctuations of Lake Mega-Chad, which was the largest pluvial lake in Africa. Humid conditions first occur at ∼15 ka, and by 11.5 ka, Lake Mega-Chad had reached a highstand, which persisted until 5.0 ka. Lake levels fell rapidly at ∼5 ka, indicating abrupt aridification across the entire Lake Mega-Chad Basin. This record provides strong terrestrial evidence that the African Humid Period ended abruptly, supporting the hypothesis that the African monsoon responds to insolation forcing in a markedly nonlinear manner. In addition, Lake Mega-Chad exerts strong control on global biogeochemical cycles because the northern (Bodélé) basin is currently the world’s greatest single dust source and possibly an important source of limiting nutrients for both the Amazon Basin and equatorial Atlantic. However, we demonstrate that the final desiccation of the Bodélé Basin occurred around 1 ka. Consequently, the present-day mode and scale of dust production from the Bodélé Basin cannot have occurred before 1 ka, suggesting that its role in fertilizing marine and terrestrial ecosystems is either overstated or geologically recent.
--Simon J. Armitagea,1, Charlie S. Bristowb, and Nick A. Drakec
West African monsoon dynamics inferred from abrupt fluctuations of Lake Mega-Chad (July 14, 2015 vol. 112 no. 28)
posted
To be honest, my belief is that "sub-Saharan African" itself is a paraphyletic category. It seems to mean basically any modern Homo sapiens who isn't OOA or pre-OOA. And I'm not the only one with this view:
quote:The resulting supertree topology includes the most basal position of S African Khoisan followed by C African Pygmies, and the paraphyletic section of all other sub-Saharan peoples.
In that respect it's similar to the traditional understanding of "reptile" which excludes birds, even though we now know birds represent a branch of the theropod dinosaurs.
For example, if you compare the genetics of southern African Khoisan peoples with those of other sub-Saharans and then OOA, you might find that most sub-Saharan populations actually appear closer to OOA than they do to these Khoisan populations. See K = 2 on this chart, wherein most SSA groups have predominantly "red" components like those of the French instead of "blue" like the Khoisan peoples.
A category like "sub-Saharan African" might have utility if you need to single out those Africans who aren't descended from the pre-OOA branch, much as we conventionally use "dinosaur" as shorthand for the non-avian ones. But they still aren't a monophyletic grouping, so anyone trying to force genetics into an exclusive "pan-African" scheme is going to make a fool out of themselves in any case.
The sub-Saharan African section is basal to the monophyletic clade consisting of the N African–W Eurasian assemblage and the consistently monophyletic Eastern superclade (Sahul–Oceanian, E Asian, and Beringian–American peoples).
That is an interesting view.
Sara Tishkoff says the following and she has the largest sample set of Africans, of which most hasn't been published.
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].
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: To be honest, my belief is that "sub-Saharan African" itself is a paraphyletic category. It seems to mean basically any modern Homo sapiens who isn't OOA or pre-OOA. And I'm not the only one with this view:
Human population history revealed by a supertree approach [QUOTE]The resulting supertree topology includes the most basal position of S African Khoisan followed by C African Pygmies, and the [qb]paraphyletic section of all other sub-Saharan peoples.
.
But why stop there? A little more context.
"The resulting supertree topology includes the most basal position of S African Khoisan followed by C African Pygmies, and the paraphyletic section of all other sub-Saharan peoples. The sub-Saharan African section is basal to the monophyletic clade consisting of the N African–W Eurasian assemblage and the consistently monophyletic Eastern superclade (Sahul–Oceanian, E Asian, and Beringian–American peoples)."
Ah ahn. He ain't just say SSA is basal Eurasian?
quote: But they still aren't a monophyletic grouping, so anyone trying to force genetics into an exclusive "pan-African" scheme is going to make a fool out of themselves in any case.
Theres always room for alt views w/o ridicule though myself think there's no trans-African genetic profile(s).
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused. You said "I'm not the only one with this view". Why say that right after saying something that isn't disputed anywhere? Lol. Wasn't this already apparent from what you posted earlier? Your Tishkoff tree in that post doesn't depict SSA ancestry as forming a clade relative to other humans either.
^This pattern of differentiation is no different from the Tishkoff tree. It's just more stylized and upside down.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: To be honest, my belief is that "sub-Saharan African" itself is a paraphyletic category. It seems to mean basically any modern Homo sapiens who isn't OOA or pre-OOA. And I'm not the only one with this view:
quote:The resulting supertree topology includes the most basal position of S African Khoisan followed by C African Pygmies, and the paraphyletic section of all other sub-Saharan peoples.
For example, if you compare the genetics of southern African Khoisan peoples with those of other sub-Saharans and then OOA, you might find that most sub-Saharan populations actually appear closer to OOA than they do to these Khoisan populations. See K = 2 on this chart, wherein most SSA groups have predominantly "red" components like those of the French instead of "blue" like the Khoisan peoples. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QfOlhMaKVUc/UA_N_qZbFxI/AAAAAAAAFGE/sb6UiX29r_c/s1600/admixture.jpg
A category like "sub-Saharan African" might have utility if you need to single out those Africans who aren't descended from the pre-OOA branch, much as we conventionally use "dinosaur" as shorthand for the non-avian ones. But they still aren't a monophyletic grouping, so anyone trying to force genetics into an exclusive "pan-African" scheme is going to make a fool out of themselves in any case.
posted
TUKLER SAYS: Theres always room for alt views w/o ridicule though myself think there's no trans-African genetic profile(s).
"The resulting supertree topology includes the most basal position of S African Khoisan followed by C African Pygmies, and the [qb]paraphyletic section of all other sub-Saharan peoples... The resulting supertree topology includes the most basal position of S African Khoisan followed by C African Pygmies, and the paraphyletic section of all other sub-Saharan peoples. The sub-Saharan African section is basal to the monophyletic clade consisting of the N African–W Eurasian assemblage and the consistently monophyletic Eastern superclade (Sahul–Oceanian, E Asian, and Beringian–American peoples)."
--Duda and Zrzavy 2016. Human population history revealed by a supertree approach. Sci Rep. 6: 29890.
lol, Now what would Doug make of that- of the most "basal" element is sub-Saharan African? Hence he asks, why call them basal "EURASIAN"? ANd Doug has not been using the above to push any "pan African" genetic profile, though I think he needs to more recognize the occurrences of gene flow into Africa from the outside.
Posts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Doug: how can there be non African gene flow if those first Eurasians were Africans? They don't stop being African once they cross over some imaginary border. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you referring to the Africans who settled Europe from North Africa around 40k years ago?
Also I think those Africans were absorbed by migrating Eurasians. I know Europe was populated in multiple waves.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Ah ahn. He ain't just say SSA is basal Eurasian?
No, he said they are basal to Eurasians. But then so are Neanderthals, or dandelions. Basal Eurasian is not just any old basal to Eurasian ancestry, but some particular kind we don't have a good reference for (assuming it really exists).
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Or do we deny what the references plainly speak?
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Eurocetric nut-job. Multiple ethnic groups have resided and still reside in the region till this day. You have your head spinning like the exorcist. You simply try distorted African history by your loony theories, "thinking you are some expert" on the regions climate and the regions history. You posted bullshyt from a 3/4 century ago, crazy coke-sniffer. 
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic