quote:Originally posted by Antalas: @lioness what's the point of basing your identity on similar level of melanin ?
because Europeans came up with using skin color as identity and colonized Australia and called the people black and the Asians yellow, American Indians redskins
So once the people in power do that they force the dark skin person to try to associate themselves with other dark skinned people to try to defend themselves from this domination.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes but does that objectively means a dark skin indian, australian or west african are the same people ? Share the same history ? Share the same genes and ancestors ? same culture ? Same facial traits ?
+ will modern europeans consider indians and west africans to be the same people ?
That's why it's ridiculous but some afrocentrists keep obsessing over it because it's a way for them to claim the heritage of other people.
I've never seen an iranian, turk or armenian feeling proud because people with similar skin tone built the roman empire lol
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: yes but does that objectively means a dark skin indian, australian or west african are the same people ? Share the same history ? Share the same genes and ancestors ? same culture ? Same facial traits ?
some traits and situations overlap
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: "We" aren't contradicting you, you are contradicting yourself. You just said they didn't look "black" as if "black" people are foreign to North Africa and were not present 20,000 years ago. Where on earth would "non black" people have come from over 20,000 years ago unless you are implying these "Eurasian" migrants replaced the indigenous populations. You are and keep spouting nonsense.
So saying X population didn't look like people we now perceive as "black" is implying "black" were not present 20k years ago ?
You said it and therefore ask yourself. My point is that black people have always been present in Africa, including North Africa. You are the one saying they weren't there. I am saying is that 20,000 years ago there weren't many "white" Europeans even yet here you are claiming ancient 20,000 year old "non blacks" aka "whites" in North Africa. So it is you using these terms and claiming something that is obviously false and rather than admit what you are saying is B.S. you keep trying to pretend that someone is misunderstanding you.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: If white skins means people with "non black" features then that is exactly what you are saying. There is nothing "modern" about black people in Africa. Black people have always been in Africa and it is you who is claiming that ancient North Africa was always populated by "Non Black" people which means "whites" by any other name.
No what I meant and what the papers show is that Iberomaurusians didn't look like people we consider "black" even though they were dark skinned. And North Africa has been populated by such population since at least 23k B.C. but this does not mean they were the only people who inhabited the area especially that the modern definition of North Africa include the whole Sahara and even Sudan.
The Iberomaurisan paper said they were close to other Africans. It does not say they were close to Europeans and it says they were related to another African population that was ancestral to Natufians and later Levantines. According to you this means they were Levantines and this is NOT what the paper says. You are the one spinning this and outright fabricating "evidence" that these people were "non black" as in "non African" or light skinned mixed "Levantines". That is exactly what you keep saying and the paper as I have shown you is NOT saying that at all.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: "Negroid" is not the marker of indigenous black Africans. This is the point we are making. There has always been tremendous diversity among black Africans and that is not limited to the extremely outdated concept of "negroid". Intermediate between tropical Africa and Europe simply means that there is a cline of phenotype. So Saharan black Africans are generally have features more closer to European but are still black. You just keep promoting outdated racial concepts that have nothing to do with reality. There was no ancient "race" of people in North Africa 20,000 years ago that were like modern populations of light skinned or white modern North Africans. And more than than that those ancient crania from the Iberoumarisan were "indigenous Africans" not Eurasians.
I'm just following forensic conventions it's not based on my opinion/perception and its not "outdated" it's a whole set of features mostly found in SSA and a very good way to assess the background of remains.
No you are making up nonsense by introducing factoids that are irrelevant to the point I made. "Black" Africans are and have always been diverse and have never been limited to one part of Africa or somehow one set of facial features. Human diversity did not originate in Europe.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Haplogroups you claim are "Eurasian" are over 20,000 years old, but those populations are not closely related to any living population alive today. And genotype is not phenotype. There are plenty of black Africans in Africa and around the world with "Eurasian" genes. This is you saying exactly what we said you are saying but you claim to be denying it.
Are you aware that between the OOA and these people there are tens of thousands of years ? Are you aware that these eurasian population were already genetically and physically distinct from your "black africans" ? Are you aware the ancestry of these old eurasian population peak in modern eurasians ?
We are talking about populations in Africa 20,000 years ago and the fact that the paper about these Iberomaurisan remains does NOT put them close to Europeans or Levantines but other Africans. You are the one making this distinction and not these papers.
Again
quote: . Neither study found support for gene flow from the Epi-Gravettian or other related Epipalaeolithic European populations into the Taforalt population, making it unlikely that Italy or Spain were the sources of such movements. Equally, the available dating for the Iberomaurusian is as early, if not earlier than, the Epipalaeolithic in Northeast Africa, so this would appear to rule out a simple influx of populations from Libya, Egypt or the Levant. Therefore, all that can safely be said for now is that the Iberomaurusian is a widespread phenomenon in the Maghreb that could represent a mainly indigenous development. In contrast to other regions of North Africa, it appears to have replaced or grown out of an underlying base-line of MSA traditions. This is unlike Libya or areas further east, where the Epipalaeolithic directly overlies industries of the 'Upper Palaeolithic'.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: "Berber" is a language, not a stone tool industry or a "race". The first Berber speakers came from East Africa less than 10,000 years ago and have absolutely nothing to do with the Capsian or Iberomaurisan. That is simply you promoting nonsense again. And if anything the spread of Berbers is associated with E lineages into North West Africa.
Exactly but by proto-berbers he meant people who brought the proto-berber language and its other cultural specificities (he notes the strong artistic similarities in some decorations).
The first berber speakers didn't come from east africa but probably from an area close to the egyptian delta or somewhere along the red sea that's based on the latest datas we have and Iberomaurusians were already under E way before your first berber speakers.
You keep saying this citing nothing but yourself. Many linguists such as Roger Blench put the origins near the Upper Nile between Sudan, Egypt, Libya and Chad. Of course even beyond that, the Tifinagh script that is used to represent modern Berber culture originate in the Libyan Sahara not along the coast of North West Africa. Again, the point being that the Sahara was the central point of evolution in North Africa over the last 10,000 years during the last Wet Phase and that includes the evolution and migration of Berber languages.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: European farmers did not introduce Berbers into Africa. And there is no 'steppe component' in North Africa, neither U6 or E-M81 is a "steppe component'. You are making up nonsense and just spouting gibberish with mixing and matching of random facts that don't add up to anything. The primary center of the Neolithic in North Africa was in the Sahara and Sahel in places like the Ahoggar Mountains and so forth among black North Africans during the last wet phase which you keep excluding from these ancient "North Africans".
Nobody said they introduce berber into africa wtff ?? and there is a clear steppe component in Berbers you clearly don't know what you're talking about :
Here we go again, jumping around all over the place. I am talking about the Iberomaurisan DNA and remains which have ZERO 'steppe' ancestry. And Berber languages did not come from the steppe. You are using later populations from less than 5,000 years ago to claim that they represent a direct continuity with the Iberomaurisans who had NO steppe ancestry. You just keep picking random factoids and putting them together where they don't belong. And Berber languages did not originate in the Eurasian steppe. So why is that relevant to the history of the language?
that's in line with what we know in archaelogy :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:There are two cemeteries on the Moroccan Atlantic coast dated roughly into the mid-4th and beginning of the 3rd Millennium BC. For these cemeteries pottery is characteristic with a bell beaker style stamp decoration (CampsFabrer 1966, pl. XLIII) that is identical with the later Bell Beaker ornament in the region of northern Morocco and in Europe. The cemetery at Skhirat – de Rouazi is located on southern outskirts of the Moroccan Capital Rabat. With 101 inhumation burial and total number of 132 pottery vessels (Fig. 3-5) it represents yet the richest site of the “pre-campaniforme“ horizon in Morocco (Lancombe and Daugas 1988)."
Jan Turek, Background to Beakers, Origin of the Bell Beaker phenomenon, pp. 196
How do you jump from 20,000 years ago to 3,000 years ago and claim these are the same populations. These are different populations affected by different waves of migration. How do you claim these are the "same" groups when they aren't. And why is migration from Europe or Asia relevant to a language that started wholly in Africa? You aren't making sense. Like I said, the mixture in North Africa today is from the last few thousand years and not reflective of ancient North Africa from 20,000 years ago. Yet you keep trying to twist the facts into supporting that conclusion.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:"However, the pattern south of the Gibraltar strait and in Atlantic Morocco may eventually turn out to be quite different. Despite the paucity of radiocarbon dates here (just one, from a burial in the Hafa II cave [Ramos et al. 2011]), an early to mid-second millennium BC date is likely for a series of coffer-grave cemeteries with strong parallels in Argaric Spain, and perhaps for the extraordinary megalithic circle of Mzora (Bokbot 2008). "
quote:"The spread of megalithic funerary dolmens across the Eastern Maghreb remains poorly dated, but is suggested to have started ca. 1500–1400 BC (Belmonte et al. 2003. p. 307; Khanoussi et al. 2004, p. 51), if not earlier (Kuper and Gabriel 1979p. 41). There are parallels with contemporary monuments in Malta and Apulia (Iacono 2018, p. 71-72; Recchia 2011). Single dates apiece from Oued el Akarit and Gtoaa Ejali 3 attest to coastal occupation in the millennium before Carthage (Ben Moussa 2008; Petit-Maire et al. n.d.)."
that some saharan communities developed their own neolithic tradition doesn't mean all north africans got it from there. Coastal north africa receive its tradition through early european farmers during the VIth millenium BC, here the most up to date map on the expansion of agriculture in west eurasia :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Modern coastal north Africans are the result of migrations from the last few thousand years not 20,000 years ago.
hahahaha yes that's why this iberomaurusian component peaks among them XD [/QB]
And in contradiction of what the paper from the Iberomaurisan remains say, which is they are NOT reflective of European influence, you are determined to shoehorn Europe into it regardless again by grabbing any factoids you can find in order to pretend that there is "evidence" for it. You just keep making up stuff and that is why I call it nonsense. The Iberomaurisan component predates the mixture that you yourself keep pointing out. The Iberomaurisan component is not reflective of European ancestry nor is it reflective of recent Levantine ancestry either. This is what I mean by you spouting gibberish.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@the lioness of course he's making this up lol the studies clearly show that they were far from "other africans" :
quote: When projected on a PCA space built using modern samples from Europe, the Middle East and North and Sub-Saharan Africa, all IAM, KEB and TOR samples cluster close to North African, Middle Eastern and European populations, respectively (Figure S6.3). It is worth mentioning that IAM samples clustered in an intermediate position between modern populations of North Africa and the Later Stone Age samples from Morocco excavated in Taforalt43."
quote:In a detailed population-by-population comparison (Figure S9.2), we can see that IAM is closer to modern North African populations, following the west to east trend described before, in such a way Saharawis and Moroccans are closer than Egyptians (Figure S9.3)."
quote: To demonstrate that IAM has a Levantine origin, rather than a local origin in Africa, we tested f4(IAM, Chimp; Levantine population, African population), with the Levantine population being BedouinB, Levant_N or Natufian, and the African population being Jo’hoan North, Mbuti, Mota or Yoruba. All comparisons are positive, with high significant Z scores, indicating IAM is more related to Levantine than to African populations (Table S10.1)."
now since he can't accept the truth he'll claim these levantines were actually africans XD
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway I completely debunked his narrative and people will clearly see it. I provided consistent informations backed up by peer-reviewed papers meanwhile all he do is throwing ad hominems and calling "gibberish" everything that doesn't support his narrative.
I don't see the point of debating with someone that literally avoid 3/4 of the quotes I post and claim all these scientists are wrong and spit nonsense.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Anyway I completely debunked his narrative and people will clearly see it. I provided consistent informations backed up by peer-reviewed papers meanwhile all he do is throwing ad hominems and calling "gibberish" everything that doesn't support his narrative.
I don't see the point of debating with someone that literally avoid 3/4 of the quotes I post and claim all these scientists are wrong and spit nonsense.
At the moment researchers say that U6 is descendant of U and there are a 35ka remains of a U6 bearer in Romania
But looking at E-M81, that is less than 5,000 years old. They call it North African but as wee can see it's ancestors are sub-Saharan and E-M81 came about within Africa
So if one accept that U6 is Eurasian we can say that Taforalt Moroccans are half African
but these articles don't like to admit that One says a third sub-Saharan but they fail to say half African
Then the other article, Lazaridis tries to imply no African He uses this made up term "basal Eurasian" but we can see the migration E-M81 it's inside Africa So this term "basal Eurasian" is a way of hiding it's African It should be called "African Basal Eurasian"
Yet to call it anything is a stretch since there are no human remains that are regarded as "Basal Eurasian". It's hypothetical and improperly named, there's a part missing
So we see that about 95% of Moroccan males are half African, their Y-DNA is African and it backtracks all inside the African continent and to sub-Saharan Africa. Algerians still with substantial paternal African ancestry but around 45% and higher in the J and R1b
I keep posting this map and you keep ignoring it
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ignore it because you don't know what you're talking about you post outdated theories
E-m81 has nothing to do with east africa it's specifically maghrebi it's older clades were also in north africa among IAM remains :
quote:"This, together with the fact that the oldest indigenous inviduals have been dated 2210 ± 60 ya, supports a local origin of E-M183 in NW Africa. Within this scenario, it is also worth to mention that the paternal lineage of an early Neolithic Moroccan individual appeared to be distantly related to the typically North African E-M81 haplogroup30, suggesting again a NW African origin of E-M183. A local origin of E-M183 in NW Africa > 2200 ya is supported by our TMRCA estimates, which can be taken as 2,000–3,000, depending on the data, methods, and mutation rates used. "
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I ignore it because you don't know what you're talking about you post outdated theories
E-m81 has nothing to do with east africa it's specifically maghrebi it's older clades were also in north africa among IAM remains :
quote:"This, together with the fact that the oldest indigenous inviduals have been dated 2210 ± 60 ya, supports a local origin of E-M183 in NW Africa. Within this scenario, it is also worth to mention that the paternal lineage of an early Neolithic Moroccan individual appeared to be distantly related to the typically North African E-M81 haplogroup30, suggesting again a NW African origin of E-M183. A local origin of E-M183 in NW Africa > 2200 ya is supported by our TMRCA estimates, which can be taken as 2,000–3,000, depending on the data, methods, and mutation rates used. "
posted
this does not make e-m81 east african since it's a clade that only appeared in North Africa and if we had to go by this logic then all haplogroups are ultimately of african origin lol
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: this does not make e-m81 east african since it's a clade that only appearead in North Africa and if we had to go by this logic then all haplogroups are ultimately of african origin lol
There is a much shorter distance between these various clades of haplogroup E
then to entirely different haplogroups outside of Africa
and the none of the individuals at Taforalt Morocco were E-M81/E-M83 That didn't exist until over 10,000 later. Some of the people at Taforalt 15kya were of horn ancestry
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
e-p2 literally goes back to 40k B.C. that's even older than iberomaurusians lol
and what can't you understand in this ? :
quote:it is also worth to mention that the paternal lineage of an early Neolithic Moroccan individual appeared to be distantly related to the typically North African E-M81 haplogroup30, suggesting again a NW African origin of E-M183. A local origin of E-M183 in NW Africa
"
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: e-p2 literally goes back to 40k B.C. that's even older than iberomaurusians lol
and what can't you understand in this ? :
quote:it is also worth to mention that the paternal lineage of an early Neolithic Moroccan individual appeared to be distantly related to the typically North African E-M81 haplogroup30, suggesting again a NW African origin of E-M183. A local origin of E-M183 in NW Africa
"
Yet looking above that map with the ancestry of E-M81
we see the last individual is TAF015 is E1b1b and that is E-P2
So that shows there were people in Morocco 15,000 years ago who had Sub-Saharan East African DNA
Then looking at the very Young E-M183/ E-M81 in the Maghreb and following back to the horn there are some other clades. Researchers are not sure which to call which ones originating in the horn or originating in North Africa
But what's in a name?
The way horn DNA could get to the Maghreb is by the Nile flowing in that direction. So while the Sahara is this big obstacle otherwise the Nile region is not bound by it
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
no that means that taforalt got it from its aterian ancestors who probably reached north africa during wet phases but that does not mean e-m81 came from east africa or that people who bore this clade were east africans
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] no that means that taforalt got it from its aterian ancestors
No it doesn't
there is no DNA recovered for Aterians,
therefore no proof the two cultures are related
I suppose these are coincidences ?:
quote:The period also encompasses major evolutionary events, in particular the first evidence of modern humans in East Africa around 200,000 BP, as well as of their first dispersal out of Africa in the subsequent wet interglacial phase 130,000 to 100,000 BP. The beginning of this dispersal is archaeologically difficult to identify, as the stone tools manufactured by early humans did not differ substantially from those produced by other hominins since ~ 300,000 BP (including the Neanderthals). However, once established in North Africa, these early humans developed a new cultural identity, the Aterian, which has distinctive stone tools. The Aterian has been dated in Morocco from 110,000 to at least 80,000 BP (Barton et al. 2009) (Fig. 3). However, the extremely arid conditions that prevailed in the Central Sahara between 70,000 and 14,000 BP probably restricted the temporal extent of the Aterian occupation in the region"
Encyclopedia of global archeology, 2020,North and Saharan Africa: geography and chronology, pp. 7956
quote:Interestingly, when a component for East African hunter-gatherer Hadza (brown) is singled out at K=10, the model for Taforalt includes a substantial proportion of the Hadza-related component (19.3% West African and 25.7% Hadza-related; Fig. S11). In comparison, present-day North Africans have a much smaller sub-Saharan African component with no apparent link to Hadza, comprising 24.8% and 22.0% in Mozabite and Saharawi, respectively (Fig. S11).Based on our results, we hypothesize that the ancient Taforalt individuals have a strong genetic affinity both with early Holocene Levantine groups and with sub-Saharan Africans. Also, the sub369 Saharan African ancestry in the Taforalt individuals may have links to multiple sub-Saharan African lineages.
posted
Is that source really saying that there were Eurasians in Africa 110, 000 years before the present? I can understand there being Eurasians in Coastal North Africa around 15k years ago, but 110, 000 years ago seems absurd.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudanese: Is that source really saying that there were Eurasians in Africa 110, 000 years before the present? I can understand there being Eurasians in Coastal North Africa around 15k years ago, but 110, 000 years ago seems absurd.
that's not what the quote says, aterians were not eurasians but the first early homo sapiens culture in North Africa (and these aterians might have participated in the OOA)
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: @the lioness of course he's making this up lol the studies clearly show that they were far from "other africans" :
quote: When projected on a PCA space built using modern samples from Europe, the Middle East and North and Sub-Saharan Africa, all IAM, KEB and TOR samples cluster close to North African, Middle Eastern and European populations, respectively (Figure S6.3). It is worth mentioning that IAM samples clustered in an intermediate position between modern populations of North Africa and the Later Stone Age samples from Morocco excavated in Taforalt43."
And what precisely is this supposed to mean? It doesn't mean the Taforalt skeletons were closer to Eurasians than Africans and the DNA on Taforalt does not say that in the way you claim it does. The Taforalt remains show that the North Africans are intermediate between Africa and Europe partly because Africans left Africa and settled Europe. This is the signifigance of the Natufians and Taforalt having a common ancestor in Africa. That is the part you keep skipping over and these Iberomaurisan remains from Taforalt are NOT the same populations as the paper above. This paper is for remains thousands of years later than Taforalt yet you keep trying to use these random factoids to prove that "Eurasians" were in North Africa 20,000 years ago. As if any Levantines 20,000 years ago have a close relationship to modern Levantines or modern Europeans when they don't, genetically or phenotypically. And the IAM genes include Natufians who are of at least partial African ancestry.
From the paper above you see they are not saying what you claim they are saying. What they are actually saying is a lot of that "Eurasian" ancestry is from within the last 5,000 years or so.
quote: The extent to which prehistoric migrations of farmers influenced the genetic pool of western North Africans remains unclear. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Neolithization process may have happened through the adoption of innovations by local Epipaleolithic communities or by demic diffusion from the Eastern Mediterranean shores or Iberia. Here, we present an analysis of individuals’ genome sequences from Early and Late Neolithic sites in Morocco and from Early Neolithic individuals from southern Iberia. We show that Early Neolithic Moroccans (∼5,000 BCE) are similar to Later Stone Age individuals from the same region and possess an endemic element retained in present-day Maghrebi populations, confirming a long-term genetic continuity in the region. This scenario is consistent with Early Neolithic traditions in North Africa deriving from Epipaleolithic communities that adopted certain agricultural techniques from neighboring populations. Among Eurasian ancient populations, Early Neolithic Moroccans are distantly related to Levantine Natufian hunter-gatherers (∼9,000 BCE) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic farmers (∼6,500 BCE). Late Neolithic (∼3,000 BCE) Moroccans, in contrast, share an Iberian component, supporting theories of trans-Gibraltar gene flow and indicating that Neolithization of North Africa involved both the movement of ideas and people. Lastly, the southern Iberian Early Neolithic samples share the same genetic composition as the Cardial Mediterranean Neolithic culture that reached Iberia ∼5,500 BCE.
Again, the crux of your argument is that the Natufians are the same as modern Levantines or the Neolithic populations of the Levant when this isn't what these papers are saying at all.
quote: DNA in hand, Van de Loosdrecht and Choongwon Jeong, also of SHH, were able to analyze genetic material from the cell's nucleus in five people and the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA from seven people. But they found no genetic tie to ancient Europeans. Instead, the ancient Iberomaurusians appear to be related to Middle Easterners and other Africans: They shared about two-thirds of their genetic ancestry with Natufians, hunter-gatherers who lived in the Middle East 14,500 to 11,000 years ago, and one-third with sub-Saharan Africans who were most closely related to today's West Africans and the Hadza of Tanzania. Advertisement
The Iberomaurusians lived before the Natufians, but they were not their direct ancestors: The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science.
All of this double talk and confusion comes from the fact that they don't have ancient DNA from Africa over 20,000 years ago. And if they did they would find Haplogroup U and R and at some point they would have to admit the likelihood that these genes have always been in Africa and aren't representative of "Eurasian" back migration. So the geneticists keep falling back on the data they have which is that the oldest DNA samples for U and R were found in Eurasia. But that doesn't rule out Africa as a source for these lineages, since they don't have the data. Bottom line that relationship between Natufians and Iberomaurisans is NOT saying the Natufians are ancestors of the Iberomaurisans which is what you keep trying to use them as a proxy for. What this particular source is saying is a lot of the Eurasian mixture in PARTS of North Africa is from within the last 5,000 years not 20,000 years ago.
Also, from your own source, they even show the fact that these statistical models are heavily variable depending on how the data is plotted and therefore can show many things which contradict each other.
quote: It is worth mentioning that, in this case, the results obtained for PCA projection using LASER and lsqproject are significantly different, with lsqproject placing Taforalt and IAM samples farther from North African populations. This could indicate IAM samples are more similar to Taforalt than modern North Africans. When using LASER, all the ancient samples are projected without contributing to the PCA space and Taforalt samples do not have any effect on the positioning of IAM. However, when using lsqproject, medium-coverage samples such as the ones from Taforalt can in fact contribute to building the PCA space, and pull IAM far from current North Africans.
The other issue with this paper is that most of the Neolithic sites in North Africa showing the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic are in the Sahara. Again, "North Africa" has never been limited to the extreme coasts of North Africa. This is nonsense but these scientists who publish these papers keep omitting this fact and thus people like you keep repeating it even though it is false. Meaning Africans have never been cut off from North Africa, which is what you keep clinging to even if it is blatantly false.
quote: In the fifth millennium BC in northern Mali, represented by AZ22, the overall plant assemblage suggests that Pennisetum dominated other small grasses that were incorporated into some sherds. The AZ22 assemblage provided a point in time and space when the collection of wild Pennisetum was an important part of the food economy, and its processing produced abundant chaff that was utilized as ceramic temper. The AZ22 data is part of a small but growing evidence of wild Pennisetum utilization in Africa. The evidence has also been reported from southwest Libyan sites of the late Acacus period (6500–5000 BC), including Ti-n-Torha, Uan Muhuggiag, and UanTabu, where charred seeds of wild Pennisetum were recovered (Mercuri 2001; Wasylikowa 1993), and Takrakori where desiccated Pennisetum grains and chaff were found (Mercuri et al. 2018). However, these cases plausibly represent the desert grass, P. divisum, rather than the crop progenitor P. violaceum. Taken together, though, these finds point to traditions of wild Pennisetum harvesting across the central and western Sahara during the Early to Middle Holocene, which could constitute the cultural background for the later cultivation of Pennisetum violaceum and its subsequent domestication (Dupuy 2014; Manning and Fuller 2014). In the case of the Acacus region of Libya, however, Pennisetum sp. drops out of use by ca. 6200 BC, with subsequent plant exploitation and probable cultivation focusing on small millets, such as Panicum and Echinochloa (Mercuri et al. 2018). Indeed, Winchell et al. (2018) suggest three distinct, yet parallel, pathways to cereal cultivation in Africa that were each initially based on different grasses: small millet cultivation in the central Sahara, sorghum in the eastern Sahel, and pearl millet in the western Sahel.
Which shows that the transition to the Neolithic in "North Africa" is not simply about roving bands of Eurasians hugging the coast of North Africa and introducing agriculture. This evolution happened primarily farther south and independently starting with harvesting wild grain and controlling wild animals.....
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:In a detailed population-by-population comparison (Figure S9.2), we can see that IAM is closer to modern North African populations, following the west to east trend described before, in such a way Saharawis and Moroccans are closer than Egyptians (Figure S9.3)."
quote: To demonstrate that IAM has a Levantine origin, rather than a local origin in Africa, we tested f4(IAM, Chimp; Levantine population, African population), with the Levantine population being BedouinB, Levant_N or Natufian, and the African population being Jo’hoan North, Mbuti, Mota or Yoruba. All comparisons are positive, with high significant Z scores, indicating IAM is more related to Levantine than to African populations (Table S10.1)."
now since he can't accept the truth he'll claim these levantines were actually africans XD
And here we go again presenting factoids out of context which are simply taking everything out of context to produce a conclusion that isn't really supported based on random statistical modeling. Again, IAM is from thousands of years after the Iberomaurisan samples and not exactly the same as your own source shows later mixture. Yet you keep claiming these prove direct continuity as in no influence from later migrations, which contradicts your own information.
quote: The initial dataset was merged with other available datasets(see STAR Methods), providing ten current and four ancient North African groups (Figure S1). A first exploration of the data was performed using principal component analysis (PCA). The first component (PC1, accounting for 3.5% of the variation) captures the genetic differentiation between sub-Saharan Africans and non-African populations, with ancient and current North Africans placed in an intermediate position (Figure 1A). PC2 (0.7% of the variation) splits Middle Easterns and Europeans, with North Africans closer to the former. Regarding ancient North Africans, while Canary Guanches (5th century BCE) cluster with current North Africans (in agreement with their putative Berber origin [9]), Moroccan Epipalaeolithic samples from Taforalt cluster independently, while Moroccan Early (IAM) and Late Neolithic(KEB) have intermediate positions in the PC.
Which shows these three groups IAM, Iberomaurisan and KEB do not cluster together meaning they are affected by subsequent periods of migration and mixture. Again showing that Coastal North Africa has never been a monolithic static population that has always been the same as modern Coastal North Africans.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Doug must have me on ignore and literally can't see my posts. He talks about tropical people sometimes. Here we have hard physical data and he keeps ignoring it Iberomausrians at the extreme opposite of tropical limb ratios. They were probably refugees from Ice age conditions
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quot]Originally posted by the lioness,: Doug must have me on ignore and literally can't see my posts. He talks about tropical people sometimes. Here we have hard physical data and he keeps ignoring it Iberomausrians at the extreme opposite of tropical limb ratios. They were probably refugees from Ice age conditions[/quote]
I was going to PM this, but since Antalas is duping people here by not admitting to some of the nuances I'm about to speak on, I might as well post it, in the interest of leveing the playing field.
Lioness. Do yourself a favor and read the Holiday 2013 paper you just posted. As was already discussed before (I believe DJ also explained this to you), the Afalou sample's affinities in Holiday do not speak for all Iberomaurusans. As an example, there is an Afalou skeleton (nr 28) at a deeper layer at that site, that is thought (e.g. by Coon and Holiday hints at it) to be of a different ancestry (e.g. shorter stature, head shape out of the Afalou head shape range and different body shape). So, you can't generalize that Afalou bodyplan as representative for older Iberomaurusians. Same applies to the newly excavated Loosdrecht Taforalt sample (it's not the same as the Taforalt sample in use since the 1950s, that was largely Eurasian according to Kefi).
Antalas, don't bother replying to this (I know, something along the lines of "#28 wasn't black, but perfectly Caucasoid"), because this is all I have to say on this.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Lioness. Do yourself a favor and read the Holiday 2013 paper you just posted. As was already discussed before (I believe DJ also explained this to you), the Afalou sample's affinities in Holiday do not speak for all Iberomaurusans. As an example, there is an Afalou skeleton (nr 28) at a deeper layer at that site, that is thought (e.g. by Coon and Holiday hints at it) to be of a different ancestry (e.g. shorter stature, head shape out of the Afalou head shape range and different body shape). So, you can't generalize that Afalou bodyplan as representative for older Iberomaurusians. Same applies to the newly excavated Loosdrecht Taforalt sample (it's not the same as the Taforalt sample in use since the 1950s, that was largely Eurasian according to Kefi).
Above you are talking about some individual with "shorter stature, head shape" I am talking about limb rations Thus far you have no quotes saying that a particular individual at an Iberomausrian or Natufian site had tropical limb ratios.
Even if one or two had tropical limb ratios (if you can prove this by sources) that doesn't change the fact that most did not. If any Iberomausrians had body proportions that are at the extreme opposite of Africans, instead resembling Alaskans, then that is suggestive those individuals came from outside of Africa (although may have mixed with Africans)
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Even if one or two had tropical limb ratios (if you can prove this by sources) that doesn't change the fact that most did not.
I dunno, what Swenet posted says to me that Iberomaurisians themselves may have been diverse in phenotypes, much like the later Maghrebis Keita studied. Would be interesting to see if those Taforalt specimens that were recently sampled for aDNA had different limb proportions from the Afalou sample in Holliday 2013.
Also note the Capsian sample groups with the tropical and subtropical populations in that dendrogram. While the Capsians are thought to represent early Afroasiatic-speakers who may have arrived from further east in North Africa IIRC, I can see them admixing with populations already established in the Maghreb.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Above you are talking about some individual with "shorter stature, head shape" I am talking about limb rations Thus far you have no quotes saying that a particular individual at an Iberomausrian or Natufian site had tropical limb ratios.
Even if one or two had tropical limb ratios (if you can prove this by sources) that doesn't change the fact that most did not. If any Iberomausrians had body proportions that are at the extreme opposite of Africans, instead resembling Alaskans, then that is suggestive those individuals came from outside of Africa (although may have mixed with Africans)
Actually, it's common for Iberomarusians to show tropical limb ratios.
quote:The two specimens differ in the propor- tions of the limb bones. For example, while the radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is 76.3, similar to that of Taforalt and near the Negroid average, Ohalo I1 H2 yields a lower index of 73.2.
And in case you're thinking of ignoring that source and running to Holiday, no one (not even Holiday) ever said that Iberomaurusians have cold adapted limb ratios. You would have known this if you had a basic understanding of the workings of physical anthropology. Populations coming out of the Ice Age generally had tropical limb ratios, either in the arms or legs, or both (but usually without having an overall tropical bodyplan) as late as the Mesolithic, regardless of the ancestry they belonged to. This has been discussed on this board for more than a decade, with papers like this and this.
Not understanding this can be forgiven (though it's very odd given your participation in conversations where this was explained), but the fact that you still haven't read the paper, even though your mistake as called out in my previous post, called for it, is inexcusable. Again, you're underestimating the differences in skeletal remains and DNA within the time-successive Afalou and Taforalt samples (e.g. Kefi's Taforalt mtDNA differs from Loosdrecht's older Taforalt mtDNA), which you've misconstrued as being the same because the samples come from the same caves. Instead you're here, with a response that makes no sense as far as the ongoing conversations about the affinities of the Iberomaurusians.
But don't mind me. Carry on..
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The topic is 15,000 to 11,000 remains in Africa
not a 19,000-year-old skeleton from Israel
quote: International Journal of Osteoarchaeology Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2013) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/oa.2315
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence T. W. HOLLIDAY
none of the Afalou specimens, nor of the El Wad Natufian specimens, falls within the African scatter, and all lie toward the more cold-adapted end of the scatter...
Perhaps the most interesting finding of this study is the dramatic difference in body proportions between Jebel Sahaba (Sudan) and the penecontemporary late Pleistocene Algerian sample from Afalou-Bou-Rhummel. The former evince a tropically adapted morphology, whereas the latter show a more cold-adapted body shape
^ there it is Holliday saying Afalou have a cold-adapted body shape
So this raises the question, why would they have a cold adapted body shape
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And what precisely is this supposed to mean? It doesn't mean the Taforalt skeletons were closer to Eurasians than Africans and the DNA on Taforalt does not say that in the way you claim it does. The Taforalt remains show that the North Africans are intermediate between Africa and Europe partly because Africans left Africa and settled Europe. This is the signifigance of the Natufians and Taforalt having a common ancestor in Africa. That is the part you keep skipping over and these Iberomaurisan remains from Taforalt are NOT the same populations as the paper above. This paper is for remains thousands of years later than Taforalt yet you keep trying to use these random factoids to prove that "Eurasians" were in North Africa 20,000 years ago. As if any Levantines 20,000 years ago have a close relationship to modern Levantines or modern Europeans when they don't, genetically or phenotypically. And the IAM genes include Natufians who are of at least partial African ancestry.
The paper clearly states that early neolithic moroccans (around 5000 B.C.) plot close to " North African, Middle Eastern and European populations" (Both modern and ancient samples). That's what we can also see when it comes to FST values :
You claim that these people were not similar to the Taforalt remains but you actually quoted this : " We show that Early Neolithic Moroccans (∼5,000 BCE) are similar to Later Stone Age individuals from the same region and possess an endemic element retained in present-day Maghrebi populations, confirming a long-term genetic continuity in the region."
Moreover FST values again show that the closest population to IAM was in fact Taforalt with a value at 0.049
You then claim that Taforalt was intermediate because africans left the continent and settled in Europe but are you aware that between Taforalt and this first wave of african migrants there is roughly 100k years between them ? Even if you want to take the most recent dispersal there is still 40k between them...
Anyway if they appear intermediate, it's simply for the following reasons :
quote:Western PGNE populations, including Neolithic Anatolians, pre-pottery Neolithic farmers from the Levant (PPNB), Natufians, and Taforalt, can all be modeled as a mixture of Dzudzuana and additional ‘Deep’ ancestry that may represent an even earlier split than the Basal Eurasians.
Now since you like focusing on Taforalt, you still haven't explained to me why they had so many eurasian lineages :
See for the History of haplogroup H :
quote:Haplogroup H is the most common and most diverse maternal lineage in Europe, in most of the Near East and in the Caucasus region. [...] The mutation defining haplogroup H took place at least 25,000 years ago, and perhaps closer to 30,000 years ago. Its place of origin is unknown, but it was probably somewhere around the northeastern Mediterraean (Balkans, Anatolia or Levant), possibly even in Italy.
quote: Thus, although these previous studies have highlighted the role of the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area as a major source of the hunter-gatherer populations that gradually repopulated much of central and northern Europe when climatic conditions began to improve ~15 ky ago, the identification of U5b1b now unequivocally links the maternal gene pool of the ancestral Berbers to the same refuge area and indicates that European hunter-gatherers also moved toward the south and, by crossing the Strait of Gibraltar, contributed their U5b1b, H1, H3, and V mtDNAs to modern North Africans. "
quote:Haplogroup T2 peaks among the Udmurts (24%) and the Chechen-Ingush of Daghestan (12.5%). After that T2 is most frequently encountered in the Netherlands (12%), Sardinia (10%), Iceland (10%), Switzerland (9.5%), Hungary (8.5%) and Ukraine (8.5%), as well as among many ethnic groups around the Caucasus such as the Kumyks (10%), Azeri (9.5%) and Georgians (9%). [...] Haplogroups T* (perhaps T1a) and T2b have been found in skeletons from late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers respectively from Russia and Sweden. It is the best evidence so far that haplogroup T was present in Europe before the continent was recolonised by Neolithic farmers.
Are you also aware that "natufian" ancestry peaks in modern Arabs ? :
so what does this tell us about their phenotype ? Why were they physically very different from the typically negroid jebel sahaba remains :
quote:The body shape of the terminal Pleistocene Jebel Sahaba population is tropical-adapted, with elongated limbs, especially in the distal segments, and is most similar to living sub-Saharan Africans and less similar to late Pleistocene and Holocene North Africans (including Egyptians and Nubians). The sample’s body shape likely reflects elevated gene flow up the Nile Valley from areas further south, but may also be due in part to the tropical hot conditions present at the site, even during glacial periods. The Jebel Sahaba sample are distinct in body shape from penecontemporary humans from Afalou-BouRhummel (Algeria) and El Wad Natufians from the southern Levant—a result consistent with the results of both Irish (2000, 2005) using dental data and Franciscus (1995, 2003) using nasal data. "
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Bottom line that relationship between Natufians and Iberomaurisans is NOT saying the Natufians are ancestors of the Iberomaurisans which is what you keep trying to use them as a proxy for. What this particular source is saying is a lot of the Eurasian mixture in PARTS of North Africa is from within the last 5,000 years not 20,000 years ago.
No that's not what I said that's why I posted this quote :
quote:"Moreover, our model predicts that West Africans (represented by Yoruba) had 12.5±1.1% ancestry from a Taforalt-related group rather than Taforalt having ancestry from an unknown Sub-Saharan African source11; this may have mediated the limited Neanderthal admixture present in West Africans23. An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-Saharan sources."
But again this does not prevent iberomaurusians from having eurasian ancestors that predates natufians.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The other issue with this paper is that most of the Neolithic sites in North Africa showing the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic are in the Sahara. Again, "North Africa" has never been limited to the extreme coasts of North Africa. This is nonsense but these scientists who publish these papers keep omitting this fact and thus people like you keep repeating it even though it is false. Meaning Africans have never been cut off from North Africa, which is what you keep clinging to even if it is blatantly false.
You're simply projecting the modern and conventional borders of North Africa unto the past, the neolithic tradition of coastal north africa doesn't derive from saharan traditions and Iberomaurusians lived in the coastal area. And the rest of Africa has repeatedly been cut off from North Africa because of dry phases (same as today) except maybe in the Nile Valley area but I'm not a specialist on this area.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Which shows that the transition to the Neolithic in "North Africa" is not simply about roving bands of Eurasians hugging the coast of North Africa and introducing agriculture. This evolution happened primarily farther south and independently starting with harvesting wild grain and controlling wild animals.....
There is 15km between europe and coastal north africa meanwhile what you post represent thousands of km but anyway the people mentionned here had nothing to do with people who lived further north. We talk about Iberomaurusians, Capsians or KEB not people of the neolithic Saharo-sudanese tradition.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Which shows these three groups IAM, Iberomaurisan and KEB do not cluster together meaning they are affected by subsequent periods of migration and mixture. Again showing that Coastal North Africa has never been a monolithic static population that has always been the same as modern Coastal North Africans. [/QB]
They still plot close to each other and close to the west eurasian cluster as I showed above + again this doesn't mean Taforalt doesn't have proper eurasian ancestry. Moreover I already acknowledge the fact that they were not similar to coastal north africans but again this does not mean taforalt were a SSA-like population nor looked like SSA populations + again and stop avoiding this, the IBM component peaks among modern coastal north africans not any other population (we talk about values that can easily reach 30% to 50% )
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Doug must have me on ignore and literally can't see my posts. He talks about tropical people sometimes. Here we have hard physical data and he keeps ignoring it Iberomausrians at the extreme opposite of tropical limb ratios. They were probably refugees from Ice age conditions
I was going to PM this, but since Antalas is duping people here by not admitting to some of the nuances I'm about to speak on, I might as well post it, in the interest of leveing the playing field.
Lioness. Do yourself a favor and read the Holiday 2013 paper you just posted. As was already discussed before (I believe DJ also explained this to you), the Afalou sample's affinities in Holiday do not speak for all Iberomaurusans. As an example, there is an Afalou skeleton (nr 28) at a deeper layer at that site, that is thought (e.g. by Coon and Holiday hints at it) to be of a different ancestry (e.g. shorter stature, head shape out of the Afalou head shape range and different body shape). So, you can't generalize that Afalou bodyplan as representative for older Iberomaurusians. Same applies to the newly excavated Loosdrecht Taforalt sample (it's not the same as the Taforalt sample in use since the 1950s, that was largely Eurasian according to Kefi).
Antalas, don't bother replying to this (I know, something along the lines of "#28 wasn't black, but perfectly Caucasoid"), because this is all I have to say on this.
I am specifically talking about the latest DNA from the Iberomaurisan remains and these people keep bringing up other sites and remains from different time periods to change the subject. This is what they keep doing because they cant challenge the data on the oldest DNA from Africa so they keep using later remains to try and make the point. It is all smoke and mirrors trying to pretend to have a legitimate basis in fact.
We have discussed "Mechtoids" numerous times here.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And what precisely is this supposed to mean? It doesn't mean the Taforalt skeletons were closer to Eurasians than Africans and the DNA on Taforalt does not say that in the way you claim it does. The Taforalt remains show that the North Africans are intermediate between Africa and Europe partly because Africans left Africa and settled Europe. This is the signifigance of the Natufians and Taforalt having a common ancestor in Africa. That is the part you keep skipping over and these Iberomaurisan remains from Taforalt are NOT the same populations as the paper above. This paper is for remains thousands of years later than Taforalt yet you keep trying to use these random factoids to prove that "Eurasians" were in North Africa 20,000 years ago. As if any Levantines 20,000 years ago have a close relationship to modern Levantines or modern Europeans when they don't, genetically or phenotypically. And the IAM genes include Natufians who are of at least partial African ancestry.
The paper clearly states that early neolithic moroccans (around 5000 B.C.) plot close to " North African, Middle Eastern and European populations" (Both modern and ancient samples). That's what we can also see when it comes to FST values :
The point again, is that this paper is clearly stating that LATER migrations of Eurasians into North Africa was added on top of older existing DNA. It is not older "Eurasian" DNA from 20,000 years ago. You keep purposely trying to mix and match these two as if they represent the same thing when they don't. The oldest DNA extracted from the Iberomaurisans is not the same as those from 5,000 years later as it is impacted by later waves of migration.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: You claim that these people were not similar to the Taforalt remains but you actually quoted this : " We show that Early Neolithic Moroccans (∼5,000 BCE) are similar to Later Stone Age individuals from the same region and possess an endemic element retained in present-day Maghrebi populations, confirming a long-term genetic continuity in the region."
Moreover FST values again show that the closest population to IAM was in fact Taforalt with a value at 0.049
Again gibberish because you keep ducking and dodging the fact that the 15,000 year old DNA isn't saying that. This is why you keep jumping to later studies of other remains which is not the point. I have already said that most of the mixture is the result of later migrations and not simply the case of an ancient "Eurasian" population in North Africa 20,000 years ago that was primarily light skinned and cut off from/separate from black Africans in the Sahara and other parts of North Africa. This is what you keep saying and it is still wrong no matter how much you keep saying it.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: You then claim that Taforalt was intermediate because africans left the continent and settled in Europe but are you aware that between Taforalt and this first wave of african migrants there is roughly 100k years between them ? Even if you want to take the most recent dispersal there is still 40k between them...
Anyway if they appear intermediate, it's simply for the following reasons :
quote:Western PGNE populations, including Neolithic Anatolians, pre-pottery Neolithic farmers from the Levant (PPNB), Natufians, and Taforalt, can all be modeled as a mixture of Dzudzuana and additional ‘Deep’ ancestry that may represent an even earlier split than the Basal Eurasians.
Again you are posting gibberish. The actual study of 15,000 year old DNA doesn't say that. You keep jumping around the map mixing up various studies from different papers and trying to duck and dodge what the ACTUAL DATA says from that 15,000 year old DNA. This is why I keep calling what you post gibberish because you try and weave all these different papers together when they aren't saying the same thing you are saying.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Now since you like focusing on Taforalt, you still haven't explained to me why they had so many eurasian lineages :
See for the History of haplogroup H :
quote:Haplogroup H is the most common and most diverse maternal lineage in Europe, in most of the Near East and in the Caucasus region. [...] The mutation defining haplogroup H took place at least 25,000 years ago, and perhaps closer to 30,000 years ago. Its place of origin is unknown, but it was probably somewhere around the northeastern Mediterraean (Balkans, Anatolia or Levant), possibly even in Italy.
All these lineages are over 25,000 years old. And even if they did arise in 'Eurasia' those populations were not "close" to modern Levantines or Eurasians and certainly weren't like modern North Africans. Genotype is not phenotype and the idea that Haplogroup H from 30,000 years ago is the proof 'light skin' in North Africa is bull sh*t and you know it. That isn't what phenotype is based on. Again, you keep trying to claim this proves ancient North Africa was always populated by a distinct non African population of light skinned people but that is false. And it totally ignores the populations of the Sahara for which we have no ancient DNA. I have no doubt that many of these ancient populations also carry some of the same lineages.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote: Thus, although these previous studies have highlighted the role of the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area as a major source of the hunter-gatherer populations that gradually repopulated much of central and northern Europe when climatic conditions began to improve ~15 ky ago, the identification of U5b1b now unequivocally links the maternal gene pool of the ancestral Berbers to the same refuge area and indicates that European hunter-gatherers also moved toward the south and, by crossing the Strait of Gibraltar, contributed their U5b1b, H1, H3, and V mtDNAs to modern North Africans. "
Again, the 15,000 year old DNA says EXPLICITLY that there is no evidence of European migration into those remains. Yet you keep trying to confuse everyone by posting various quotes from random papers and not sticking to the oldest DNA extracted from Africa which DOES NOT say what you are saying.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: or T2 :
quote:Haplogroup T2 peaks among the Udmurts (24%) and the Chechen-Ingush of Daghestan (12.5%). After that T2 is most frequently encountered in the Netherlands (12%), Sardinia (10%), Iceland (10%), Switzerland (9.5%), Hungary (8.5%) and Ukraine (8.5%), as well as among many ethnic groups around the Caucasus such as the Kumyks (10%), Azeri (9.5%) and Georgians (9%). [...] Haplogroups T* (perhaps T1a) and T2b have been found in skeletons from late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers respectively from Russia and Sweden. It is the best evidence so far that haplogroup T was present in Europe before the continent was recolonised by Neolithic farmers.
Are you also aware that "natufian" ancestry peaks in modern Arabs ? :
so what does this tell us about their phenotype ? Why were they physically very different from the typically negroid jebel sahaba remains :
quote:The body shape of the terminal Pleistocene Jebel Sahaba population is tropical-adapted, with elongated limbs, especially in the distal segments, and is most similar to living sub-Saharan Africans and less similar to late Pleistocene and Holocene North Africans (including Egyptians and Nubians). The sample’s body shape likely reflects elevated gene flow up the Nile Valley from areas further south, but may also be due in part to the tropical hot conditions present at the site, even during glacial periods. The Jebel Sahaba sample are distinct in body shape from penecontemporary humans from Afalou-BouRhummel (Algeria) and El Wad Natufians from the southern Levant—a result consistent with the results of both Irish (2000, 2005) using dental data and Franciscus (1995, 2003) using nasal data. "
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Bottom line that relationship between Natufians and Iberomaurisans is NOT saying the Natufians are ancestors of the Iberomaurisans which is what you keep trying to use them as a proxy for. What this particular source is saying is a lot of the Eurasian mixture in PARTS of North Africa is from within the last 5,000 years not 20,000 years ago.
No that's not what I said that's why I posted this quote :
quote:"Moreover, our model predicts that West Africans (represented by Yoruba) had 12.5±1.1% ancestry from a Taforalt-related group rather than Taforalt having ancestry from an unknown Sub-Saharan African source11; this may have mediated the limited Neanderthal admixture present in West Africans23. An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-Saharan sources."
But again this does not prevent iberomaurusians from having eurasian ancestors that predates natufians.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The other issue with this paper is that most of the Neolithic sites in North Africa showing the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic are in the Sahara. Again, "North Africa" has never been limited to the extreme coasts of North Africa. This is nonsense but these scientists who publish these papers keep omitting this fact and thus people like you keep repeating it even though it is false. Meaning Africans have never been cut off from North Africa, which is what you keep clinging to even if it is blatantly false.
You're simply projecting the modern and conventional borders of North Africa unto the past, the neolithic tradition of coastal north africa doesn't derive from saharan traditions and Iberomaurusians lived in the coastal area. And the rest of Africa has repeatedly been cut off from North Africa because of dry phases (same as today) except maybe in the Nile Valley area but I'm not a specialist on this area.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Which shows that the transition to the Neolithic in "North Africa" is not simply about roving bands of Eurasians hugging the coast of North Africa and introducing agriculture. This evolution happened primarily farther south and independently starting with harvesting wild grain and controlling wild animals.....
There is 15km between europe and coastal north africa meanwhile what you post represent thousands of km but anyway the people mentionned here had nothing to do with people who lived further north. We talk about Iberomaurusians, Capsians or KEB not people of the neolithic Saharo-sudanese tradition.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Which shows these three groups IAM, Iberomaurisan and KEB do not cluster together meaning they are affected by subsequent periods of migration and mixture. Again showing that Coastal North Africa has never been a monolithic static population that has always been the same as modern Coastal North Africans.
They still plot close to each other and close to the west eurasian cluster as I showed above + again this doesn't mean Taforalt doesn't have proper eurasian ancestry. Moreover I already acknowledge the fact that they were not similar to coastal north africans but again this does not mean taforalt were a SSA-like population nor looked like SSA populations + again and stop avoiding this, the IBM component peaks among modern coastal north africans not any other population (we talk about values that can easily reach 30% to 50% )
Again more gibberish and random quotes from random papers not related specifically to the 15,000 year old DNA from Africa which DOES NOT say what you are trying to say.
The whole problem with you is that you keep trying to use genetics to prove "racial" constructs based on various genetic lineages that may have originated in Eurasia in the distant past. That does not prove phenotype at all and certainly is not race. Case in point there are plenty of black people in the world to this day who carry Eurasian DNA and are still black. So what you keep trying to say is nonsense.
Again scientists have even claimed that Haplogroup L3 is a Eurasian lineage. So does that mean most Africans aren't black now?
You don't make any sense.
This is on top of the fact that most of these papers are written in order to downplay and obfuscate the fact that humans originated in Africa and that all human DNA and diversity originates in Africa. So they make up new terminologies for ancient populations and lineages to purposely confuse the point that all these populations going back in time converge on an African aboriginal type. And it is all about trying to give a greater role to "Eurasia" in human DNA history than Africa, when humans have been in Africa longer than any other place on earth by hundreds of thousands of years.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug is of the opinion that U6, with highest frequencies in Mozabites and in the Maghreb is an indigenous African haplogroup and he refers to the Loosdrecht article on the 15kya remains at Taforalt:
Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations - Marieke van de Loosdrecht, 2018 .
.
it depends on how one interprets that article:
Supplementary Materials for
Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations Marieke van de Loosdrecht, 20018
Our results provide the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for macro727 haplogroup M of ~50,000 yBP, similar to previous estimates with a much larger sample size (23). Here we estimate a divergence time for haplogroup U6 to 37,000 yBP (95% highest posterior density [HPD], 40-34,000 yBP), contrary to an older estimate of 45,000±7,000 yBP (7) but similar to more recent estimates of ~35,000 yBP (91, 92). Excluding the Upper Paleolithic European U6 sequence from Muierii cave results in a coalescence age for the African U6 haplogroup branch to 30,000 yBP (95% HPD, 34-25,000 yBP). The divergence time for the African-specific M1 we estimate to 24,000 yBP (95% HPD, 29-20,000 yBP), which is considerably younger and not overlapping with a previous estimate of 37,000±7,000 yBP by (7) but again similar to the date reported in (92) of ~26,000 yBP. The coalescence age for haplogroup M1b, which we find in one Taforalt individual, is 20,000 yBP (95% HPD, 24-16,000 yBP). The divergence time of haplogroup U6a found in six Taforalt individuals is calculated to 24,000 yBP (95% HPD, 28-20,000 yBP), and very closely approximates the divergence time of African haplogroup M1 (red and black distributions, respectively in Fig. S23).
In order to monitor the change in effective population size for haplogroups M1 and U6 we repeated BEAST analyses as reported above independently for both haplogroups. For haplogroup M1 this resulted in 51 present-day sequences (7), one Taforalt sequence and one L3 sequence as outgroup (16,549 positions considered). For haplogroup U6 this resulted in 30 present-day sequences (7), six Taforalt, Muierii1 and one L3 sequence as outgroup (16,552 positions considered). After running BEAST for both haplogroups with identical parameters as previously mentioned we used Tracer v1.6 (24) to reconstruct Bayesian skyline plots selecting linear change and the default 100 bins (Fig. S24). We find that the African-specific U6 and M1 lineages are characterized by a similar, almost exponential, increase in effective population size. However, the onset for their population expansion is not synchronous in time as previously reported in (25); whereas in our estimates the expansion for the M1 lineage begins at around 14,000 yBP, U6 starts expanding ~12.000 years earlier at ~26,000 yBP (Fig. S24). Interestingly, our estimates for divergence time of U6a and M1 (~24,000 yBP) and effective population size increase in U6 (26,000 yBP) approximates the earliest appearance of the oldest Iberomaurusian in Northwest Africa (25,845-25,270 cal. yBP at Tamar Hat (26)) and the emergence of a MSA-LSA Transitional Technology in Taforalt (24,769-23,940 cal. yBP (32))
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations
Abstract North Africa is a key region for understanding human history, but the genetic history of its people is largely unknown. We present genomic data from seven 15,000-year-old modern humans, attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture, from Morocco. We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians, suggesting a pre-agricultural connection between Africa and the Near East. We do not find evidence for gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans to Late Pleistocene North Africans. The Taforalt individuals derive one-third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans. Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.
main article: 63.5% Natufian and 36.5% sub-Saharan African ancestry
_________________________
I have been reading this article several times and the supplement which is long
Here we see basically YDNA E and mtDNA U6
I can't assume the authors are saying a simple split, that E = African and U6 = Eurasian It's a bit confusing how they get to 63.5% Natufian and 36.5% sub-Saharan African ancestry. It's hard to figure out because they are combining Sub-Saharan ancestry and instead of talking about North African or Horn or Middle Eastern ancestry, they combine it with "Natufian" yet the breakdown of Natufian is not clear
Re-analysis of Whole Genome Sequence Data From 279 Ancient Eurasians Reveals Substantial Ancestral Heterogeneity Daniel Shriner* 2018
table 2
Natufian Y DNA
(2) CT, (1) E1b1, (2) E1b1b1b2
mtDNA (2) J2, (1) N1
___________________________________________
^ So they have 3 Natufians here, none U6
but the E corresponds to Taforalt
I didn't see other articles on mitochondrial Natufian. It could be just these 3
So just looking at Taforalt U6 if that was assumed to be Eurasian it would make them at minimum 50% Non-Natufian Eurasian But suppose the point of view is that U6 is Africanized U, that it's therefore wholly African
If you started looking at this closely, at least with me it's confusing, these articles have this ambiguous element They talk about sub-Saharan DNA but when it comes to African DNA that is not Sub-Saharan it gets very murky, the same DNA they may give a Middle Eastern tinge even if talking about certain E clades but it's left ambiguous Then Lazaridis comes in with "basal Eurasian". Is it African or Arabian perhaps? That is not pinned down It's more ambiguity These researchers are quick to say Natufians are not sub-Saharan but still bearing E clade they get very fuzzy about how African they think those E clades are
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to clarify my earlier points on the ancestral population that is common to the Natufians and Iberomaurisans, there is the quote from the article I am referring to:
quote: Therefore, we provide genomic evidence for a Late Pleistocene connection between North Africa and the Near East, predating the Neolithic transition by at least four millennia, while reject- ing the hypothesis of a potential Epigravettian gene flow from Southern Europe into northern Africa, within the resolution of our data. Archaeogenetic studies on additional Iberomaurusian sites will be critical to evaluate the representaotiveness of Taforalt for the Iberomaurusian gene pool. We speculate that the Natufian-related ancestral population may have been widespread across North Africa and the Near East, associated with microlithic backed bladelet technologies that started to spread out in this area by at least 25,000 yr B.P. [(10) and references therein]. How- ever, given the absence of ancient genomic data from a similar time frame for this broader area, the epicenter of expansion, if any, for this ancestral population remains unknown.
That conclusion has not changed with any later revisions of said study. At issue again, goes back to something long discussed on this forum which is how ancient African DNA is labeled in "North Africa". In fact, this paper even attests to this obsession with ancient Eurasian back migrations into North Africa as somehow being the basis of ancient populations in North Africa over 10,000 years ago. And to go along with that, one of the things this paper was trying to show was that not only was ancient North Africa settled from Eurasia in the Levant, but also directly from Europe. And to go along with that they were trying to suggest that this Eurasian gene flow was the basis of the "North African" evolution of culture and technology.....
quote: Sub-Saharan Africa is home to the most deeply divergent genetic lineages among present-day humans (2), and the general view is that all Eurasians mostly descend from a single group of humans that dispersed outside of sub-Saharan Africa around 50,000 to 100,000 years before the present (yr B.P.) (3). This group likely represented only a small fraction of the genetic diversity within Africa, most closely related to a Holocene East African group (4). Present-day North Africans share a majority of their ancestry with present-day Near Easterners but not with sub-Saharan Africans (5). Thus, from a genetic perspective, present-day North Africa is largely a part of Eurasia. However, the temporal depth of this genetic connection between the Near East and North Africa is poorly understood and has been estimated only indirectly from present-day mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation (6, 7).
This model of African history as being split by the Sahara in ancient times has been called out multiple times for being blatant BS, yet some here are determined to keep hope alive that this can be true, yet even with that this paper refutes this idea. They just cannot accept that Africans evolved their own culture ad technology and that they migrated with that technology and culture into Europe and Eurasia. And it just is convenient for them to use the Sahara as the justification for this nonsense even though the time period before and during the last wet phase shows clearly a south to North flow of cultural evolution and advancements
quote: "The main aim of this research," says Abdeljalil Bouzouggar, study co-senior author at the Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, "was to look at the origin of the Iberomaurusian whether it is a local or an exogenous culture."
The analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA extracted from seven skeletons revealed a mixture from two ancestral groups: a Near Eastern population, most similar to ancient hunter-gatherers known as Natufians, and a poorly understood ancestry similar to Sub-Saharan African populations.
"We were expecting some links with Europe from across the Gibraltar or Sicily Straits but our results don't support this theory. In my view, the most important result is that around 15,000 years ago North and West Africa and the Near East were an open space for human migrations and various interactions," says Bouzouggar.
The Near-Eastern genetic connection is relatively clear, according to Iosif Lazaridis, of the Department of Genetics at Harvard Medical School who was not involved with the study.
"There are now enough ancient samples from the Middle East and Europe to be fairly sure that the Taforalt samples were indeed more closely related to Natufians than to other non-Africans."
However, the Taforalt affinity to Sub-Saharan Africans is less clear, since no modern Sub-Saharan Africans appear to be a good source for the ancestry found in the cave samples, says Lazaridis.
So clearly they are still trying to model ancient "North Africa" as basically no different than modern North Africa as being basically mostly the result of ancient Eurasian mixture, meaning without any Africans going back 20,000 years.
And as we have said here multiple times, they deliberately ignore all the remains and cemeteries from the 10,000 years ago in the Sahara proper in order to make up this myth that the only other African populations came from over 1500 miles to the south. As if there were no ancient populations within Niger, Mali, Chad, Southern Algeria, Southern Libya, Northern Sudan, Southern Egypt and so forth. So they jump thousands of miles to Central and West Africa as if those other ancient populations didn't exist.
Abdeljalil Bouzouggar
quote: Abdeljalil Bouzouggar, qualified professor at the National Institute of Archeology and Heritage Sciences in Rabat, was recently appointed by His Highness Prince Albert of Monaco as a member of the international scientific committee of the Museum of Prehistory of the Rock.
A fine distinction for the Moroccan scientist who was behind the latest discovery of the Bizmoune cave in Essaouira. This is the update of the oldest adornment in the world dating back 150,000 years, which provides information on several aspects of part of the history of humanity. This discovery represents 32 shaped shells of marine gastropods.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes the Amazigh above are obviously white and look European, particularly Southwest European. But these do NOT represent Keita's CNA type.
southwest european ? hahaha ask any iberian if these people look "european" or "southwest european" and you'll see.
And yes it does represent Keita's coastal type since that's how most north africans look, all the ancient samples cluster with these people and craniometrically most ancient skulls going from the neolithic to today plot with them.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: southwest european ? hahaha ask any iberian if these people look "european" or "southwest european" and you'll see.
That's who they resemble the most NOT ancient Egyptians and Libyans which you claim.
quote:And yes it does represent Keita's coastal type since that's how most north africans look, all the ancient samples cluster with these people and craniometrically most ancient skulls going from the neolithic to today plot with them.
Wrong as always! I already cited Keita's paper in the previous page here! He specifically states the CNA type to be metrically intermediate between tropical (Sub-Saharan) Africans and Mediterranean Europeans whereas modern coastal Maghrebis fall right in the latter category alone!
He even said: The variability of the Maghreb series is probably secondary to migration into the region. This is not to resurrect the migrationist paradigm and imply that all biological or cultural change, or variability, is secondary to migration. Each case deserves its own evaluation. **The Mediterranean Neolithic tradition, as noted earlier, may have been brought from Europe by migrants (Camps, 1982). However, the “European” metrics of some of the crania may be secondary to gene flow from Phoenicia, since Punic craniometric data (in Schwidetsky and Ramaswamy, 1980) reveal them to have values similar to those of Europeans** (see data in Howells, 1973). Blacks (the “Ethiopians” of the Maghreb and Sahara of the ancient writers) may have migrated from a desiccating Sahara during an earlier hunting period or during the neolithic period or may have been part of the indigenous early Holocene population. This would pertain to the Nile Valley also.
Why do you keep lying that the experts agree with you when they really don't?!
Keita goes on to say: The Saharan rock paintings in Tassili (Lhote, 19591, which must be interpreted cautiously, seem to show the wide variety of phenotypes known in the Maghreb. “Blacks,” including peoples with a more generalized facial phenotype, called by Hiernaux (1975) “Elongated African,” and not only those with the typologically (and caricatural) extreme characteristics of the pseudo-taxon “true Negro” (Seligman, 1966) are to be seen in the paintings. This is consonant with Saharan and predynastic southern skeletal remains. “True Negro” is a term not often used in current writing, but it occasionally still finds its way into the literature, for example, in de Villiers (1968). Clearly the morphology/metrics denoted by this term and concept represent a microevolutionary extreme, not to be taken as a basal ideal type, just as very orthognathous blonde northern European groups represent an extreme. There are many “true” forms. Skeletally “Negroid” cannot be restricted to a monotypic extreme concept (Rightmire, 1975, 1977). Coon et al. (1950) note groups who have almost stereotypical tropical African soft part characteristics coupled with “Mediterranean” bony cranio-facial form, but they do not report the reverse. Tropical African and Saharan physiognomy is highly variable, mainly secondary to micro-selection pressure (Hiernaux, 19753) and perhaps gene flow and drift as outlined below.
Keita's very paper busted your lies, so are you going to keep lying or give up and admit you are wrong?!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That's who they resemble the most NOT ancient Egyptians and Libyans which you claim.
No north africans in general look more like egyptians/middle eastern folks than south europeans and that's obvious but since you're american you probably don't really know how NW africans look.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Wrong as always! I already cited Keita's paper in the previous page here! He specifically states the CNA type to be metrically intermediate between tropical (Sub-Saharan) Africans and Mediterranean Europeans whereas modern coastal Maghrebis fall right in the latter category alone!
I already made enough threads on craniometric results of ancient NW african remains and they are similar to the modern ones (check the deshret section). Also why do you lie ? The paper of Keita used european samples from NW Europe not "mediterranean europe" and Keita says this :
quote:Ancient series from this region have intermediate multivariate metric patterns by centroid values. However, centroids are multivariate means and hide variability. The territorial maps and unknown analyses give a fuller picture. Theoretically an intermediate position may be secondary to hybridization of peoples with different craniometric values from adjacent regions, since hybrids have intermediate metric values (Trevor, 1953). A series composed of notably different subgroups could present as a statistically artifactual intermediate group. Alternatively local (intermediate) selection pressures or a combination of these factors could explain a middle position.
Therefore saying those skulls being intermediate to Northern Europe and tropical Africa doesn't mean much the method clearly hides variability and both Chamla and D. Ferembach in the past already had highlighted the presence of SSA traits among protohistorical NW africans but still that didn't prevent theses remains from being similar to their modern descendents.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: He even said: The variability of the Maghreb series is probably secondary to migration into the region. This is not to resurrect the migrationist paradigm and imply that all biological or cultural change, or variability, is secondary to migration. Each case deserves its own evaluation. **The Mediterranean Neolithic tradition, as noted earlier, may have been brought from Europe by migrants (Camps, 1982). However, the “European” metrics of some of the crania may be secondary to gene flow from Phoenicia, since Punic craniometric data (in Schwidetsky and Ramaswamy, 1980) reveal them to have values similar to those of Europeans** (see data in Howells, 1973). Blacks (the “Ethiopians” of the Maghreb and Sahara of the ancient writers) may have migrated from a desiccating Sahara during an earlier hunting period or during the neolithic period or may have been part of the indigenous early Holocene population. This would pertain to the Nile Valley also.
Genetics has already debunked this : we do not see any "punic" influence in any of the ancient north african samples we have nor do modern NW africans show substantial levantine/punic influence :
quote:Interestingly, the genetic influence of the Near East on Libyan and Egyptian genomes is noticeable. This pattern contrasts with that found in the Maghreb (western North Africa), where that influence is more reduced and comparable to that recorded from western Europe. The observed pattern seems to disagree with conclusions from Arauna et al. (2017), who stated that all of northern Africa is mixed with the Near East.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Keita goes on to say: The Saharan rock paintings in Tassili (Lhote, 19591, which must be interpreted cautiously, seem to show the wide variety of phenotypes known in the Maghreb. “Blacks,” including peoples with a more generalized facial phenotype, called by Hiernaux (1975) “Elongated African,” and not only those with the typologically (and caricatural) extreme characteristics of the pseudo-taxon “true Negro” (Seligman, 1966) are to be seen in the paintings. This is consonant with Saharan and predynastic southern skeletal remains. “True Negro” is a term not often used in current writing, but it occasionally still finds its way into the literature, for example, in de Villiers (1968). Clearly the morphology/metrics denoted by this term and concept represent a microevolutionary extreme, not to be taken as a basal ideal type, just as very orthognathous blonde northern European groups represent an extreme. There are many “true” forms. Skeletally “Negroid” cannot be restricted to a monotypic extreme concept (Rightmire, 1975, 1977). Coon et al. (1950) note groups who have almost stereotypical tropical African soft part characteristics coupled with “Mediterranean” bony cranio-facial form, but they do not report the reverse. Tropical African and Saharan physiognomy is highly variable, mainly secondary to micro-selection pressure (Hiernaux, 19753) and perhaps gene flow and drift as outlined below.
Keita's very paper busted your lies, so are you going to keep lying or give up and admit you are wrong?!
Nobody said anything in regards to the sahara. I've talked about coastal north africa only. It's been years you repeat the same thing over and over despite all the papers and quotes I've posted to debunk your fallacious and racist claims. I'm talking to a wall so if you're not here to learn but simply to fight someone which you often call "euronut" then avoid reacting to my post it's a waste of time for both of us.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes the Amazigh above are obviously white and look European, particularly Southwest European. But these do NOT represent Keita's CNA type.
southwest european ? hahaha ask any iberian if these people look "european" or "southwest european" and you'll see.
And yes it does represent Keita's coastal type since that's how most north africans look, all the ancient samples cluster with these people and craniometrically most ancient skulls going from the neolithic to today plot with them.
Keita's coastal North African type was generally intermediate between Northern Europeans and SSAs and there were even some tropical African types among the coastal North African crania he did his study on which debunks your position that "black" North Africans are solely the product of the slave trade.
This man below would be "metrically intermediate" to SSA and Northern Europeans
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Keita's coastal North African type was generally intermediate between Northern Europeans and SSAs and there were even some tropical African types among the coastal North African crania he did his study on which debunks your position that "black" North Africans are solely the product of the slave trade.
[/QB]
Just check the posts above, Keita admit his method is flawed and hides variability :
quote:Ancient series from this region have intermediate multivariate metric patterns by centroid values. However, centroids are multivariate means and hide variability. The territorial maps and unknown analyses give a fuller picture. Theoretically an intermediate position may be secondary to hybridization of peoples with different craniometric values from adjacent regions, since hybrids have intermediate metric values (Trevor, 1953). A series composed of notably different subgroups could present as a statistically artifactual intermediate group. Alternatively local (intermediate) selection pressures or a combination of these factors could explain a middle position.
Also why do you assume that north africans only started to have slaves after the muslim conquest ? Why do you think these negroids remains are always outliers in a sea of caucasoid remains ? Anyway testimonies of black slaves exist in the case of carthage (so way before any arab slave trade) :
quote: In the eastern part of the Mediterranean, the trade of the Carthaginians was much less extensive than in the western part. However, they still had, for the products of their industry, many outlets in Greece and in Italy. It was there mainly that, in addition to the fine stones and the black slaves , they sold the objects resulting from their manufactures. [...] In addition to the gold grains, the Carthaginians drew from the interior of Africa black slaves, dates and precious stones , which Pliny calls Carbunculi carchedonii. The nomadic peoples were, if we can express ourselves thus, the intermediaries of this great trade. They were in charge of carrying the goods to their destination. However, the Carthaginians themselves sometimes joined the caravans, and we know that a certain Magon, a merchant from Carthage, made the journey across the desert three times.
D. De la Malle, Afrique ancienne, Carthage, p. 136
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: This man below would be "metrically intermediate" to SSA and Northern Europeans
Based on what are you saying this that's your assumption.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Anatalas what about Abdeljalil-Bouzougga, the photo of the man Elijah just posted?
I already answered in the post where I posted pictures of average north africans
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Abdeljalil Bouzouggar,professor at the National Institute of Archeology and Heritage Sciences in Rabat
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ LOL But according to Antalas the Moroccan man above is clearly not a black man but rather a tanned caucasian.
I think his MO is to claim the more "Black"-looking North Africans are entirely the product of the trans-Saharan slave trade.
Depends from where they're from but in most cases yes they descent from slaves.
Native Americans were enslaved by the Spanish in Florida and the Southwest.
So being a slave or not does not determine if one is indigenous to the region or not. They might be, they might not be
How do you know this man was not a descendant of ancient Moroccans who resembled him? How do you know ancient Moroccans did not have a diversity of ancient ancestry within the Maghreb? If Iberomaurusians entered the Maghreb from outside Africa how do you know there weren't other non-Iberomaurusians also in Morocco?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic