His main thesis is population replacement in Europe and the Med...
( WATCH THIS SPACE ) But we have competing hypothesis of ancient population continuity in the Delta of Egypt and the rest of North Africa
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
In other words, the "anywhere but Africa" model of European history. Which is basically what he kind of states starting at the 1:45 minute mark. He argues that "DNA models" basically have replaced the out of Africa model, implying that ancient human DNA does not all originate in Africa. Keep in mind that in all this DNA science and ancient DNA from Eurasia, there are no clear connections between ancient Eurasians and Africans, which is problematic, especially since they keep telling us how Ancient Eurasian DNA in Africa is over 30 or 40 thousand years old. Yet they cannot identify the basal African DNA lineages that migrated out of Africa during OOA, even with all this 40,000 year old DNA from Eurasia.
And also notice that there are no reference populations for Africa in any of his charts for European/Eurasian Ancestry. As if Africans suddenly had no DNA mixture in any of these populations even after OOA...... Then he goes on to say that these 3 populations were as different from each other as Europeans are to East Asians today meaning what? DNA isn't phenotype so how does that imply that these people somehow were drastically different physically at that time. What differences is he referring to and how does this relate to the rise of the "white" phenotype? Such a phenotype cannot be identified by primary male and female DNA haplogroups.
Bottom line, these people are basically pushing their statistical models but those models are only as accurate as the data used in them. So if the majority of the ancient DNA in the world is from Eurasia then of course those models of will produce results that are heavily weighted towards Eurasia. But that is not going to stop them from publishing these papers and studies even if MOST of the data from the continent where humans originated is missing. So the whole premise is backwards because Europe is one of the last places settled in Eurasia, yet it gets treated as the focus of all human history from a DNA perspective. Humans have been in Africa for 300,000 years while humans have been in Eurasia less than 60,000. And based on that the simple fact is that the origins of humans and culture are African and you don't need ancient DNA studies to even understand that.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In other words, the "anywhere but Africa" model of European history. Which is basically what he kind of states starting at the 1:45 minute mark. He argues that "DNA models" basically have replaced the out of Africa model, implying that ancient human DNA does not all originate in Africa. Keep in mind that in all this DNA science and ancient DNA from Eurasia, there are no clear connections between ancient Eurasians and Africans, which is problematic, especially since they keep telling us how Ancient Eurasian DNA in Africa is over 30 or 40 thousand years old. Yet they cannot identify the basal African DNA lineages that migrated out of Africa during OOA, even with all this 40,000 year old DNA from Eurasia.
And also notice that there are no reference populations for Africa in any of his charts for European/Eurasian Ancestry. As if Africans suddenly had no DNA mixture in any of these populations even after OOA...... Then he goes on to say that these 3 populations were as different from each other as Europeans are to East Asians today meaning what? DNA isn't phenotype so how does that imply that these people somehow were drastically different physically at that time. What differences is he referring to and how does this relate to the rise of the "white" phenotype? Such a phenotype cannot be identified by primary male and female DNA haplogroups.
Bottom line, these people are basically pushing their statistical models but those models are only as accurate as the data used in them. So if the majority of the ancient DNA in the world is from Eurasia then of course those models of will produce results that are heavily weighted towards Eurasia. But that is not going to stop them from publishing these papers and studies even if MOST of the data from the continent where humans originated is missing. So the whole premise is backwards because Europe is one of the last places settled in Eurasia, yet it gets treated as the focus of all human history from a DNA perspective. Humans have been in Africa for 300,000 years while humans have been in Eurasia less than 60,000. And based on that the simple fact is that the origins of humans and culture are African and you don't need ancient DNA studies to even understand that.
Very good synopsis
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers • The individual was from a population that is the largest source of ancestry for South Asians
• Iranian-related ancestry in South Asia split from Iranian plateau lineages >12,000 years ago
• First farmers of the Fertile Crescent contributed little to no ancestry to later South Asians
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In other words, the "anywhere but Africa" model of European history. Which is basically what he kind of states starting at the 1:45 minute mark. He argues that "DNA models" basically have replaced the out of Africa model, implying that ancient human DNA does not all originate in Africa. Keep in mind that in all this DNA science and ancient DNA from Eurasia, there are no clear connections between ancient Eurasians and Africans, which is problematic, especially since they keep telling us how Ancient Eurasian DNA in Africa is over 30 or 40 thousand years old. Yet they cannot identify the basal African DNA lineages that migrated out of Africa during OOA, even with all this 40,000 year old DNA from Eurasia.
And also notice that there are no reference populations for Africa in any of his charts for European/Eurasian Ancestry. As if Africans suddenly had no DNA mixture in any of these populations even after OOA...... Then he goes on to say that these 3 populations were as different from each other as Europeans are to East Asians today meaning what? DNA isn't phenotype so how does that imply that these people somehow were drastically different physically at that time. What differences is he referring to and how does this relate to the rise of the "white" phenotype? Such a phenotype cannot be identified by primary male and female DNA haplogroups.
Bottom line, these people are basically pushing their statistical models but those models are only as accurate as the data used in them. So if the majority of the ancient DNA in the world is from Eurasia then of course those models of will produce results that are heavily weighted towards Eurasia. But that is not going to stop them from publishing these papers and studies even if MOST of the data from the continent where humans originated is missing. So the whole premise is backwards because Europe is one of the last places settled in Eurasia, yet it gets treated as the focus of all human history from a DNA perspective. Humans have been in Africa for 300,000 years while humans have been in Eurasia less than 60,000. And based on that the simple fact is that the origins of humans and culture are African and you don't need ancient DNA studies to even understand that.
Very good synopsis
These people have spent so long muddying the water that they cannot see that what they are doing isn't really clarifying the history. In fact, in many ways it is only focused on the last 20,000 years of human history and trying to determine where "advanced" human behaviors leading to civilization originated. And part of that is predicated on this ancient DNA model that separates Africans from Non Africans after OOA which is mostly a problem with labeling of DNA lineages.
Here is the full talk and note the image of the human DNA tree at the 17 minute mark:
That tree shows that all "African" DNA lineages all are within the L haplogroup going back 300,000 years.And the question here is why are African genetic lineages in that 300,000 time frame all stuck in Haplogroup L? Are they claiming that the genetic or environmental circumstances did not exist in Africa for these lineages to have other letter designations? And what is the basis for making new letter designations? Because as you see, from the African lineages, they show the N and M lineages as exclusively "Asian" lineages. So where did those lineages come from because obviously any population in Asia prior to that would have been carrying those L lineages wouldn't they? And why haven't we found any of those, considering that N and M lineages go back at least to the timeframe of OOA.
quote: There is widespread agreement in the scientific community concerning the African ancestry of haplogroup L3 (haplogroup N's parent clade). However, whether or not the mutations which define haplogroup N itself first occurred within Asia or Africa has been a subject for ongoing discussion and study.
The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_(mtDNA)
And they aren't really clarifying how this happened or what they should be looking for in ancient DNA to detect when this split occurred. That should be key to any study of ancient DNA, migrations and the origins of humans.... Because at the end of the day, going back over 30,000 years all humans converge on an African phenotype to begin with. But these ancient DNA labels based on that tree obfuscates that fact.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Our research reveals that the Neolithic Saharan individuals from Takarkori present a haplotype not previously identified in Africa, that belongs to a basal branch of haplogroup N. This discovery needs to be addressed cautiously, given its potential geographical, chronological and archaeological implications (Fig. 4). As recently suggested 23, the presence of an unexpected branch where other clades prevail in the population may provide an indication of ancestry, but more data are necessary. The Saharan region was interested by strong climatic oscillations. Repeated peaks of humidity and the presence of several intermittent pulses of lake activity occurred between 125 and 11 ka
hus, the spread of pastoralism from the Levant to Northeast Africa could probably represent the context for the introgression of the N haplogroup into the central Sahara, even if it is commonly associated with derivative lineages (N1)1,37. It is worth noting, however, that when geometric morphometric analysis of the skull of TK RS H1 is compared with a large published dataset it shows closer affinities with sub-Saharan contests, such as Gobero in Niger whose occupation is dated from ~9.6–4.8 ka
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
His main thesis is population replacement in Europe and the Med...
( WATCH THIS SPACE ) But we have competing hypothesis of ancient population continuity in the Delta of Egypt and the rest of North Africa
His theme is replacement yes replacement in Britain in Britain, mainly starting with hunter gatherers 10,000 years ago and being replaced in a series of replacements and partial replacements what does that have to do with a competing hypothesis of ancient population continuity in the Delta of Egypt and the rest of North Africa ??
Apples and Oranges in my opinion
This summarizes his lecture, to paraphrase
"Are we descended from this dark man? Of course not, let me explain"
So apparently this superficial trait, skin darkness or lack thereof is of primary importance
He starts with Cheddar man, 10,000 years ago, Reich says " as many groups in africa or as dark as many groups in africa and blue eyes" (although surprisingly, Doug questioned his alleged black skin in his thread "Was Cheddar man white after all?" http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009922;p=1)
then according to Reich, these hunter gatherers were 99% replaced by "first farmers"
and then they were 90% replaced by Steppe people
and they were replaced 50% in the late bronze age
and they were replaced by 40% Saxons
white people are saved !!!
(although a bit mixed with various ambiguous types)
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In other words, the "anywhere but Africa" model of European history. Which is basically what he kind of states starting at the 1:45 minute mark. He argues that "DNA models" basically have replaced the out of Africa model, implying that ancient human DNA does not all originate in Africa.
He is is vague about some things here.
I would not says he is trying to promote a Multiregional Hypothesis (although says nothing that would exclude it) but I think this video is poorly titled and is causing confusion.
He is saying the ancestors of modern Europeans today were not the particular Africans who first went into Europe and incorrectly presumed to have stayed there until modern times.
He's almost entirely talking about 8-10,000 years ago in Britain far after people left Africa. The video would more appropriately be called "The mixed ancestry of the British . not "Human Origins" and the way he presents this does not help because he is not talking about human origins he is taking amount British/European origins and only post LGM He is saying that recent DNA analysis has shown the first inhabitants of Britain were replaced to a very large extent by people from outside of Europe and also internal migrations inside of Europe outside of Britain. Iranian farmers, Levant framers, Central Asian Steppe people, Saxons and so on but he does not discuss their origins And then he has need to inset the term "white people" which I think is unnecessary and more of a political concept I think it is s stretch to say he would argue that these various populations who replaced the original hunter gatherers in Europe did not ultimately originate from Africa much longer ago but he was vague about this
If this video was sent to somebody to come up with a title for it I don't think they would come up with "Origins of Humans and Culture" that is a ridiculous title for it, it's all about Britain
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Our research reveals that the Neolithic Saharan individuals from Takarkori present a haplotype not previously identified in Africa, that belongs to a basal branch of haplogroup N. This discovery needs to be addressed cautiously, given its potential geographical, chronological and archaeological implications (Fig. 4). As recently suggested 23, the presence of an unexpected branch where other clades prevail in the population may provide an indication of ancestry, but more data are necessary. The Saharan region was interested by strong climatic oscillations. Repeated peaks of humidity and the presence of several intermittent pulses of lake activity occurred between 125 and 11 ka
hus, the spread of pastoralism from the Levant to Northeast Africa could probably represent the context for the introgression of the N haplogroup into the central Sahara, even if it is commonly associated with derivative lineages (N1)1,37. It is worth noting, however, that when geometric morphometric analysis of the skull of TK RS H1 is compared with a large published dataset it shows closer affinities with sub-Saharan contests, such as Gobero in Niger whose occupation is dated from ~9.6–4.8 ka
No it isn't outdated, it is simply them playing games with the data. They know they don't have near enough ancient DNA from Africa, especially places like the Sahara and Nile which is important to OOA. So they like to skip over that and simply propose models of "reverse migrations" into Africa, completely ignoring the point that this is where the first humans to settle Eurasia came from. So that is where we need more ancient DNA. Therefore, they are defending their current models of Eurasia and Europe of "separate" from Africa. Which makes it seem like they are not really interested in finding any data on the actual DNA ancestors of these branches from Africa.
In fact at the 12 minute mark of the full discussion you see them put a big question mark in the middle of the Sahara. If you don't the data then how can you distinguish reverse migrations from the ancestral populations that those Eurasians originated from? Obviously they don't care about the African ancestral populations and are more concerned about trying make a parallel theory of population replacement in Africa to mirror that in Europe, but which likely didn't happen. It doesn't even make sense because they don't have any ancient DNA from Africa to prove it which is why they keep dragging their feet on ancient DNA from North Africa because like the Haplogroup N results, it contradicts the models that they are proposing.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geneticists trying to tell history will never result in anything remotely sensible.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: Geneticists trying to tell history will never result in anything remotely sensible.
This!
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he is giving a reasonable population history for Britain
but obviously not addressing 'Human Origins' despite the video title from the geniuses at Harvard
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
David Reich is the Jordan Peterson of genetics
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have watched this video a few times now. it does not address human origins despite the title but perhaps it unintentionally it undermines the concept of white purity in a way - while implying that Britain is the capital of whiteness at the same time showing a mixed ancestry including a large dose of "Near East" (but only to be replaced again by Central Asian Steppe people and others
However this mixed ancestry is not spoken about with racial implications (although may be there) The only racial implications he talks about are of the Cheddar Man being dark but points out modern Brits are only one three-thousandth related to him due to subsequent incoming migrants
quote: “We found that the relatively homogeneous population seen across western Eurasia today, including Europe and the Near East, used to be a highly substructured collection of people who were as different from one another as present-day Europeans are from East Asians,” said David Reich
quote:Epochal events like the Anglo-Saxon migration, the spread of the Indo-Europeans and the Northern origin (Corded Ware) of the Aryans of India were all either “re-examined” or dismissed entirely as the product of “old” Nationalistic ideas. Genetic science is now vindicating many of the early 20th century theories, causing a great deal of kvetching in the ivory towers.
was there a lot of truth to the old model sans ARYAN supremacy BS of the Nazi's and the Scientific racists in England and the US?
But they don't like Reich's political views but agree with his conclusions.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
didn't the afrocentricst polstulate that black people built stonehenge?
Isn't that what Reich is saying
His shtick is old wine in a new jug.
Aren't Reich's Near Eastern Farmers, Clyde Winter's Kushites?
No?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Epochal events like the Anglo-Saxon migration, the spread of the Indo-Europeans and the Northern origin (Corded Ware) of the Aryans of India were all either “re-examined” or dismissed entirely as the product of “old” Nationalistic ideas. Genetic science is now vindicating many of the early 20th century theories, causing a great deal of kvetching in the ivory towers.
was there a lot of truth to the old model sans ARYAN supremacy BS of the Nazi's and the Scientific racists in England and the US?
But they don't like Reich's political views but agree with his conclusions.
I've noticed the National Vanguard's article is taken from a blog called "Survive the Jive". The only thing the Vanguard added was a picture of Reich with the caption
"Jewish geneticist David Reich, who is part of a group that is now backtracking on some egalitarian claims about race and history, because new evidence goes overwhelming against those claims."
this is what Survive the Jive/National Vanguard was saying but their interpretation is a lot of spin
They agreed in part with Reich about population replacements in Europe but they view that as glorious Aryan invasions whereas Reich presents it as immigrations and mixing. So while they are spinning it while accusing Reich of spinning it for what is probably typical of pro Nazi ideology, that Jews promote race mixing and diluting the purity of the Aryan majority or that here, the Jew has recognized an Aryan invasion but is misrepresenting by likening it to immigration and "mixing"
By way of DNA research one can't deny various migrations coming from outside Europe coming into Europe as well was internal migrations such as Saxon coming into Britain
However if you listen to this new lecture Reich is talking about a few different migrations into Britain from different places
The older 2018 Survive the Jive/National Vanguard article quotes part of a Reich interview but they don't mention the source, The Atlantic Here is an excerpt with more of it for context:
Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human (and Neanderthal) History The genomes of the long dead are turning up all sorts of unexpected and controversial findings.
By Sarah Zhang
March 14, 2018 THE ATLANTIC
quote:Zhang: You’ve said that ancient DNA has changed the way we see archaeology from these time periods. How so?
Reich: Archaeology has always been political, especially in Europe. Archaeologists are very aware of the misuse of archaeology in the past, in the 20th century. There’s a very famous German archaeologist named Gustaf Kossinna, who was the first or one of the first to come up with the idea of “material culture.” Say, you see similar pots, and therefore you’re in a region where there was shared community and aspects of culture.
He went so far as to argue that when you see the spread of these pots, you’re actually seeing a spread of people and there’s a one-to-one mapping for those things. His ideas were used by the Nazis later, in propaganda, to argue that a particular group in Europe, the Aryans, expanded in all directions across Europe. He believed that the region where these people’s material culture was located is the natural homeland of the Aryan community, and the Germans were the natural inheritors of that. This was used to justify their expansionism in the propaganda that the Germans used in the run-up to the Second World War.
So after the Second World War, there was a very strong reaction in the European archaeological community—not just the Germans, but the broad continental European archaeological community—to the fact that their discipline had been used for these terrible political ends. And there was a retreat from the ideas of Kossinna.
Zhang: You actually had German collaborators drop out of a study because of these exact concerns, right? One of them wrote, “We must(!) avoid ... being compared with the so-called ‘siedlungsarchäologie Method’ from Gustaf Kossinna!”
Reich: Yeah, that’s right. I think one of the things the ancient DNA is showing is actually the Corded Ware culture does correspond coherently to a group of people. [Editor’s note: The Corded Ware made pottery with cord-like ornamentation and according to ancient DNA studies, they descended from steppe ancestry.] I think that was a very sensitive issue to some of our coauthors, and one of the coauthors resigned because he felt we were returning to that idea of migration in archaeology that pots are the same as people. There have been a fair number of other coauthors from different parts of continental Europe who shared this anxiety.
We responded to this by adding a lot of content to our papers to discuss these issues and contextualize them. Our results are actually almost diametrically opposite from what Kossina thought because these Corded Ware people come from the East, a place that Kossina would have despised as a source for them. But nevertheless it is true that there’s big population movements, and so I think what the DNA is doing is it’s forcing the hand of this discussion in archaeology, showing that in fact, major movements of people do occur. They are sometimes sharp and dramatic, and they involve large-scale population replacements over a relatively short period of time. We now can see that for the first time.
What the genetics is finding is often outside the range of what the archaeologists are discussing these days.
________________________________
In a second article in the Vanguard and sourced from a different blogger, they get more virulent against Reich but agree with elements of what he says
His work is being used by racists, in fact, I submit that he is pushing a Jewish= Near Eastern Farmer/Iranian Farmer supremacy...
That is what divorcing Natufian from all of Africa was ALL about and still about.
It is also what isolating West African's from the rest of humanity is all about.
OLD WINE NEW JUG
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
These are two photos of the same reconstruction of Cheddar man but in different lighting
In the video Reich refers to him as dark but never "black" What would he say if asked I don't know. What would an Afrocentrist says if asked I don't know and one might not agree with another What you would say if asked I don't know. Doug also cited an article saying there wasn't sufficient evidence he was dark. I don't know
Cheddar man
No hair recovered, so the texture is speculation
About Stonehenge Reich says in the video:
quote: from 6000 years ago to 3000 years ago and here's the proportion of people who have ancestry from the Steppe and there's no people like that from 6,000 years ago when farming arrives to 4,500 years ago the last big stones at Stonehenge the big monument that some of you may have visited go up and is built by descendants of these first farmers and then after about 4,500 years ago before 4 400 years ago bang there's a huge migration into britain from the continent
(how to you get a transcript from a youtube? Below the video by "SAVE" are three dots, click and select "show transcript" then the chat box changes into a transcript. Another three dots above that toggles time stamps on and off) -and then you can also quote the video in the other thread on population Y
Stonehenge is dated starting around 4,500 years ago
So according to his replacement list Cheddar Man types (he is dated to around 10K) his type was 99% replaced by the "First farmers" of Iran and the Levant
Ancient genomes indicate population replacement in Early Neolithic Britain Selina Brace # 1,... Chris Stringer 1, David Reich PMID: 30988490 PMCID: PMC6520225 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-019-0871-9
2019 May
Erratum in Author Correction: Ancient genomes indicate population replacement in Early Neolithic Britain.
Abstract The roles of migration, admixture and acculturation in the European transition to farming have been debated for over 100 years. Genome-wide ancient DNA studies indicate predominantly Aegean ancestry for continental Neolithic farmers, but also variable admixture with local Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Neolithic cultures first appear in Britain circa 4000 BC, a millennium after they appeared in adjacent areas of continental Europe. The pattern and process of this delayed British Neolithic transition remain unclear. We assembled genome-wide data from 6 Mesolithic and 67 Neolithic individuals found in Britain, dating 8500-2500 BC. Our analyses reveal persistent genetic affinities between Mesolithic British and Western European hunter-gatherers. We find overwhelming support for agriculture being introduced to Britain by incoming continental farmers, with small, geographically structured levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry. Unlike other European Neolithic populations, we detect no resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry at any time during the Neolithic in Britain. Genetic affinities with Iberian Neolithic individuals indicate that British Neolithic people were mostly descended from Aegean farmers who followed the Mediterranean route of dispersal. We also infer considerable variation in pigmentation levels in Europe by circa 6000 BC.
___________________________________
and in that last line, a superficial trait inserted into the abstract, comment on skin color
Anyway he theorizes that "First farmers" of Iran and the Levant coming into Britain "British Neolithic people were mostly descended from Aegean farmers who followed the Mediterranean route of dispersal." - that they built Stonehenge and with "variation in pigmentation levels in Europe by circa 6000 BC. "
-if I am getting all this correctly
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was being sarcastic, but as you can see PPNB Farmers are the same source population as later Jewish populations...I never said the Jews built Stonehenge by the way, quit building strawmen.
When I say "black" you immediately think west african negro. I hope you understand that is not what I mean when I say black, and I hope I am not misstating anyone's position, but I don't think most afrocentrics in the past proposed a dispersal of Yoruba type people to England 10k years ago.
I don't think the Yoruba people existed as an entity 10k years ago.
quote:Early Neolithic (EN) farmers from the Aegean are clearly related to Central Anatolian farmers (Kılınç et al., 2017), but they also show affinities with Pre-Pottery Neolithic farmers of the Southern Levant (Lazaridis et al., 2016) . This suggests a common origin of all these populations prior to the westward spread of agriculture
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is interesting that in Motala in Sweden, 2000 years later than Cheddarman there was already a population with a genetic disposition for lighter hair, skin and eyes. And that was about 2000 years before the Anatolian descended farmers reached our country. The Scandinavian Hunter gatherers were a mix of Western Hunter gatherers (like Cheddar man) and Eastern hunter gatherers who may have had a genetic disposition for lighter skin.
Probably the Eastern Hunter gatherers came in two waves, at least according to some lithic evidence.
(Reconstructions and photo by Oscar Nilsson)
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
When I say "black" you immediately think west african negro. I hope you understand that is not what I mean when I say black,
what about the big hommie?
here are three "white men" obviously of Irish/English/Welsh heritage
Does Chedder look like them
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:First modern Britons had 'dark to black' skin, Cheddar Man DNA analysis reveals This article is more than 4 years old The genome of Cheddar Man, who lived 10,000 years ago, suggests that he had blue eyes, dark skin and dark curly hair
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is interesting that in Motala in Sweden, 2000 years later than Cheddarman there was already a population with a genetic disposition for lighter hair, skin and eyes. And that was about 2000 years before the Anatolian descended farmers reached our country. The Scandinavian Hunter gatherers were a mix of Western Hunter gatherers (like Cheddar man) and Eastern hunter gatherers who may have had a genetic disposition for lighter skin.
Probably the Eastern Hunter gatherers came in two waves, at least according to some lithic evidence.
(Reconstructions and photo by Oscar Nilsson)
Congrats! But Benjamin Franklin thought the Swedes were too swarthy and would contaminate the Anglo Saxon Race.
quote:Benjamin Franklin identified Swedes—along with Italians, French, and Russians—as people of a “swarthy complexion.”
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: didn't the afrocentricst polstulate that black people built stonehenge?
come on, you brought this up
I don't know what the man looked like... but according to Reich he was a Near Eastern Farmer, and that is Clyde's Kushites so that is my answer
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Congrats! But Benjamin Franklin thought the Swedes were too swarthy and would contaminate the Anglo Saxon Race.
quote:Benjamin Franklin identified Swedes—along with Italians, French, and Russians—as people of a “swarthy complexion.”
Well, probably Benjamin never visited Sweden (even if he saw several Swedes). Scandinavia, Finland and the Baltic states has the highest percentage of blond people in the world. So old Benjamin was really out there, sailing on the sea of fantasy.
Perhaps Scandinavians tan a little better than for example the English, due to a somewhat sunnier climate.
Otherwise it just shows how differently people can use words like swarthy. Here Romanis, and South Europeans are sometimes called swarthy. Also Middle Easterners.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: didn't the afrocentricst polstulate that black people built stonehenge?
come on, you brought this up
It's a reductive question.
What was Chedder Man's recent history... R.. that is more than a skin color..
what his language, what his culture, what his technology ... all of these are more important than what whas his skin color.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: didn't the afrocentricst polstulate that black people built stonehenge?
come on, you brought this up
I don't know what the man looked like../QUOTE]Cheddar man is considered a hunter gatherer
Ok ... what was his culture, language and technology all still more important thatn his skin color
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic