posted
^ What's funny is that in any given population there is generally greater diversity of maternal lineages than paternal indicating that sexual competition between males was much more intense than that between females. Speaking of which..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I still have yet to put the pieces of the puzzle together regarding early mtDNA M1 (i.e. where it went after splitting frrom mtDNA L3 and M). But after the LGM/during postglacial times, I think it's safe to say that lineages like mtDNA M1 were part of the mtDNA pool of the populations from the Maghreb to the Rift Valley. The East African portion of this metapopulation that Horners, but especially Somalis seem to have mixed with, seem to have included populations that used backed blades (note: not backed bladelets as in Egypt and the Maghreb). See quotes below of the blade (but not microlithic) industries, and note the timing coincides with the LGM and later, much like certain mtDNA M1a haplogroups:
In the Ethiopian section of the Rift Valley, the beginnings of the local blade tradition using obsidian probably go back to more than 27,000 B.P. (Gase and Street 1978: 290) and certainly to 22,675 ‡ 500 B.P. on the evidence of excavations at Lake Besaka (Clark, in press). At Laga Oda in the escarpment hills south- west of Dire Dawa, the microlithic industry, using most- ly chert, is 15.000 years old (Clark and Prince 1978).
In East Africa, there are dates in the 20,000*s B.P. for the fully microlithic industry using chert, quartz and obsidian, of backed blades, lunates and fan-shaped scrapers at Lukenya Hill (S.F. Miller, pers, com.) (Fig. 3, nos. 1-5). This locality, overlooking the Athi Plains near Nairobi in Kenya, also yielded, with a simi- lar industry, a fragmentary cranium of Modern Man dating to c. 17,700 B.P. (Gramly 1976). At Nasera, in northern Tanzania, the earliest blade industry (Layer 4) has many backed blades and outils esquillés in chert and quartz and there is an amino acid racemisation date on bone of 18,000 B.P. The same industry occurs also in Layer 5 which must, ipso facto, be even earlier (Mehlman 1977). What is probably the same industry in obsidian and chert is present in the Naisiusiu beds at the Olduvai The Microlithic Industries of Africa: Their Antiquity and Possible Economic Implications https://brill.com/edcollchap/book/9789004644472/B9789004644472_s020.xml
What I find curious is that that the clade M* has its locus in South Asia (India) whereas M1 is in East Africa (both Northeast and the Horn). Yet N1 also has a high frequency in North Africa and upstream N1 was found in the Sahara. So either M and N both originated in North Africa OR they are back-migrations from somewhere close by like Levant and Arabia. And in the Horn the second most common maternal clade there is R, especially R0.
If I recall R is derived from N, same as U with U1 also being found from North Africa to India and U6 predominantly in the Maghreb. So I am curious as to what prehistoric cultures are to be associated with these maternal founders.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26512 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What I find curious is that that the clade M* has its locus in South Asia (India) whereas M1 is in East Africa (both Northeast and the Horn). Yet N1 also has a high frequency in North Africa and upstream N1 was found in the Sahara. So either M and N both originated in North Africa OR they are back-migrations from somewhere close by like Levant and Arabia. And in the Horn the second most common maternal clade there is R, especially R0.
Insofar as M and N are descended from the African L3, it seems very probable to me that those lineages differentiated before OOA.
Right now, U6 in North Africa is what I have questions about. Would it have arrived from western Asia, southern Europe, or both, and which archaeological cultures could we correlate it with?
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Insofar as M and N are descended from the African L3, it seems very probable to me that those lineages differentiated before OOA.
Right now, U6 in North Africa is what I have questions about. Would it have arrived from western Asia, southern Europe, or both, and which archaeological cultures could we correlate it with?
That's the question I have. According to Tukuler and our old poster Explorer, U6 has a motif that makes it unique to North Africa and that other U6 haplotypes found outside that region are downstream markers at least in today's populations, but underived U6* was found in one of the 35,000 year old Peștera cu Oase remains. Similarly U1 is found from North Africa, Europe, and India. Also, Mal'ta boy was found to carry a basal form of U that has yet to be resolved.
I am just as interested in hg R.
As I recall original R* is found in around the Bab al-Mandab Straits in both Yemen and the Horn but it's highest frequency is in Soqotri.
But more to Swenet's point.
M1 (left) and U6 (right)
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26512 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Orihinally posted by Djehuti: What I find curious is that that the clade M* has its locus in South Asia (India) whereas M1 is in East Africa (both Northeast and the Horn). Yet N1 also has a high frequency in North Africa and upstream N1 was found in the Sahara. So either M and N both originated in North Africa OR they are back-migrations from somewhere close by like Levant and Arabia. And in the Horn the second most common maternal clade there is R, especially R0.
In this paper the age difference is slight but also considering other papers (e.g. the "Copernican reassessment" paper by Behar et al) the difference is pretty consistent.
mtDNA M is also not seen in European aDNA with some exceptions (see map) that can be explained via influence from Asia.
From these two peculiarities (age difference and distribution) some scenarios can be thought of where mtDNA M left Africa later with some (but not all) of its M diversity, and with a distinctly African culture (unlike mtDNA N, which seems to have left with/picked up cultures that may have been more or less indistinguishable from older OOA migrations).
In such scenarios mtDNA M1 would be African, like any other L3 mtDNAs, albeit with extreme substructure, as it's mainly found from the Maghreb to the Rift Valley and in Eurasia.
In archaeological terms, the most remarkable feature of this model lies in the claims for a rapid and abrupt evolution from these initial “Indian Middle Paleolithic” industries into the im- mediately ensuing “Indian microlithic tradition”, which appears over effectively all regions of India from at least 35–40 ka onward [in calibrated radiocarbon terms (19)]—a transformation that, according to the recently dated industrial sequences at Jwala- puram, occurred within a space of ∼3,000 y, between ∼38 and 35 ka (1–3) (Fig. 1 and Archaeology). Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Asia https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1306043110
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: This might be off-topic, but since you guys mentioned mate-guarding as a phenomenon...
I think "mate-guarding" is something a lot of heterosexual men across ethnic lines do. The White supremacist male paranoia about Black or other men of color preying on White women is the most infamous example, and it remains pervasive enough for the porn industry to pander to it with all the "cuck" porn out there, but I also know from personal experience that Black separatist men can be the same way toward White men and Black women. Trying posting a picture of a White male/Black female couple in a Black speculative-fiction fan community and you will see what I mean. Not all or even most of the Black male posters in those groups are separatists, yes, but you can't deny pro-Black spaces attract Black nationalists like meat attracts flies.
Sometimes it's not even "their" women whose honor these mate-guarding men claim to defend. I've seen Black women post comments about how some of the Black men who talk shit about Black women nonetheless target White men who date Black women, as well as Black men commenting about White men in Asian countries getting angry at them for dating Asian women, as if those White dudes thought that only they had the right to date Asian women. It's like these dudes have no qualms about dating across ethnic lines themselves but won't tolerate other dudes doing the same.
In fact, you could make an argument that some of the White supremacist men who made such a big deal about Black men preying on White women after Emancipation were inspired by White male slaveholders' treatment of their Black female slaves.
Regardless of ethnicity or culture, too many straight men in this world absolutely have a problem with being possessive toward women and territorial towards male competition, as if they were stags locking antlers and chasing each other off. It brings to mind the evolutionary psychologist claim that it's in the reproductive interest of male animals to impregnate as many females as they can while keeping away any competition. Regardless of how much credence you place in evolutionary psychology, it is an uncanny resemblance of how a lot of straight men in patriarchal cultures think.
It is something of all cultures. But it's still different in some cultures where the whole community can become involved and turn against it (and against you). I've actually been there, but I was protected because I don't live there anymore and I have family members there. So there was not going to be any funny business of ambushing me or things like that.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
a diversity of of mitochondrial DNA even going back to the Epipalaeolithic in Morocco and Algeria, a couple of R0s at Taforalt
Which Eurasian Y dna haplogroups did these Eurasian mtdna's back migrate to Africa with
quote:Primary and secondary radiations of U6 branches with different coalescence ages were tentatively correlated with different North African lithic cultures, such as the Aterian, Dabban, Iberomaurusian or Capsian; and perhaps more speculatively, with the spread of the Afroasiatic language family. The Aterian was thought to have existed between 40–20 kya but recent archaeological age determinations, based on thermal luminescence, have pushed back this period, to 90–40 kya [14-16]. As the estimated age for the whole of haplogroup U6 is around 35 kya, this removes the Aterian from consideration for association with the genetic signal for dispersal in North Africa [8,9]. However, as U6 persists in modern day African populations we can assume a maternal continuity since around 35 kya, the age of this haplogroup. This continuity has received some support from ancient DNA studies on Iberomaurusian remains, with an age around 12 kya, exhumed from the archaeological site of Taforalt in Morocco [17]. In this analysis, haplotypes tentatively assignable to haplogroups H, JT, U6 and V were identified, pointing to a local evolution of this population and a genetic continuity in North Africa. On the other hand, only one haplotype harbored the 16223 mutation, which if assigned to an L haplogroup would represent a sub-Saharan African influence of about 4%. This would equate to a frequency five times lower than that found in current Moroccan populations (20%) and would support the proposal that the penetration of sub-Saharan mtDNA lineages to North Africa mainly occurred since the beginning of the Holocene onwards
quote:The U6 haplogroup is the only sub-haplogroup within the U clade currently present in Africa, showing an increasing frequency gradient from Eastern (1.09–1.57% in Egypt) to Western North Africa (8.89% in the Magreb). A similar longitudinal gradient is present in the Southern European populations (from 0.19% in Eastern Mediterranean to 1.12% in South Spain)29,30 (Fig. 2B). The U6 haplotypes found in present-day Europeans have been attributed to African sources, mainly to the historic Moorish expansion, but also to prehistoric influence since Neolithic times29,30. Hence, PM1 is the first basal U6 haplogroup found in Europe that is not connected to recent migration from Africa.
quote:• Peştera Muierii woman is related to Europeans, but she is not a direct ancestor • Reduced diversity in Europe caused by Last Glaciation, not out-of-Africa bottleneck; no evidence for a strong affinity between Pestera Muierii 1 and Iberomaurusian. the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 (37–42 ky cal BP) also displays haplogroup N.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2731 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
In this paper the age difference is slight but also considering other papers (e.g. the "Copernican reassessment" paper by Behar et al) the difference is pretty consistent.
mtDNA M is also not seen in European aDNA with some exceptions (see map) that can be explained via influence from Asia.
From these two peculiarities (age difference and distribution) some scenarios can be thought of where mtDNA M left Africa later with some (but not all) of its M diversity, and with a distinctly African culture (unlike mtDNA N, which seems to have left with/picked up cultures that may have been more or less indistinguishable from older OOA migrations).
In such scenarios mtDNA M1 would be African, like any other L3 mtDNAs, albeit with extreme substructure, as it's mainly found from the Maghreb to the Rift Valley and in Eurasia.
In archaeological terms, the most remarkable feature of this model lies in the claims for a rapid and abrupt evolution from these initial “Indian Middle Paleolithic” industries into the im- mediately ensuing “Indian microlithic tradition”, which appears over effectively all regions of India from at least 35–40 ka onward [in calibrated radiocarbon terms (19)]—a transformation that, according to the recently dated industrial sequences at Jwala- puram, occurred within a space of ∼3,000 y, between ∼38 and 35 ka (1–3) (Fig. 1 and Archaeology). Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Asia https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1306043110
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: There are some geneticists who are claiming that L3* itself originated outside of Africa-- right next door in Arabia.
Those geneticists entire argument rests on fossils like Qafzeh/Skhul and cultures like Nubian complex with Middle Palaeolithic/Middle Stone Age techology.
For reasons I've mentioned before, I don't consider them to be in our lineage. During that time before the Upper Palaeolithic, Herto child (160ky), the Daoxin teeth from southern China (80-120ky) and Howiesonspoort (70ky) are examples of what I would consider to be in our lineage.
Omo I Omo 2 Irhoud Qafzeh Skhul Aterians Nubian Complex etc.
I would consider all to fall outside of our lineage. Though I'm sure, on testing, their descendants may carry L3. But to me, that would merely be a situation like Neanderthals being on our mtDNA tree, instead of the European (Sima de los Huesos) mtDNA tree. They aren't in our lineage, all things considered, yet these fossils are exactly what those geneticists are using. Kind of weird that they aren't even pointing to anything modern looking in Eurasia, to match with mtDNA L3, even though such modern cultures/fossils exist in Eurasia in the time period they're talking about. But what else is new with these scholars...
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
That's what those Neanderthal mtDNAs are. Neanderthals do not belong where they are in the mtDNA tree. They belong where Deniovan and Sima de los Huesos are in the mtDNA tree. So those mtDNAs preserved in Neanderthal fossils, were AMH, if not fully modern humans, who migrated OOA in the last 410ky. The Neanderthal mtDNAs preserve signs of their presence and movements in West Eurasia, much better than the archaeological artifacts they made, could ever do.
... the upper bound for the time of this putative gene flow event would be the divergence time between Neanderthal and modern human mtDNAs, here dated to 413 ka ... Deeply divergent archaic mitochondrial genome provides lower time boundary for African gene flow into Neanderthals (2017) https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16046
Unlike AMH cultural artifacts sometimes falsely attributed to Neanderthals, scholars cannot deny these mtDNAs come from a population foreign to Europe/Neanderthals. The mtDNA situation is therefore a blessing in the sense that it gives clarity on its own/speaks for itself, without needing approval or consensus from the scientific establishment dragging its feet to get the AMH story right.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: [QB] Somalis are not UNMIXED... they are East African MULATTOES who practice ENDOGAMY
A mulatto implies mixing with modern white people. The ancestry that Somali share with Eurasians largely predates white people.
Posts: 1257 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yes, the bolded makes all the difference in the world.
Here in western Europe, to get involved in those situations you have to know how to move or you might as well avoid those situations. Google 'honor killings' to see what I mean. There was one case in the US as well with an Egyptian girl and a black kid. Her father killed her and her sister and the black kid had to go into hiding). Of course, it's mostly not that dangerous, but in my experience interference is always a lurking problem. As I told my friend who is into those "off limits" girls, you can't approach this like a normal date situation because people can come up to you out of nowhere, and they may not even know her. All they know is she looks MENA and that's enough for them.
With the mixed girl there was no such issue in public because she looked like a mulatta (she looked a bit like Veil from Into the Badlands, if you want to know). This made it so I could let my guard down in public.
If you feel this is going too off topic, you can PM me your response back. I do want to know how you deal with the part about outsiders interfering.
Yea we can continue this in the PMs if you want.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Correct. It's the NE African in Horners. Probably to get the true NE African you would have to include samples like Nuerat and Natufians and you'd also get a component that is slightly different in affinity (for instance, in the fst table, Ethio-Somali is pretty interemdiate, but I don't think the properly captured NE African component would be so intermediate).
Yea I had this feeling.it was indignous Northeast African. I feel with more ancient DNA we are going to get a much clearer understanding of this ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
I still have yet to put the pieces of the puzzle together regarding early mtDNA M1 (ie where it went after splitting frrom mtDNA L3 and M). But after the LGM/during postglacial times, I think it's safe to say that lineages like mtDNA M1 were part of the mtDNA pool of the populations from the Maghreb to the Rift Valley. The East African portion of this metapopulation that Horners, but especially Somalis seem to have mixed with, seem to have included populations that used backed blades (note: not backed bladelets as in Egypt and the Maghreb). See quotes below of the blade (but not microlithic) industries, and note the timing coincides with the LGM and later, much like certain mtDNA M1a haplogroups:
In the Ethiopian section of the Rift Valley, the beginnings of the local blade tradition using obsidian probably go back to more than 27,000 B.P. (Gase and Street 1978: 290) and certainly to 22,675 ‡ 500 B.P. on the evidence of excavations at Lake Besaka (Clark, in press). At Laga Oda in the escarpment hills south- west of Dire Dawa, the microlithic industry, using most- ly chert, is 15.000 years old (Clark and Prince 1978).
In East Africa, there are dates in the 20,000*s B.P. for the fully microlithic industry using chert, quartz and obsidian, of backed blades, lunates and fan-shaped scrapers at Lukenya Hill (S.F. Miller, pers, com.) (Fig. 3, nos. 1-5). This locality, overlooking the Athi Plains near Nairobi in Kenya, also yielded, with a simi- lar industry, a fragmentary cranium of Modern Man dating to c. 17,700 B.P. (Gramly 1976). At Nasera, in northern Tanzania, the earliest blade industry (Layer 4) has many backed blades and outils esquillés in chert and quartz and there is an amino acid racemisation date on bone of 18,000 B.P. The same industry occurs also in Layer 5 which must, ipso facto, be even earlier (Mehlman 1977). What is probably the same industry in obsidian and chert is present in the Naisiusiu beds at the Olduvai The Microlithic Industries of Africa: Their Antiquity and Possible Economic Implications https://brill.com/edcollchap/book/9789004644472/B9789004644472_s020.xml
Do you have additional sources for this because I wanna do more digging on my free time.
Posts: 1909 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The problem is that a lot of this information is all over the place, and cannot be found in one paper. That paper I posted has some really nice observations, like this one:
Although some 60,000 years separate them, the backed tool forms of the Howicson's Poort Complex are the proto-types for the fully microlithic backed bladelet forms that are widely distributed in the conti- nent by 20,000 ycars ago. The Microlithic Industries of Africa: Their Antiquity and Possible Economic Implications https://brill.com/edcollchap/book/9789004644472/B9789004644472_s020.xml
which shows that Egyptian and Maghrebi Late Palaeolithic industries, seem to originate ultimately with southern African industries, just like various Sub-Saharan African industries do.
Aside from the fact that this gives a much needed backstory on Egyptian industries like the Silsilian that are of interest for other reasons (ie finding the ancestors of predynastic Egyptians), this is also ironic because the Horn industries I mentioned as possibly causing differentiation of Somalis compared to Cushitic Ethiopians (see earlier comments), seem part of a different tradition.
So, where you might expect the industries of this older (pre Luxmanda, pre Kenya pastoralists) Horn and Rift Valley population to group with Paleolithic North Africans, they don't. But they do show links with Capsian North Africans who are early holocene populations who also had important frequencies of backed blades. So Capsians could have a more direct link with East Africa, while Silsilian has links with industries from parts of Sub-Saharan Africa that never quite got established in Ethiopia and Somalia, until very late. See absence of red dots in most of what is now Ethiopia:
We see this link with Sub-Saharan Africa that apparently skipped Ethiopia, even in predynastic Egyptians using stone arrowheads that Khoisan hunter gatherers still use today (note: triangle shaped 'lunate' transverse flint arrow tip, supposedly used for concussion effect as opposed to piercing the skin).
posted
^I read that article earlier this year after having it on my reading list for years. The article basically says (or, I remember it saying) that the original classification of Kenya Capsian was overturned by later generations of researchers with different agendas (read: more PC) who lumped different and more recently excavated Kenyan LSA industries together and paid no attention to the distinguishing characteristics of the industries that originally were thought to show an increased resemblance to the Capsian.
This is part of the decline of anthropology that I've talked about many times in different threads. If you remember, I've also mentioned elsewhere that I don't pay attention to what scholars say about the Rift Valley population, as it's just another population whose affinities they've botched starting with Rightmire who claimed they resemble Bantu populations--a result he got partly because he ignored the Palaeolithic samples and studied the later holocene ones with obvious admixture. Hence my comment elsewhere that I only read Bauer and a couple of other sources when it comes to this population.
Note obvious change from the Palaeolithic to the Holocene, with the last two Holocene examples showing SSA and Eurasian (see nasal bone) influence that wasn't there during the Palaeolithic. The Elmenteita A individual is also noticeable different from the oldest samples (more negroid and other influences, although it's still recognizable as a member of this population, from this angle, while the bottom two look like they just as easily could have come from areas further north [e.g. Mesolithic Nubia and dynastic Egypt, respectively]). Despite these simple common sense observations, Rightmire thinks they fit best with Bantu population.
Compare Mesolithic Nubian below with the holocene female (Elmenteita F1) above. Compare Willey's Kopje with dynastic Egyptian (alleged descendant of Ramses II, KV5), below:
posted
^ Yeah, I got the same conclusion from the paper. I know that for decades there was a sort of controversy or debate on the term Kenyan 'Capsian' but now they're applying the term Kenyan 'Aurignacian' even though that label describes a European Paleolithic industry. I mean talk about bias, these guys have the nerve to apply a European name to an African industry and one that occurred in Sub-Sahara no less. But you're right, their grouping of different LSA cultures with later ones is what often got me confused about the whole thing.
As for Rightmire, his theory was that these people were related to Bantu speaking types like the Tutsi who have narrow, leptoprosopic faces. Though I find odd why he chose them as representative over say Cushitic or even Nilotic example like the Hema or Maasai. Those are some very interesting cranial comparisons. From memory I think the Elmenteita F1 female looks most like the Qarunian Woman, though for some reason I can no longer find the 1989 Wendorf & Schild paper with the photo of her remains.
Posts: 26512 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^If that's true, that would be better than how I remembered it. From what I remember, Rightmire was talking about southern African Bantu speakers and Nilotes, and he was saying that Bantu speakers are a better match than his Egyptian sample, while at the same time making excuses for leaving out the Palaeolithic Naivasha and Olduvai samples. The Egyptian samples in the PCAs also weren't nearly as distant from the Rift Valley samples as he's making it seem in the abstract.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rightmire 1975 is one of the more blatant examples of anthropologists pursuing pet theories and wishful thinking, and botching the reconstruction of the population affinity of important foundational populations that are relevant to ongoing issues in anthropology.
Another example where they did this, is with the Boskop population from South Africa that most people don't know about because they've been dismissed as "large Khoisan" populations and effectively wiped from the modern anthropology literature by 'anthropologists' who can't tolerate anomalous populations or findings that complicate their narratives and agendas.
Natufians are another example where the anthro assessments were botched by later generations of anthropologists, with people either saying they resembled Eurasians or Sub-Saharan Africans, even though all the early reports clearly stated that the Natufian population varied by site/region, as well as by date (e.g. the latest hunters at some sites like el Wad were more African than the older ones at the same site, as pointed out by Lawrence Angel and Coon).
Now look how Rightmire is fast talking himself out doing his job as a scientist. He can't tolerate an anomalous population, so he sees the Rift Valley population as a pesky/inconvenient wrinkle that has to be smoothed out, even if he has to do some unprecedented bs to push his own agenda through.
Rightmire outright disqualified and sidelined the 3 oldest and most important sites from consideration and from providing ANY clues about this population. His excuse is that the crania were partly warped and had missing data, but this is relatively common for fossils, and the first step is to try to reconstruct the fossils and salvage what can be salvaged. He then goes a step further and claims that these samples are "not particularly useful", even though it's really the Holocene samples he's using, that aren't particularly useful to studying this population, because they have ancestry foreign to this population.
How convenient for Rightmire that the samples he claims are "not particularly useful", are exactly the ones that are most distant to his Bantu sample, while the ones he did use, that he claims support a Bantu affinity, are all Holocene, a time we know coincides with the arrival of pastoralists from the north and farmers from the west. And even then fig 1, 2 and 3 don't support his conclusions of a lack of affinity with Egyptians, and a closer affinity with 'negro' samples, as he puts it (see fig 2, below).
Considering the fact that his own data shows that the Holocene Rift samples he uses, consistently have longer faces than Bantu samples (see table 2), and since the Holocene Rift samples do, in fact, cluster with Egyptians in fig 1, 2, and 3, Rightmire's position is basically his own word against most of the available data, including his own data.
From the Rightmire paper.
In addition to the Gamble’s Cave I1 as- semblage, there are the broken parts of a complete individual found by H. Reck at Olduvai in 1913 and also the remains from the Naivasha Railway Site described by Leakey (’42). Both skeletons are associated with Kenya Capsian tools, and the famous “Oldoway Man” from Bed V may be con- temporary with the Gamble’s Cave occu- pation, But neither find has proved par- ticularly useful, though resemblances of both to the Gamble’s Cave people have been claimed; the Olduvai burial is badly crushed, while the Naivasha skull lacks fully half its face. So, of this earlier material, the Gamble’s Cave skeletons are the best preserved, and unfortunately even these reconstructions are far from perfect. Skull number 4 has been warped somewhat, and nearly all of the base as well as a substantial portion of the facial skeleton are present only in plaster. Distortion renders this specimen quite unfit for measurement. Number 5 also lacks much of the occiput, and the missing parts have been filled in with plaster. Proper alignment of the face is thus quite difficult, and apparently one half of the maxilla has been warped back- ward toward the foramen magnum. Surely some distortion of this sort has produced the curious vertical facial profile, and the nose is also suspect. On the whole, there is rather less deformation of the vault than with number 4, but measurements of either specimen would be unreliable. Although both skulls have been called non-Negro in morphology, the evidence is certainly far from clear cut; any pronouncement of this sort is questionable by virtue of the state of the material alone. New Studies of Post-Pleistocene Human Skeletal Remains from the Rift Valley, Kenya https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330420304
posted
^ I first became familiar with Rightmire years ago in both in this forum and other blogs discussing "caucasoid" morphology in East Africa. I've read excerpts of his work in the internet and in old library books. From what I recall his theory was that leptoprospy evolved in some Sub-Saharans as essentially negroids with elongated face forms. However, the metric and especially nonmetric evidence negates this view that elongated Africans are a mere variation of "negroid". I don't doubt what you say in regards to his examples of Bantu but I've only seen the ones where he uses Tutsi types.
quote: Tutsi of Rwanda:
Head length: 198 mm
Head breadth: 147 mm
Face height: 125 mm
Face breadth: 134 mm
Nose height: 56 mm
Nose breadth: 39 mm
Relative trunk length: 49.7
Cephalic Index: 74.5
Facial Index: 92.8
Nasal Index: 69.5
Masai:
Stature: 173 cm
Head length: 194 mm
Head Breadth: 140 mm
Face Height: 121 mm
Face Breadth: 137 mm
Nose Height: 54 mm
Nose Breadth: 39 mm
Relative Trunk length: 47.7
Cephalic Index: 72.8
Facial Index: 89.0
Nasal Index: 72.0
Galla(Oromo):
Stature: 171 cm
Head length: 190 mm
Head Breadth: 147 mm
Face Height: 122 mm
Face Breadth: 133 mm
Nose Height: 53 mm
Nose Breadth: 37 mm
Relative Trunk length: 50.3
Cephalic Index: 77.6
Facial Index: 91.5
Nasal Index: 69.0
Sab Somali:
Stature: 173 cm
Head length: 194 mm
Head Breadth: 145 mm
Face Height: 119 mm
Face Breadth: 134 mm
Nose Height: 49 mm
Nose Breadth: 36 mm
Relative Trunk length: 49.7
Cephalic Index: 74.7
Facial Index: 88.5
Nasal Index: 72.8
Warsingali Somali:
Stature: 168 cm
Head length: 192 mm
Head Breadth: 143 mm
Face Height: 123 mm
Face Breadth: 131 mm
Nose Height: 52 mm
Nose Breadth: 34 mm
Relative Trunk length: 50.7
Cephalic Index: 74.5
Facial Index: 94.1
Nasal Index: 66.0
Posts: 26512 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds like you're describing Hiernaux, not Rightmire. The only sample that comes close to matching your description of Tutsis is the sample listed only as 'Rwanda'. Is this the sample you were talking about?
posted
^ LOL You're right. I must be more sleepy than I thought. The measurements come from Hiernaux, but the theory of 'Elongated Africans' does come from Rightmire.
Posts: 26512 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL You're right. I must be more sleepy than I thought. The measurements come from Hiernaux, but the theory of 'Elongated Africans' does come from Rightmire.
Hiernaux coined the term Elongated African and he just didn't limit it to East and Northeast Africans but also to Saharans like the Fulani who show the same tendency.
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I read that article earlier this year after having it on my reading list for years. The article basically says (or, I remember it saying) that the original classification of Kenya Capsian was overturned by later generations of researchers with different agendas (read: more PC) who lumped different and more recently excavated Kenyan LSA industries together and paid no attention to the distinguishing characteristics of the industries that originally were thought to show an increased resemblance to the Capsian.
This is part of the decline of anthropology that I've talked about many times in different threads. If you remember, I've also mentioned elsewhere that I don't pay attention to what scholars say about the Rift Valley population, as it's just another population whose affinities they've botched starting with Rightmire who claimed they resemble Bantu populations--a result he got partly because he ignored the Palaeolithic samples and studied the later holocene ones with obvious admixture. Hence my comment elsewhere that I only read Bauer and a couple of other sources when it comes to this population.
Note obvious change from the Palaeolithic to the Holocene, with the last two Holocene examples showing SSA and Eurasian (see nasal bone) influence that wasn't there during the Palaeolithic. The Elmenteita A individual is also noticeable different from the oldest samples (more negroid and other influences, although it's still recognizable as a member of this population, from this angle, while the bottom two look like they just as easily could have come from areas further north [e.g. Mesolithic Nubia and dynastic Egypt, respectively]). Despite these simple common sense observations, Rightmire thinks they fit best with Bantu population.
Compare Mesolithic Nubian below with the holocene female (Elmenteita F1) above. Compare Willey's Kopje with dynastic Egyptian (alleged descendant of Ramses II, KV5), below:
You have to remember that at one point in time "Bantus" were considered to have expanded from somewhere in Northern/Northeastern Africa, so it isn't contradictory to label such features that way in that line of thinking.
And most of the issues with African cranial morphology have to do with Europeans racialist approaches to human history. In that line of thinking, "races" have unique characteristics and features and any combinations of features in any population is a result of "racial mixture". It is complete nonsense, however that is where the study of crania originated in European scholarship, which is the study of race.
For example, the nasal bone you mentioned as an outlier is a perfect example of how unexpected findings become associated with racial characteristics in this case Eurasian vs African features. But this isn't unique to East Africa.
quote: Bräuer (1984) also included Iwo Eleru in a comprehensive analysis of African fossil specimens, although the calvaria was not discussed explicitly. Using principal components analysis (PCA) based on six frontal bone measurements (including arcs, chords, and subtenses), Iwo Eleru plotted closest to a cranium from Taforalt and was also similar to Jebel Ihroud 2, Naivasha and Lukenya Hill. The analysis included five individuals each from Taforalt and Afalou and a single skull from Jebel Sahaba. Bräuer and Rimbach (1990) included Iwo Eleru as part of a large series of Late Pleistocene and Early-Middle Holocene Africans for the purposes of descriptive statistical testing comparing cranial vault shape among Africans, Upper Paleolithic Europeans, and Neanderthals. However, the calvaria was not discussed explicitly and does not appear in any of the PCA output they presented.
In the same year, de Villiers and Fatti (1990) used craniometric data from a number of fossil sites throughout Africa to address questions of ‘negro’ origins. These authors used discriminant function analysis and inferential statistics to compare each fossil specimen with a series of modern African samples representing ‘negro’ and San populations. Iwo Eleru was compared with these modern samples using eight craniometric variables, and was significantly different from both male and female subsets of both modern comparative samples. Based on this result, the authors question the supposed ‘negro’ affinity of Iwo Eleru. They did not directly compare Iwo Eleru with other fossil or archaeological specimens, however.
Of course, as more and more crania have come to light in Africa going further and further back, scholars have revised their approach but those older racialist models still persist.
quote: We challenge the view that our species, Homo sapiens, evolved within a single population and/or region of Africa. The chronology and physical diversity of Pleistocene human fossils suggest that morphologically varied populations pertaining to the H. sapiens clade lived throughout Africa. Similarly, the African archaeological record demonstrates the polycentric origin and persistence of regionally distinct Pleistocene material culture in a variety of paleoecological settings. Genetic studies also indicate that present-day population structure within Africa extends to deep times, paralleling a paleoenvironmental record of shifting and fractured habitable zones. We argue that these fields support an emerging view of a highly structured African prehistory that should be considered in human evolutionary inferences, prompting new interpretations, questions, and interdisciplinary research directions.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I read that article earlier this year after having it on my reading list for years. The article basically says (or, I remember it saying) that the original classification of Kenya Capsian was overturned by later generations of researchers with different agendas (read: more PC) who lumped different and more recently excavated Kenyan LSA industries together and paid no attention to the distinguishing characteristics of the industries that originally were thought to show an increased resemblance to the Capsian.
This is part of the decline of anthropology that I've talked about many times in different threads. If you remember, I've also mentioned elsewhere that I don't pay attention to what scholars say about the Rift Valley population, as it's just another population whose affinities they've botched starting with Rightmire who claimed they resemble Bantu populations--a result he got partly because he ignored the Palaeolithic samples and studied the later holocene ones with obvious admixture. Hence my comment elsewhere that I only read Bauer and a couple of other sources when it comes to this population.
Note obvious change from the Palaeolithic to the Holocene, with the last two Holocene examples showing SSA and Eurasian (see nasal bone) influence that wasn't there during the Palaeolithic. The Elmenteita A individual is also noticeable different from the oldest samples (more negroid and other influences, although it's still recognizable as a member of this population, from this angle, while the bottom two look like they just as easily could have come from areas further north [e.g. Mesolithic Nubia and dynastic Egypt, respectively]). Despite these simple common sense observations, Rightmire thinks they fit best with Bantu population.
Compare Mesolithic Nubian below with the holocene female (Elmenteita F1) above. Compare Willey's Kopje with dynastic Egyptian (alleged descendant of Ramses II, KV5), below:
You have to remember that at one point in time "Bantus" were considered to have expanded from somewhere in Northern/Northeastern Africa, so it isn't contradictory to label such features that way in that line of thinking.
And most of the issues with African cranial morphology have to do with Europeans racialist approaches to human history. In that line of thinking, "races" have unique characteristics and features and any combinations of features in any population is a result of "racial mixture". It is complete nonsense, however that is where the study of crania originated in European scholarship, which is the study of race.
For example, the nasal bone you mentioned as an outlier is a perfect example of how unexpected findings become associated with racial characteristics in this case Eurasian vs African features. But this isn't unique to East Africa.
quote: Bräuer (1984) also included Iwo Eleru in a comprehensive analysis of African fossil specimens, although the calvaria was not discussed explicitly. Using principal components analysis (PCA) based on six frontal bone measurements (including arcs, chords, and subtenses), Iwo Eleru plotted closest to a cranium from Taforalt and was also similar to Jebel Ihroud 2, Naivasha and Lukenya Hill. The analysis included five individuals each from Taforalt and Afalou and a single skull from Jebel Sahaba. Bräuer and Rimbach (1990) included Iwo Eleru as part of a large series of Late Pleistocene and Early-Middle Holocene Africans for the purposes of descriptive statistical testing comparing cranial vault shape among Africans, Upper Paleolithic Europeans, and Neanderthals. However, the calvaria was not discussed explicitly and does not appear in any of the PCA output they presented.
In the same year, de Villiers and Fatti (1990) used craniometric data from a number of fossil sites throughout Africa to address questions of ‘negro’ origins. These authors used discriminant function analysis and inferential statistics to compare each fossil specimen with a series of modern African samples representing ‘negro’ and San populations. Iwo Eleru was compared with these modern samples using eight craniometric variables, and was significantly different from both male and female subsets of both modern comparative samples. Based on this result, the authors question the supposed ‘negro’ affinity of Iwo Eleru. They did not directly compare Iwo Eleru with other fossil or archaeological specimens, however.
Of course, as more and more crania have come to light in Africa going further and further back, scholars have revised their approach but those older racialist models still persist.
quote: We challenge the view that our species, Homo sapiens, evolved within a single population and/or region of Africa. The chronology and physical diversity of Pleistocene human fossils suggest that morphologically varied populations pertaining to the H. sapiens clade lived throughout Africa. Similarly, the African archaeological record demonstrates the polycentric origin and persistence of regionally distinct Pleistocene material culture in a variety of paleoecological settings. Genetic studies also indicate that present-day population structure within Africa extends to deep times, paralleling a paleoenvironmental record of shifting and fractured habitable zones. We argue that these fields support an emerging view of a highly structured African prehistory that should be considered in human evolutionary inferences, prompting new interpretations, questions, and interdisciplinary research directions.
What is it that you are really arguing? Are you saying the Rift Valley population dated to at least 17ky, but probably older, were Bantu? Lol. The same young Bantu population they're having difficulty finding in aDNA and bones from West Africa? And these difficult to find Bantus speakers should now be considered over Palaeolithic populations (e.g. Mesolithic Nubians, Type B, etc.) that have been confirmed as actually being dominant or at least detectable, in the palaeolithic? Keep it real please.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I read that article earlier this year after having it on my reading list for years. The article basically says (or, I remember it saying) that the original classification of Kenya Capsian was overturned by later generations of researchers with different agendas (read: more PC) who lumped different and more recently excavated Kenyan LSA industries together and paid no attention to the distinguishing characteristics of the industries that originally were thought to show an increased resemblance to the Capsian.
This is part of the decline of anthropology that I've talked about many times in different threads. If you remember, I've also mentioned elsewhere that I don't pay attention to what scholars say about the Rift Valley population, as it's just another population whose affinities they've botched starting with Rightmire who claimed they resemble Bantu populations--a result he got partly because he ignored the Palaeolithic samples and studied the later holocene ones with obvious admixture. Hence my comment elsewhere that I only read Bauer and a couple of other sources when it comes to this population.
Note obvious change from the Palaeolithic to the Holocene, with the last two Holocene examples showing SSA and Eurasian (see nasal bone) influence that wasn't there during the Palaeolithic. The Elmenteita A individual is also noticeable different from the oldest samples (more negroid and other influences, although it's still recognizable as a member of this population, from this angle, while the bottom two look like they just as easily could have come from areas further north [e.g. Mesolithic Nubia and dynastic Egypt, respectively]). Despite these simple common sense observations, Rightmire thinks they fit best with Bantu population.
Compare Mesolithic Nubian below with the holocene female (Elmenteita F1) above. Compare Willey's Kopje with dynastic Egyptian (alleged descendant of Ramses II, KV5), below:
You have to remember that at one point in time "Bantus" were considered to have expanded from somewhere in Northern/Northeastern Africa, so it isn't contradictory to label such features that way in that line of thinking.
And most of the issues with African cranial morphology have to do with Europeans racialist approaches to human history. In that line of thinking, "races" have unique characteristics and features and any combinations of features in any population is a result of "racial mixture". It is complete nonsense, however that is where the study of crania originated in European scholarship, which is the study of race.
For example, the nasal bone you mentioned as an outlier is a perfect example of how unexpected findings become associated with racial characteristics in this case Eurasian vs African features. But this isn't unique to East Africa.
quote: Bräuer (1984) also included Iwo Eleru in a comprehensive analysis of African fossil specimens, although the calvaria was not discussed explicitly. Using principal components analysis (PCA) based on six frontal bone measurements (including arcs, chords, and subtenses), Iwo Eleru plotted closest to a cranium from Taforalt and was also similar to Jebel Ihroud 2, Naivasha and Lukenya Hill. The analysis included five individuals each from Taforalt and Afalou and a single skull from Jebel Sahaba. Bräuer and Rimbach (1990) included Iwo Eleru as part of a large series of Late Pleistocene and Early-Middle Holocene Africans for the purposes of descriptive statistical testing comparing cranial vault shape among Africans, Upper Paleolithic Europeans, and Neanderthals. However, the calvaria was not discussed explicitly and does not appear in any of the PCA output they presented.
In the same year, de Villiers and Fatti (1990) used craniometric data from a number of fossil sites throughout Africa to address questions of ‘negro’ origins. These authors used discriminant function analysis and inferential statistics to compare each fossil specimen with a series of modern African samples representing ‘negro’ and San populations. Iwo Eleru was compared with these modern samples using eight craniometric variables, and was significantly different from both male and female subsets of both modern comparative samples. Based on this result, the authors question the supposed ‘negro’ affinity of Iwo Eleru. They did not directly compare Iwo Eleru with other fossil or archaeological specimens, however.
Of course, as more and more crania have come to light in Africa going further and further back, scholars have revised their approach but those older racialist models still persist.
quote: We challenge the view that our species, Homo sapiens, evolved within a single population and/or region of Africa. The chronology and physical diversity of Pleistocene human fossils suggest that morphologically varied populations pertaining to the H. sapiens clade lived throughout Africa. Similarly, the African archaeological record demonstrates the polycentric origin and persistence of regionally distinct Pleistocene material culture in a variety of paleoecological settings. Genetic studies also indicate that present-day population structure within Africa extends to deep times, paralleling a paleoenvironmental record of shifting and fractured habitable zones. We argue that these fields support an emerging view of a highly structured African prehistory that should be considered in human evolutionary inferences, prompting new interpretations, questions, and interdisciplinary research directions.
What is it that you are really arguing? Are you saying the Rift Valley population dated to at least 17ky, but probably older, were Bantu? Lol. The same young Bantu population they're having difficulty finding in aDNA and bones from West Africa? And these difficult to find Bantus speakers should now be considered over Palaeolithic populations (e.g. Mesolithic Nubians, Type B, etc.) that have been confirmed as actually being dominant or at least detectable, in the palaeolithic? Keep it real please.
I am not arguing anything other than Bantus were always presumed to originate from northern migrations into the South. Not sure how you don't know that given your knowledge of Rightmire.
quote: Palaeoanthropological evidence in Africa, especially in Western and Central Africa is very scarce and difficult to obtain. Therefore, in order to try to understand present sub-Saharan African diversity and infer past evolutionary processes, most studies in Biological Anthropology have focused on historical populations (Hiernaux 1976; Rightmire 1976; Froment 1992a; Irish 1997). However, so far, Hiernaux (1976) and Rightmire (1976) are the only ones to have attempted to address the consequences of the Bantu-speakers expansion from a biological perspective. They viewed this dispersal not only as a simple linguistic and “cultural” homogenization, but they argued that various biological and ecological parameters were probably involved in this process. In fact, they considered that this complex phenomenon initially triggered by over-population and climate change, probably proceeded irregularly with advances and reverses, assimilating partially or completely native populations. According to results suggesting a clinal variation within sub-Saharan Africa, Hiernaux (1968) viewed the Bantu-speakers expansion as a continuous wave, spread over time and space. The latter although involving several populations, resulted in a homogenization with differences left mainly due to selective pressures.
posted
I agree that those East African crania may not cluster with Bantus, but they do cluster with Bantu populations like Tutsi, and with Nilotics who both have faces that are have little to no prognathism and straight noses. These East African remains also have tropically adapted limb ratios. Where do yall say this look came from?
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am not arguing anything other than Bantus were always presumed to originate from northern migrations into the South. Not sure how you don't know that given your knowledge of Rightmire.
quote: Palaeoanthropological evidence in Africa, especially in Western and Central Africa is very scarce and difficult to obtain. Therefore, in order to try to understand present sub-Saharan African diversity and infer past evolutionary processes, most studies in Biological Anthropology have focused on historical populations (Hiernaux 1976; Rightmire 1976; Froment 1992a; Irish 1997). However, so far, Hiernaux (1976) and Rightmire (1976) are the only ones to have attempted to address the consequences of the Bantu-speakers expansion from a biological perspective. They viewed this dispersal not only as a simple linguistic and “cultural” homogenization, but they argued that various biological and ecological parameters were probably involved in this process. In fact, they considered that this complex phenomenon initially triggered by over-population and climate change, probably proceeded irregularly with advances and reverses, assimilating partially or completely native populations. According to results suggesting a clinal variation within sub-Saharan Africa, Hiernaux (1968) viewed the Bantu-speakers expansion as a continuous wave, spread over time and space. The latter although involving several populations, resulted in a homogenization with differences left mainly due to selective pressures.
I'm not familiar with Rightmire's work (that's DJ who said that). As I said to DJ, I don't read Rightmire as I consider him part of the 1970s decline of anthropology.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: I agree that those East African crania may night cluster with Bantus, but they do cluster with Bantu populations like Tutsi, and with Nilotics who both have faces that are have little to no prognathism and straight noses. These East African remains also have tropically adapted limb ratios. Where do yall say this look came from?
The problem with the anthro literature's notions about Tutsis is that it's not clear to what extent European scholars have been carefully handpicking Tutsi for anthro studies. Europeans were, after all, accused of doing exactly that (drawing attention to 'racial' differences and getting in their ear, telling them that they're part of another race).
I do agree that there is a substratum in the Tutsi population that is non-Bantu and could easily have entered not just Somalis but also Tutsis from the Rift Valley right next door. But I have seen no evidence that Tutsis as a whole can be easily distinguished from Hutu, so I'm not sure about Hiernaux measurements on living Tutsis, which seem to imply the population general looks like Paul Kagame.
As far as Nilotes, according to Becker, they seem to be in the lineage of Mesolithic Nubians.
Thirdly, the group of pre-Leiterband individuals approached the Late Pleistocene sample from Jebel Sahaba/Tushka under certain circumstances. A theory offering explanations for these findings was developed. According to this theory, the entire prehistoric population of the Wadi Howar belonged to a Saharo-Nilotic population complex. The Jebel Sahaba/Tushka population constituted an old Nilotic and the early population of the Malian Sahara a younger Saharan part of this complex. The pre-Leiterband groups probably colonised the Wadi Howar from the east, either during or soon after the original Saharo-Nilotic expansion. Unlike the pre-Leiterband groups, the Leiterband people originated somewhere west of the Wadi Howar. They entered the region in the context of a later, secondary Saharo-Nilotic expansion. In the process, the incoming Leiterband groups absorbed many members of the Wadi Howar’s older pre-Leiterband population. The increasing aridification of the Wadi Howar region ultimately forced its prehistoric inhabitants to abandon the wadi. Most of them migrated south and west. They, or groups closely related to them, probably were the ancestors of the majority of the Nilo-Saharan-speaking pastoralists of modern-day Southern Sudan and Eastern Chad. The prehistoric inhabitants of the Wadi Howar : an anthropological study of human skeletal remains from the Sudanese part of the Eastern Sahara https://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/handle/20.500.12030/2112
So, the conclusion seems unavoidable that palaeolithic Africa was very different from modern Africa, and that the Rift Valley populations don't resemble any population closely. Although it seems likely that populations related to them become widespread in NE Africa in the holocene, but after modifications, including a loss of some of their tall stature. See pic of Nabta Playa E-91-1 remains, and compare to the three Rift Valley samples that date to the palaeolithic.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Seriously the whole thing with the Tutsis stays con confusing. I read years ago that the "Cushite ancestry" is a racist Hamitic myth and they mostly Bantu. Then I read they are mostly Nilotic which explains their tall structure. And then a few years ago I read the Cushite ancestry is in fact true and that ANA has penetrated deep in that region.
Also regarding their features and ancestry.... It seems what you are saying now in that post is a bit different from our PM convo years ago. Apologies and not sure if you are comfortable addressing the convo we had about North African influenced populations. Its nothing serious but PMS are PMs for a reason and want your permission first.
Anyhow, me? I use to mostly see the Tutsis as a Great Rift Nilotic group who absorbed some Bantu admixture and was assimilated into Bantu culture. Now on Forumbiodiversity I did see some Tutsis score Cushite admixture using this DNA site. Forgot name.
And lastly can't Tutsis being "indistinguishable" from Hutu be due to the two mixing for centuries?
Posts: 1909 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The Tutsi ARE Bantu in that they speak a Bantu language-- the same one as the Hutu-- to whom are they are closest related to. That said, language and culture are different from physical population. The last time the Tutsi genomics was discussed was here. The tragic irony is that the attempted genocide of the Tutsi was based on the lie of their foreign "Hamitic" origins.
By the way
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: I agree that those East African crania may not cluster with Bantus, but they do cluster with Bantu populations like Tutsi, and with Nilotics who both have faces that are have little to no prognathism and straight noses. These East African remains also have tropically adapted limb ratios. Where do y'all say this look came from?
I think if one wants to properly assess genetic relations via crania, then nonmetric traits are the best way to go.
Speaking of which, getting back to the issue of Ethiopians and Somalis, at least for the latter case we have dental non-metric data from Irish 2020 showing the following:
The Somali position is intermediate between Southern Africans and North Africans, with the latter having more "Eurasian" autosomal affinities. The Kikuyu are intermediate between the South African samples and the West African samples, while Senegambians as a West African sample is intermediate to North African samples and other West African samples which confirm Irish’s past analyses. Past studies show that in contrast to Ethiopians, Somalis do not cluster as closely with North Africans but are marginal to them, yet their intermediate position to South Africans makes me think of a genetic study showing how many Somalis carry a substratum of hunter-gatherer ancestry associated with click-speaking groups like the Hadza.
Posts: 26512 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I know Tutsis are "Bantu" in terms of language and culture. That's completely irrelevant to my point no offense. A mixed Swahili is also "Bantu." I'm talking about genomes, which many people even on this site correlate language groups with ancestry. Hence we talk about "Cushite ancestry."
My point is that the discussions on Tutsi genome has been all over the damn place from being "no different from Hutus", " partially Nilotic stock", or a significant part of their genome being Cushite stock.
Posts: 1909 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am not arguing anything other than Bantus were always presumed to originate from northern migrations into the South. Not sure how you don't know that given your knowledge of Rightmire.
quote: Palaeoanthropological evidence in Africa, especially in Western and Central Africa is very scarce and difficult to obtain. Therefore, in order to try to understand present sub-Saharan African diversity and infer past evolutionary processes, most studies in Biological Anthropology have focused on historical populations (Hiernaux 1976; Rightmire 1976; Froment 1992a; Irish 1997). However, so far, Hiernaux (1976) and Rightmire (1976) are the only ones to have attempted to address the consequences of the Bantu-speakers expansion from a biological perspective. They viewed this dispersal not only as a simple linguistic and “cultural” homogenization, but they argued that various biological and ecological parameters were probably involved in this process. In fact, they considered that this complex phenomenon initially triggered by over-population and climate change, probably proceeded irregularly with advances and reverses, assimilating partially or completely native populations. According to results suggesting a clinal variation within sub-Saharan Africa, Hiernaux (1968) viewed the Bantu-speakers expansion as a continuous wave, spread over time and space. The latter although involving several populations, resulted in a homogenization with differences left mainly due to selective pressures.
I'm not familiar with Rightmire's work (that's DJ who said that). As I said to DJ, I don't read Rightmire as I consider him part of the 1970s decline of anthropology.
My mistake. I actually say the problem goes back to the foundations of cranial anthropology itself which was based on 'racial models'. As such, they model of African ancestry is based on the movements of racial types such as bantus, hamites, negroes, bushmen, etc. In this case, bantus basicall being nilotic pastoralists moving south. None of which actually holds up to serious studies and only worked in an insular environment of preordained notions and dogma, which began to erode after the 1970s. The bantu migration theory is something that I have never subscribed to in terms of african feature diversity.
Posts: 8913 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Personally, I don't see there being any problem. Rightmire is the problem. But some of his colleagues (see Coon in the quote below) got it right as far as the descriptive part where Rightmire totally failed. Coon correctly identifies the Rift population as being its own population, both with respect to modern Africans, palaeolithic Europeans, and with respect to what seems to be a hybrid European - N. African population (the Afalou sample). So, for me the 'racial' models work well, after taking what is useful and discarding what is not useful.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @Swenet
Seriously the whole thing with the Tutsis stays con confusing. I read years ago that the "Cushite ancestry" is a racist Hamitic myth and they mostly Bantu. Then I read they are mostly Nilotic which explains their tall structure. And then a few years ago I read the Cushite ancestry is in fact true and that ANA has penetrated deep in that region.
Also regarding their features and ancestry.... It seems what you are saying now in that post is a bit different from our PM convo years ago. Apologies and not sure if you are comfortable addressing the convo we had about North African influenced populations. Its nothing serious but PMS are PMs for a reason and want your permission first.
Anyhow, me? I use to mostly see the Tutsis as a Great Rift Nilotic group who absorbed some Bantu admixture and was assimilated into Bantu culture. Now on Forumbiodiversity I did see some Tutsis score Cushite admixture using this DNA site. Forgot name.
And lastly can't Tutsis being "indistinguishable" from Hutu be due to the two mixing for centuries?
I appreciate asking me first about private convos, but yes, you can bring it up.
In my last post I was mainly talking about not believing that Tutsis generally look like Kagame, because this is implied in the Hiernaux data. So there may have been some handpicking going on of taller Tutsis who look more like Kagame.
But my old views about Tutsis (that they have non-Bantu, Cushitic ancestry), still remains. Although today I would not ascribe it to Cushitic speakers, bc Cushitic speakers, Egyptians, Nubians, etc emerged out of holocene admixture events that reduced the stature (and facial height), that is maxed out in the Palaeolithic Rift Valley skeletal remains.
The remains of six Upper Aurignacian men have been discovered in the two colonies named. Five of these were exhumed by Leakey at Gamble’s Cave, Elementitia,*4 and the sixth is the famous Oldoway skull discovered by Reck in 1914.5° Two of the Gamble’s Cave specimens, and Oldoway, which are all masculine, consist of nearly complete skulls and long bones. The others from Gamble’s Cave are too fragmentary to be of much value.
In general, these specimens belong in the purely sapiens category, as represented by Galley Hill, Kanjera, Grimaldi, Combe Capelle, and Afalou #28. At the same time, however, they differ from all named in one important respect—they are extremely tall, with statures of 177, 179, and 180 cm., which even exceeds the Cré-Magnon and later Afalou figures, but the great stature is unaccompanied by the broad shoulders and bodily bulk of the hybrid Europeans and North Africans. The long bones are very slender, and the hands and feet small and narrow. The races of Europe https://archive.org/details/racesofeurope00coon
So, since Cushitic speakers generally not particularly tall, and since this substratum in the Tutsi population does seem to come with tall stature, direct input from the Rift Valley populations, would make more sense to me than admixture with Ethiopians.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Personally, I don't see there being any problem. Rightmire is the problem. But some of his colleagues (see Coon in the quote below) got it right as far as the descriptive part where Rightmire totally failed. Coon correctly identifies the Rift population as being its own population, both with respect to modern Africans, palaeolithic Europeans, and with respect to what seems to be a hybrid European - N. African population (the Afalou sample). So, for me the 'racial' models work well, after taking what is useful and discarding what is not useful.
I don't subscribe to those racial models, including bantu, sub saharan, negro, cushitic, hamitic, etc, because they are arbitrary and come with baggage that have nothing to do with biology. However, metric clustering of populations on a regional, global and temporal scale absolutely makes sense, but that is not 'race'. It is just plotting relationships over time of various human biological characteristics to see patterns and trends based on local evolution and migration. As such, biological functioning involving mutations and emergence of various traits cannot be subscribed to any one population at one time or any particular place, which is the problem with what I am calling the 'racial' model of anthropology, which has always caused more problems than it solved in my book. The issue is in separating the wheat from the chaff when in reality the underlying ideology and mentality leading to models of human biology is the core problem. And partly because of this reinterpretation of these models over time the other problem becomes language as when you say "bantu" it may have different meanings to different people.
But that is neither here nor there I am not trying to bog down this thread with that side discussion, other than to say you must frame those older works in the context of the time and models they were working under.
Posts: 8913 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Personally, I don't see there being any problem. Rightmire is the problem. But some of his colleagues (see Coon in the quote below) got it right as far as the descriptive part where Rightmire totally failed. Coon correctly identifies the Rift population as being its own population, both with respect to modern Africans, palaeolithic Europeans, and with respect to what seems to be a hybrid European - N. African population (the Afalou sample). So, for me the 'racial' models work well, after taking what is useful and discarding what is not useful.
When you said Coon got it right, what do you mean by that? Explain
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet Thanks for answering. And yes based on seeing many Rwandans irl whether here in the states or on the continent the average does NOT look like Paul Kagame. But yea I remember on Forumbiodiverity you arguing against a Somali troll the the indignous Cushites in the Horn were NOT tall... I forgot how the argument went.
But on another note, Tutsis aren't really unique as many people make them because this type of non-Bantu ancestry can be found across different "Bantu" ethnic groups in East Africa including the Kikuyu in Kenya.
Posts: 1909 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
What I mean is I agree with his descriptive statements, but not necessarily his interpretations of what they mean in the bigger scheme of population affinity. (Although Coon said the "Mediterranean race" originated in the Levant or Africa, so I might be in agreement with him in some of his interpretations as well [although for the record, I do not believe this population originated in the Levant]).
What do you want me to say. You want me to apologize for agreeing with Coon on this population?
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Swenet Thanks for answering. And yes based on seeing many Rwandans irl whether here in the states or on the continent the average does NOT look like Paul Kagame. But yea I remember on Forumbiodiverity you arguing against a Somali troll the the indignous Cushites in the Horn were NOT tall... I forgot how the argument went.
But on another note, Tutsis aren't really unique as many people make them because this type of non-Bantu ancestry can be found across different "Bantu" ethnic groups in East Africa including the Kikuyu in Kenya.
I know because I have seen some rare genetic work on Tutsis. A related population, the Hema, was also included in some DNA Tribes reports. Their non-Bantu is too small IMO to give the measurements Hiernaux listed. So I suspect he may have handpicked Tutsis to make a point about this African phenotype.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Swenet Thanks for answering. And yes based on seeing many Rwandans irl whether here in the states or on the continent the average does NOT look like Paul Kagame. But yea I remember on Forumbiodiverity you arguing against a Somali troll the the indignous Cushites in the Horn were NOT tall... I forgot how the argument went.
But on another note, Tutsis aren't really unique as many people make them because this type of non-Bantu ancestry can be found across different "Bantu" ethnic groups in East Africa including the Kikuyu in Kenya.
I know because I have seen some rare genetic work on Tutsis. A related population, the Hema, was also included in some DNA Tribes reports. Their non-Bantu is too small IMO to give the measurements Hiernaux listed. So I suspect he may have handpicked Tutsis to make a point about this African phenotype.
He handpicked Tutsis? Thats a stretch and there's no evidence for that.
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
What do you think this is. You think this is not handpicking (for illustrative purposes)? I hope you're not the only one who thought these were picked at random, all these years...
And yes, we have some evidence that handpicking has been going on in anthropology. Nothing new.
Nagada crania were most similar to Nubian and Tigrean (Ethiopian) series. Nutter (19581, using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Na- gada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nu- bian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded “clear negro” crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Mo- rant (19251, implying that they were for- eign. Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa https://www.academia.edu/29592422/Studies_of_ancient_crania_from_northern_Africa
This is not necessarily unethical, but they need to acknowledge that they did it, and explain how it benefits the analysis.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Personally, I don't see there being any problem. Rightmire is the problem. But some of his colleagues (see Coon in the quote below) got it right as far as the descriptive part where Rightmire totally failed. Coon correctly identifies the Rift population as being its own population, both with respect to modern Africans, palaeolithic Europeans, and with respect to what seems to be a hybrid European - N. African population (the Afalou sample). So, for me the 'racial' models work well, after taking what is useful and discarding what is not useful.
I don't subscribe to those racial models, including bantu, sub saharan, negro, cushitic, hamitic, etc, because they are arbitrary and come with baggage that have nothing to do with biology. However, metric clustering of populations on a regional, global and temporal scale absolutely makes sense, but that is not 'race'. It is just plotting relationships over time of various human biological characteristics to see patterns and trends based on local evolution and migration. As such, biological functioning involving mutations and emergence of various traits cannot be subscribed to any one population at one time or any particular place, which is the problem with what I am calling the 'racial' model of anthropology, which has always caused more problems than it solved in my book. The issue is in separating the wheat from the chaff when in reality the underlying ideology and mentality leading to models of human biology is the core problem. And partly because of this reinterpretation of these models over time the other problem becomes language as when you say "bantu" it may have different meanings to different people.
But that is neither here nor there I am not trying to bog down this thread with that side discussion, other than to say you must frame those older works in the context of the time and models they were working under.
The loose racial categorization served it's purpose as being a short hand way to describe in detail what people were observing. Retroactively characterizing modern populations via relatedness as pigeon holing their affinities are separate issues. "Just because he/she is black doesn't mean they're negroid" -isms are newer problems which was unnecessarily conflated with anthro-terminology. With that being said, I don't fully see how the Bantu become relevant in these contexts as they weren't even a part of the Archaeological record dating that far back and the majority of their markers are quite recent in founding and distribution. See E-V3224Posts: 1793 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds to me like Rightmire couldn't imagine a population with non-"Negroid" morphology living in East Africa during the Pleistocene. I noticed that, in the excerpt Swenet posted, he dismisses the Paleolithic specimens' "curious vertical facial profile" and "suspect noses" as the product of post-mortem warping, as if populations with that morphology could not have been living in that part of Africa then. I wonder what he would have made of the Hofmeyr specimen when it turned out to show stronger affinities to UP Europeans than to modern SSA?
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Swenet Thanks for answering. And yes based on seeing many Rwandans irl whether here in the states or on the continent the average does NOT look like Paul Kagame. But yea I remember on Forumbiodiverity you arguing against a Somali troll the the indignous Cushites in the Horn were NOT tall... I forgot how the argument went.
But on another note, Tutsis aren't really unique as many people make them because this type of non-Bantu ancestry can be found across different "Bantu" ethnic groups in East Africa including the Kikuyu in Kenya.
I know because I have seen some rare genetic work on Tutsis. A related population, the Hema, was also included in some DNA Tribes reports. Their non-Bantu is too small IMO to give the measurements Hiernaux listed. So I suspect he may have handpicked Tutsis to make a point about this African phenotype.
Do you think he could've had an agenda? Especially considering the "Hamitic" controversy surrounding the Tutsi origins? And yea I know about the Hema and many like them. Like I said many non-Horn East Africans(not all) from the Lake Kivu region all the way to Tanzania have that pseudo look. Heck not all Bantus in general look the same.
But yea I don't think it was Cushites(especially Ethiopians) who bought this diversity directly to the Kivu region. You can correct me.
Posts: 1909 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^If Hiernaux had a bias, I don't think it was an anti-African bias, because he's known for correcting his colleagues about African variation.
If you look at Kagame's family members, they do have that standout look that some people think all Tutsis have. In the same way that Obama's family members (ie his daughters) look more East African than African Americans do. So maybe Hiernaux sampled a group of Tutsi families like Kagame's family.
Kagame and his wife in the middle.
I don't know how else to explain why the Tutsi sample gives bigger values compared to the Horners and Masai (bigger head measurements implies the Tutsi individuals measured were a bit on the taller side), and why the Tutsi measurements don't seem intermediate. This would only make sense if Hiernaux picked individuals who are throwbacks to the non-Bantu phenotypes that are elevated in Tutsis.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: It sounds to me like Rightmire couldn't imagine a population with non-"Negroid" morphology living in East Africa during the Pleistocene. I noticed that, in the excerpt Swenet posted, he dismisses the Paleolithic specimens' "curious vertical facial profile" and "suspect noses" as the product of post-mortem warping, as if populations with that morphology could not have been living in that part of Africa then. I wonder what he would have made of the Hofmeyr specimen when it turned out to show stronger affinities to UP Europeans than to modern SSA?
That's exactly what I think he's doing. Even the Kenya Capsian industry has been relegated to the local LSA/Eburran as part of this 1970s revisionism that Rightmire was a part of.
Then you have people like blogger Perahu who claim the Rift Valley populations are Cushitic arrivals, even though Olduvai is 17ky old. It's funny how some archaeological cultures are targeted by hordes of ignorant people who spread so much misinformation that laypeople can't find their way anymore. It's the Kenyan equivalent of Egyptomania.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yeah, at least Dienekes was more accurate and honest about 'prehistoric East African Caucasoids' and that they had dark skin instead of the 'fair & lovely' types that Perahu likes to pass off as original or proto-Cushitic types! LOLPosts: 26512 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^What level of pigmentation do you think they could have had?
---------------
I just reread the paper. Earlier I said this
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I read that article earlier this year after having it on my reading list for years. The article basically says (or, I remember it saying) that the original classification of Kenya Capsian was overturned by later generations of researchers with different agendas (read: more PC) who lumped different and more recently excavated Kenyan LSA industries together and paid no attention to the distinguishing characteristics of the industries that originally were thought to show an increased resemblance to the Capsian.
This is still mostly correct, but the emphasis is wrong. It's true that the Eburran is the work of later generations with PC agendas in which there was no place for linking cultures separated by great distance (ie in the 1970s and 1980s it became unacceptable to link the Capsian with the Kenya Capsian industries and only local relationships were considered):
The aims of the researchers had also changed by this time, and, unlike Leakey, they took a microevolutionary approach to studying LSA industries: not broadly within East Africa as a whole, but specifically within localised areas. The Current Status of the Kenya Capsian https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10437-016-9211-5
Following the claims of many, including bloggers and academics, I thought that the name change reflected more precision and a move away from considering Capsian affinities. Based on this, I thought that the Eburran portion of what used to be Kenya Capsian, is now considered to be closer to LSA industries elsewhere in Africa, while the remaining industries, like the Kenya Capsian C found with Olduvai in Tanzania, where there is no Eburran, would still be Kenya Capsian, by default:
In some cases it is possible to identify a corresponding Eburran phase for a Kenya Capsian site – particularly for those that lie within the Nakuru- Naivasha Basin, but the reality is that the majority of Kenya Capsian sites do not equate with a phase within the Eburran. The two industries are not comparable, as the Eburran industry is only a portion of the Kenya Capsian. In essence, Ambrose and colleagues recognised that Leakey’s classification system could not encapsulate the variation observed in LSA stone tools across East Africa, but instead of addressing and redefining the Kenya Capsian as a whole, they dealt only with a small portion of it. The Current Status of the Kenya Capsian https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10437-016-9211-5
But, contrary to the claims of various commentators, the name change of some of the industries, from Kenya Capsian to Eburran, doesn't seem to be material to the question of whether the links with the N. African Capsian are still valid. Somehow I missed this before (or I forgot), but both the Eburran and the Kenya Capsian are mode 4 + 5, with a strong backed blade component.
The Kenya Aurignacian was the name given by Louis Leakey to a Late Pleistocene-Holocene, East African Mode 4-5 blade-based microlithic technology. The in- dustry, amongst others, was outlined as part of a frame- work for Kenyan stone-tool technologies in The Stone Age Cultures of Kenya Colony (Leakey 1931). The Current Status of the Kenya Capsian https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10437-016-9211-5
So, I allowed myself to be taken for a ride, buying into a distinction that is immaterial to the relationships. After all, why would this mode 4 + 5 affinity change, with different internal organizations within the Kenya Capsian, created by different research groups with different agendas? That would be like saying water is fundamentally different from water vapor because its molecules are organized differently.
What these studies did was to identify and define a single industrial entity, one strand of many that were encapsulated within the Kenya Capsian name, and to recognise it as an industry in its own right, different from other tool technologies that had previously been included ensemble under the Kenya (East African) Capsian umbrella. The situation is further exacerbated because the entity that was chosen as the basis for the Eburran definition had previously formed the original core of the Kenya Capsian: the obsidian industries of the Nakuru-Naivasha Basin, which include all of the type sites for the phases of the Kenya Capsian The Current Status of the Kenya Capsian https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10437-016-9211-5
Not sure why it took me this long to realize that this is basically a cosmetic change. These changing tides in the academic establishment and differences in agendas between different generations who choose to ignore or accept wider regional relationships, doesn't have anything to do with me, nor does it change anything about the affinities between these mode 4 + 5 industries and their counterparts elsewhere in Africa.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic