posted
This is article may be of some interest. Especially this tidbit regarding her features:
quote:"Jensen was surprised by the quality of the DNA pulled from the pitch, but he was equally amazed by the story embedded within. Lola, whose age could not be determined, had blue eyes, dark hair, and dark skin. Fascinatingly, her lineage was traced to mainland Europe and not central Scandinavia.
“Lola’s features were common amongst individuals of Western Hunter-Gatherers, who lived in central Europe at that time and beyond,” said Jensen.
As the authors noted in the study, dark skin has been documented before in other European hunter-gathers, “suggesting that this [trait] was widespread in Mesolithic Europe and that the adaptive spread of light skin pigmentation in European populations only occurred later in prehistory"
posted
I notice that too when punos created this thread and it's interesting the depiction of the girls is mulatto like so I wonder how accurate the reconstruction is.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could be the lighting, but I think the artist was a bit too "conservative" with the reconstructed character's skin tone. Except for her hands, she still appears to be on the paler end of the spectrum. If somebody were to reconstruct an ancient Egyptian personage with her skin tone, I and most people here would reject it as more of the same.
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: [QB] I notice that too when punos created this thread
you also noticed they are calling something a "reconstruction" and based it solely on a piece of ancient chewing gum with DNA in it?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: It could be the lighting, but I think the artist was a bit too "conservative" with the reconstructed character's skin tone. Except for her hands, she still appears to be on the paler end of the spectrum. If somebody were to reconstruct an ancient Egyptian personage with her skin tone, I and most people here would reject it as more of the same.
nowadays, they wouldn't reconstruct an A.Egyptian to remotely resemble this girl. They save all that psuedo-biracial ambiguity for their Stoneage ancestors. The one good thing I can say about this example of romanticism/ borderline revisionist art depiction, is that at the very least she doesn't look contemporary African as they tend to make their Mesolithic ancestors look. She looks somewhat Australoid, which imo is more inline with they(Mesoeuros) probably looked, but still, making folks so old just resemble another group of people because of perceived primitive or Ancestral features seem short sided.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
"She looks somewhat Australoid, which imo is more inline with they(Mesoeuros) probably looked,"
At least we agree on this. You are stealing my ideas again.
Keeping in mind La Brana genetic profile was black like Melanesians and not black like modern Africans
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brings to mind that old thread by Sage or someone- are all blacks Africans?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: nowadays, they wouldn't reconstruct an A.Egyptian to remotely resemble this girl. They save all that psuedo-biracial ambiguity for their Stoneage ancestors.
1)Why do they save all that psuedo-biracial ambiguity for their Stoneage ancestors ?
2) If the above reconstruction of a 5,700 year old girl from Denmark is pseudo do you have a depiction of a person that you consider less psuedo
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
A 5700 year-old human genome and oral microbiome from chewed birch pitch
Theis Z. T. Jensen, et al
Abstract
The rise of ancient genomics has revolutionised our understanding of human prehistory but this work depends on the availability of suitable samples. Here we present a complete ancient human genome and oral microbiome sequenced from a 5700 year-old piece of chewed birch pitch from Denmark. We sequence the human genome to an average depth of 2.3× and find that the individual who chewed the pitch was female and that she was genetically more closely related to western hunter-gatherers from mainland Europe than hunter-gatherers from central Scandinavia. We also find that she likely had dark skin, dark brown hair and blue eyes. In addition, we identify DNA fragments from several bacterial and viral taxa, including Epstein-Barr virus, as well as animal and plant DNA, which may have derived from a recent meal. The results highlight the potential of chewed birch pitch as a source of ancient DNA. _____________________________________
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: 1)Why do they save all that psuedo-biracial ambiguity for their Stoneage ancestors ?
2) If the above reconstruction of a 5,700 year old girl from Denmark is pseudo do you have a depiction of a person that you consider less psuedo [/QB]
1) I don't know why.
2) I don't understand this question; are you asking me to provide examples of non contemporary African or mixed looking ancient Europeans? cuz my wordage was "psuedo-biracial." I haven't even gone round to critiquing the fact that they have no physical remains to base their depictions.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't the Ceddar Hill dude depicted as dark with blue eyes from the UK also? Being shown as a mulatta/morena/redbone yet Euros show much racism towards dark folks of any nationality leads one to think they know white folks invaded Europe eons ago.
Nigeria & Cameroon have people born there with blue eyes so its not only in white dna.
-------------------- Tehutimes Posts: 115 | From: north america | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: 1)Why do they save all that psuedo-biracial ambiguity for their Stoneage ancestors ?
2) If the above reconstruction of a 5,700 year old girl from Denmark is pseudo do you have a depiction of a person that you consider less psuedo
1) I don't know why.
2) I don't understand this question; are you asking me to provide examples of non contemporary African or mixed looking ancient Europeans? cuz my wordage was "psuedo-biracial." I haven't even gone round to critiquing the fact that they have no physical remains to base their depictions. [/QB]
Apart from the fact they are calling something a "reconstruction" that is based on no skull fragments only DNA Apart from that you used this term "pseudo-biracial" or fake biracial That sounds kind of offensive
If multi millions of modern Europeans and many Asians are light skinned today and their ancestors were ultimately African then there would have been people appearing "in between" phases of such transition nothing "biracial" about it
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tehutimes: Isn't the Ceddar Hill dude depicted as dark with blue eyes from the UK also? Being shown as a mulatta/morena/redbone yet Euros show much racism towards dark folks of any nationality leads one to think they know white folks invaded Europe eons ago.
Nigeria & Cameroon have people born there with blue eyes so its not only in white dna.
You need to check details before assuming
This chewing gum that they based this girl reconstruction on was found in Denmark dated 5,700 years old
Cheddar man is from England dated 9,100 BP years ago
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Interesting turn of events. Seems some of the folks involved in the reconstruction are doubting if it is possible to determine skin color from ancient DNA. Obviously this has implications across the board when trying to understand when and how major phenotype changes, such as skin color took place.
quote: There's no way to know that the first Briton had ‘dark to black skin’ says scientist who helped reconstruct his 10,000-year-old face
The bones are the oldest near-complete human skeleton ever found in Britain Experts tested DNA taken from bone powder by drilling a hole through the skull It showed there was a 76 per cent chance that Cheddar Man was ‘dark to black’ Scientist behind the test used says it is impossible to be certain of this fact
Cheddar man may not have been 'dark to black skinned' after all.
Last month, researchers claimed that they had been able to accurately reconstruct the face of the 'first Brit' based on his DNA - and sensationally revealed he had black skin and blue eyes.
But now, one of the main scientists who helped create the reconstruction of his 10,000-year-old face says he may not have been black at all.
Geneticist Susan Walsh at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, says we simply don't know his skin colour.
While her computer model shows being black is his 'probable profile', DNA testing is not advanced enough to say for certain.
.... A team of experts, including Professor Walsh, recently created a computer model that tries to predict a person's skin pigmentation, hair and eye colour, purely from their genes.
The test focused on 36 points of comparison in 16 genes, which are all linked to skin colour.
Dr Walsh and her colleagues analysed genetic data taken from more than 1,400 people.
They were mainly from Europe and the US, but also included people from Africa and Papua New Guinea.
....
The rest of the data was used to test how well the model could predict skin colour from DNA alone.
The model came up with 'black' or 'dark black' skin for Cheddar Man based on his DNA.
Some, particularly on the far-right, have questioned whether there was a political agenda behind the claims.
Dr Walsh believes that the tests can't prove Cheddar Man's skin colour and that his DNA may have degraded over the past 10,000 years.
Speaking to New Scientist, she said: 'It’s not a simple statement of "this person was dark-skinned".
'It is his most probable profile, based on current research.'
posted
3,400 years difference, read a Cheddar Man article, saw a video on a descendant who's stereotypically west European white in appearance, their mitochondrial DNAs were different cool. Computers do many tasks but Tacitus noted many ancient UK tribals were dark complexioned with unusally curly black hair. Tacitus 56 ce. to 120 ce. Ah what do the computer algorithims say about dark complected Euros of 2,000 yrs ago?
-------------------- Tehutimes Posts: 115 | From: north america | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tehutimes: 3,400 years difference, read a Cheddar Man article, saw a video on a descendant who's stereotypically west European white in appearance, their mitochondrial DNAs were different cool. Computers do many tasks but Tacitus noted many ancient UK tribals were dark complexioned with unusally curly black hair. Tacitus 56 ce. to 120 ce. Ah what do the computer algorithims say about dark complected Euros of 2,000 yrs ago?
"dark" is a relative term. For example some British people in the early 1700's sometimes referred people who would be called "white" today as "black complexioned" even though paintings of some of them showed they were just slightly less than pale. That is not to say their were also Africans there. It is to show that "black" could mean Africans or it could mean a person less than pale who would be regarded as white or Caucasian today
America is 13.4% black according to the U.S. census that is a much greater than Britain in the 1700s. So "dark" could mean any of a range of skin tones that were darker than the majority.
Similarly you can't use a Tacitus quote to precisely indicate a particular skin tone
quote: Tacitus: Agricola, chap. 11. , The Life of Cnæus Julius Agricola
Who were the original inhabitants of Britain, whether they were indigenous or foreign, is, as usual among barbarians, little known. Their physical characteristics are various and from these conclusions may be drawn. The red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia point clearly to a German origin. The dark complexion of the Silures, their usually curly hair, and the fact that Spain is the opposite shore to them, are an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts. Those who are nearest to the Gauls are also like them, either from the permanent influence of original descent, or, because in countries which run out so far to meet each other, climate has produced similar physical qualities. But a general survey inclines me to believe that the Gauls established themselves in an island so near to them. Their religious belief may be traced in the strongly-marked British superstition. The language differs but little; there is the same boldness in challenging danger, and, when it is near, the same timidity in shrinking from it. The Britons, however, exhibit more spirit, as being a people whom a long peace has not yet enervated. Indeed we have understood that even the Gauls were once renowned in war; but, after a while, sloth following on ease crept over them, and they lost their courage along with their freedom. This too has happened to the long-conquered tribes of Britain; the rest are still what the Gauls once were.
The part you left out in the Tacitus quote above is that he is describing a particular group, the Silures as different from another red haired group He believed might have been of Germanic origin and that he believed the Silures might have been migrants from Iberia
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: LOL. There are no craniometrics--bones--so this is just make believe. You can't tell physical features from DNA
As for skin and eyes the HIrisPlex-S system was used but it has been questioned for accuracy
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
For real! But they can tell pigmentation....I think. Since they still are not getting it right with which genes or sets of genes are responsible for pigmentation
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: LOL. There are no craniometrics--bones--so this is just make believe. You can't tell physical features from DNA
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Apart from the fact they are calling something a "reconstruction" that is based on no skull fragments only DNA Apart from that you used this term "pseudo-biracial" or fake biracial That sounds kind of offensive
If multi millions of modern Europeans and many Asians are light skinned today and their ancestors were ultimately African then there would have been people appearing "in between" phases of such transition nothing "biracial" about it [/QB]
Lola isn't biracial.... So making her look so would be done with creative freedom. Hence pseudo-biracial. She is classified as a Western European hunter gatherer. Not a Mixed African. Yes populations ultimately came from Africa, but that doesn't mean Evolution within Africa was halted since. What's actually offensive is making preneolithic Huntergatherers resemble Modern Africans with a tinge of Modern European. Granted this example isn't that bad, but there's been a recent pattern of artists creating modern African-looking reconstructions of Stone age Europeans... This is a very misguided approach to visualizing the human past.
You guys have been looking at Craniometrics and morphological studies for decades. You know for a fact that WHG don't morphologically resemble Modern Africans. This transition you're referring to happened between a population which no longer exists to a later European population which no longer exist but is ironically more related to modern Africans; Early European farmers... There's no modern Bantu, Afram, or even PNG involved, so why model them as such?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Lola isn't biracial.... So making her look so would be done with creative freedom. Hence pseudo-biracial. She is classified as a Western European hunter gatherer. Not a Mixed African.
These Europeans are at it again, first they try to whitenize, then do a 180 and try to blackenize
posted
Sometimes you speak from the both sides of your mouth, Other times you are bang on. Makes me think you are not sure what you believe and your are just winging it. Finger in the mouth then in the air......
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lola isn't biracial .AGREED!
.... So making her look so would be done with creative freedom. .AGREED!
Hence pseudo-biracial. She is classified as a Western European hunter gatherer. Not a Mixed African. .AGREED!
Yes populations ultimately came from Africa, but that doesn't mean Evolution within Africa was halted since. .AGREED!
What's actually offensive is making preneolithic Huntergatherers resemble Modern Africans with a tinge of Modern European. Granted this example isn't that bad, but there's been a recent pattern of artists creating modern African-looking reconstructions of Stone age Europeans... .AGREED!
This is a very misguided approach to visualizing the human past. .AGREED!
You guys have been looking at Craniometrics and morphological studies for decades. .AGREED!
You know for a fact that WHG don't morphologically resemble Modern Africans. .AGREED!
This transition you're referring to happened between a population which no longer exists to a later European population which no longer exist but is ironically more related to modern Africans; .AGREED!
Early European farmers... .AGREED!
There's no modern Bantu, Afram, or even PNG involved, so why model them as such? [/QB][/QUOTE]
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
quote:Lola isn't biracial.... So making her look so would be done with creative freedom. Hence pseudo-biracial. She is classified as a Western European hunter gatherer. Not a Mixed African. Yes populations ultimately came from Africa, but that doesn't mean Evolution within Africa was halted since. What's actually offensive is making preneolithic Huntergatherers resemble Modern Africans with a tinge of Modern European. Granted this example isn't that bad, but there's been a recent pattern of artists creating modern African-looking reconstructions of Stone age Europeans... This is a very misguided approach to visualizing the human past.
You guys have been looking at Craniometrics and morphological studies for decades. You know for a fact that WHG don't morphologically resemble Modern Africans. This transition you're referring to happened between a population which no longer exists to a later European population which no longer exist but is ironically more related to modern Africans; Early European farmers... There's no modern Bantu, Afram, or even PNG involved, so why model them as such?
How so? I get that Prehistoric Europeans were physically distinct in one way or another from Sub-Saharan Africans, but most of morphological studies that I have reviewed and I assume that you have reviewed too, indicate that Paleolithic Europeans contained some physical characteristics that are commonly associated with Sub-Saharan Africans. Also, your exaggerating Western European Hunter Gatherers phenotype, as if they were just one static entity. Early Western Europeans, that is Western Europeans of the Upper Paleolithic, were quite different from Western Europeans during the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras. Again, European Hunter Gatherers across Prehistory we’re not a monolithic population. Just like with any population, they had a diverse range of physical variation, that would be similar to populations South of the Sahara or more correctly with Black populations outside of Africa. Those Hunter Gatherers of the Upper Paleolithic obviously contained some Sub-Saharan elements, compared to their later counterparts of the Mesolithic and Neolithic. So, given that this is the case, would it be more appropriate to portray Upper Paleolithic Europeans as “Black”, instead the Mesolithic and Neolithic? I only ask this because we can see Sub-Saharan African characteristics visible among the “first” Homo Sapien Sapien settlers of Europe, but not at all apparent among indigenous Europeans of the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras. To me, the portrait of the girl is far fetched, given that the Hunter Gatherer lived over 5,700 years ago, this date alone, is far off and clearly needs to be readdressed. To me, I think the girl should have been portrayed much lighter and her features should correlate similarly with modern Europeans. The entire reconstruction of the girl would most likely correlate with how Prehistoric Europeans looked, if she lived over 27,000 years ago, but certainly not 5,700 years ago, for the sake of accuracy. Despite, the reconstruction is pretty good. It’s almost realistic and show the aliveness of the girl. Besides that, it’s hilarious, basically the reconstruction is slap in the face to Whites, since they are usually the ones who are offended by this “black-wash”, as they say. I sincerely doubt that this should even concerned Black people in the slightest, although it is annoying to see Stone Age Europeans as Black and Ancient North Africans as White.
Posts: 331 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: Apart from the fact they are calling something a "reconstruction" that is based on no skull fragments only DNA Apart from that you used this term "pseudo-biracial" or fake biracial That sounds kind of offensive
If multi millions of modern Europeans and many Asians are light skinned today and their ancestors were ultimately African then there would have been people appearing "in between" phases of such transition nothing "biracial" about it
Lola isn't biracial.... So making her look so would be done with creative freedom. Hence pseudo-biracial. She is classified as a Western European hunter gatherer. Not a Mixed African. Yes populations ultimately came from Africa, but that doesn't mean Evolution within Africa was halted since. What's actually offensive is making preneolithic Huntergatherers resemble Modern Africans with a tinge of Modern European. Granted this example isn't that bad, but there's been a recent pattern of artists creating modern African-looking reconstructions of Stone age Europeans... This is a very misguided approach to visualizing the human past.
quote: You guys have been looking at Craniometrics and morphological studies for decades. You know for a fact that WHG don't morphologically resemble Modern Africans. This transition you're referring to happened between a population which no longer exists to a later European population which no longer exist but is ironically more related to modern Africans; Early European farmers... There's no modern Bantu, Afram, or even PNG involved, so why model them as such? [/QB]
.
You don't know what you're talking about. Archaeology makes it clear these people came from Africa. So they were Africans. In fact they were Kushites. It is sad that people prefer a lie as long as it is made by Europeans.
Genetics is just a descriptive science. Archaeology and craniometrics tell us a people's culture and race, respectively.The archaeology makes it clear that the Hunters of Europe crossed Gibratal to enter Britain and Iberia; while the Kushites took the Neolithic agro-pastoral culture into Europe.
The truth will set you free. Aluta continua..... .
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Whites did not enter Europe until after 1700 BC, from Central Asia.
Why do you guys continue to support the myth whites were in Europe prior to 1700 BC when they spread out of Central Asia, all the way to Egypt as the people of the Sea?
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
For craniometric guys. Isn't it true that paleolithic Europeans resemble south Africans of the same period which were unlike modern Africans?
"The Hofmeyr Skull is a specimen of a 36,000 year old human skull that was found in 1952 near Hofmeyr, South Africa. It is one of a very few anatomically modern human skulls that have been discovered on the continent which have been dated to over 20,000 years old."
"The Hofmeyr Skull has been dated to around 36,000 years ago. Osteological analysis of the cranium by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology indicates that the specimen is morphologically distinct from recent groups in Subequatorial Africa, including the local Khoisan populations. The Hofmeyr fossil instead has a very close affinity with other Upper Paleolithic skulls from Eurasia. Some scientists have interpreted this relationship as being consistent with the Out-of-Africa theory, which hypothesizes that at least some Upper Paleolithic human groups in Africa and Eurasia should morphologically resemble each other.[5] A piece of parietal bone (surgically removed) will be sent to Professor Eske Willerslev in Copenhagen for ancient DNA analysis.[6]"
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baalberith: How so? I get that Prehistoric Europeans were physically distinct in one way or another from Sub-Saharan Africans, but most of morphological studies that I have reviewed and I assume that you have reviewed too, indicate that Paleolithic Europeans contained some physical characteristics that are commonly associated with Sub-Saharan Africans. Also, your exaggerating Western European Hunter Gatherers phenotype, as if they were just one static entity. Early Western Europeans, that is Western Europeans of the Upper Paleolithic, were quite different from Western Europeans during the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras. Again, European Hunter Gatherers across Prehistory we’re not a monolithic population. Just like with any population, they had a diverse range of physical variation, that would be similar to populations South of the Sahara or more correctly with Black populations outside of Africa. Those Hunter Gatherers of the Upper Paleolithic obviously contained some Sub-Saharan elements, compared to their later counterparts of the Mesolithic and Neolithic. So, given that this is the case, would it be more appropriate to portray Upper Paleolithic Europeans as “Black”, instead the Mesolithic and Neolithic? I only ask this because we can see Sub-Saharan African characteristics visible among the “first” Homo Sapien Sapien settlers of Europe, but not at all apparent among indigenous Europeans of the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras. To me, the portrait of the girl is far fetched, given that the Hunter Gatherer lived over 5,700 years ago, this date alone, is far off and clearly needs to be readdressed. To me, I think the girl should have been portrayed much lighter and her features should correlate similarly with modern Europeans. The entire reconstruction of the girl would most likely correlate with how Prehistoric Europeans looked, if she lived over 27,000 years ago, but certainly not 5,700 years ago, for the sake of accuracy. Despite, the reconstruction is pretty good. It’s almost realistic and show the aliveness of the girl. Besides that, it’s hilarious, basically the reconstruction is slap in the face to Whites, since they are usually the ones who are offended by this “black-wash”, as they say. I sincerely doubt that this should even concerned Black people in the slightest, although it is annoying to see Stone Age Europeans as Black and Ancient North Africans as White.
I had trouble getting through this post because there were a lot of things stated that I haven't seen support for. And other things that were stated that was besides my point. But alas I got to the last sentence... And what do you know! That's my issue. And as long as you keep that in mind when reading my posts in this thread there should be no confusion.
To address some of your points and why I don't think they're correct/relevant. 1. UP Europeans were a subset of Early African diversity, Modern Africans retained much more of this diversity but that doesn't mean we were unchanged since. When reconstructed, Two of the earliest UP Europeans (pestera cu oase & Ush ishism) we have remains for, most closely resemble Khoisan (out of modern populations) who to my point have retained the most genetic diversity of any living human population. But even then, They (UP Europeans) still wouldn't fit in with a modern group of Khoi people.
2. the later Mesolithic Europeans dubbed as the Western Eurasian hunter gatherers, eventually formed their own cluster as a population, somewhat differentiated from other non Africans. Genetically and in some cases morphologically, Europeans only drew closer to Africans going into the neolithic "light-skinnedness" aside. The one thing about WHG that I'd point out though, is that they typically carried Ancestral pigmentation alleles for known mutations.
3. Lola was sequenced and though she was 5700 years old she most closely resembled WHG, who typically carried Ancestral pigmentation alleles as I stated.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: When reconstructed, Two of the earliest UP Europeans (pestera cu oase & Ush ishism) we have remains for, most closely resemble Khoisan (out of modern populations) who to my point have retained the most genetic diversity of any living human population.
Putting reconstructions aside and how we think they might look can you show us any article saying the skull measurements of Pestera cu Oase resembles a Khosian skull?
_________________________________________
Around 6% of "Oase 2"'s genome is Neanderthal in origin. "Oase 2" belongs to the same basal subclade of mitochondrial DNA haplogroup N as "Oase 1". When compared against all DNA samples on record, "Oase 2" and "Oase 1" share the closest genetic affinity with each other. "Oase 1" and "Oase 2" appear to be from related, but not necessarily identical populations. "Oase 1" shows an affinity for Ice Age Europeans that is not found in "Oase 2", while "Oase 2" is closer to Asians and Native Americans
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
quote:I had trouble getting through this post because there were a lot of things stated that I haven't seen support for. And other things that were stated that was besides my point.
You mean to tell me that you haven’t seen any kind of evidence that suggested that Prehistoric Europeans resembled or were similar to Tropical Africans? I really find that hard to believe, but if this is the case, then here is a refresher....
“Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature, such that high indices are found in tropical groups. However, despite inhabiting glacial Europe, the Upper Paleolithic Europeans possessed high indices, prompting Trinkaus (1981) to argue for gene flow from warmer regions associated with modern human emergence in Europe.”
“Additionally, brachial and crural indices do not appear to be a good measure of overall limb length, and thus, while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. The somewhat paradoxical retention of "tropical" indices in the context of more "cold-adapted" limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe.”
Source: Brachial and crural indices of European late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans
“Ontogenic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow.”
“Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess "tropical" body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering.”
Source: Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins
“As with all the other limb/trunk indices, the recent Europeans evince lower indices, reflective of shorter tibiae, and the recent sub-Saharan Africans have higher indices, reflective of their long tibiae... The Dolno Vestonice and Pavlov humans.. have body proportions similar to those of other Gravettian specimens. Specifically, they are characterized by high bracial and cural indices, indicative of distal limb segment elongation....”
Source: Early Modern Human Evolution in Central Europe
“Body proportions of early European H. sapiens fossils suggest a tropical adaptation and support an African origin....”
Source: The Revolution that Wasn’t, Pg 453-563
quote:But alas I got to the last sentence... And what do you know! That's my issue. And as long as you keep that in mind when reading my posts in this thread there should be no confusion.
Alright, fair enough.
quote:To address some of your points and why I don't think they're correct/relevant.
1. UP Europeans were a subset of Early African diversity, Modern Africans retained much more of this diversity but that doesn't mean we were unchanged since. When reconstructed, Two of the earliest UP Europeans (pestera cu oase & Ush ishism) we have remains for, most closely resemble Khoisan (out of modern populations) who to my point have retained the most genetic diversity of any living human population. But even then, They (UP Europeans) still wouldn't fit in with a modern group of Khoi people.
I don’t recall ever stating that Upper Paleolithic Europeans were void of being physically unchanged and exactly like their Ancient African ancestors. In fact, I greatly caution that very assumption back in my last post.
quote:I get that Prehistoric Europeans were physically distinct in one way or another from Sub-Saharan Africans, but most of morphological studies that I have reviewed and I assume that you have reviewed too, indicate that Paleolithic Europeans contained some physical characteristics that are commonly associated with Sub-Saharan Africans.
Also, how is it irrelevant to note that the reconstruction of the girl, would most likely reflects how some Upper Paleolithic Europeans looked?
quote:2. the later Mesolithic Europeans dubbed as the Western Eurasian hunter gatherers, eventually formed their own cluster as a population, somewhat differentiated from other non Africans. Genetically and in some cases morphologically, Europeans only drew closer to Africans going into the neolithic "light-skinnedness" aside. The one thing about WHG that I'd point out though, is that they typically carried Ancestral pigmentation alleles for known mutations.
Of course they would form their own distinct cluster, but as I said before, Western Europeans Hunter Gatherers were not necessarily a monolith themselves, instead depending on the timeframe, most Western Europeans would be physically distinct from one another, the same way any population would. That’s why I said, the reconstruction of Lolo would be more appropriate and representative for Western Europeans who lived during the Upper Paleolithic era and not the Mesolithic or Neolithic eras.
quote:3. Lola was sequenced and though she was 5700 years old she most closely resembled WHG, who typically carried Ancestral pigmentation alleles as I stated.
Of course she resembles Western European Hunter Gatherers and rightly so, she was apart of that population. But regardless, Western Europeans living during the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras were not the exact same replicas of their Upper Paleolithic counterparts. They would have shared some similarities with each other, but overall there would have been some gaps with between each other, meaning they would have been physically and even genetically distinguished. The same can be applied to Modern Western Europeans, who are also not the exact replicas of their prehistoric ancestors, both physically and genetically, but a continuation of them. This applies every population around the globe, so it’s not unique to one particular group, but you already knew.
Posts: 331 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has there been any progress with pigment predictors? The 'Predicting Homo pigmentation phenotype through genomic data: from Neanderthal to James Watson' study from 2012 had a few false predictions with dark skin and blue eyed Africans and Papuans. Unless I see some evidence that this was addressed I assume that most of these WHGs had brown eyes with recessed blue eyed genes. They probably weren't super dark so Lola's complexion might be close.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes: Has there been any progress with pigment predictors? The 'Predicting Homo pigmentation phenotype through genomic data: from Neanderthal to James Watson' study from 2012 had a few false predictions with dark skin and blue eyed Africans and Papuans. Unless I see some evidence that this was addressed I assume that most of these WHGs had brown eyes with recessed blue eyed genes. They probably weren't super dark so Lola's complexion might be close.
quote:I had trouble getting through this post because there were a lot of things stated that I haven't seen support for. And other things that were stated that was besides my point.
You mean to tell me that you haven’t seen any kind of evidence that suggested that Prehistoric Europeans resembled or were similar to Tropical Africans? I really find that hard to believe, but if this is the case, then here is a refresher....
“Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature, such that high indices are found in tropical groups. However, despite inhabiting glacial Europe, the Upper Paleolithic Europeans possessed high indices, prompting Trinkaus (1981) to argue for gene flow from warmer regions associated with modern human emergence in Europe.”
“Additionally, brachial and crural indices do not appear to be a good measure of overall limb length, and thus, while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. The somewhat paradoxical retention of "tropical" indices in the context of more "cold-adapted" limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe.”
Source: Brachial and crural indices of European late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans
“Ontogenic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow.”
“Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess "tropical" body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering.”
Source: Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins
“As with all the other limb/trunk indices, the recent Europeans evince lower indices, reflective of shorter tibiae, and the recent sub-Saharan Africans have higher indices, reflective of their long tibiae... The Dolno Vestonice and Pavlov humans.. have body proportions similar to those of other Gravettian specimens. Specifically, they are characterized by high bracial and cural indices, indicative of distal limb segment elongation....”
Source: Early Modern Human Evolution in Central Europe
“Body proportions of early European H. sapiens fossils suggest a tropical adaptation and support an African origin....”
Source: The Revolution that Wasn’t, Pg 453-563
quote:But alas I got to the last sentence... And what do you know! That's my issue. And as long as you keep that in mind when reading my posts in this thread there should be no confusion.
Alright, fair enough.
quote:To address some of your points and why I don't think they're correct/relevant.
1. UP Europeans were a subset of Early African diversity, Modern Africans retained much more of this diversity but that doesn't mean we were unchanged since. When reconstructed, Two of the earliest UP Europeans (pestera cu oase & Ush ishism) we have remains for, most closely resemble Khoisan (out of modern populations) who to my point have retained the most genetic diversity of any living human population. But even then, They (UP Europeans) still wouldn't fit in with a modern group of Khoi people.
I don’t recall ever stating that Upper Paleolithic Europeans were void of being physically unchanged and exactly like their Ancient African ancestors. In fact, I greatly caution that very assumption back in my last post.
quote:I get that Prehistoric Europeans were physically distinct in one way or another from Sub-Saharan Africans, but most of morphological studies that I have reviewed and I assume that you have reviewed too, indicate that Paleolithic Europeans contained some physical characteristics that are commonly associated with Sub-Saharan Africans.
Also, how is it irrelevant to note that the reconstruction of the girl, would most likely reflects how some Upper Paleolithic Europeans looked?
quote:2. the later Mesolithic Europeans dubbed as the Western Eurasian hunter gatherers, eventually formed their own cluster as a population, somewhat differentiated from other non Africans. Genetically and in some cases morphologically, Europeans only drew closer to Africans going into the neolithic "light-skinnedness" aside. The one thing about WHG that I'd point out though, is that they typically carried Ancestral pigmentation alleles for known mutations.
Of course they would form their own distinct cluster, but as I said before, Western Europeans Hunter Gatherers were not necessarily a monolith themselves, instead depending on the timeframe, most Western Europeans would be physically distinct from one another, the same way any population would. That’s why I said, the reconstruction of Lolo would be more appropriate and representative for Western Europeans who lived during the Upper Paleolithic era and not the Mesolithic or Neolithic eras.
quote:3. Lola was sequenced and though she was 5700 years old she most closely resembled WHG, who typically carried Ancestral pigmentation alleles as I stated.
Of course she resembles Western European Hunter Gatherers and rightly so, she was apart of that population. But regardless, Western Europeans living during the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras were not the exact same replicas of their Upper Paleolithic counterparts. They would have shared some similarities with each other, but overall there would have been some gaps with between each other, meaning they would have been physically and even genetically distinguished. The same can be applied to Modern Western Europeans, who are also not the exact replicas of their prehistoric ancestors, both physically and genetically, but a continuation of them. This applies every population around the globe, so it’s not unique to one particular group, but you already knew.
Again I don't think you're grasping the point. Tropically adapted limbs of the earliest UP Europeans doesn't support the notion that UP Europeans would look like Modern Africans. See Xyymans post about Hofmeyr... Do you not notice that they're Africans approaching the later bound date of Human dispersal OOA that don't resemble modern Africans? If I know that Early Eurasians stemmed from Africa don't you think it'd be common sense that Early Eurasians would have Tropically adapted limbs, as do Melanesians and other Non Africans who aren't cold adapted? What does that have to do with what I'm saying about these reconstructions?
I never stated any group of Europeans were unchanged anywhere in this thread, which is another reason why I found your comment irrelevant. They went from not looking like modern Africans in the Upper paleolithic.... to not looking like modern Africans in the late Mesolithic (+/- some traits you'll loosely associate with being African like limb proportions and skin color). Who cares about their phenotypic continuity.
Lastly I actually disagree with your assessment of Lola. My critique of her was not so much that she looked African, but that she looked modern. I don't think she's a bad imagining as she looks more South east Asian than anything. but at the same time its an imagining, a morphological depiction based off of no physical remains. I straight up disagree that she'd resemble the earliest UP Europeans, for reasons that I'll be repeating at this point.
@Lioness Being that this is about artistic depictions, you gonna have to deal with the eyeball test. I can't access my library for now. Unless you wanna argue that Cu Oase resembles a different modern population more than they do the Khoisan I see no reason to address your inquiry.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
The paper has Neanderthal and Denisovan with black skin, black hair and black eyes. Sarah Tishkoff later confirmed black skin, and suggested there may be some with lighter skin but provided no genetic proof for that.
Please provide source for your claim. Or don't mislead readers. ONLY THE FACTS
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes: [Q] Has there been any progress with pigment predictors? The 'Predicting Homo pigmentation phenotype through genomic data: from Neanderthal to James Watson' study from 2012 had a few **false predictions** with dark skin and blue eyed Africans and Papuans. Unless I see some evidence that this was addressed I assume that most of these WHGs had brown eyes with recessed blue eyed genes. They probably weren't super dark so Lola's complexion might be close. [/Q]
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
I agree that all the different African populations would have undergone their own evolution since their divergence from each other, as well as after OOA. They don't all look alike even today. With that said, I do believe that certain phenotypic characteristics commonly perceived as "Negroid" may represent adaptations to an equatorial environment that ancestral Homo sapiens would have inherited. So while I wouldn't say the first AMH looked exactly like modern Nigerians, Zambians, or what have you, they probably would have looked vaguely "Negroid" to an anthropologically untrained observer.
Look at the original Pestera cu Oase reconstruction for example. He may not look exactly like a typical resident of Lagos today, but his facial features do look vaguely like what used to be called "Negroid".
Expanded Distance-based Phylogenetic Analyses ofFossilHomoSkull Shape Evolution Peter J. Waddell1
.
There is the interesting pattern for both the Gravettian and the pre-Gravettian skulls thatthe female skulls tend to fall very close to, or even within, the diversity marked out by the two Khoisan skulls.
Trinkaus (2007) argues persuasively that the European forms show features that could have been derived from Neanderthals, while some recent sequence data suggests that in at least one case, this is confirmed (on an Oase specimen, Fuet al. 2015). Here, the extent to which archaic interbreeding might have altered the general form of the skulls from these populations is further assessed. Also assessed for the first time with a quantitative evolutionary model will be the relative extent of archaic genes in these four distinct populations, and a discussion of what might have happened later, potential via the agencies of natural selection.
Discussion
The current analyses provide strong support for the results of Waddell et al. (2014). Forexample, the enigmatic Iwo Eleru skull is seen to with 100% confidence to locate in a part of the tree well outside the range of modern human variation, and with one exception (UC1), amongst a range of middle Pleistocene African archaic forms. One exception to reinforcing the results in Waddell (2014) is a local rearrangement of the position of Iwo Eleru. However, while Iwo Eleru now locates most often sister to LH18, the hypothesis that it represents a preceding lineage cannot be excluded. Schwartz and Tattersall (2005) give a very useful summary of the morphological forms(morphs) at different sites and times. For the African forms at about 2 to 1.5 mya they describe multiple distinct forms which cross the traditional Homo habillis/Homo erectus/Homo ergaster lines. Represented here are the 3733 and a 3883/3732 morphs, which are described as quite distinct on discrete morphological features. Here, the shape of the major sutures and boundaries of the skull cap are compared. The difference between these two morphs in terms of shape of the skull cap is quite comparable in magnitude to the difference seen between two Neanderthals or between two modern Khoisan, for example. In this sense they do not strongly contrast. However,in terms of shape distance-based phylogenetic analyses, this is not that unusual, in that much ofthe material of this period and often lumped (Lordkipanidze et al. 2013) under the title Homo erectus from all around the world has broadly similar shape, despite some appreciable size differences (e.g. brain size varying by a factor of two), as well as huge geographical and temporal differences. To this, Schwartz and Tattersall (2005) would argue also major differences indiscrete qualitative morphological features. Indeed there is quite a controversy based largely on interpretations of non-evolutionary shape analyses (e.g., Schwartz et al. 2013, Spoor 2013,Bermúdez de Castro et al. 2014, Waddell 2014). Taken together, this suggests some conservatism of basic skull cap shape for this diverse assemblage, and a correspondingly worse signal to noise ratio in the data. This conservatism in overall skull cap shape change accelerated with the middle Pleistocene and accelerated again with the African lineage leading to Homo sapiens(Waddell2014). It may also explain why non-evolutionary assessments of 3D geometric morphometric upper skull shape data are failing to identify distinct assemblages in a huge range of Homospecimens.The sister group relationship of Petralona and SH5 is surprisingly strong in the analyses presented here, and is not predicted by the lists of morphological features considered by Schwartz and Tattersall (2005). However, they do conclude that what they consider an endemic European lineage ofSH5, Neanderthals and allies is probably linked to some of the forms commonly called Homo heidelbergensis. Perhaps is is no coincidence that of all the Homo heidelbergensis-like things in this analysis, SH5 and Petralona, the only two European forms, are bracketed by Neanderthals, and at the more extreme values of q with P also adjusted, they form a clade with Dali, the other Eurasian “Homoheidelbergensis” within a large group of Neanderthals. This is on marked contrast to the two mostprominently cited proposed African Homo heidelbergensis skull caps, Kabwe and Saldahna, which consistently fall well away from Neanderthals. Indeed, the positions of these two taxa on the tree is in contrast both with the Eurasian Homo heidelbergensis specimens and between themselves. That is,always deepest diverging on the tree, for Kabwe, and always near the root of the African lineage persisting after the divergence of Neanderthals and heading to modern humans, for Saldahna. The residual resampling results supporting such distinct positions was nearly always 100%. This is all more evidence that Homo heidelbergensis is probably not a clade, but has members scattered on at least three and possibly four major lineages in the tree ofHomo (the last being achieved with the data used here when LH18 is described as a member of Homo heidelbergensis, Magori and Day 1983).In these all analyses, the first well defined anatomically modern human, Qafzeh 9,consistently falls within the diversity marked out by the male and female Khoisan skulls. Thus giving it the title of the “Skull of Eve” is less of stretch than calling the ancestor of our mitochondrial DNA Waddell (2015). Expanded Phylogenetic Analyses of 3D Homo Skull Evolution Page 17 “Eve” (e.g., Penny et al. 1995, Waddell and Penny 1996). While Qafzeh9 is very modern in overall cranial shape, it does exhibit some characteristics that suggest it too may be part of a hybrid population (between modern or near modern humans and Middle Eastern Neanderthals). This includes a planum alveolare on the mandible, which is a pleisiomorphic trait which Trinkaus (2007) sees as introgressed from Neanderthals into early europeans also. Importantly, the fully modern shape of the upper skull of Qafzeh 9, as well as of many early Europeans, would seem to convincingly deflate the often heard argument that earlier modern humans only look more archaic due to life style or climate(at least as regards upper skull shape). It seems the favored hypothesis now must be that if a skull looks decidedly archaic, then archaic genetic factors are the leading explanation.These phylogenetic analyses also reveal a trend for large brained males in probable hybrid populations including pre-Gravettians, Gravettians, the Upper Cave and Qafzeh/Skhul specimens to show markedly more archaic skull shapes. This may simply be a sex assignment bias, but more interestingly, it might also be due to how archaic X chromosomes in a hybrid context are imprinted and guide brain development (e.g., Lepage et al. 2013). This trend is not seen in Neanderthals or in recent modern human populations, making its biological reality seem more likely. The overall result of these analyses is to suggest that the extent of archaic genes was Gravettian, pre-Gravettian,Qafzeh/Skhul and Upper Cave China, in order of increasing archaic content.There has been much discussion of how much and what archaic genes in modern humans means for the biology Homo sapiens(e.g. Krause et al. 2010, Reich et al. 2010, Waddell et al. 2011,Waddell 2013 Fu et al. 2015). To date analyses only reveal a few percent of archaic genes in the bulk of modern humans, with some small and localized populations such as Papuans and Australian Aborigines showing perhaps 10% of such genes across the genome from multiple sources (Reich etal. 2011, Waddell et al. 2011, 2013). However qualitative results such as those of Trinkaus (2007) and now the quantitative evolutionary analyses of this article show that early populations of near anatomically modern and even behaviorally fully modern humans appear to have incorporated a markedly higher percentage of archaic genes. Despite occupying vast areas such as Europe and China,most of this archaic genetic contribution appears to have died out, just as the archaics themselves did(or were died out). The ultimate reason for that remains unknown, although the mechanism in large areas such as Europe and China includes the wholesale replacement of earlier populations by agriculturalists. The question then becomes, why did these later highly successful populations not incorporate high percentages of archaic genes when the original modern occupants of the land had them in greater abundance? A leading hypothesis must be that the same coordinated gene complexes that made the ancestors of the crown group Homo sapiens such an irresistible force may well have again asserted themselves in the processes leading to the rise of the first really successful post hunter gather societies. How much of a role natural selection might have played in these contexts remains to be seen, yet the role for natural selection weeding out much of the legacy of archaic interbreeding cannot be dismissed.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
quote:Again I don't think you're grasping the point. Tropically adapted limbs of the earliest UP Europeans doesn't support the notion that UP Europeans would look like Modern Africans.
Why are you playing this game of semantics? I repeatedly just said this in my last post. I am already of the understanding that Upper Paleolithic Europeans had a set of distinct features that were phenotypically unique from other African populations. And, since when did I advocate the idea that they resembled modern Africans?!! A conglomeration of different peoples?!! Better yet, explain to me how they would have been like their Prehistoric African ancestors, who were clearly unliked their Upper Paleolithic Western Eurasian descendants.
Jebel Irhoud reconstruction, Middle Paleolithic era
European Women of the Upper Paleolithic era
La brana Man, Mesolithic era
Clearly there is as much as a gap phenotypically between the ancestors of Upper Paleolithic Europeans as there is between their descendants, so never mind them being exactly like modern Africans.
quote:See Xyymans post about Hofmeyr... Do you not notice that they're Africans approaching the later bound date of Human dispersal OOA that don't resemble modern Africans? If I know that Early Eurasians stemmed from Africa don't you think it'd be common sense that Early Eurasians would have Tropically adapted limbs, as do Melanesians and other Non Africans who aren't cold adapted? What does that have to do with what I'm saying about these reconstructions?
Clearly we’re having communication trouble, here. Sir, I am already of the understanding that they did not looked like Africans in every exact detail. I said this same exact quote in my last two posts. I simply advocated that the Europeans of the Upper Paleolithic era carried African traits and that the reconstruction of Lola would best be associated with them, instead of being associated with Europeans of the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras. That is what it have to do with the reconstruction!
quote:I never stated any group of Europeans were unchanged anywhere in this thread, which is another reason why I found your comment irrelevant.
Yes, I know, we went through this in our previous conversation. I never stated that they were static in this thread either, that was what I was arguing against. Despite this, you did previously attempt to brush away me noting the obvious, that Early Europeans carried some phenotypically traits commonly associated with Africans, that is head elongation, some prognathism, tropical limbs, and even thick lips, of course while maintaining that they were distinct from them. I wasn’t really trying to equate their diverse phenotypical traits with modern or ancient Africans, I was simply equating their traits to what is normally seen in the west, as “Black” traits. Of course, this isn’t the case because they would have other traits that aren’t stereotypically associated with Black people, that’s why you think it is irrelevant, but it is relevant when noting the differences between Europeans of the Upper Paleolithic era and Europeans of the Mesolithic/Neolithic eras.
quote:They went from not looking like modern Africans in the Upper paleolithic.... to not looking like modern Africans in the late Mesolithic (+/- some traits you'll loosely associate with being African like limb proportions and skin color). Who cares about their phenotypic continuity.
You must really like playing Ring Around the Rosie. I am going to say this one more time, I never thought that they resembled modern Africans! I wasn’t putting any effort in what type of African they looked like, whether ancient or recent! I was simply stating the obvious! That they had distinctive traits commonly associated with Africans or should I clarify “Black” people, such as limbs associated with the tropics, prognathism, and a very dark complexion compared with Europeans of the Mesolithic, Neolithic, and common eras. Probably a complexion just like Lola’s! Also, I did not loosely used tropically adapted traits with being automatically African! I simply maintained that they carried these traits, due to the fact that they inherited it from their ancestors, who originated from a tropical area! So nice straw man! And, if their phenotypical continuity doesn’t matter and you could care less about what they looked like, why are you arguing against the accuracy of the reconstruction!
quote:Lastly I actually disagree with your assessment of Lola. My critique of her was not so much that she looked African, but that she looked modern. I don't think she's a bad imagining as she looks more South east Asian than anything. but at the same time its an imagining, a morphological depiction based off of no physical remains. I straight up disagree that she'd resemble the earliest UP Europeans, for reasons that I'll be repeating at this point.
Well, we clearly have a different view of things, because I don’t see anything “modern” about her. I think that the reconstruction is appropriate for some Europeans that lived during the Upper Paleolithic era and not the Mesolithic/Neolithic eras. I agree with you that without her remains, it’s impossible to know what she looked like and it’s doubtful that she looked like this, especially given when she was dated from, circa 5,700 years ago. But, I certainly doubt that her reconstruction will fit in naturally with many native born Africans. Maybe, you have a point about Black people across the diaspora that are of mixed European ancestry, but I just don’t see it, as her phenotypic traits would be prevalent in some Upper Paleolithic Eurasian populations. Note that I said some and not all! Also, just like you will maintain that her reconstruction is more recent African, I will maintain that her features are distinct from Africans and would accurately fit in some Upper Paleolithic Eurasians, so there’s no point in arguing about it.
Kostenki man
Sunghir reconstructions
As for Lola baring more semblance to Southeast Asians, I don’t see it.
posted
Either way modern European didn't arrive into Europe until 3000-2000bc. This the only time we see modern euro genetic's appear and the pale skin mutation on mass.
It's already been proven before on this site that Europeans did migrate from central Asia into Europe quite recently.
Posts: 6 | From: Milky way | Registered: Dec 2019
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yar roob: [QB] Either way modern European didn't arrive into Europe until 3000-2000bc. This the only time we see modern euro genetic's appear
what are the genetic haplogroups in Europe before them?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith, the above based on chewing gum is supposed to represent Denmark 5,700 years ago
you have been posting select reconstructions that are based on remains 4 or more times older than that
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
Baalberith, the above based on chewing gum is supposed to represent Denmark 5,700 years ago
you have been posting select reconstructions that are based on remains 4 or more times older than that
Lioness, don’t you think I would have known that? The point I was trying to make was that Lola’s reconstruction would be more appropriate for Europeans that lived during the Upper Paleolithic era and not the Mesolithic/Neolithic eras.
Posts: 331 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
It is absurd to project our modern racial concepts onto people from before the Holocene, as populations at that time had a more variegated craniofacial morphology than afterward when the morphology became less so and more uniform. This is why anthropologists try to avoid racial terms like "negroid" or "Australoid" when describing morphology of Upper Paleolithic peoples, however such terms do give the best descriptions as to how these people looked.
As I explained here, the bizarre thing is that the 36ky old Hofmeyr skull of South Africa has more affinity to Upper Paleolithic Europeans than to Sub-Saharans yet the equally old Nazlet Khater of Egypt close to the Mediterranean has more in common with modern Sub-Saharans. Why is that?? Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again I don't think you're grasping the point. Tropically adapted limbs of the earliest UP Europeans doesn't support the notion that UP Europeans would look like Modern Africans.
Why are you playing this game of semantics? I repeatedly just said this in my last post. I am already of the understanding that Upper Paleolithic Europeans had a set of distinct features that were phenotypically unique from other African populations. And, since when did I advocate the idea that they resembled modern Africans?!! A conglomeration of different peoples?!! Better yet, explain to me how they would have been like their Prehistoric African ancestors, who were clearly unliked their Upper Paleolithic Western Eurasian descendants.
Jebel Irhoud reconstruction, Middle Paleolithic era
European Women of the Upper Paleolithic era
Clearly there is as much as a gap phenotypically between the ancestors of Upper Paleolithic Europeans as there is between their descendants, so never mind them being exactly like modern Africans.
quote:See Xyymans post about Hofmeyr... Do you not notice that they're Africans approaching the later bound date of Human dispersal OOA that don't resemble modern Africans? If I know that Early Eurasians stemmed from Africa don't you think it'd be common sense that Early Eurasians would have Tropically adapted limbs, as do Melanesians and other Non Africans who aren't cold adapted? What does that have to do with what I'm saying about these reconstructions?
Clearly we’re having communication trouble, here. Sir, I am already of the understanding that they did not looked like Africans in every exact detail. I said this same exact quote in my last two posts. I simply advocated that the Europeans of the Upper Paleolithic era carried African traits and that the reconstruction of Lola would best be associated with them, instead of being associated with Europeans of the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras. That is what it have to do with the reconstruction!
quote:I never stated any group of Europeans were unchanged anywhere in this thread, which is another reason why I found your comment irrelevant.
Yes, I know, we went through this in our previous conversation. I never stated that they were static in this thread either, that was what I was arguing against. Despite this, you did previously attempt to brush away me noting the obvious, that Early Europeans carried some phenotypically traits commonly associated with Africans, that is head elongation, some prognathism, tropical limbs, and even thick lips, of course while maintaining that they were distinct from them. I wasn’t really trying to equate their diverse phenotypical traits with modern or ancient Africans, I was simply equating their traits to what is normally seen in the west, as “Black” traits. Of course, this isn’t the case because they would have other traits that aren’t stereotypically associated with Black people, that’s why you think it is irrelevant, but it is relevant when noting the differences between Europeans of the Upper Paleolithic era and Europeans of the Mesolithic/Neolithic eras.
quote:They went from not looking like modern Africans in the Upper paleolithic.... to not looking like modern Africans in the late Mesolithic (+/- some traits you'll loosely associate with being African like limb proportions and skin color). Who cares about their phenotypic continuity.
You must really like playing Ring Around the Rosie. I am going to say this one more time, I never thought that they resembled modern Africans! I wasn’t putting any effort in what type of African they looked like, whether ancient or recent! I was simply stating the obvious! That they had distinctive traits commonly associated with Africans or should I clarify “Black” people, such as limbs associated with the tropics, prognathism, and a very dark complexion compared with Europeans of the Mesolithic, Neolithic, and common eras. Probably a complexion just like Lola’s! Also, I did not loosely used tropically adapted traits with being automatically African! I simply maintained that they carried these traits, due to the fact that they inherited it from their ancestors, who originated from a tropical area! So nice straw man! And, if their phenotypical continuity doesn’t matter and you could care less about what they looked like, why are you arguing against the accuracy of the reconstruction!
quote:Lastly I actually disagree with your assessment of Lola. My critique of her was not so much that she looked African, but that she looked modern. I don't think she's a bad imagining as she looks more South east Asian than anything. but at the same time its an imagining, a morphological depiction based off of no physical remains. I straight up disagree that she'd resemble the earliest UP Europeans, for reasons that I'll be repeating at this point.
Well, we clearly have a different view of things, because I don’t see anything “modern” about her. I think that the reconstruction is appropriate for some Europeans that lived during the Upper Paleolithic era and not the Mesolithic/Neolithic eras. I agree with you that without her remains, it’s impossible to know what she looked like and it’s doubtful that she looked like this, especially given when she was dated from, circa 5,700 years ago. But, I certainly doubt that her reconstruction will fit in naturally with many native born Africans. Maybe, you have a point about Black people across the diaspora that are of mixed European ancestry, but I just don’t see it, as her phenotypic traits would be prevalent in some Upper Paleolithic Eurasian populations. Note that I said some and not all! Also, just like you will maintain that her reconstruction is more recent African, I will maintain that her features are distinct from Africans and would accurately fit in some Upper Paleolithic Eurasians, so there’s no point in arguing about it.
Kostenki man
Sunghir reconstructions
As for Lola baring more semblance to Southeast Asians, I don’t see it.
Khmer Girl, Cambodia
YOOH! lol
All this don't mean a damn thing to me! My point was that Europeans whether old or new DO NOT LOOK LIKE MODERN AFRICANS. How much time must I reiterate the same thing.
I distinctly pointed out that the pitfall lies with associating loose morphological traits with model phenotypes represented by modern populations. You decided to object to my critique of making Stone age Europeans resemble modern Africans under those pretenses. I'm not speaking semantics, you just misspoke to begin with, for instance. You wrote a book about the presence of supposed Negroid morphological in Europe, only to say that you're not trying to say that ancient populations would 1:1 resemble Modern black Africans... Do you not see how your post is unneccessary? I know about the morphological overlap between Africans and non-Africans going back thousands of years ago. Everybody on this site knows... Nothing you are saying that is ground breaking, dude.
All that other stuff about Europeans not all looking the same, due to temporal and even spatial disparity has nothing to do with this discussion, why did you bring that up? stop talking about it. I don't care lol.
Lastly about Lola resembling elder WHG's moreso (your only point worth discussing at this point); I know a young indonesian lady who looks exactly like This reconstruction, which is why I said what I did. Now while I can't post her picture on here I can give you example of people from an Island near hers.
Or from further east; Kiriwina
To me lola could fit in better with these guys than with any of your Mesolithic and pre-mesolithic examples.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
It is absurd to project our modern racial concepts onto people from before the Holocene, as populations at that time had a more variegated craniofacial morphology than afterward when the morphology became less so and more uniform. This is why anthropologists try to avoid racial terms like "negroid" or "Australoid" when describing morphology of Upper Paleolithic peoples, however such terms do give the best descriptions as to how these people looked.
As I explained here, the bizarre thing is that the 36ky old Hofmeyr skull of South Africa has more affinity to Upper Paleolithic Europeans than to Sub-Saharans yet the equally old Nazlet Khater of Egypt close to the Mediterranean has more in common with modern Sub-Saharans. Why is that??
Hofmeyr skull, South Africa, 36 kya (before later mishandling damage in 1998)
.
It's Cranium is similar to Eurasians but nose broad
what Carlton Coon thought:
quote:The Bushmen are not heat-adapted. So they don't fit this environment. The evidence indicates that the ancestors of the Bushmen were full-sized people. That they evolved in North Africa, north of the Saharra barrier. --Origin of Races, Carlton Coon
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters Europeans are a subset of the Khoisan that went into the caves Black and came out Caucasian.
posted
Children have softer much more similar features to each other across different ethnic groups as compared to their adult versions with fully matured features in comparison to each other
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
All this don't mean a damn thing to me! My point was that Europeans whether old or new DO NOT LOOK LIKE MODERN AFRICANS. How much time must I reiterate the same thing.
Oh my God, can you read?!!!
quote:I am already of the understanding that they did not looked like Africans in every exact detail.
Why are you continuing this moot conversation! No one cares whether they looked like Africans from the past or the present, nor do they care whether they looked like Africans in every exact detail! At all! That is irrelevant to everything that I was pointing out! The point is that they had traits associated with them! Again, I have to ask, if all of the things that I said didn't mean a damn thing, why are you still here dictating something, that I already know!
quote:I distinctly pointed out that the pitfall lies with [b]associating loose morphological traits with model phenotypes represented by modern populations.You decided to object to my critique of making Stone age Europeans resemble modern Africans under those pretenses.
Look at yourself, trying to sound professional. Sir, you and I both know, with all the remains that was recovered from Upper Paleolithic Europe or any human remains of individuals of the past that was reconstructed, for that instance, there are no accurate way to determine what they looked like! You claim that the traits that she was reconstructed with was modern and is typically recent African, but you fail to realize that in itself doesn't matter, because we can see such traits in early Prehistoric Europeans anyway and these modern characteristic traits, which you happen to argue against are characteristic traits, that they were typically portrayed with!
Do I have to repost this to get my point through to you....
sunghir reconstruction, with remains
Or, do I need to post this....
Pestera Cu Oase first reconstruction, with remains
Pestera Cu Oase second reconstruction
quote:I'm not speaking semantics,
Oh, yes you are. Your going back and fourth with me, over something that I didn't even object to nor saw much relevance as a conversation with you! Your literally going in circles with me over something that we both seemed to agree on, but the problem that you have is that the reconstruction shouldn't be appropriate for the much much much older Europeans, because she looks "modern", whatever.
quote:you just misspoke to begin with, for instance. You wrote a book about the presence of supposed Negroid morphological in Europe, only to say that you're not trying to say that ancient populations would 1:1 resemble Modern black Africans... Do you not see how your post is unnecessary?
I see that it is unnecessary for you to keep arguing this nonsense with me, my initial point was that Lola would better fit with the really ancient Europeans, instead of with the Europeans of the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras! You keep maintaining that she looks "modern", when that in itself is a moot argument! We can see traits like hers in prehistoric Europeans anyway, so it really has no relevance, whatsoever! It's ridiculous! No one can practically be this determined to say that she wouldn't fit right in with Europeans of the Upper Paleolithic era!
quote:I know about the morphological overlap between Africans and non-Africans going back thousands of years ago. Everybody on this site knows... Nothing you are saying that is ground breaking, dude.
As if you were any better and was going deep into this yourself, duuude!
quote:All that other stuff about Europeans not all looking the same, due to temporal and even spatial disparity has nothing to do with this discussion, why did you bring that up? stop talking about it. I don't care lol.
Literally, the only reason why I responded to you was because Europeans of the Neolithic didn't look like that! That was my main initial point of this fucking discussion with you! It wasn't whether she looked like someone from the damn Congo nor was my point about whether she looked more modern! It was that she would be more appropriate as a representative for Prehistoric Europeans that lived during Upper Paleolithic era!
quote:Lastly about Lola resembling elder WHG's moreso (your only point worth discussing at this point);
That was what my main initial point was!!!!
quote:I know a young indonesian lady who looks exactly like This reconstruction, which is why I said what I did. Now while I can't post her picture on here I can give you example of people from an Island near hers.
Or from further east; Kiriwina
To me lola could fit in better with these guys than with any of your Mesolithic and pre-mesolithic examples.
Elmaestro, with all due respect, not that I doubt your observation or anything, especially since Early Eurasians would have widened diverse set of features just like their modern counterparts, so I wouldn't doubt doubt epicanthic folds being prevalent in Prehistoric Europeans, but if you can't see the obvious differences between the reconstruction and these Southeast Asians, I think we must end this conversation.
Posts: 331 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
Xyyman, here is some information about the sculpture. I must admit, this was sloppy work because there are some mixed feelings about the authenticity of this artifact.
Here is an article that touches on the authenticity of the sculpture and other relics.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Literally, the only reason why I responded to you was because Europeans of the Neolithic didn't look like that! That was my main initial point of this fucking discussion with you! It wasn't whether she looked like someone from the damn Congo nor was my point about whether she looked more modern! It was that she would be more appropriate as a representative for Prehistoric Europeans that lived during Upper Paleolithic era! ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic