...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » The Brace Study Is Out!!!!

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: The Brace Study Is Out!!!!
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Dec 21;


The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form.

Brace CL, Seguchi N, Quintyn CB, Fox SC, Nelson AR, Manolis SK, Qifeng P.

Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.

Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Great. Is there a link or anyway you can post the whole thing?
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Great. Is there a link or anyway you can post the whole thing?

Thought Writes:

I recieved the electronic version from TSD via email. Perhaps TSD or MYRA can post this study on The Nile Valley forum for us?

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:


The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa...

When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.

Finally out! It is a good thing we discussed the study here before the study's coming out, so as to get an idea of how potential distorters, and of the worst kinds, would interpret the findings. The final publication pretty much stands by the material we were discussing earlier, which is what counts...experts are not swayed by wishingful thinking harbored in some corners, but just go by what concrete evidence reflects; evidence which is open to scrutiny by many other experts. In the case of the Natufians, for instance, there has thus far been a unanimous observation: their strong tropical African affiliations!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some data and charts from the pre-release:

 -
 -

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
osirion
Member
Member # 7644

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for osirion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you guys just read the Bible you would already know that the people of Palestine were originally the Sons of Ham which makes the Natufian people Black.

Amazing how you guys sound surprised by something Jews have been saying all along.

I am being a bit sarcastic....

Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not surprising, and we are familiar with Canaan, son of Ham as ref to Palestine.

Of course we are interested in acknowledgement of the above in current secular scholarship... esp. coming from a favorite source of Eurocentrists.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
1: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Dec 21;


The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form.

Brace CL, Seguchi N, Quintyn CB, Fox SC, Nelson AR, Manolis SK, Qifeng P.

Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.

It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.....The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.

Thought Posts:

Antiquity, March 2003 v77 i295 p63(4)

The Neolithic transition in Europe: comparing broad scale genetic and local scale isotopic evidence

R. Alexander Bentley et al.

Recently, the geographic distribution of Y-chromosome haplotypes from modern Europeans has been presented in support of the Neolithic demic diffusion model (Chikhi et al. 2002), suggesting that colonising farmers from south-west Asia contributed 70-90% of the genes in the population of each Neolithic settlement with an average contribution of 50% across the continent. Since others have used mitochondrial (mt) DNA evidence to argue for only about 20% Neolithic genes (Richards et al. 2000), there appears to be serious disagreement. Although this apparent discrepancy is probably more a matter of different methods of data analysis than of actual differences in continent-wide prehistoric demography (Barbujani et al. 1998; Simoni et al. 2000), there are ways in which real differences could have developed on a local scale. For example, distributional differences in mtDNA, which is passed through the female line, and male-transmitted Y-chromosomes could have resulted if the colonising farmers were in small groups, with few unmarried, not-closely-related females with which to bear children. In such cases, groups that managed initially to intermarry with indigenous hunter-gatherer women would have reproduced most successfully.

...

Strontium isotope analyses in the skeletons of some of the first farmers in south-west Germany, ca. 5400-5000 BC, show a high incidence of non-local females in early Neolithic cemeteries (Bentley et al. 2002; Bentley et al. 2003, Price et al. 2001) ... Because many of these upland non-locals were buried differently from locals, particularly without the characteristic stone adze associated with the early farmers, the strontium isotope analysis may evidence intermarriage between forager and farming communities. However, even if these particular non-local females were from other Neolithic farming communities, this evidence for patrilocality suggests that upon first contact the brides may have been foragers, an occurrence that has often been observed ethnographically (Spielmann and Eder 1994)

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Great. Is there a link or anyway you can post the whole thing?

Thought Writes:

Thanks Myra!

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/bronze_age.pdf

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:


Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Dec 21;

The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form.

Brace CL, Seguchi N, Quintyn CB, Fox SC, Nelson AR, Manolis SK, Qifeng P.


Thought Quotes:

"If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was CLEARLY a Sub-Saharan element present...."

Thought Writes:

RIP, Diekenes et al....

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thought Writes:

A basic understanding of the Neolithic cultures of North Africa and the "Middle East" requires understanding of the fact that these regions were peopled by heterogenous populations that included substantial numbers of people that exhibited tropical and sub-tropical African phenotypes.

Thought Posts:

Black Folk Here and There
St. Clair Drake

"If the early Delta population was Natufian, even Carleton Coon, an anthropologist whose racist statements sometimes embarrassed his colleagues, would concede a Negroid tinge. On one occasion he wrote of Natufians that "the WIDE, LOW VAULTED NOSE, in combination with PROGNATHISM, gives a somewaht negroid cast to the face." But he hastened to conclude that these people were really "white", that "these late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor Negroid affinities." These same people would probably be classified as "Negroes" in the United States, where such minor Negroid affinities are always enough to tip the scales. In the Middle East, however, they remain "white". Such inconsistencies have evoked charges against the profesional taxonomists ranging from hypocrisy to racism, by those Blacks who are aware of their operations. They see a definite attempt to insist that the Neolithic innovators who developed agriculture, pottery, metallurgy, and weaving could not possibly have been what we now call "Negroes."

Thought Posts:

Golden Age of the Moor
'The African Heritage & Ethnohistory of the Moors'
By Dana Reynolds

"A stratum of peoples of relatively recent African origin extended into Asia. The evidence of linguistics, archaeology, physical remains and ethnohistory support the observations and descriptions we find in the histories of the Greeks and Romans and in later Iranian documents about nomadic Arabians of that early era. The Arabs were direct progeny and kinsmen of the dark-brown, gracile and kinky haired "Ethiopic" peoples that first spread over the desert areas of Nubia and Egypt. Before the middle of the 2nd millennium they were located along the Mediterranean coast of Turkey, Europe and the Arabian peninsula. In their least modeified form they may be found now settled in the Horn of Africa, the southern Sahara and remote parts of Arabia."

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Planet Asia
Member
Member # 9424

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Planet Asia     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:


Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Dec 21;

The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form.

Brace CL, Seguchi N, Quintyn CB, Fox SC, Nelson AR, Manolis SK, Qifeng P.


Thought Quotes:

"If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was CLEARLY a Sub-Saharan element present...."

Thought Writes:

RIP, Diekenes et al....

Pontikos sidestepping already, notice how he tries to avoid the main theme of the paper being that Bronze Age Europeans don't resemble modern Europeans, especially modern and Bronze Age Greeks.

"Detailed commentary will be posted in my blog after Christmas. The most important thing to note is the absence of any susbtantial Sub-Saharan component in Egyptians, North Africans, and Somalis.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0509801102v1

The key paragraph:

When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample."


But he forgot to post *THIS*:

""The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample — both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians — and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa."

Remember, his "sub-Saharan" sample consisted of two Bantu speakers and one group from west-central Africa. The people from Dahomey are metrically closer to Bantu speakers and live with and or on the edge of the rainforest belt in west-central Africa near the putative home of the Bantu migrations. Brace did not have samples from the Sahel amongst his sub-Saharan samples[Brace, personal communication], so "sub-Saharan Africa" as used in this study should not be inflated to be all sub-Saharans per se.


Leave it up to Pontikos to use distortion and say the main point of the paper is about Somalis, Nubians and Naqadans not having any sub-Saharan influence when the name of the paper is called "The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form".

Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pontikos sidestepping already, notice how he tries to avoid the main theme of the paper being that Bronze Age Europeans don't resemble modern Europeans, especially modern and Bronze Age Greeks.
He's just a joke. He is so frightened of this study and desparate to put a 'spin' on it, that he refused to even print the TITLE:

The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form

This contradicts his main reason for living, to assert "racial continuity" between ancient and modern Greece, which he knows is a lie.

His prescence on Dodona reminds me of the saying about the one eyed man ruling over the land of the blind.


Haaa, haaaa. [Smile]

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To Rasol

But why is a specific craniofacial form proof of any kind of "racial" affliation at all---if it is assumed that all craniofacial forms are indigenous to Africa if the criteria are restricted to nasal structures and prognathism? In fact matters are complicated by the fact that the so-called "negroid" craniofacial forms are quite common in East Asia--especially in its South East areas.

Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But why is a specific craniofacial form proof of any kind of "racial" affliation at all
It isn't. That's a part of the point.

a scientific thesis in order to be valid must be subject to proof and disproof.

thesis: there exist such race as K-zoid, which has a certain cranial form. the greeks and other europeans, ancient and modern, belong to said race.

proof: cranial form continuity from ancient to modern greece.

disproof: cranial form discontinuity between ancient and modern greece.

therefore, no matter how you account for [or apologise for] this discontinuity, it refutes the assertaion of 'racial continuity' in greece.


it's worth noting the the study author, CL Brace does not think that "race catagories" are useful in anthropology:

terms like caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid are worse than useless

race becomes a pseudo-science when its advocates refuse to adhere to the rules of science.

they either ignore the disproofs of their thesis, or formulate thesis which are not subject to proof to begin with. that's what all pseudo-scientists do. it's what dienekes does.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:
But why is a specific craniofacial form proof of any kind of "racial" affliation at all
It isn't. That's a part of the point.

a scientific thesis in order to be valid must be subject to proof and disproof.

thesis: there exist such race as K-zoid, which has a certain cranial form. the greeks and other europeans, ancient and modern, belong to said race.

proof: cranial form continuity from ancient to modern greece.

disproof: cranial form discontinuity between ancient and modern greece.

therefore, no matter how you account for [or apologise for] this discontinuity, it refutes the assertaion of 'racial continuity' in greece.


it's worth noting the the study author, CL Brace does not think that "race catagories" are useful in anthropology:

terms like caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid are worse than useless

race becomes a pseudo-science when its advocates refuse to adhere to the rules of science.

they either ignore the disproofs of their thesis, or formulate thesis which are not subject to proof to begin with. that's what all pseudo-scientists do. it's what dienekes does.

Thought Writes:

Obviously, as we have discussed many times before the idea of biological races is discredited in terms of biological anthropology. In terms of gene flow and population affinity there is very strong evidence of gene flow FROM NE Africa TO SW Asia and Southern Europe during the early Holocene. This is supported by genetics, linguistics, archaeology and yes, cranial analysis. It is important to keep in mind that the Natufian remains show a MORE tropical form than the preceding Ohalo crania, even though the climatic trend is toward a cold/dry climate during the LGM. This is consistent with population flow from a tropical region into this cold/dry region at the end of the Late Pliestocene.

Thought Posts:

"[The caves of Erq-el-Ahmar] . . . produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, **COMPLETELY DIFFERENT** from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm.* and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding..." - Furon

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Some data and charts from the pre-release:

 -
 -

Thought Posts:

Given the clustering of Natufians near "Nubians" it would be of interest to compare Natufian remains with a larger sample of Nilo-Saharan speakers. A Teda sample would be very interesting indeed....

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
He's just a joke. He is so frightened of this study and desparate to put a 'spin' on it, that he refused to even print the TITLE:

The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form


Thought Writes:

The greatest thing about this study is that it forces the discourse about the African contribution to the "Neolithic Revolution" to the forefront. No more "ducking and dodging" for the Eurocentrics.

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thought Posts:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1220_051220_stoneage_faces.html

European Faces Reflect Stone Age Ancestry, Study Says
James Owen
for National Geographic News
December 20, 2005
Europeans inherit their looks from Stone Age hunters, new research suggests.
Scientists studied ancient skeletons from Scandinavia to North Africa and Greece, comparing ancient and modern facial features.
Their analysis suggests modern Europeans are closely related and descended from prehistoric indigenous peoples.
Later Neolithic settlers—notably immigrants who introduced farming from the Near East some 7,500 years ago—contributed little to how Europeans look today, the researchers add.
The scientists described their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Online Early Edition.
The study suggests that the arrival of farming did not signal a broad wave of colonization as some scientists had thought. Rather, native hunter-gatherers absorbed the farming way of life and those who brought it.
The findings are based on 24 face measurements of modern-day Europeans compared with those of their prehistoric predecessors.
The team focused on facial dimensions which are "neutral" and don't change as human populations adapt over time to different environments and lifestyles.
Because these features are passed down generation to generation, they are good markers of human ancestry, according to lead study author Loring Brace.
The University of Michigan anthropologist says the craniofacial remains of late Stone Age Europeans reflect those of earlier inhabitants who lived 35,000 to 10,000 years ago.
"They're really fairly close," he said.
Brow Ridge
Ancient peoples had heavier brow ridges than modern Europeans. "The faces were also broader and the jaws were heavier," Brace added.
Skeletal remains from Greece and elsewhere are thought to represent Neolithic settlers who introduced farming from modern-day Syria, Jordan, and Israel. Brace said these remains have facial measurements that don't match those of most present-day Europeans.
The anthropologist added that despite some similarities with modern Mediterranean populations, "the farther north and west you get, the less they resemble the people living there now."
"Modern Europeans don't look like the incoming Neolithic [farmers]," he said. "It's pretty clear that there's a much larger component of the indigenous foraging peoples across Europe, and they existed in far greater numbers than the archaeological record had led us to believe."
The study suggests that Neolithic remains, which have been taken as evidence of large-scale colonization, are misleading.
Brace says pots associated with Neolithic farmers tended to disintegrate into countless shards, creating the impression of a larger presence than was actually the case.
Early farmers also buried their dead together, unlike the native inhabitants, leaving groups of bodies for archaeologists to later uncover along with other artifacts.
Hunter-gatherers
The researchers say the fact that incoming settlers didn't pass on telltale facial characteristics to later Europeans suggests that they were absorbed by the indigenous hunter-gatherers.
"They absorbed them genetically—and their way of life," Brace said. "Molecular biology is telling us the same story."
Recent DNA analysis of the skeletons of prehistoric farmers found buried in Germany, Austria, and Hungary appears to show that they contributed little to the European gene pool. (See related story.)
A quarter of those analyzed remains share a DNA signature that is now extremely rare worldwide and which has left virtually no trace on living Europeans.
Those findings, described last month in the journal Science, suggest that "the contribution of early farmers could be close to zero," according to Peter Forster, archaeology research fellow at Cambridge University, England.
Other experts now broadly agree that the spread of farming across Europe represents more of a cultural legacy than a genetic one.
"Personally, I think it's a question that can be answered only on a regional basis," said Marek Zvelebil, professor of archaeology at the University of Sheffield, England.
"In some areas, particularly parts of the East Mediterranean and central Europe, you do have small groups of people migrating from the Near East," he said.
"But in most other parts of Europe, particularly western and northern Europe, you have local hunter-gathering people adopting farming."

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Posts:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1220_051220_stoneage_faces.html

European Faces Reflect Stone Age Ancestry, Study Says
James Owen
for National Geographic News
December 20, 2005

"Personally, I think it's a question that can be answered only on a regional basis," said Marek Zvelebil, professor of archaeology at the University of Sheffield, England.

"In some areas, particularly parts of the East Mediterranean and central Europe, you do have small groups of people migrating from the Near East," he said.
"But in most other parts of Europe, particularly western and northern Europe, you have local hunter-gathering people adopting farming."

Thought Writes:

Consistent with E3b fading out from the Balkans and down the Danube River into Central Europe.

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Brace said these remains have facial measurements that don't match those of most present-day Europeans.
That's clear enough.

Too bad the article avoided the issue of whom these remains did most closely resemble - East Africans, which makes sense, because based on DNA markers - that's where they came from.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
That's clear enough.

Too bad the article avoided the issue of whom these remains did most closely resemble - East Africans, which makes sense, because based on DNA markers - that's where they came from.

Thought Writes:

Although some scientists (such as Theodore McGown, Gerrod, Angel, Frembach, etc) have known this information for years it is relatively new to the mainstream and the journalist probably didn't know how to address it. Then again the National Geographic has a shady history....

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A quarter of those analyzed remains share a DNA signature that is now extremely rare worldwide...
I am not sure which study the author is referencing here, much less the specifics of the lineage(s) in question, but notion of some the original lineages becoming rare, seems to correlate with the tracing back of the flow of E3b delta cluster, along with the Neolithic culture. This cluster seems to have spawned another cluster in the region, which would then predominate the ancestral delta cluster.

quote:

...and which has left virtually no trace on living Europeans.

Those findings, described last month in the journal Science, suggest that "the contribution of early farmers could be close to zero," according to Peter Forster, archaeology research fellow at Cambridge University, England.

Other experts now broadly agree that the spread of farming across Europe represents more of a cultural legacy than a genetic one.


"Personally, I think it's a question that can be answered only on a regional basis," said Marek Zvelebil, professor of archaeology at the University of Sheffield, England. "In some areas, particularly parts of the East Mediterranean and central Europe, you do have small groups of people migrating from the Near East," he said. "But in most other parts of Europe, particularly western and northern Europe, you have local hunter-gathering people adopting farming."

Marek's approach to the affairs is more appopriate than that of P. Fosters, whose idea of the genetic contribution of Neolithic immigrants being close to zero, seems be "out there", when considering the fact that skeletal remains have been identified in the region, and having in common with those from Levant [Natufians], strong tropical African affinities; this is to be then coupled with lineage distributions in the region, such as those of E3b derivatives.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shirani
Junior Member
Member # 8609

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for shirani     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
why is somalia so caucasoid even moreso then people more north (nubians, natufians)?
Posts: 7 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shirani:
why is somalia so caucasoid even moreso then people more north (nubians, natufians)?

Thought Writes:

What is a "Caucasoid" and why do you believe the Somalias are more "Caucasoid" than Nubians and Natufians?

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shirani
Junior Member
Member # 8609

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for shirani     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
quote:
Originally posted by shirani:
why is somalia so caucasoid even moreso then people more north (nubians, natufians)?

Thought Writes:

What is a "Caucasoid" and why do you believe the Somalias are more "Caucasoid" than Nubians and Natufians?

If you look at that map 'somalia' is really close to mediterraneans and north africans but nubians and natufians are closer to 'congo'.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shirani:
If you look at that map 'somalia' is really close to mediterraneans and north africans but nubians and natufians are closer to 'congo'.

Thought Writes:

Indeed, but I reiterate my original question:

What is a "Caucasoid" and why do you believe the Somalias are more "Caucasoid" than Nubians and Natufians?

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 3 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shirani:
why is somalia so caucasoid even moreso then people more north (nubians, natufians)?

"Caucasoid" is an inaccurate and bankrupt term because "caucasoid" features have NOTHING to do with Europeans or peoples of the Caucasus mountains!!

There are Africans with "caucasoid" features but they have no non-African ancestry, it is the same with some Asians who have no European ancestry but have similar features.

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Isn't it fascinating how some learn racial ideologies, have them stamped into their brains, and then interpret data according to fixed notions, no matter how much the data contradicts them?
 -


In the map above - what modern Somalia is actually closest to, closer than anything else on map is -> Naqada - PreDynastic Egypt[!].

No modern European group is as close as the Somali.

Pause and consider that for a moment.

Now...

Somali, are also relatively close to various NEO-LITH-IC European populations - however -> Neolithic Europe is *NOT* close to Modern Europe.

Naqada is also closer to Modern and ancient Nubia than to modern Europe, the distance between modern Somalia and Nubia is the same as between Iceland and Switzerland, and the Natufians are closer to ancient and modern tropical African groups than to *any* modern European group.


In the map below we see that there is actually continuity in NorthEast Africa, with ancient and modern NorthEast Africa clustering together.

This contrasts with Europe, which has sharp discontinuities.

 -

Anyone who looks at these maps and sees imaginary k-zoids is ignoring the data and imposing pre-conceptions on it.

There are no k-zoids in this study, only modern europeans, and ancient ones.....who are not phenotypically closely related, -> according to the author of the study.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[/b]
 -


Somali, are also relatively close to various NEO-LITH-IC European populations - however -> Neolithic Europe is *NOT* close to Modern Europe.

Thought Writes:

The Portuguese Mesolithic cluster with the Somalians, Tunisians, Naqada, etc. This is consistent with recent genetic studies indicating the Mesolithic spread of E1 and A across from NW Africa to Iberia during the Mesolithic.

Thought Posts:

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/iberian_african_contact.pdf

"The geographical proximity of the Iberian Peninsula to Africa makes the Straits of Gibraltar a likely contact zone between the two continents. Early human communities are known to have existed simultaneously on both sides of the Straits, and it seem possible that interaction between these communities took place with an interchange of populations, ideas, goods, and livestock. The hypothesis that such contacts took place, resulting in an African influence on Iberia’s prehistoric development, is thus not a recent one, but was overshadowed in the early 1960s by new ideas claiming a Near Eastern origin for the Iberian Neolithic.

Evidence of human occupation in central Spain before the beginning of the Neolithic, as defined by the introduction of agriculture, is scarce. However, by 6000 B.C., it is evident that Neolithic cultures were present along the eastern Spanish Mediterranean coast as well as in Andalusia, represented by the cave culture. Only a few centuries later, the signs of Neolithization are also clear in central Spain. This rapid spread of pastoral communities across the peninsula is proposed to have been due either to colonization by the Andalusian cave culture, or to the spread of new technology and ideas from the Mediterranean cultures to indigenous Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.

These early Neolithic populations of Andalusia appear to have consisted of a number of distinct groups, one of which is suggested to have African origin due to finds of characteristic red ochre ceramics. Similarities have also been noted between the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture dated to the 5th millennium B.C. and the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture in western Andalusia. Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source.

However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture, leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding, suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts."

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Isn't it fascinating how some learn racial ideologies, have them stamped into their brains, and then interpret data according to fixed notions, no matter how much the data contradicts them?
 -


In the map below we see that there is actually continuity in NorthEast Africa, with ancient and modern NorthEast Africa clustering together.

This contrasts with Europe, which has sharp discontinuities.


Thought Writes:

Good point Rasol. In fact, earlier studies indicate affinities between Late Pliestocene Somalians, Ethiopians and Kenyans. This study further links these Late Pliestocene Sub-Saharan Africans with Nubians, Pre-Dynastic Egyptians and even early neolithic Greeks. This same biological relationship is detected today with the dispersal of the Sub-saharan derived lineage E3b*.

Thought Posts:

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/somalia.pdf

"The .... excavations at Gogoshiis Qabe (Somalia) uncovered eleven virtually complete and articulated primary burials...Closest morphological affinities are with early Holocene skeletons from Lake Turkana, Kenya...and Lake Besaka, Ethiopia.."

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First Farmers
The Origins of Agricultural Socities
Peter Bellwood
2005

"A more recent multivariate analysis of cranial data from Turkey and the Levant, plus southeastern and Mediterranean Europe, suggests three conclusions (Pinhasi and Pluciennik in press):

1) PPNB populations in the Levant AND Anatolia were very VARIED.

2) Southeastern European Neolithic peoples were probably drawn from a central Anatolian Neolithic population represented by the burials from Catalhoyuk.

3) Mediterranean populations originated from a greater degree of Mesolithic-Neolithic admixture than those in southeastern Europe.

....there is an obvious cline from Anatolia, through Greece and the Balkans, into central Europe and then Mediterranean and Western Europe....

Thought Posts:

Journal of Human Evolution
1 (1972)

"...one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia (Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians..."

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Modern Europeans don't look like the incoming Neolithic [farmers]
- Cl Brace.

It's amazing how a clear statement, can remain incomprehensible when the people listening simply don't like what is being said. [Cool]

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Horemheb
Member
Member # 3361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Horemheb     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can't argue with many of the uneducated block heads on this board but we can say this; Whatever black influence exited in neolithic times was not relavent to historical Europe.
Fact is anciebnt Greeks were not black Africans nor did black africans have anything at all to do with the creation of the western world.

--------------------
God Bless President Bush

Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ You sound frustrated and even more incoherent than usual Professor.

I don't blame you, since you have been searching in vain for answers to CL Brace *for months*, and have yet to find any:

* Modern Europeans don't look like the incoming Neolithic [farmers].

** The Natufian has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.
- CL Brace

Your strawman responses and pitiful excuses, fail to actually address CL Brace. [Smile]

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Brace old map showed that Neolithic Europe, especially Greece is closer to Nile Valley AFrica than it is to modern Europe.

All those Europeans that have some proximaty to AFricans - ancient and modern - are *neolithic and pre neolithic* -- not modern Europeans.

Evidently this key point goes right over the heads of those who cite Brace old study.

Perhaps it is in part to better educate, that Brace most recent study is aptly titled The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and Bronze age *to modern European cranial form


Yes, dim Eurocentrism misses the point - and keeps highlighting the affinity between Neo-lith-ic Europe and Nile valley Africa, ancient and modern as if it somehow helps them.

It does not.

And here is why:

[img]
http://www.pnas.org/content/vol103/issue1/images/medium/zpq0520506660002.gif[/img]
zpq0520506660003.jpeg
As shown predynastic Naqada [Ancient Egypt] most closely resembles - the Somali - OF ALL MODERN POPULATIONS.

This also means Ancient Nile valley East Africa resembles modern East Africa.

What is lacking in continuity is modern Europe vs. Neolithic Europe.

That's why modern and ancient NorthEast Africans form a single twig, but modern and ancient Europeans are shown as entirely different branches....

 -


Brace study supports the African Ancient Egypt, and rebukes the notion of continuity between ancient and modern Europe. [Cool]

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^
quote:
As shown predynastic Naqada [Ancient Egypt] most closely resembles - the Somali - OF ALL MODERN POPULATIONS SAMPLED:
 -
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^For sure!

Brace and other physical anthropologists (Angel, et al. etc.) have shown that Neolithic Europeans show influence from Africa.

Now, recent evidence in the form of genetic science only confirms what anthropology has shown.

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kifaru
Member
Member # 4698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for kifaru     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Without biting my head off and calling me a race traitor could someone please tell my why this study does not support the conquering white man myth. It appears to me that it says: at some time in the past the original inhabitants of Europe who had facial features similiar to subsaharans were displaced by people who resemble modern Europeans i.e. white people.
Posts: 167 | From: usa | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Other way around. before the Natufians came, the inhabitants had facial features more similar to modern populations, but then the Natufians came and spread agriculture throughout the Middle East and Europe. They didn't displace the European populations, however, they just introduced agriculture and other innovations.

--------------------
"Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega.

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It appears to me that it says: at some time in the past the original inhabitants of Europe who had facial features similiar to subsaharans were displaced by people who resemble modern Europeans i.e. white people.
That's not it at all, and I think the main reason some don't understand this study is due to unfamiliarty with terminalogy concepts like paleolithic and neolithic.


The study says that modern Europeans are descendant of the original inhabtants of Europe who settled Europe from central Asia about 35 thousand years ago.

This era is known as the Paleolithic.

These people lived as simple hunter gatherer folk who sheltered in caves during the ice ages.

About 10 thousand years ago a new population with and African and SouthWest Asian background migrated to Europe and introduced a more advanced way of life.

This is called the Neolithic.

These people introduced farming and domestication to Europe.

In Western discourse, the neolithic is the foundation of western civilisation.

So, a study called "the questionable contribution of the neolithic" to Europeans - is actually, gently, questioning - 'the contribution OF Europeans TO the Neolithic'.

And by acknolwedging that there is and substantial African element to the Eurasian Neolithic, it is aknowledging the AFrican contribution to Western civilisation, and the part African - mixed - heritage of Europe.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yom:
Other way around. before the Natufians came, the inhabitants had facial features more similar to modern populations, but then the Natufians came and spread agriculture throughout the Middle East and Europe. They didn't displace the European populations, however, they just introduced agriculture and other innovations.

^ Correct, though it's also important to understand that there is still a blood link, and to a lesser extinct a phenotypical link between especially Southern Europeans, and the African and SouthWest Asian influenced Neolithic.

This is what Brace means when he notes that modern Southern Europe - ties a little bit more to the Neolithic - than Northern Europe does, and also in noting that the picture of skeletal anthropology reinforces the view supplied by genetics.

In genetic terms modern Southern Europeans especially carry AFrican lineages -E3b1-, that were introduced in the Neolithic -signified by alpha cluster-.

It is important to note both the skeletal and genetic data, because the cross-disciplinary evidence destroys the numerous excuses Eurocentrists use to apologise for, obscure or flat out deny the connection between Black Africa and Neolithic Europe.


We will here those excuses again in this thread, and expose them as such again.

Patience.... [Wink]

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kifaru
Member
Member # 4698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for kifaru     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:
It appears to me that it says: at some time in the past the original inhabitants of Europe who had facial features similiar to subsaharans were displaced by people who resemble modern Europeans i.e. white people.
That's not it at all, and I think the main reason some don't understand this study is due to unfamiliarty with terminalogy concepts like paleolithic and neolithic.


The study says that modern Europeans are descendant of the original inhabtants of Europe who settled Europe from central Asia about 35 thousand years ago.

This era is known as the Paleolithic.

These people lived as simple hunter gatherer folk who sheltered in caves during the ice ages.

About 10 thousand years ago a new population with and African and SouthWest Asian background migrated to Europe and introduced a more advanced way of life.

This is called the Neolithic.

These people introduced farming and domestication to Europe.

In Western discourse, the neolithic is the foundation of western civilisation.

So, a study called "the questionable contribution of the neolithic" to Europeans - is actually, gently, questioning - 'the contribution OF Europeans TO the Neolithic'.

And by acknolwedging that there is and substantial African element to the Eurasian Neolithic, it is aknowledging the AFrican contribution to Western civilisation, and the part African - mixed - heritage of Europe.


Posts: 167 | From: usa | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kifaru
quote:



So, a study called "the questionable contribution of the neolithic" to Europeans - is actually, gently, questioning - 'the contribution OF Europeans TO the Neolithic'.



Great analysis. You have hit the nail on the head in the "real" meaning of this article. The results of this research indicates that Brace et al, were surprised at this finding.

.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TK
Member
Member # 10103

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TK     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Beautiful thread.
Posts: 67 | From: New York City | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mansa Musa
Member
Member # 6800

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mansa Musa     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Great analysis. You have hit the nail on the head in the "real" meaning of this article. The results of this research indicates that Brace et al, were surprised at this finding.

That was actually Rasol who said that.


This is an excellent study.

Brace's new study refutes several racial myths about human diversity, it....

1. Deals yet another blow to the Hamitic Hypothesis (by illustrating that prehistoric and modern East Africa are identical while Neolithic Europe and Modern Europe are distinct from one another with the former showing affinities to tropical East Africans)

2. Educates us on how agriculture was introuced to Europe.

3. Explains the genetic diversity seen within Europe with many Southern European populations being genetically closer to Africans than Northern Europeans are to Africans (a slap in the face to both Nordicists and Medicentrists because the former want to claim Mediterranean cultures for Nordics and see modern Meds as the "inferior" mongrelized descendants of proto-Meds [i.e. Nordic] with Africans and Semites. The latter want to claim racial and cultural purity for Southern Europe which they cannot do in light of the evidence).


The evidence presented here is why many trolls come to EgyptSearch and aggressively campaign against the facts.

For years Western scholars have tried to attribute the civilizations of other regions to the common ancestors of Europeans while insisting on the purity European civilizations while modern science indicates that many civilizations (such as those in Nile Valley Africa) are more distinct than was originally suggested and European civilization are less distinct than originally proposed.

It is a world turned upside down for many Eurocentrists. And now they cannot discredit every scholar supporting these theories by accusing them of Afrocentric bias.

When a White American anthropologist like C. Loring Brace agrees with the evidence presented by others they cannot realisitically call him an Afrocentrist and simply accusing him of biases makes them look even sillier when they had no problem promoting his former research.

Studies like this put the anti-Afrocentric, Eurocentrists in checkmate on the issues brought up.

Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^What's funny is that for decades blacks have been suppressed and confined both historically and geographically. Historically in that their only achievement was the 'Bantu Expansion' and the spread of agriculture throughout "Sub-Saharan" and geographically in that they have been confined only to the "Sub-Saharan" region. North Africa was said to the home of Kacazoids who extended from the Near East and southern Europe, with Egypt being the fountainhead of this K-zoid civilization. Even East Africa was said to have K-zoid admixture and that African pastoralism was introduced by K-zoids.

Now this study literally reverses these notions to show that ALL of Africa including the North was inhabited by blacks, not just south of the Sahara. And that these black populations spilled out into the Near-East and southern Europe, and that these populations also took part in introducing pastoralism as well as agriculture to these areas!

This is perhaps the greatest defeat to Eurocentrists and white Supremacists, and dare I say deathblow to their silly racial notions.

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
bump
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3