quote:

---

Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
By Eurasian, I presume you mean Caucasoid. Some anthropologists identify the Mouillians (20,000 B. P) with Caucasoids. Those crania are however robust, with prognathism and wide noses. So they obviously are not. The earliest Caucasoid arrival in that region was the Capsians, who are associated with "Type B" which is thin nosed and orthognathic (Briggs, 1955; Chamla, 1980).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I hope that helps you out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:
Okay...I was debating this on another site against some poster. I wanted to make this thread on Egyptsearch to fully clarify this topic, because there are a lot of people on this site that are more educated on this topic.

Was the Maghreb predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 years? The guy I was debating against kept saying that, but there were some lope holes in his argument. Some sources say agree with Maghreb being predominately Eurasian for 30,000 years.

But there are some things I'm curious about. They say U6(Eurasian) entered North Africa at that time. But why do most Berber groups show low frequencies of U6(except the Mozabite Berber group)?

Also 80% of Berber paternal lineages are predominantly African E1b1b, sometimes going as high as 90%. The "Berber" marker barely has little to no traces outside of Africa.

The above statements goes will with female Europeans being enslaved in North Africa. So can anyone explain this?

Not to sound like a moron....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Swenet raises good points. I also want to point out that coastal Northwest Africa is cut off from the rest of the continent not only by the Sahara but also the Atlas Mountains. It's not like Egypt which is connected to the Sudan via the Nile; Northwest Africa really is a relatively isolated area.

---

This is really what is baffling me. They say the Eurasians came from the Near east and that U6 was brought into the Maghreb from the Near East. And that they traveled from East to west.

So how did they get passed the Atlas mountains?


 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Swenet raises good points. I also want to point out that coastal Northwest Africa is cut off from the rest of the continent not only by the Sahara but also the Atlas Mountains. It's not like Egypt which is connected to the Sudan via the Nile; Northwest Africa really is a relatively isolated area.

---

This is really what is baffling me. They say the Eurasians came from the Near east and that U6 was brought into the Maghreb from the Near East. And that they traveled from East to west.

So how did they get passed the Atlas mountains?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Swenet raises good points. I also want to point out that coastal Northwest Africa is cut off from the rest of the continent not only by the Sahara but also the Atlas Mountains. It's not like Egypt which is connected to the Sudan via the Nile; Northwest Africa really is a relatively isolated area.

---

This is really what is baffling me. They say the Eurasians came from the Near east and that U6 was brought into the Maghreb from the Near East. And that they traveled from East to west.

So how did they get passed the Atlas mountains?

---

They don't necessarily have to come from the Near East. Iberia is just across a little strait to the north.

---

They said U6 entered the Maghreb 30,000 years ago. And I believe U6 came from the near east.

And U5 is the sister clade and that's mainly found in Europeans.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
First of all, one should be weary of any claims of 'Eurasian' presence in prehistoric Africa especially one so early. Euronuts have long had the agenda to white-wash Africa, particularly North Africa to claim the indigenous inhabitants as part of their "Caucasian" race and especially the ancient Egyptians and their civilization! 30,000 years ago, modern humans had just settled Europe yet the Euronuts
are saying the same type of 'Eurasians' or a branch among them made their way from the 'Near East' into North Africa. What I find hilarious about this claim is that most Euronuts I've come across say that North Africa during this time period was still inhabited by indigenous Africans and that 'Eurasians'/'Caucasians' didn't enter North African until after the Holocene. The troll Fartheadbonkers is one of these folks as he parrots the Carleton Coon belief that North Africa up until after the Holocene was inhabited by the ancestors of the Khoisan Bushmen of southern Africa. LOL As Swenet has stated virtually all the remains in the time period of 30 kya show obvious African or "negroid" features as evidenced by Nazlet Khater Man, the oldest modern human remains of Egpt.



Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: "Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average." The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry. The morphological features of the Nazlet Khater skeleton were analysed by Thoma (1984). The 35,000 year old skeleton was examined using multivariate statistical procedures. In the first part, principal components analysis is performed on a dataset of mandible dimensions of 220 fossils, sub-fossils and modern specimens, ranging in time from the Late Pleistocene to recent and restricted in space to the African continent and Southern Levant. ---Thoma A., Morphology and Affinities of the Nazlet Khater Man; Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 13, 1984

Nazlet Khater falls closer to the Late Palaeolithic Nubian samples . . . If an ancestral descendant relationship existed between Nazlet Khater and the Late Palaeolithic Nubian specimens, then regional continuity persisted among the Upper/Late Pleistocene populations of the Upper Nile region. The Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population which is a descendant of a larger sub-Saharan stock, which extended as far north as present day upper Egypt sometime during the Last Interglacial period, or the early part of the Last Glacial period. In such a scenario, the Nazlet Khater belongs to a relict population which retained some of the morphological features [form & structure] that were present among Middle Stone Age populations, but no longer present in other contemporaneous sub-Saharan and North African populations. ---The Position of the Nazlet Khater Specimen Among Prehistoric and Modern African and Levantine Populations, Ron Pinhasi, Departent of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, U.K., Patrick Semal, Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Belgium; Journal of Human Evolution (2000) vol. 39, 269–288.

Of course the above info only tells us morphological evidence, but what about genetics? The Eurocentrics like to point to mtDNA hg U6 as 'Eurasian' even though it has its highest frequency and diversity in North Africa and not without. But notice that U6 is postulated to have arisen in the 'Near East' i.e. Southwest Asia which is right next to Africa. U6 in turn is derived from hg U which arose 50,000 years ago around the time of the first or first few waves of expansions out of Africa. Since Southwest Asia is right next to Africa, exactly how 'Eurasian' were these people then?? Even if one considers Southwest Asia as strictly Asian even though a large portion of the region is geologically an extension of the African continent, how could the people in that region be distinct from their immediate ancestors in Africa only several miles next door??
Keita put it best with this statement:

The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose.-- Keita, In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. John Benjamins. (2008)

So not only were these early populations in the 'Near East' right next to Africa--their ancestral home--but there was continuous movement back and forth between the two regions. So this pretty much eradicates the whole division between African and 'Eurasian' in this early period. The irony is that such so-called Eurasian clades are not just those of mtDNA but also Y-chromosomal and they are not only found in North Africa but in 'Sub-Sahara' as well. Y-DNA hg R1* is present among West Africans yet you never hear the Euroloons try to claim these people as Eurasian descended Caucasian kinsmen!!

And this is just my few cents on this topic.
 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Swenet raises good points. I also want to point out that coastal Northwest Africa is cut off from the rest of the continent not only by the Sahara but also the Atlas Mountains. It's not like Egypt which is connected to the Sudan via the Nile; Northwest Africa really is a relatively isolated area.

---

This is really what is baffling me. They say the Eurasians came from the Near east and that U6 was brought into the Maghreb from the Near East. And that they traveled from East to west.

So how did they get passed the Atlas mountains?

---

They don't necessarily have to come from the Near East. Iberia is just across a little strait to the north.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I hope that helps you out.

---

Can you explain why the U6 clade is low in North Africans?

Since it is that old, shouldn't it be more wide spread?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
First of all, one should be weary of any claims of 'Eurasian' presence in prehistoric Africa especially one so early. Euronuts have long had the agenda to white-wash Africa, particularly North Africa to claim the indigenous inhabitants as part of their "Caucasian" race and especially the ancient Egyptians and their civilization! 30,000 years ago, modern humans had just settled Europe yet the Euronuts
are saying the same type of 'Eurasians' or a branch among them made their way from the 'Near East' into North Africa. What I find hilarious about this claim is that most Euronuts I've come across say that North Africa during this time period was still inhabited by indigenous Africans and that 'Eurasians'/'Caucasians' didn't enter North African until after the Holocene. The troll Fartheadbonkers is one of these folks as he parrots the Carleton Coon belief that North Africa up until after the Holocene was inhabited by the ancestors of the Khoisan Bushmen of southern Africa. LOL As Swenet has stated virtually all the remains in the time period of 30 kya show obvious African or "negroid" features as evidenced by Nazlet Khater Man, the oldest modern human remains of Egpt.



Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: "Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average." The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry. The morphological features of the Nazlet Khater skeleton were analysed by Thoma (1984). The 35,000 year old skeleton was examined using multivariate statistical procedures. In the first part, principal components analysis is performed on a dataset of mandible dimensions of 220 fossils, sub-fossils and modern specimens, ranging in time from the Late Pleistocene to recent and restricted in space to the African continent and Southern Levant. ---Thoma A., Morphology and Affinities of the Nazlet Khater Man; Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 13, 1984

Nazlet Khater falls closer to the Late Palaeolithic Nubian samples . . . If an ancestral descendant relationship existed between Nazlet Khater and the Late Palaeolithic Nubian specimens, then regional continuity persisted among the Upper/Late Pleistocene populations of the Upper Nile region. The Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population which is a descendant of a larger sub-Saharan stock, which extended as far north as present day upper Egypt sometime during the Last Interglacial period, or the early part of the Last Glacial period. In such a scenario, the Nazlet Khater belongs to a relict population which retained some of the morphological features [form & structure] that were present among Middle Stone Age populations, but no longer present in other contemporaneous sub-Saharan and North African populations. ---The Position of the Nazlet Khater Specimen Among Prehistoric and Modern African and Levantine Populations, Ron Pinhasi, Departent of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, U.K., Patrick Semal, Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Belgium; Journal of Human Evolution (2000) vol. 39, 269–288.

Of course the above info only tells us morphological evidence, but what about genetics? The Eurocentrics like to point to mtDNA hg U6 as 'Eurasian' even though it has its highest frequency and diversity in North Africa and not without. But notice that U6 is postulated to have arisen in the 'Near East' i.e. Southwest Asia which is right next to Africa. U6 in turn is derived from hg U which arose 50,000 years ago around the time of the first or first few waves of expansions out of Africa. Since Southwest Asia is right next to Africa, exactly how 'Eurasian' were these people then?? Even if one considers Southwest Asia as strictly Asian even though a large portion of the region is geologically an extension of the African continent, how could the people in that region be distinct from their immediate ancestors in Africa only several miles next door??
Keita put it best with this statement:

The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose.-- Keita, In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. John Benjamins. (2008)

So not only were these early populations in the 'Near East' right next to Africa--their ancestral home--but there was continuous movement back and forth between the two regions. So this pretty much eradicates the whole division between African and 'Eurasian' in this early period. The irony is that such so-called Eurasian clades are not just those of mtDNA but also Y-chromosomal and they are not only found in North Africa but in 'Sub-Sahara' as well. Y-DNA hg R1* is present among West Africans yet you never hear the Euroloons try to claim these people as Eurasian descended Caucasian kinsmen!!

And this is just my few cents on this topic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I hope that helps you out.

---

Can you explain why the U6 clade is low in North Africans?

Since it is that old, shouldn't it be more wide spread?

---

There is a difference between a lineage that's widespread and a lineage that's high in frequency. U6 IS pretty widespread in the Maghreb, just not that high in frequency at times. The Berber mtDNA pool is affected by recent immigrations from Iberia, Sub-Saharan Africa and seemingly even from Northwest European Saami. Those recent admixture events have affected the frequencies of the more ancient North African mtDNA lineages such as U6 and L3*, just like how recent migrations have affected the importance of NRY B-M60 in Egypt and the importance of NRY A3b2 in Northern Sudan.

I wouldn't worry about mtDNA U6 and other Berber uni-parental lineages such as NRY E-M81. Some Tunesian Berbers are 100% NRY E-M81, we know this cannot be possible and that they have absorbed J or some other paternal haplogroup other than E-M81 at some point. They (the uni-parental lineages) are informative when it comes to the introgressions they unveil, but as far as determining how biological African/Eurasian Northern Africans are, they give false impressions. Using these ancestry informative markers, one gets the impression that Berbers are about 50% African and 50% Eurasian, with some groups leaning more to one or the other side. Looking at genome-wide data, I'm not sure this position is still tenable.

---

I see..
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
I am skeptical of assorted "Eurasian" arguments circa 30kya.
We all know movement occurred in the broad zone of
northern Africa and the LEvant, but to label them
"Caucasoid" or "Eurasian" is dubious on 5 counts:

1) The so-called ""Eurasians" at that time resembled tropical Africans
as Swenet's data shows. Any hopes of "wandering Caucasoids"
are dead in the water from the get go.




2) Second too often claims about "North Africa" conveniently
forget to mention that they refer primarily to
the Medit coast. However, "North Africa" as shown
in standard, credible geography texts take in large
slices of the Sudan, parts of Chad etc etc. Airbrushing
these areas away conveniently out of North Africa
is typical sleight of hand of the EuroDeceivers.



Sampling of alleged "North Africa" ----------------------------




3) Third, Frigi, Keita and others show substantial
"sub-Saharan" gene presence in North Africa, again
contradicting all to convenient "Eurasian"
claims.




4) Fourth, U6 can be classified as African hg based
on frequency, applying the same standard used
elsewhere- that uses frequency. Someone maybe has
updated data on this.




5)Skeletal analyses of "Middle Eastern" populations
30kya show few having tropical limb proportions.
Nazlet Khater and SKhul don;t show any clustering
re "Caucasoids." on crania either If anything, the
resemblance is to Africans, who are the most
diverse anyway with narrow noses, etc etc. ANd
a stocky body mass does not necessarily denote
the presence of "wandering Caucasoids." Body mass
can change based on nutrition-as Pinhasi shows below.
Small scale movement from Iberia and the LEvant
was taking place early on but whether these can
be classified as "Caucasoid" or "Eurasian" 30kya
is dubious.

There was movement, we all know, but if these alleged
"wandering Caucasoids" were in place so long, how
come their cold-adapted limb proportions don't show
up much in the "Middle East" as Holliday, SMith et
al show below?






 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 

 

---

Posted by KingMichael777 (Member # 20401) on :
 
@zaharan

Good post! So U6 could have been a mutation?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ It may be a parallel mutation or it could likely have originated in Southwest Asia and then entered Africa. Either way, it originated among African descended people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

KingMichael777 is right, they do propose U6 entered the Maghreb via Iberia.


Yet, at the same time Hg L3 is directly related to Hg M and N.

And N is directly related to U6.

Creating the following pattern,

L3
N
U6

The also say the U6 is closely related to M1

Again,

L3,
M, M1


We also have Berber ethnic groups who differ drastically in sequence to not even carrying this Hg U6 at all. So if U6 entered 30Kya via the Iberia as a basal Hg for all Berbers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] ^ It may be a parallel mutation or it could likely have originated in Southwest Asia and then entered Africa. Either way, it originated among African descended people.

---

I see...I see.
 

---

Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
Claiming UP Europeans were "wandering" Africans has no basis in truth. Nor for Asia for that matter. I see Zaharan is now claiming Skhul are Africans. Good luck finding the archaeological evidence for that:

"The unique nature of the Asian Paleolithic record compels one to consider the implications of the fact that six decades of research have failed to show any indication of intrusive cultures or technologies. Artifact types recorded in Asia's earliest Paleolithic assemblages continue into the Pleistocene (Pope et al., 1990) [...] In western Asia, where some researchers believe the earliest modern humans outside of Africa can be found at the Qafzeh site, there is no indication of an intrusive culture" (Frayer et al., 1993)

We are expected to believe "wandering" Africans walked around the globe, but never left a single trace? Sheer fantasy.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^^
ROTFLMAO


Still denying the inviolable FACT of the single genesis of the human species in Africa. Apparently you are too dumb to notice that the very source you cited states so in the following sentence: "In western Asia, where some researchers believe the earliest modern humans outside of Africa can be found at the Qafzeh site,.."

Thus the first Western Asians were themselves 'wandering Africans', you dummy! LOL

And it gets worse for your dumbass!

Incredible Human Journey, Episode 1, Arabia Sequence (Eden)

High atop a dusty plateau on the Arabian Peninsula, archaeologist Jeffrey Rose picked up a rock, saw something surprising, and started asking questions that could change history. His unusual discoveries in southern Oman help shape new theories about when early humans may have exited Africa, who those pioneers were, and what route they took on the first stage of their journey to every corner of the Earth.

In the late 1990s geneticists identified mitochondrial DNA signatures suggesting that the first humans to leave Africa may have traveled through Ethiopia to Yemen and Oman. Scientists theorized they were beachcombers who followed the coastline. Rose arrived in the area, eager to test the theory that Arabia was the gateway out of Africa by searching for archaeological evidence. "We surveyed for years," he recalls. "Stone Age artifacts littered the landscape; virtually any place I stopped the car, I found a Paleolithic site. But none of it showed a connection to Africa; and along the coast we found no evidence of humans at all."

He and his international team of scientists returned to Oman in 2010, and on the final day of their surveying season, at the last site on their list, "we hit the jackpot." The find was a very specific stone tool technology used by the "Nubian Complex," nomadic hunters from Africa's Nile Valley. Nubian technology is a unique method of making spear points that was previously only known from North Africa. Rose's team ultimately discovered over a hundred workshop sites where these artifacts were manufactured en masse. "It was scientific euphoria," he describes.

The Nubian origin and inland location of the discovery were equally unexpected. "We had never considered the link to Africa would come from the Nile Valley, and that their route would be through the middle of the Arabian Peninsula rather than along the coast," Rose notes. "But that's what the scientific process is all about. If you haven't proven yourself wrong, you haven't made any progress. In hindsight, the Nubian connection makes perfect sense. The Nile Valley and Oman's Dhofar region are both limestone plateaus, heavily affected by perennial rivers. It's logical that people moved from an environment they knew to another one that mirrored it. At the time when I'm suggesting they expanded out of Africa, southern Arabia was fertile grassland. The Indian Ocean monsoon system activated rivers, and as sand dunes trapped water, it became a land of a thousand lakes. It was a paradise for early humans, whose livelihood depended upon hunting on the open savanna."

Accurately dating Rose's Nubian discovery was made possible by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) technology, which can determine the last time a single buried grain of sand was exposed to light by measuring the amount of energy trapped inside of it. The technique revealed the tools to be 106,000 years old, exactly the same time the Nubian Complex flourished in Africa. This also means Rose's theory places the first exit from Africa much earlier than previously believed. "Geneticists have shown that the modern human family tree began to branch out 60,000 years ago. I'm not questioning when it happened, but where. I suggest the great modern human expansion to the rest of the world was launched from Arabia rather than Africa."

Rose's passion for the past extends beyond fieldwork to how science can be shared with the public. "A few years ago, I was going through an incredibly dramatic wadi (valley) in Oman, hours off the beaten track, and I thought, wouldn't it be great if we could share this place with other people, I bet they'd love to see this." He began shooting short videos every few days and chronicling his work via Twitter updates and website posts. "You can't put into words how unique the landscape here is. Arabia feels like this romantic lost world filled with mysterious ruins; it's a living museum of artifacts. Everyone on Earth had ancestors who passed through this place; why wouldn't you want to show it to people?"

"I'm like a kid in a candy store, there's so much to learn; and now we have so many ways to disseminate information—the Internet, blogs, myriad TV channels, documentaries—it's all making science more interesting, digestible, and relevant to the public," he says. "There's no reason for archaeology and history to be stuffy. How could you not want to know how you got here? It's been said that there's more diversity within a group of 55 chimpanzees than in the entire human population. I think if we help people conceptualize how tiny the genetic distance is between them, it might even help bridge some of the tensions in our world today."

Trying to explain what keeps him based in a desert truck stop, digging through sand, and lugging 100-pound loads of rocks in 100-degree heat, Rose says, "It's like an itch you absolutely have to scratch. An answer you have to find. Who lived here? What were they doing? Are these the people who went on to colonize the entire world? Now that we know it was the Nubians who spread from Africa, I want to know why them in particular? What was it about their technology and culture that enabled them to expand so successfully? And what happened next? That's one of the defining characteristics of our species—we've always looked to the beginning and wanted to understand how we got here. That's what it means to be human."

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/explorers/bios/jeffrey-rose/

Do yourself a favor and save yourself from further embarrassment by seeking professional help. Either that or jump off a bridge.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

I see...I see.

---

KingMichael, what you should also see is the glaring hypocrisy of these Eurocentrists. They love to point out lineages in North Africa which they attribute to 'Eurasians' yet the same folks are virtually silent about the presence of recent African lineages in Europe! NRY hg E1b1b is found in approximately a third of all European males and is found to have been introduced to Europe during the Neolithic, but because its found in Europe it is no longer considered African by the Euronuts even though E has its greatest frequency and diversity in the continent both in North and Sub-Saharan Africa.





Of course there are some Euronuts like Farthead who claim that E1b1b is a 'Caucasoid' lineage from Africa not like its sibling lineage, E1b1a, which is 'Negroid'. LOL
 

---

Posted by KingMichael777 (Member # 20401) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

I see...I see.

---

KingMichael, what you should also see is the glaring hypocrisy of these Eurocentrists. They love to point out lineages in North Africa which they attribute to 'Eurasians' yet the same folks are virtually silent about the presence of recent African lineages in Europe! NRY hg E1b1b is found in approximately a third of all European males and is found to have been introduced to Europe during the Neolithic, but because its found in Europe it is no longer considered African by the Euronuts even though E has its greatest frequency and diversity in the continent both in North and Sub-Saharan Africa.





Of course there are some Euronuts like Farthead who claim that E1b1b is a 'Caucasoid' lineage from Africa not like its sibling lineage, E1b1a, which is 'Negroid'. LOL

---

quote:

---

Black in Africa ha a very wide meaning do not listen to these stupid racist baboons who try and tell you Black means big lips wide nostrils and kinky hair IT ABSOLUTELY DOES not

---

quote:

---

Check von Wuthenau he has other examples of Olmecs with Afros. The Afros don't lie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Is the Maghreb in 2012 predominantly Eurasian?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I assume your battling Barros Serrano author of

The Myth of 'Stolen Legacy': An Afrocentrist Bible Debunked
Posted

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TKEIB6SG61QHEJBK7/p48

and

Afronazis decimated in Maghreb

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T1FHTSK4GCCL1FR42/p10

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Honestly, topix is another worthless Internet ghetto as far as I'm concerned. You're not going to change the academic paradigm by arguing with racist lunatics on topix. You'd have more luck in a more academic forum.

---

quote:

---

He even claims Southeast Europe had civilization BEFORE Sumer and Ancient Egypt. He claims Vinca was a civilization when it was only an neothlic culture..
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TA2J5TM5U3TB70LPR

---

quote:

---

And no I am not an "Afrocentric" like most the people on Topix

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
^ Those terms are useless. You can be "African" and any race. Its more appropiate if you use oids which refer to racial phenotypes.

The ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid. They looked absolutely nothing like Negroids ('Blacks') and actually contrasted themselves to that southern physiognomy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
^ Those terms are useless. You can be "African" and any race. Its more appropiate if you use oids which refer to racial phenotypes.

The ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid. They looked absolutely nothing like Negroids ('Blacks') and actually contrasted themselves to that southern physiognomy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
The ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid. They looked absolutely nothing like Negroids ('Blacks')

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
KingMichael777
And no I am not an "Afrocentric" like most the people on Topix. I usually get on both the Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics.

^Sounds fishy to me. Most of the people on Topic are "Afrocentrics"?
How so? What makes them "Afrocentric?" Can you define
the term and provide direct links to what they say and cite?
How do we know they are not the standard (and laughably)
bogus "black militants" behind whom is usually a
white lamer frontin? Please elucidate as to these
mysterious "Afrocentrics" ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
KingMichael777 says he's part Black.

zarahan please review KingMichael777's posts 17-43 and give a percentage estimate on how black his replies are, thanks

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=recent_user_posts;u=00020401

[KingMichael777, there is website evidence that zarahan is an AC/DC fan. I'm not sure if that takes away from his blackness assessment skills but lets let him do a report first and ignore the AC/DC thing for the moment]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
zarahan had wondered if you were a "white lamer frontin"
I asked zarahan to do a futher investigation of your earlier posts and give a blackness level overview.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
zarahan had wondered if you were a "white lamer frontin"
I asked zarahan to do a futher investigation of your earlier posts and give a blackness level overview.

---

Oh. Why would I pretend to be black?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
zarahan had wondered if you were a "white lamer frontin"
I asked zarahan to do a futher investigation of your earlier posts and give a blackness level overview.

---

Oh. Why would I pretend to be black?

---

you had said you are part black and zarahan sense's that that is the reason you go in on afrocentrics. I say wait for further investigation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

Honestly, topix is another worthless Internet ghetto as far as I'm concerned. You're not going to change the academic paradigm by arguing with racist lunatics on topix. You'd have more luck in a more academic forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

No, different thread.

The Barros Serrano character is a real Eurocenteric. He spews claims without any reliable sources. When asked to present sources, he usually sidesteps.

He even claims Southeast Europe had civilization BEFORE Sumer and Ancient Egypt. He claims Vinca was a civilization when it was only an neothlic culture..
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TA2J5TM5U3TB70LPR

And here's a thread asking everyone and him to prove Vinca was in fact a civilization and that it predates Ancient Egypt.
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TIE93M3O6GJU1GRVN

The guy is a real Eurocentric. And no I am not an "Afrocentric" like most the people on Topix. I usually get on both the Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics.

---

For the record, a Neolithic Complex is still a 'civilization'. I don't know what definition of civilization you're going by but I consider any complex culture with an organized central system as being 'civilized'. By the way, the Nile Valley predecessors of Egypt in Sudan as well as the Neolithic predecessors of Sumer in the Euphrates and the Gulf precede the Balkan culture of Vinca by centuries.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
zarahan had wondered if you were a "white lamer frontin"
I asked zarahan to do a futher investigation of your earlier posts and give a blackness level overview.

---

Oh. Why would I pretend to be black?

---

you had said you are part black and zarahan sense's that that is the reason you go in on afrocentrics. I say wait for further investigation

---

I mostly get on Eurocentric's. But I do get on Afrocentrics when they make claims like the ancient Greeks were black.....

There are also some characters that claim the Olmecs were black. But there are many decent posters though who do not make ridiculous claims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
zarahan had wondered if you were a "white lamer frontin"
I asked zarahan to do a futher investigation of your earlier posts and give a blackness level overview.

---

Oh. Why would I pretend to be black?

---

you had said you are part black and zarahan sense's that that is the reason you go in on afrocentrics. I say wait for further investigation

---

I mostly get on Eurocentric's. But I do get on Afrocentrics when they make claims like the ancient Greeks were black.....

There are also some characters that claim the Olmecs were black. But there are many decent posters though who do not make ridiculous claims.

---

we will have to wait and see what zarahan has to say about that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

Honestly, topix is another worthless Internet ghetto as far as I'm concerned. You're not going to change the academic paradigm by arguing with racist lunatics on topix. You'd have more luck in a more academic forum.

---

Exactly! I left that sh|tty forum ages ago.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

No, different thread.

The Barros Serrano character is a real Eurocenteric. He spews claims without any reliable sources. When asked to present sources, he usually sidesteps.

He even claims Southeast Europe had civilization BEFORE Sumer and Ancient Egypt. He claims Vinca was a civilization when it was only an neothlic culture..
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TA2J5TM5U3TB70LPR

And here's a thread asking everyone and him to prove Vinca was in fact a civilization and that it predates Ancient Egypt.
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TIE93M3O6GJU1GRVN

The guy is a real Eurocentric. And no I am not an "Afrocentric" like most the people on Topix. I usually get on both the Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics.

---

For the record, a Neolithic Complex is still a 'civilization'. I don't know what definition of civilization you're going by but I consider any complex culture with an organized central system as being 'civilized'. By the way, the Nile Valley predecessors of Egypt in Sudan as well as the Neolithic predecessors of Sumer in the Euphrates and the Gulf precede the Balkan culture of Vinca by centuries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ That Vinca had some sort of formal social structuring is understood from the pottery, megalithic structures, as well as the pictographic writing. But again, all of these were predated by cultures in Africa and Southwest Asia.

In fact even the Vinca people show African and Southwest Asian ancestry (as shown here) which isn't surprising considering that Neolithic culture as introduced to Europe and not indigenous at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
30 000 years ago North Africa was inhabited by black Africans like we can see in the early Tassili rock painting. The flow of migration from the Middle East/Levant pre-date the Ancient Egyptian dynasty (settling in the north regions like the Delta) but post-date the early Tassili painting. The desertification of the regions along the years probably pushed the original African population toward oasis, the Niles (where they founded the Ancient Kemet and Nubian Dynasty) and the south.

---

Good point...




 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Gilf Kebir/Cave of swimmers. Perhaps more appropriate since its a lot closer to Egypt, and within the range of pre-dynastic Egypto-Nubians:






 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
I love Euroclown Hypocrisy Africans can be any "race" Europeans are only white...how absurd.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
^ Those terms are useless. You can be "African" and any race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

30 000 years ago North Africa was inhabited by black Africans like we can see in the early Tassili rock painting. The flow of migration from the Middle East/Levant pre-date the Ancient Egyptian dynasty (settling in the north regions like the Delta) but post-date the early Tassili painting. The desertification of the regions along the years probably pushed the original African population toward oasis, the Niles (where they founded the Ancient Kemet and Nubian Dynasty) and the south.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Gilf Kebir/Cave of swimmers. Perhaps more appropriate since its a lot closer to Egypt, and within the range of pre-dynastic Egypto-Nubians:

---

Dynastic Egyptian swimmers











Apparently Egyptian kids used baskets as floaters.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

I love Euroclown Hypocrisy Africans can be any "race" Europeans are only white...how absurd.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fuckheadbonkers:
^ Those terms are useless. You can be "African" and any race.

---

---

Indeed. Europeans can only be Caucasians while Africans can be any race. So all those Africans with "Negroid" features who left E lineages in Europe were still Caucasians of the Mediterranean type. LOL One of the many double-think nonsense of the Euronuts.
 

---

Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
 
The oldest civilization in Africa was the proto saharan Maa confederation.The Maa empire existed before Ancient Egypt.African speaking the Niger Congo and Nilo Saharan languages were part of the Maa empire.The Maa script call proto saharan was use by the Mande, Dravidian, Minoan, Olmec and Pre D Egyptian.African from Maa worshiped the God Amma also called Amun.

After the Sahara become a desert.African from Maa migrated and created Egypt, Sumeria, Elam, Minoan, Harrapa etc.

Djehuti nice pictures of swimming Egyptians.First time I see them.
 

---

Posted by KingMichael777 (Member # 20401) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Well so far Rose's findings support the genetic data that the earliest 'Eurasian' lineages date 70-80kya. The point is that Southwest Asia, specifically Arabia was the launching point of humans to other parts of Eurasia at an early date.

But the main thing I should also point out is that both Arabia and the Levant are geologically an extension of Africa with its tectonics and rock formations broken off from Africa and that much of its flora and fauna are also an extension of Africa as well, so why is it so surprising humans were inhabiting Arabia earlier than was commonly thought? Better yet, why is Southwest Asia-- Arabia and the Levant-- despite its geological and biological connections to Africa, not acknowledged as such?? Why is it this region is classified strictly as 'Asian' or 'Eurasian'?? As the poster al-Takruri says, it is all Eurocentric semantics. Even though the Levant and Arabia are right next to Africa and they are continuous with the African continent both geologically but biologically as well with the same plants and animals, it becomes convenient to for Eurocentrics to label the region 'Asian' so as to obfuscate its African connections anthropologically and historically for there are many!

This is how Eurocentrics are able to get away with the false division of many of these genetic lineages as 'Eurasian' vs. African, as if the Arabian populations these lineages developed in was very different from the ancestral African populations across the Red Sea. What's more is that during this time of the late Pleistocene when people began migrating out of Africa, it wasn't just a one-way direction, but back-and-forth movements. This is why there are so-called 'Eurasian' lineages found in Africa both in the North as well as Sub-Sahara.

There was also more than one wave of expansion out of Africa. So far there are three verified expansions into the Levant from Egypt during the Epipaleolithic: The first was the Halfans who gave rise to the Kebarans in the Levant, then the Mushabians who gave rise to the Natufians, and then last was the Harifians who gave rise to Negev pastoralists. There were also three waves into Arabia from the Horn: The first was probably the Eburan culture of Kenya, then the Hargeisan culture of Somalia which gave rise to the Neolithic Rub Al-Khali, and then the Gash culture of Eritrea which gave rise to the Tihama culture of Yemen. But you NEVER hear about the early Levantine or Arabian peoples as being of African ancestry do you?

This is why I agree with Takruri that the Levant and Arabia together should be considered 'Extra-Africa'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Those dates may mean little considering the context in which those lineages arose. Granted, they may predate a 'European' exodus out of Africa, and thus, originate on the African continent, but that doesn't mean that those Africans were genetically close to the contemporary ancestors of Nilo-Saharans, Niger-Congo, proto-Afrasan speakers, etc. A Niger Congo speaker and a modern European might easily be genetically closer to each other than a Klasies river AMH (Southern Africa) and a Dhar es Soltane AMH (Northern Africa).

Populations in prehistoric Africa were structured, which explains why there is little basal OOA mtDNA lineages in Africa (mtDNA N and mtDNA M), and no trace of OOA mtDNA L lineages in either modern or fossil Eurasia. In other words, peripheral populations who populated the areas near the gates to Eurasia (or perhaps they were already outside, or both) genetically diverged away from mtDNA L carriers first, before taking their genetic variations (mtDNA U, R, M, N, etc.) with them to Eurasia. aDNA tested Eurasian fossils all belong to the aforementioned lineages or derivative lineages. These OOA populations may have been indigenous Africans, but they had little to no impact on modern Sub Saharan Africans, except maybe Ethiopians/Somali's, although I'm starting to doubt this as well since their M and N reeks of back-flow (none of it is basal).

The aDNA yields from the Taforalt series (Kefi 2005) have been critiqued here by certain posters on ES, but when everything is put into context, they fit the general pattern of expectations, especially with the Henn et al (2012) results showing that pre-Berber ancestry in the Maghreb is a recent (Late Upper Palaeolithic) off-shoot of Middle Eastern/European ancestry.

---

quote:

---

But those same Africans that did are distant from modern Africans..Like Khoisan people are to modern Africans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
But this is assuming that there was a division between these early AM humans of North Africa and the AM human ancestors of modern 'Sub-Saharans' in the first place.

---

quote:

---

... when we revised published and our unpublished
HVRI data from Europe (11,511) and Africa (4,566),
we collected [u]31 L1b European haplotypes, four of
which are 16175[/u] carriers, giving a frequency of 0.129
for this type in Europe. On the contrary, from [u]310
L1b Africans none of them has the 16175 transition[/u].
Supposing that Africa has the same frequency as in
Europe, the binomial probability of not finding this
motif in the African sample would be 2.5 3 10_19.
Therefore, the [i]most probable situation is that

• the ancestor of this motif (Fig. 2)
• arrived from Africa
• to Europe where the 16175 mutation
  occurred.
• The divergence time estimation for this clade
  in
  Europe is around 20,180 +/- 16,144 years,

pointing to a prehistoric arrival, in Europe, of the basic African motif.

It could also be that L1b with the 16175 transition
was carried to the Iberian Peninsula with the Muslim
invaders and that this motif was lost in Africa.
However, there are no important NW African
demographic movements registered in recent times
that could explain this loss. Furthermore, [/u]this
clade has a relatively high diversity in Europe (three different haplotypes from four individuals)[/u];
therefore, if these types had arrived from Africa
in recent times, we would have to suppose that this
great diversity should already be in Africa.


Marı´a Jose´ Casas et al.,
Genetic Impact of Migrations from North Africa in Medieval Spain
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 131:539–551 (2006)

---

quote:

---

... when we revised published and our unpublished
HVRI data from Europe (11,511) and Africa (4,566),
we collected 31 L1b European haplotypes, four of
which are 16175 carriers, giving a frequency of 0.129
for this type in Europe. On the contrary, from 310
L1b Africans none of them has the 16175 transition.
Supposing that Africa has the same frequency as in
Europe, the binomial probability of not finding this
motif in the African sample would be 2.5 3 10_19.
Therefore, the most probable situation is that

• the ancestor of this motif (Fig. 2)
• arrived from Africa
• to Europe where the 16175 mutation occurred.
• The divergence time estimation for this clade
  in Europe is around 20,180 +/- 16,144 years,

pointing to a prehistoric arrival, in Europe, of the basic African motif.

It could also be that L1b with the 16175 transition
was carried to the Iberian Peninsula with the Muslim
invaders and that this motif was lost in Africa. However,
there are no important NW African demographic
movements registered in recent times that could
explain this loss. Furthermore, this
clade has a relatively high diversity in Europe (three
different haplotypes from four individuals);
therefore, if these types had arrived from Africa in
recent times, we would have to suppose that this
great diversity should already be in Africa.[/i]


Marı´a Jose´ Casas et al.,
Genetic Impact of Migrations from North Africa in Medieval Spain
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 131:539–551 (2006)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Takruri/Tukuler, where you been?? If you hadn't notice this forum's been kind of dead lately, are you still at Egyptsearch reloaded? If so, I need to post some stuff there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I agree. Even the oldest NRY lineages of North Africa date to Epipaleolithic times per E2 and E1b1b. What do you mean by "peripheral Africa"? I take that to mean Southwest Asia as that is the site or source of many Eurasian lineages and many experts think U6 originated there as well as its ancestor hg U. Other Eurasian lineages are found in Africa like R0, X1, and ancestral N1-- all of which show their high frequency and/or diversity in Southwest Asia.

---

Peripheral Africa = the contact points with Eurasia where AMHs would have to have left Africa, i.e., the coastal regions along the West and Northern (Sinai) Coast of the Red Sea and coastal Maghreb.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ I get what you're saying. So what do you make of the close resemblance of affinities between Jebel Irhoud and the Skhul and Qafzeh?

From the Natural History Museum of London:

Jebel Irhoud


Skhul 5


Qafzeh


The question is how much affinity there is between Irhoud and the Paleo-Israel skulls. The main similarities between them are their archaic features which make them at first glance look like AMH-Neanderthal hybrids.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^I don't know. I've never mentally made that connection (i.e., associating Jebel Irhoud with Skhul/Qafzeh), but, apparently, some researchers do. I don't know how long Jebel Irhoud's predecessors has been in Northern Africa, but Skhul/Qafzeh don't seem to me to have a long history in the Saharan region, prior to leaving Africa. But that's just my intuition after everything I've read about them.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
KingMichael777, how long would you say the Magreb has had a significant Eurasian population?
 

---

Posted by KingMichael777 (Member # 20401) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
KingMichael777, how long would you say the Magreb has had a significant Eurasian population?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
KingMichael777, how long would you say the Magreb has had a significant Eurasian population?

---

Hmmmm....Very good question. I would say around predynastic Egypt timeline. My guess being around 8,000 BC or a bit earlier.

Eurasians being in Maghreb for 30,000 years is ridiculous and as a lot if loop holes. I mean the oldest remains in Egypt around 30,000 BC show Negroid characteristics. How did Eurasians look like?

Also U6 is not found in Siwa Berbers at all and they are said to be original Berbers.

Speaking of U6, people like S.O.Y Keita has their doubts that U6 is even Eurasian in orgin.

He states it clearly here @ @ 28:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=qrN1Q0A0Yso

So my guess if Eurasian arrival to the Maghreb is around Pre-Dynastic Egypt timeline.

But most Eurasians came during waves of invasions by non Africans and enslavement of Christian Europeans.

That's just my two cents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
KingMichael777, how long would you say the Magreb has had a significant Eurasian population?

---

Hmmmm....Very good question. I would say around predynastic Egypt timeline. My guess being around 8,000 BC or a bit earlier.

Eurasians being in Maghreb for 30,000 years is ridiculous and as a lot if loop holes. I mean the oldest remains in Egypt around 30,000 BC show Negroid characteristics. How did Eurasians look like?

Also U6 is not found in Siwa Berbers at all and they are said to be original Berbers.

Speaking of U6, people like S.O.Y Keita has their doubts that U6 is even Eurasian in orgin.

He states it clearly here @ @ 28:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=qrN1Q0A0Yso

So my guess if Eurasian arrival to the Maghreb is around Pre-Dynastic Egypt timeline.

But most Eurasians came during waves of invasions by non Africans and enslavement of Christian Europeans.

That's just my two cents.

---

Agreed and here's my two cents.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=008312#000000

African pride worldwide.lol!

---

Interesting thread Dana.

I'll read your thread later.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Takruri/Tukuler, where you been?? If you hadn't notice this forum's been kind of dead lately, are you still at Egyptsearch reloaded? If so, I need to post some stuff there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Takruri, interesting paper. However, the specific group it is referring to (with transition 16175) seems to be what Cerezo et al (2012) call L1b1a8 (see fig 2), which is by them considered to be considerably younger than the dates you've cited (see fig 5). Cerezo et al (2012), for instance, studied all mtDNA L found in extant Italians and Iberians and they don't place l1b1a8 in Iberia prior to the terminal Pleistocene/incipient Holocene.

Cerezo et al (2012)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Takruri, interesting paper. However, the specific group it is referring to (with transition 16175) seems to be what Cerezo et al (2012) call L1b1a8 (see fig 2), which is by them considered to be considerably younger than the dates you've cited (see fig 5). Cerezo et al (2012), for instance, studied all mtDNA L found in extant Italians and Iberians and they don't place l1b1a8 in Iberia prior to the terminal Pleistocene/incipient Holocene.

Cerezo et al (2012)

---

My thanks for Cerezo, only had Casas and Malyarchuk.
Unlike those two, Cerezo rules out a Chalcolithic intro.

I'm just maintaining L was in Europe before the Chalcolithic
because of Europe specific sequences in L1b and L2a subclades.


Casas places her L1b(1) to 20kya. CI 34,000 - 2000 BCE
That's a 16ky CI from the EUP to the Bronze/Iron cusp.

Cerezo puts her L1b1a8 at ~11kya. CI 12,600 - 5800 BCE
A more manageable 3.5ky CI of LUP through Neolithic.

Malyarchuk found another Europe specific L, L2a1a (now
L2a1k I see) maybe at the LUP/Neolithic cusp 8280 BCE
with a MUP to Chalcolithic CI range of 15420-5140 BCE.

Cerezo fixes it at 10.6ky, boundaries of 9300 and 7900
BCE cusping LUP and Neolithic, preciser than Malyarchuk.


Looks like L1b may've crossed Gibraltar into Europe. L2a
is more uncertain. Maybe both or only the east periphery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

I like the way you and the bunch have carried on here.
I appreciate this new level you all have taken ES to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Maybe I should clarify a bit, because we're not as differing in our opinion as seems to be the case. My comments regarding mtDNA L outside of Africa in this thread not predating the Holocene have been limited to Iberia, not the other exits (Northeastern Africa, the Mediterranean Sea), as certain L lineages in the Balkan are obviously considerably older (and different) and perhaps even older than the presence of E-M78 in Eurasia.

Also note that I don't necessarily believe that there is no L in Iberia prior to the Chalcolithic; that would be undermining the (proto)Badarian ties I mentioned earlier as an important source for L lineages in Iberia (they predate the Chalcolithic mtDNA L yields). The same thing goes for E-M78 yields in Iberian fossils, which also predates the Chalcolithic in Iberia (I'm not excluding a Maghrebian entry for this lineage into Iberia and the wider Mediterranean).

The Chalcolithic was just a reference to the point in time at which the aforementioned L lineages can be definitely inferred to have existed in the Maghreb. My only upper boundary is the 20.000-10.000 range since I believe that Ibero-Maurusians and their predecessors were a combination of Africans of OOA ancestry (but who never left Africa), and back migrating Eurasians who were both (mostly) devoid of anything pre-M and pre-N. It is only after this period (20.000-10.000) that the Ibero-Maurusian stronghold of the Western Maghreb dwindles, and the ''mechtoid'' sites shift and concentrate in the Tunisian region, offering the chance for Africans of clear tropical origin to the South (e.g., Kiffians, Hassi-el-Abiod) and to the East ([proto]Badarians, Tenereans) to potentially gain footing in the Western Maghreb.

---

quote:

---

As for the L lineages, I have the following to say:

After re-reading the piece and other, more familiar, sources, I now see that the dates given by Casas et al don't seem to pertain to the 'European' mutation characterized by transition 16175. The 20,180 +/- 16,144 range seems to refer to their estimate of the European entry of the West African clade itself, per the following phrase: pointing to a prehistoric arrival, in Europe, of the basic African motif..

This runs into problems because present day L1b1a (parent clade of Casas' L1b with the 16175 transition) cannot be demonstrated to have expanded during most of Casas et al's range. Frigi et al (2010), for instance, call the group a ''more recent'' introduction to the Maghreb, (''more recent'', meaning, relative to the introduction of L3 in the Berber mtDNA pool ~20kya). After perusing the more recent literature, I learned Hong-Xiang Zheng et al (2012) have the following to say about the expansion of L1b1a:

From the African BSP (Figure 3B), all the African random samples also showed a 5-fold growth at ~15−11 kya, corresponding to expansion haplogroups L0a1a, L1b1a, L1b1a3, L2a1a, L3b1a, L3e1, L3e2a and L3e2b, and subsequently a 2-fold growth ~5−4kya, which might be driven by the Neolithic Revolution.

MtDNA analysis of global populations support that major population expansions began before Neolithic Time (2012)

What do you make of this?

---

The archaeological data makes this very clear in terms of the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean Basin so I am not at all surprised that this was the similar scenario in the Western Mediterranean in Iberia.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
I can't help but notice our resident troll Anglo-Idiot has disappeared. What happened? LOL

I think the Paleo-Nubian-Arabian findings that Troll Patrol posted scared his punk-ass off since they pretty much obliterate his outdated and already debunked claims for multi-regional theory of AMH.
 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
I think this thread sen him fleeing..

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008305

lol..
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 
Based on what I've read here so far, a few things come to mind:

DNA sampling on prehistoric Paleolithic European samples have generally involved very low samples, unlike the relatively more available Neolithic specimens at certain sites. These are hardly enough to make an educated assessment of the genetic diversity of Paleolithic European settlements. Even then, some of the well known studies that had been published, have had questionable findings, such as that of Caramelli et al. (2003). DNA sampling of Paleolithic specimens in the so-called "Near East" has been even more rarer, if any.

Valid observations have been made with regards to faulty reporting from Kefi et al. (2005), unless I've missed specific identification of where these observations went wrong.

It has been determined that contemporary Maghrebi uniparental are largely of post-Paleolithic ancestry, and this is consistent with the relatively recent migration of proto-Tamazight speakers from eastern Africa reported by several study teams. The oldest uniparental markers inherited by contemporary Maghrebi populations from ancient settlements in the Maghreb happen to be largely autochthonous types like U6 and M1, which are largely rare to absent in regions outside of the African mainland. To use contemporary Maghrebi gene pool as a temperature check for Paleolithic "Eurasian" ancestry in the Maghreb is therefore a recipe for arriving at a misinformed conclusion.

No apparent phylogenetic links have been determined between EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi specimens (the so-called "Mechta" types) and contemporary Meghrebi populations. If these "Mechta" types descend from Europe, then I'd like to examine the biological [and cultural] specifics of this ancestral European group.

No Lower Paleolithic DNA testing on Maghrebi specimens comes to mind. If anyone has it, feel free to share it.

Coalescence ages of certain European L haplotypes point to Upper Paleolithic genetic exchanges with Africans. Unless living Europeans are unrelated to Paleolithic a.m.h. Europeans, these revelations must be indicative of the limitations of heavy reliance on Paleolithic fossils.

The coalescent age of European L1b clade has been estimated to be around 20,180 +/- 16,144 years, according Casas et al. (2005), which had already been cited. Again, pointing to Paleolithic African contribution. Not sure what led to equation of Cerezo et al.'s (2012) L1b1a8 with Casas et al.'s transition 16175-bearing L1b clades, besides the presence of a Russian L1b1a8 haplotype.

Not being privy to the complexities of L3N and L3M clades in eastern Africa can lead to simplistic dismissals of said clades as mere back-migration relics.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Bottom line any suggestion that "North Africa" was predominantly "Eurasian" 30,000 years ago is pure nonsense. First, what is Eurasian? "Eurasia" is a big place stretching from Britain to China. Surely you don't mean to tell me that all these people look alike because they don't. So right there you know they are promoting an agenda.

Second, what remains are they basing this on? If they are using postulated dates of dispersal based on MODERN populations then you know it is B.S. Trying to extrapolate population affinities from 30,000 years ago by sampling from modern populations is not going to be accurate. The most accurate way is if you could sample DNA from ancient remains.

All the ancient settlement sites I am aware of across northern Africa are those affiliated with black African populations. Therefore I don't know what "Eurasians" they are referring to.

Third, Europe was in an ice age 30,000 years ago. Therefore, there were no "Western Eurasians" in Europe to any large degree to begin with. And those who were there were in the South and likely originated from where? Africa.

This talk is simply designed to mislead and confuse those who don't know better. Europe, especially Western Europe proper was not really settled by humans until after 20,000 Kya. And it is only after this 20,000 kya time period that populations in Europe began to derive lighter skin, but this took time as "white" skin only came about about 12,000 years ago. Prior to 20,000 years ago, almost all populations on Earth were still predominantly tropical African in phenotype in body structure. That is the part they don't tell you about and that is because modern humans leaving Africa 60,000 years ago, only got to parts of Europe 40,000 years ago and then the ice Age drove them out and into the south. The Northern portions of the planet were too cold to support permanent human settlement at that time.

Therefore the implication that 30,000 years ago there was a huge population of northern cold adapted "white" Eurasians roaming around who then moved into North Africa is purely backwards. From the time of the human exit out of Africa 60,000 years ago until 30,000 years ago, most humans primarily maintained their tropical robust traits as they mainly lived in tropical and subtropical environments, with some exceptions.

Eurasia itself had just been settled 30,000 years ago, so claiming that these people were "Eurasians" with unique features and traits adapted to thousands of years in Northern climes is strict nonsense.....

And as for R1, note this. It came from the South and east, carried by tropical people from Africa and Asia....


http://www.stclairresearch.com/content/path.html

quote:

---

The present-day R1b population is believed to be descended from a refuge in the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal), where the R1b1c haplogroup may have achieved genetic homogeneity. As conditions of the ice age eased in about 12,000 before the present, descendants of this group slowly migrated back North and East and eventually re-colonized all of Western Europe, leading to the dominant position of R1b in variant degrees from Iberia to Scandinavia, so evident in haplogroup maps. Caution here, however, as some experts believe that R1b represents the Western or centum-speaking branch of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, although this too remains uncertain.

---

quote:

---

In human genetics, Haplogroup R1b is the most frequently occurring Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe, parts of central Eurasia (for example Bashkortostan[3]), and in parts of sub-Saharan Central Africa (for example around Chad and Cameroon). R1b is also present at lower frequencies throughout Eastern Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, and parts of North Africa, South Asia, and Siberia. Due to European emigration it also reaches high frequencies in the Americas and Australia. While Western Europe is dominated by the R1b1a2 (R-M269) branch of R1b, the Chadic-speaking area in Africa is dominated by the branch known as R1b1c (R-V88). These represent two very successful "twigs" on a much bigger "family tree."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
No extant Eurasian L lineages date to early Upper Palaeolithic times. Only later do we infer the presence of L1b, L3 and L2 in the Maghreb, since its found in Chalcolithic Iberia, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
DNA sampling on prehistoric Paleolithic European samples have generally involved very low samples, unlike the relatively more available Neolithic specimens at certain sites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
Valid observations have been made with regards to faulty reporting from Kefi et al. (2005), unless I've missed specific identification of where these observations went wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
The oldest uniparental markers inherited by contemporary Maghrebi populations from ancient settlements in the Maghreb happen to be largely autochthonous types like U6 and M1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
To use contemporary Maghrebi gene pool as a temperature check for Paleolithic "Eurasian" ancestry in the Maghreb is therefore a recipe for arriving at a misinformed conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
No apparent phylogenetic links have been determined between EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi specimens (the so-called "Mechta" types) and contemporary Meghrebi populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
If these "Mechta" types descend from Europe, then I'd like to examine the biological [and cultural] specifics of this ancestral European group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
Coalescence ages of certain European L haplotypes point to Upper Paleolithic genetic exchanges with Africans. Unless living Europeans are unrelated to Paleolithic a.m.h. Europeans, these revelations must be indicative of the limitations of heavy reliance on Paleolithic fossils.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
Again, pointing to Paleolithic African contribution. Not sure what led to equation of Cerezo et al.'s (2012) L1b1a8 with Casas et al.'s transition 16175-bearing L1b clades, besides the presence of a Russian L1b1a8 haplotype.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

MtDNA analysis of global populations support that major population expansions began before Neolithic Time (2012)

What do you make of this?

---

Aw man, Table S2 is outta site! I don't know how you mine all this stuff but many thanks for it.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^Thanks for your thoughts. I don't agree with all of it (the expansion times of L1b1a may just be referring to West Africa, not necessarily to the North and Iberia, which, if true, would refute Casas et al's estimates for most of her range rather than support it) but I sense you're not necessarily hammering on the Casas' CI midpoint date (20kya) and the data is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for minor disagreements to co-exist until more data surfaces.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
LOL! Like I said, people don't realize that these folks are twisting history on top of its head and causing us to think backwards. ALL human lineages in Europe came from Africa directly or indirectly from Asia. The first human lineages in Europe likely died out due to ice age migrations back out of Europe and then were replaced by later migrations into Europe after the glaciers retreated. R1 lineages in Europe date to around 15-18Kya ago, which is the time when humans started settling Europe again after the glaciers retreated. This is the time frame of the "proto-indo-european" expansion, meaning expansion from Asia of aboriginal Indo-Asian derived phenotypes. Therefore, trying to speak of a "Eurasian" as in modern white Europeans or Asians or Near Easterners with cold adapted features from 30,000 years ago is blatantly absurd as no such creature existed.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Your time frames are all jangled up. Do your homework first before you make preposterous claims such as a 15-18kya entry of R lineages in Europe, and a PIE expansion dating to the same time. Where on earth do you get those figures. Do you make them up on the spot or what? As for your other spacey claims, that someone in this thread referred to cold adapted populations ~30kya, or that the first European lineages died out, I'm pretty sure no one even knows what you're talking about.
 

---

Posted by KingMichael777 (Member # 20401) on :
 
What does this say?
http://picturestack.com/968/840/XwNSchermafbe8QU.png
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
wikipedia:

During the last glacial maximum, much of Europe was depopulated and re-settled, about 15,000 years ago. The European Neolithic begins about 9,000 years ago in southeastern Europe, and reaches northern Europe by about 5,000 years ago.
R-M173 is very common throughout all of Eurasia except East Asia and Southeast Asia. Its distribution is believed to be associated with the re-settlement of Eurasia following the last glacial maximum ( approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago)
Its main subgroups are R-M420 and R-M343. One subclade of haplogroup R-M343 (especially R-M269), is the most common haplogroup in Western Europe and Bashkortostan,(Lobov 2009) while another R-M420 (especially R-M17 aka R-M98) is the most common haplogroup in large parts of South Asia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Western China, and South Siberia. During the last glacial maximum, much of Europe was depopulated and re-settled, about 15,000 years ago. The European Neolithic begins about 9,000 years ago in southeastern Europe, and reaches northern Europe by about 5,000 years ago.

_______________________________________


The Evolution of Modern Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation
By Marta Mirazón Lahr 1996





______________________________________________

RWTH Aachen University
http://www.sfb806.uni-koeln.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20&Itemid=27


 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^Stop talking about what you know little about. Cite one early Holocene European fossil whose aDNA indicates R1a or R1b. Early Europeans were mostly NRY G and I ACCORDING to their own Y chromosomes. Not some European 'expert' who is secretly motivated by extending the duration the bulk of his ancestors in Europe. Poor Eurocentrics have debated for centuries about whether they descend primarily from hunter gatherers or agriculturalists. Turns out, most of them are descended from neither.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Europe's First Farmers Were Immigrants: Replaced Their Stone Age Hunter-Gatherer Forerunners

(Sep. 4, 2009) — Analysis of ancient DNA from skeletons suggests that Europe's first farmers were not the descendants of the people who settled the area after the retreat of the ice sheets. Instead, the early farmers probably migrated into major areas of central and eastern Europe about 7,500 years ago, bringing domesticated plants and animals with them , says Barbara Bramanti from Mainz University in Germany and colleagues.

The researchers analyzed DNA from hunter-gatherer and early farmer burials, and compared those to each other and to the DNA of modern Europeans. They conclude that there is little evidence of a direct genetic link between the hunter-gatherers and the early farmers, and 82 percent of the types of mtDNA found in the hunter-gatherers are relatively rare in central Europeans today.

For more than a century archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, and more recently, geneticists, have argued about who the ancestors of Europeans living today were. We know that people lived in Europe before and after the last big ice age and managed to survive by hunting and gathering. We also know that farming spread into Europe from the Near East over the last 9,000 years, thereby increasing the amount of food that can be produced by as much as 100-fold. But the extent to which modern Europeans are descended from either of those two groups has eluded scientists despite many attempts to answer this question.

Now, a team from Mainz University in Germany, together with researchers from UCL (University College London) and Cambridge, have found that the first farmers in central and northern Europe could not have been the descendents of the hunter-gatherers that came before them. But what is even more surprising, they also found that modern Europeans couldn't solely be the descendents of either the hunter-gatherer alone, or the first farmers alone, and are unlikely to be a mixture of just those two groups.

"This is really odd" , said Professor Mark Thomas, a population geneticist at UCL and co-author of the study. "For more than a century the debate has centered around how much we are the descendents of European hunter-gatherers and how much we are the descendents of Europe's early farmers. For the first time we are now able to directly compare the genes of these Stone Age Europeans, and what we find is that some DNA types just aren't there - despite being common in Europeans today."

Humans arrived in Europe 45,000 years ago and replaced the Neandertals. From that period on, European hunter-gatherers experienced lots of climatic changes, including the last Ice Age. After the end of the Ice Age, some 11,000 years ago, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle survived for a couple of thousand years but was then gradually replaced by agriculture. The question was whether this change in lifestyle from hunter-gatherer to farmer was brought to Europe by new people, or whether only the idea of farming spread. The new results from the Mainz-led team seems to solve much of this long standing debate.

"Our analysis shows that there is no direct continuity between hunter-gatherers and farmers in Central Europe," says Prof Joachim Burger. "As the hunter-gatherers were there first, the farmers must have immigrated into the area."

The study identifies the Carpathian Basin as the origin for early Central European farmers. "It seems that farmers of the Linearbandkeramik culture immigrated from what is modern day Hungary around 7,500 years ago into Central Europe, initially without mixing with local hunter gatherers," says Barbara Bramanti, first author of the study. "This is surprising, because there were cultural contacts between the locals and the immigrants, but, it appears, no genetic exchange of women."

The new study confirms what Joachim Burger´s team showed in 2005; that the first farmers were not the direct ancestors of modern European. Burger says "We are still searching for those remaining components of modern European ancestry. European hunter-gatherers and early farmers alone are not enough. But new ancient DNA data from later periods in European prehistory may shed also light on this in the future."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Your time frames are all jangled up. Do your homework first before you make preposterous claims such as a 15-18kya entry of R lineages in Europe, and a PIE expansion dating to the same time. Where on earth do you get those figures. Do you make them up on the spot or what? As for your other spacey claims, that someone in this thread referred to cold adapted populations ~30kya, or that the first European lineages died out, I'm pretty sure no one even knows what you're talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Your time frames are all jangled up. Do your homework first before you make preposterous claims such as a 15-18kya entry of R lineages in Europe, and a PIE expansion dating to the same time. Where on earth do you get those figures. Do you make them up on the spot or what? As for your other spacey claims, that someone in this thread referred to cold adapted populations ~30kya, or that the first European lineages died out, I'm pretty sure no one even knows what you're talking about.

---

quote:

---

Duration within refuges

During the Last Glacial Maximum, a period between 25,000 and 19,000 years ago, large ice sheets over a kilometer thick covered much of Northern Europe, making the region uninhabitable to humans. It is believed that human populations retreated south to warmer regions near the Mediterranean. Refuges during this period are believed to have been in Iberia, the Balkans and Italy.

DNA evidence suggests that during the Last Glacial Maximum, there was some gene flow from Africa into Iberia. After the Last Glacial Maximum, when the European climate warmed up, the refuges are thought to have been the source from which Europe was repopulated. African lineages that had been introduced into the Iberian refuge would have then dispersed all over Europe with the Northward expansion of humans. This could explain the presence of genetic lineages in Eastern Europe and as far North as Russia, that appear to have prehistoric links to Northwest and West Africa (see mtDNA).[3] The expansion of human populations from Iberian refuges is also believed to have moved back to Northwest Africa.

Neolithic to the end of the prehistoric

The change from hunting and gathering to agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution was a watershed in world history. The societies that first made the change to agriculture are believed to have lived in the Middle East around 10,000 BCE. Agriculture was introduced into Europe by migrating farmers from the Middle East.[5] According to the demic diffusion model, these Middle Eastern farmers either replaced or interbred with the local hunter-gather populations that had been living in Europe since the "out of Africa" migration.[6] It has been suggested that the first Middle Eastern farmers had North African influences.[7] There have been suggestions that some genetic lineages found in the Middle East arrived there during this period.[8] The first Agricultural societies in the Middle East are generally thought to have emerged out of the Natufian Culture, which existed in Palestine from 12,000 BCE-10,000 BCE. An important migration from North Africa across the Sinai appears to have occurred before the formation of the Natufian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Wow. Interesting article, and one that deserves a thread of its own, I believe. But let's get back to the topic of ancient and prehistoric Maghrebi ancestry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Your time frames are all jangled up. Do your homework first before you make preposterous claims such as a 15-18kya entry of R lineages in Europe, and a PIE expansion dating to the same time. Where on earth do you get those figures. Do you make them up on the spot or what? As for your other spacey claims, that someone in this thread referred to cold adapted populations ~30kya, or that the first European lineages died out, I'm pretty sure no one even knows what you're talking about.

---

I think Doug is confusing R1 lineages with R1a which is more properly to be associated with PIE though even then it shouldn't. I also believe Doug is just referring to Euronut claims that have been or still are being made and not to anything specifically state in this thread.

You asked in the previous page whether there are any mtDNA R lineages in Africa, and actually yes there are, specifically R0 which is present in significant frequencies in northeast and eastern Africa. This, along with N1 present in East Africa to suggests that an African origin for L3N may not be as far-fetched as some may think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Which shouldn't be an issue. Sans the African lineages that were introduced to Eurasia in the Terminal Pleistocene and Holocene, Mesolithic and Neolithic Eurasia are a direct continuation of Palaeolithic Eurasia, temporally, as well as uniparentally.

---

quote:

---

There is no sense in pointing out the modest Palaeolithic fossil aDNA record, when what you're looking for (early Palaeolithic European mtdNA L) is absent in the the Mesolithic and the Neolithic as well. And not to mention, modern Eurasians.

---

quote:

---

The inconvenient truth is that the majority of the markers detected by Kefi et al (mtDNA H, V) in the Taforalt specimen dated to 12ky are confirmed as lineages that unquestionably entered Africa around that exact same time, from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge.

---

quote:

---

U6 or some mutation that contains it has to be Eurasian at some point, unless you consider mtDNA R to be an African haplogroup.

---

quote:

---

If that's the case, you're arriving at a misinformed conclusion yourself, according to your own reasoning. You're using the current Eurasian gene pool as a temperature check for their Palaeolithic possession of (mutations containing) U6 and M1.

---

quote:

---

Didn't you just state that: The oldest uniparental markers inherited by contemporary Maghrebi populations from ancient settlements in the Maghreb happen to be largely autochthonous types? What ''ancient settlements'' are you referring to here, if not the Ibero-Maurusian ones you refer to above?

---

quote:

---

The biological specific were mentioned on p1.

---

quote:

---

If you have any counter evidence/interpretations for their apparent Eurasian AMH affinities (non-linear builds, European AMH-like facial disharmony, distal limb length comparable to Late Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, large hands, broad shoulders, mandible and teeth incongruity with African AMHs at lower latitudes and modern Africans, etc), the stage is all yours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
This is about the expansion of R1 lineages in Western Europe which are generally dated to being after the last glacial maximum, ie 19,000 years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Hence, the goal of claiming that North Africa was Eurasian 30,000 years ago is to turn logic on its head because by the same logic, Eurasia was primarily African 30,000 years ago. So it doesn't make any sense to say such a thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

There is no evidence for L lineages in the Western Maghreb in the specified period 20-10kya. There is no need for me to argue about Cases et al's perception of what their raw data entails. Even if their dates for their L1b are correct, it still falls short of the Ibero-Maurusian period. Bottom line: zero stereotypical African lineages in Iberia during the Ibero-Maurusian.

---

quote:

---

The specifics were given. As is usually the case alTrakruri got the memo instantly, without being need to be held by hand. Don't mean to be a smartass, but I did direct readers to all the specifics, and I assume they do the reading themselves from that point on.

---

quote:

---

The Russian clade bears the 16175 transition, which follows the L1b1a8, which then identifies Casas et al's L1b (which is followed by transition 16175) with Cerezo et al's L1b1a8.

---

quote:

---

Additionally, this Russian sequence is related to Cases et al's L1b, per their own words: Moreover, the fact that the closest sequences to the two L1b haplotypes with the 16175 transition are not in Africa but in Germany (Richards et al., 2000) and Russia. Then there is the glaringly obvious fact that both Casas et al and Cerezo blatently state that they got their Russian sample from Malyarchuk. Neither Cerezo nor Malyarchuk consider this transition (16175) to be older than the Terminal Pleistocene.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
This is about the expansion of R1 lineages in Western Europe which are generally dated to being after the last glacial maximum, ie 19,000 years ago.

---

According to what hard evidence?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Hence, the goal of claiming that North Africa was Eurasian 30,000 years ago is to turn logic on its head because by the same logic, Eurasia was primarily African 30,000 years ago. So it doesn't make any sense to say such a thing.

---

This is weak logic disguised as common sense. When put into context it becomes apparent how dubious it really is. Its like saying that intermarriage between Mexican expats and Siberian locals would be the same as local Siberian unions, just because Amerindians descend from Siberians 12kya.

And I'm just being nice with this Amerindian/Siberian analogy, because its much less extreme than the complexities implied in backflow of Eurasian AMHs into Africa (think archaic human geneflow in the Eurasian AMH genome, much longer divergence times than 12kya, etc.

---

quote:

---

You are the one who made a mole hill of Paleolithic Eurasian fossils, in a bid to downplay any Paleolithic gene flow from Africa into Europe or Eurasia.

---

quote:

---

Most of the existing variants of contemporary European maternal markers have not been found in Neolithic specimens either, if you want to get technical about it.

---

quote:

---

It shouldn't be surprising to miss either Paleolithic African L types, or the often implicated Neolithic transmitted African-derived types like U6 and M1 in Neolithic specimens, when they have been introduced in comparatively low doses into preexisting European populations to begin with.

---

quote:

---

The genetic imprint of the "first farmers" itself may have been relatively modest, given the size of the immigrant community vis-a-vis the in situ European populations, but their cultural impact appears to have been far more considerable, thereby forever changing life in Europe.

---

quote:

---

...from what evidence?...yep, examining contemporary Maghrebi populations, who did not arrive in the region until some 5,000 years ago, at most!

---

quote:

---

Given that these contemporary Maghrebians have very little to do with Mesolithic Maghrebi types, what good does it do you to infer the latter's gene pool from the former?

---

quote:

---

Saying that it derives from mtDNA R does not absolve U6 from being an autochthonous northwestern African marker, or as marker of gene flow from Africa to "Eurasia".

---

quote:

---

Attaching too much emphasis to any distant *ancestor* of U6 (not U6 itself) to Eurasia is almost meaningless in any case, given that any such would-be Eurasians would not have looked like the contemporary types you are trying to link the markers to.

---

quote:

---

It has been determined that contemporary Maghrebi populations have little to do with the Mesolithic types or those before.

---

quote:

---

The EpiPaleolithic Maghreb types had a separate phylogenesis from the contemporary Maghrebi populations. One is not the descendant of the other.

---

quote:

---

What do you consider “European AMH-like facial disharmony”.

---

quote:

---

“broad shoulders”? So only the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi and Europeans have this; according to whom?[/quite]

See Bergmans rule.

[quote]As for limb proportions

---

quote:

---

And what of the mandible? What is so peculiar about this

---

quote:

---

Same for teeth.

---

quote:

---

If there is no evidence of L lineages in the Maghreb dating to 20 kya, then it is perhaps because of that “little known fact” that I keep referring to; that the proto-Tamazight ancestors of contemporary Maghreb population were not in that region then.

---

quote:

---

Simply providing links for others to go through, and making unsupported claims is not “specifics”.

---

quote:

---

Just based on that instance of said transition in the Russian haplotype, you assumed that L1b1a8 clades of Cerezo et al.’s study must then necessarily be the same as the L1b clades that Casas et al. reported.

---

quote:

---

It has never occurred to you that this could be one of homoplasic happenstance?

---

quote:

---

Did you see this transition in the other clades implicated in Cerezo et al.’s L1b1a8 clades?

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, Cerezo et al.’s age estimation spans their entire L1b1a8, while Casas et al.’s refers to their respective entire European L1b, both ones with and without the 16175 transition.

---

quote:

---

One: Cerezo et al. cite Malyarchuk et al 2008, while Casas et al. cited Malyarchuk’s research team from 2004!

---

quote:

---

If the clades were exact matches, this is not the language that would likely be used to describe the fact. “Closest” implies that of the haplotypes available, only those which shared the most nucleotide profile were considered, not necessarily entirely identical.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, the said determination of the “precise African origin”, suggests that the African origin is a given, but that the profiles of Iberian L1b markers didn’t exhibit a sufficiently consistent pattern among themselves or with respect to the African haplotypes

---

quote:

---

otherwise, it would have been very clear that they carried a modal haplotype that very likely came about after an introduction from Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
This is about the expansion of R1 lineages in Western Europe which are generally dated to being after the last glacial maximum, ie 19,000 years ago.

---

According to what hard evidence?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Hence, the goal of claiming that North Africa was Eurasian 30,000 years ago is to turn logic on its head because by the same logic, Eurasia was primarily African 30,000 years ago. So it doesn't make any sense to say such a thing.

---

This is weak logic disguised as common sense. When put into context it becomes apparent how dubious it really is. Its like saying that intermarriage between Mexican expats and Siberian locals would be the same as local Siberian unions, just because Amerindians descend from Siberians 12kya.

And I'm just being nice with this Amerindian/Siberian analogy, because its much less extreme than the complexities implied in backflow of Eurasian AMHs into Africa (think archaic human geneflow in the Eurasian AMH genome, much longer divergence times than 12kya, etc.

---

I don't know why you are having a hard time with this. If someone is going to label genetic lineages 30,000 years ago in Africa as Eurasian, based on those lineages having been in Eurasia less than 10kya years or so, then what does that make the parents of those lineages that hit Eurasia and had also only been there for 10kya or so if those lineages came from Africa? Doesn't that make them African? Therefore if you disagree with calling the lineages arriving to Eurasia from Africa as African, then you should also disagree with calling lineages likewise in Africa as Eurasian. It is a nonsensical characterization of the lineages at such an early point in time when humans had only not to long ago left Africa. Sure there were splits in lineages but in all reality you still are talking about a relatively close branch on the family tree. Too close to try and make it seem as if there was a big difference between them on any real level. Those people all still looked like black Africans is my point. And labeling them as Eurasian is just a way of trying to downplay that fact, with the larger agenda being downplaying the fact that all these folks ultimately had features from and derived from Africa not too long before that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
This is about the expansion of R1 lineages in Western Europe which are generally dated to being after the last glacial maximum, ie 19,000 years ago.

---

According to what hard evidence?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Hence, the goal of claiming that North Africa was Eurasian 30,000 years ago is to turn logic on its head because by the same logic, Eurasia was primarily African 30,000 years ago. So it doesn't make any sense to say such a thing.

---

This is weak logic disguised as common sense. When put into context it becomes apparent how dubious it really is. Its like saying that intermarriage between Mexican expats and Siberian locals would be the same as local Siberian unions, just because Amerindians descend from Siberians 12kya.

And I'm just being nice with this Amerindian/Siberian analogy, because its much less extreme than the complexities implied in backflow of Eurasian AMHs into Africa (think archaic human geneflow in the Eurasian AMH genome, much longer divergence times than 12kya, etc.

---

I don't know why you are having a hard time with this. If someone is going to label genetic lineages 30,000 years ago in Africa as Eurasian, based on those lineages having been in Eurasia less than 10kya years or so, then what does that make the parents of those lineages that hit Eurasia and had also only been there for 10kya or so if those lineages came from Africa? Doesn't that make them African? Therefore if you disagree with calling the lineages arriving to Eurasia from Africa as African, then you should also disagree with calling lineages likewise in Africa as Eurasian. It is a nonsensical characterization of the lineages at such an early point in time when humans had only not to long ago left Africa. Sure there were splits in lineages but in all reality you still are talking about a relatively close branch on the family tree. Too close to try and make it seem as if there was a big difference between them on any real level. Those people all still looked like black Africans is my point. And labeling them as Eurasian is just a way of trying to downplay that fact, with the larger agenda being downplaying the fact that all these folks ultimately had features from and derived from Africa not too long before that.

---

''Eurasian'' is a reference to geography, not phenotype, 'race', or ancestry. I have no interest in debating people who think West Asia was populated 10kya by 30.000bc, or people who think that 10ky isn't enough time for unique polymorphisms, and thus, population divergences, to occur. Due to your habit of simplistic thinking, you're also falsely assuming that OOA populations were genetically identical to tropical African AMH prior to moving out. Your divergence time of 10kya of back migrating Eurasians and tropical African AMHs by 30.000bc is pure fantasy, since inner African AMHs would have been genetically distant (at least to some degree) to Northern African AMHs before there even was an OOA. This is common sense due to the ~200ky origin of AMHs coupled with the large size of the continent.

---

The first populations to settle Europe are dated to 40-50,000 KYA. That is only 10-20KYA before 30,000KYA "Eurasians" in North Africa. My point is that at this time frame there was not the physical distinction in phenotype between Africans who never left Africa and any "proposed" Eurasian populations who came back in order to pretend that this represents an ancient population of folks who look like modern populations in Eurasia. I wasn't directing this at you it was directed at tho philosophy of those who throw such arguments around in trying to claim that North Africans were always white. If it doesn't apply to you then why are you interjecting into it? Of course there were divergences in genetic lineages but those divergences do not equate to differences in phenotype as in the difference between a modern North Asian person and a central African. 30,000 years ago all humans were still generally dark skinned tropically adapted folks. And yes, if you are going to use geography in distinguishing lineages then it still only follows that most populations around the world were African since that is where those 30,000kya lineages originated just 10-20KYA before, especially in Northern Eurasia.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 



Europeans Skin Turned Pale only Recently
 

---

Posted by KingMichael777 (Member # 20401) on :
 
Is Proto U6 even found in the Near East?

And I remember someone saying N is directly related to U6.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ There is no proto or underived U6* in the 'Near East'. U6 has its highest frequency and diversity in Northwest Africa and only a few U6 haplotypes exist in the Near East. Also, U6 is derived from U which in turn is derived from R which in turn is derived from N. As you may be aware both N and M are associated with OOA and both derived from L3.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

@Djehuti

What does this link tell us?
http://picturestack.com/968/840/XwNSchermafbe8QU.png

And do you have sources on the oldest remains in North Africa besides Egypt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

@Djehuti

What does this link tell us?
http://picturestack.com/968/840/XwNSchermafbe8QU.png

And do you have sources on the oldest remains in North Africa besides Egypt?

---

What you can't read? The article basically tells of an archaeological finding in Morocco that predates the Aterian culture (90k-40kya) of North Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Wow. Interesting article, and one that deserves a thread of its own, I believe. But let's get back to the topic of ancient and prehistoric Maghrebi ancestry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Your time frames are all jangled up. Do your homework first before you make preposterous claims such as a 15-18kya entry of R lineages in Europe, and a PIE expansion dating to the same time. Where on earth do you get those figures. Do you make them up on the spot or what? As for your other spacey claims, that someone in this thread referred to cold adapted populations ~30kya, or that the first European lineages died out, I'm pretty sure no one even knows what you're talking about.

---

I think Doug is confusing R1 lineages with R1a which is more properly to be associated with PIE though even then it shouldn't. I also believe Doug is just referring to Euronut claims that have been or still are being made and not to anything specifically state in this thread.

You asked in the previous page whether there are any mtDNA R lineages in Africa, and actually yes there are, specifically R0 which is present in significant frequencies in northeast and eastern Africa. This, along with N1 present in East Africa to suggests that an African origin for L3N may not be as far-fetched as some may think.

---

I know about mtDNA R0, and mtDNA R0 is not mtDNA R. The relevance for R is that it contains U6. If U6 is going to be seen as entirely autochtonous, as stated by The Explorer, where is indigenous mtDNA R in Africa? I can say the same thing about basal M and N in the Horn. They're absent. Basal L3 is also absent in fossil and modern Europeans. This combined clearly screams out the fact that these two groups separated and both went their ways prior to OOA.

If you take the mtDNA L pool (~60%), NRY E-M78, E-M2 and other paternal haplogroups of clear Sub-Saharan provenance (~90%), you get +70% African ancestry in the Somali population, which is approximately in accord with their blood group ties to Africa. I'm not finding any much higher African heritage credible due to numerous independent indications. A high percentage of SLC24A5 (50%) in the Horn being one of them. SLC24A5 most likely doesn't explain M or U6 in the Horn due to the relatively recent age of SLC24A5. However, it IS correlatable to the rest of their foreign uniparental lineages. Especially mtDNA R0, N1, certain forms of U, W etc.

See Mikkelsen et al (2012) for the Somali mtDNA pool:

Forensic and phylogeographic characterisation of mtDNA lineages from Somalia

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

I'm an idiot.

---

quote:

---

So there were people in Africa before 30k..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

I'm an idiot.

---

LOL You said it, not me! But seriously though, not knowing about certain topics doesn't make you stupid or an idiot, it just means you're ignorant which is something that can be easily cured with education. Just do more research on the topic first. I myself used to be ignorant on certain issues discussed until I did research and learned more. Someone who is really an idiot is one who comes into discussions ignorant but acts as though they know a lot. Case in point, the trolls (lyinass included).

quote:

---

So there were people in Africa before 30k..

---

Of course. Modern humans are reported to have existed for approximately 200,000 years.

---

Lol!


Yeah, I'm just starting to learn more about genetics and human migrations. I just wanted to be sure.

I came to this site to learn more because there are many intelligent people on this site like you. The more I stay on this site and other sites like Biodiversity the more knowledge I gain.

I just wanted to he sure, because the Maghreb being Eurasian before African sounds fishy. Also HG A is said to develop around Northwest Africa.

Bit anyways, you fan say I'm ignorant.
But I'm learning.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


Eurasian Adam (also known as Australian/Eurasian Adam or Out of Africa Adam is a name given to the man who was the common male-line (patrilinial) ancestor of all men with the single nucleotide polymorphism mutation on the Y chromosome known as "M168". In other words he is the most recent common patrilineal ancestor of all men in Haplogroup CT, the haplogroup which is defined by having a common ancestor who had M168.

According to current research, he probably lived in Africa and his descendants and his male line descendants are the only prehistoric one to survive outside of Africa into modern times. They dominate the male population of Africa as well.

This term was developed in imitation of the concept of the more well-known "Y Chromosome Adam" indicating his important status as a second major point in human patrilineal history. However it is important to keep in mind that:

Eurasian Adam is named this way only to indicate his status as a "founding father" of a large male line within humanity; his name is not meant to imply a correspondence with Biblical Adam.
Eurasian Adam would have been a distant descendant of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living men.
This second scientific "Adam" would not necessarily or likely have been the same man made who first had the M168 mutation. M168 is simply the mutation first discovered that distinguishes his male line from those in Haplogroups A and B.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Yes, but let's not confuse 'Eurasian' Adam the alleged forefather of all non-Africans with the older Y-chromosomal Adam who is the alleged forefather of all males in general including those populations who stayed in Africa.
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
This is patently false. I've never ruled out potential OOA populations who reached Europe in the Palaeolithic via Northeast Africa. Only thing I said was that peripheral Africa consisted of populations who were (almost exclusively) of lineages contained within mtDNA M and N, and that Eurasians descend from the latter populations. That's a far cry away from denying that African AMHs outside of peripheral Africa, in the Tropics, could have leap frogged over the said peripheral Africans and gained a footing outside Africa.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Most of the existing variants of contemporary European maternal markers have not been found in Neolithic specimens either, if you want to get technical about it.

---

This is false.. but you're more than welcome to elucidate your claim. Which mtDNA types found in modern Europeans have not been found in Neolithic fossils?

---

quote:

---

You're being unreasonable and comparing two totally different things. Of course you're not going to find U6 and M1 in Neolithic era fossils with ease; that's like finding a needle in a haystack. However, its not unreasonable expect to find L lineages in Neolithic Eurasia if they were participants in OOA migrations, because we're dealing with just a couple of founder populations of which all non-Africans are a direct continuation.

---

quote:

---

Hence, if L carriers were present in OOA populations, they would comprise part of the universal Eurasian uniparental parcel, capable of being uncovered by any mtDNA test, from fossils that date to 70kya, to modern non-Africans of today. BTW, did I already mention that this hasn't even happened once?

---

quote:

---

Your reasoning is unsound. The glacial ages decimated the European hunter gatherers. When agriculturalist entered Europe, they were greeted with sparsely populated plains and technologically (and soon numerically) inferior hunter gatherers. Again, the major mtDNA difference of modern Europeans is with European hunter-gatherers, not with European farmers.

---

quote:

---

And that refutes the evidence that the said lineages (H, V, U5) entered the Western Maghreb gradually from the Terminal Pleistocene on, how?

---

quote:

---

They certainly didn't get it from the East Africans where they got their language from, nor did they get it from the oft touted female slaves from the historic period.

---

quote:

---

You'll have to do better than that. Ibero-Maurusians are grossly no different from Northwestern Africans (Moroccans) than North Africans on the other end of the continent (Egyptians) are from the Wadi Kubbaniya/Wadi Halfa groups.

---

quote:

---

And I KNOW you're not going to tell me that modern Egyptians didn't inherit lineages from the said prehistoric Egypto-Nubians. In fact, if we take a peak at Groves (whom you've cited often on the matter) it can be easily seen that the modern North African (Egypt) sample, which can easily stand in for Moroccans, is way closer to Ibero-Maurusians than the used Jebel Sahabans. Oops, didn't see that coming, did you?

---

quote:

---

This is just semantics and sleight of mouth. In that scenario it may be functionally used as a marker of African migrations if it turns up elsewhere in the globe, but it would still register as Eurasian autosomal ancestry in STRUCTURE, ADMIXTURE and all other clustering methods.

---

quote:

---

No matter how many mutations you'd be down U6. You can add all those fancy 1's and a's and b's and keep telling yourself that they all mutated in Africa. In the real world, however, the polymorphisms that define all those mutations register autosomally as Eurasian.

---

quote:

---

It isn't meaningless. Markers are assigned affinity on the basis on their time of divergence from a marker that contains it.

---

quote:

---

Just give it up, in the scenario that R arose Eurasia (which it most likely did), U6 has nothing to do with contemporary tropical Africans.

---

quote:

---

I think I'm missing some sort of memo. Determined by what exactly?

---

quote:

---

This is not true of course. Genome wide SNP analysis dwarves their East African signature and what autosomally corresponds to M1, U6, U5, V, H etc, makes up the bulk of their genome-wide ancestry. More of their ancestry derive from prehistoric Iberians and Ibero-Maurusians than from East Africans.

---

quote:

---

It's not what I consider it to be; its an anthropological character. If you don't know what it entails, simply ask.

---

quote:

---

Its what you get when you plot upper facial height against cranial index. Hence, an excessively broad face and an elongated calvarium produces facial disharmony, while brachycephaly and a tall face produces cranio-facial disharmony as well. The degree in the former version of this trait is what European AMHs and Iberomaurusians were essentially identical in.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

“broad shoulders”? So only the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi and Europeans have this; according to whom?

---

See Bergmans rule.

---

quote:

---

Their somewhat tropical limbs cannot be used as ammunition for either camp. Its consistent with both arguments. It could have arisen locally or due to back migration.

---

quote:

---

See Vermeersch (2003), Palaeolithic Quarrying Sites in Upper and Middle Egypt.

---

quote:

---

See Coppa et al, Late Pleistocene/Holocene human populations transition in Old World: the analysis of morphological dental traits.

---

quote:

---

You're undermining your own case, just like the unfortunate incident above where you attributed U6 and M1 in Maghrebians to prehistoric predecessors, only to later claim (actually, within a few sentences) that none of the Ibero-Maurusian specimen (note how you said specimen), were phylogenetically linked to modern Maghrebians.

---

quote:

---

Your analysis of Kefi 2005, which you upheld as current and valid a few posts ago, included attempts to point out that several of Taforalt HVS segments could be interpreted as belonging to L lineages. Now you're flipping the script and making it seem like it was your point all along that Maghrebi folks brought L lineages to the Western Maghreb just a few millenia ago. You must not have slept well, to be thinking you can use my own position against me. Before you even weighed in, I quoted Frigi on what you're trying to tell me now. What exactly is your point?

---

quote:

---

You implied that I mentioned fig 2 just to point out that a Russian carried the L1b1a8 clade, even though my pointing the forum to fig 2 was clearly for reasons other than pointing out a random Russian.

---

quote:

---

I clearly referred to fig 2 right after explaining that Casas et al's L1b was the same as Cerezo's L1b1a8. The only purpose of fig 2 is to show the mutations that characterize each of their European L1b lineages anyway. Its not a painting that's open to interpretation as to its purpose. If you think that's the same as simply providing a link for others to go through, you may need to get something looked at.

---

quote:

---

You're reaching. What did I just tell you in my previous post? Didn't I tell you Casas said the Russian and German L1b was related to the Medieval Iberian L1b with the 16175 transition: this Russian sequence is related to Cases et al's L1b? How does that amount to ''assuming that L1b1a8 of Cerezo must then necessarily be the same as the L1b clades that Casas et al. reported''. The only thing I said was interchangeable are the clades both authors referred to, not the samples, which may or may not harbor additional mutations.

---

quote:

---

Keep your could's to yourself. No one is interested in hearing speculation in the face of certainties.

---

quote:

---

I hope, for your sake, that you're not saying that its a problem for identifying those sequences as included within that clade. What exactly is the point of your observation that the Spanish sequences within Cerezo et al.’s L1b1a8 don't include the 16175 transition?

---

quote:

---

And my latest interpretation of Casas et al implies anything different? If so, point out the specifics.

---

quote:

---

This is exactly what I mean. You DO need to be held by hand. Again, no one needs your speculations in the face of unequivocal certainties. The Russian sample in Malyarchuk 2004 is none other than the Russian sample in Malyarchuk 2008.

---

quote:

---

You're setting up strawmen, if not flatout making things up. It occurred only to you that the term 'identical' or a variation thereof was used by me to described the samples in question. I'm scratching my head right now, trying to figure out what's leading you to see what's not there. Apparently, it didn't occur to you that I had used that exact piece in my previous post, trying to tell you the exact thing you're trying to tell me right now.

---

quote:

---

That's not at all what the piece says. It clearly says that, on the one hand, the mutual possession of L1b with the 127 mutation makes West Maghrebi populations a likely source of the Iberian Moors that had contact with the MP sample, but that this interpretation is problematic due to the presence of certain Sub Saharan lineages in the Medieval sample that are not shared with the said Maghrebi populations.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

otherwise, it would have been very clear that they carried a modal haplotype that very likely came about after an introduction from Africa.

---

I sincerely have no idea what it is you're trying to say here.

---

Then I can’t help you.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

which you seem to think were “peripheral” Africans, and which “almost exclusively” carried L3M and L3N mtDNA is a highly questionable one

---

1.No recurrent (accross populations) set of L lineages among the recognized recurrent OOA uniparental parcel (mtDNA U, T, J, R, M, N etc) in most non-Africans.

2.The earliest mtDNA bastions of AMHs outside of Europe (e.g., India) are today abundant in basal M and N, among other lineages. Not a single trace of L.

3.The earliest Europeans show hap U in excess of 80% and other lineages and none of their lineages are a part of the Early Upper Palaeolihic heritage of modern Africans, showing that the ancestors of these AMHs and the AMH ancestors of modern day tropical Africans diverged way before OOA.

4.Additionally, modern Eurasians also don't carry anything pre NRY CT, independent of African admixture. This is further confirmation that all distinct OOA waves were composed of the same or related young population (relative to tropical African AMHs, who would have carried L lineages and pre CT), and that such older populations (Africans who predate the Eurasian maternal and paternal MRCA) had little genetic contact with OOA populations.

5.Non-Africans comprise of several (at least 3 [David Reich et al. 2011]) successful OOA expansions with >25ky in between them (40kya-70kya, and all of them show a broadly consistent mtDNA M, N and NRY CT pattern. This is detrimental to your case for two reasons. 1) it means that there were multiple chances for L lineages to survive founder effect, had the said lineages been a part of the make-up of the peripheral Africans from which non-Africans descend 2) across a 20ky period, participants of distinct OOA events (Europeans and Australians East Asians) are broadly similar if you look at the macro haplogroups to which they belong. It cannot be explained as an accident that non-Africans are all NRY CT and mtDNA N and M. Africa was clearly structured and OOA source populations were distinct from L carrying Africans.

6.If there was mtDNA L among Ibero-Maurusians, it would have spilled over into the Iberian refugium and expanded with other post LGM Iberian lineages, which repopulated Europe after the LGM, but its absent, both in wider Europe and among the most clear descendant population of the Iberian refugium (i.e., Saami). That's at least 4 clear chances for mtDNA L to survive founder effect.

^They can successfully bring the same lineages in to Eurasa at least three times, but L lineages with a supposedly notable frequencies all die out on all three occasions due to founder effect . Your description of the lack of L in Eurasia as ''highly questionable'' is a clear case of emotion-driven denial.

quote:

---

If such a population existed in Africa, then one would have to assume they underwent extinction. Do you have proof thereof?

---

quote:

---

Rare L types have been found in parts of Asia, and far flung places, which have obviously been there longer than any recent gene flow from continental Africa.

---

quote:

---

Actually the onus is on you to show me where *existing variants* in Europe have abundantly been identified in Neolithic remains...

---

quote:

---

What is not unreasonable, is to envision the prospect of L types becoming rarer, during founder effect events following OOA migrations.

---

quote:

---

Have I not mentioned that Paleolithic “Eurasian” remains uncovered have generally been in very low quantities?

---

quote:

---

Show me proof that autochthonous European a.m.h. “hunter gatherers” were “decimated” by glacialization.

---

quote:

---

Don’t forget to produce the tangible basis for “first farmers” outnumbering the preexisting European populations.[quote]
I said that? Where?

[quote]Do yourself service and carefully read what you are replying to

---

quote:

---

Many of the so-called Eurasian markers that contemporary coastal Maghrebi populations carry do look to have come from female slaves!

---

quote:

---

Osteological and genetic data have shown that EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi populations are not the ancestral source population of contemporary Maghrebi populations.

---

quote:

---

In the case of Egyptians, who doesn’t know that contemporary populations, while not necessarily entirely discontinuations, have been dramatically modified by years of immigration from and to the region?

---

quote:

---

The EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi specimens are no more closer to modern Egyptians than they are to modern Maghrebi populations.

---

quote:

---

It’s safe to say that you are entirely unaware of links made between Jebel Sahaban remains and those from EpiPaleolithic/early Holocene Maghreb?

---

quote:

---

You don’t seem to know the difference between fact and semantics.

---

quote:

---

False: your notion that it can be “semantically” called a Eurasian marker

---

quote:

---

but when it comes right down to it, you couldn’t provide a lick of proof otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Suggestions: Take a guide from say, Brace et al. (2005).

---

quote:

---

I’d like to see material that suggests that this is a European unique-trait, and where Epipaleolithic Maghrebi populations are implicated in this.

---

quote:

---

I have, and doesn’t answer my question to you.

---

quote:

---

It can’t be used as an “ammunition” for the camp that says that they descended from essentially “cold-adapted” Europeans, which is what you had to have been driving at

---

quote:

---

If you don’t know what would make it “impossible” for Africans and others to have mandible found Europeans

---

quote:

---

you still have trouble noting the difference between the phyogenetic origins of a group, versus, an incoming group absorbing some elements of a preexisting resident group.

---

quote:

---

How does that somehow not become compatible with some as-yet-identified “Maghrebi folks bringing L lineages to the Maghreb”?

---

quote:

---

given that said populations derive from source populations that only expanded into the region by or after the early mid-Holocene.

---

quote:

---

As per my recollection, you did not even refer to the figure.

---

quote:

---

Apparently you are blocking off what I just told you!

---

quote:

---

You call it “speculation”, and I call it a variable that you did not consider in your own speculation.

---

quote:

---

Other than a Russian clade associated with said transition, did you see any association between this transition and the other L1b1a8 clades in Cerezo et al.’s figure?

---

quote:

---

Yep.

---

quote:

---

Because it is specifically stated where....

---

quote:

---

Right from the horse’s mouth, again:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:
@Djehuti

What does this link tell us?
http://picturestack.com/968/840/XwNSchermafbe8QU.png

And do you have sources on the oldest remains in North Africa besides Egypt?

---

quote:

---

A complete mandible of Homo erectus was discovered at the Thomas I quarry in Casablanca by a French-Moroccan team co-led by Jean-Paul Raynal, CNRS senior researcher at the PACEA(1) aboratory (CNRS/Université Bordeaux 1/ Ministry of Culture and Communication). This mandible is the oldest human fossil uncovered from scientific excavations in Morocco. The discovery will help better define northern Africa's possible role in first populating southern Europe.

A Homo erectus half-jaw had already been found at the Thomas I quarry in 1969, but it was a chance discovery and therefore with no archeological context.


This is not the case for the fossil discovered May 15, 2008, whose characteristics are very similar to those of the half-jaw found in 1969. The morphology of these remains is different from the three mandibles found at the Tighenif site in Algeria that were used, in 1963, to define the North African variety of Homo erectus, known as Homo mauritanicus, dated to 700,000 B.C.


The mandible from the Thomas I quarry was found in a layer below one where the team has previously found four human teeth (three premolars and one incisor) from Homo erectus, one of which was dated to 500,000 B.C. The human remains were grouped with carved stone tools characteristic of the Acheulian(2) civilization and numerous animal remains (baboons, gazelles, equines, bears, rhinoceroses, and elephants), as well as large numbers of small mammals, which point to a slightly older time frame. Several dating methods are being used to refine the chronology.

The Thomas I quarry in Casablanca confirms its role as one of the most important prehistoric sites for understanding the early population of northwest Africa. The excavations that CNRS and the Institut National des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine du Maroc have led there since 1988 are part of a French-Moroccan collaboration. They have been jointly financed by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs(3), the Department of Human Evolution at the Max Plank Institute in Leipzig (Germany), INSAP(4)(Morocco) and the Aquitaine region.

---

Photo 1 – Photograph of the fossil human mandible discovered May 15, 2008 at the Thomas I quarry site in Casablanca.




Photo 2 – Jean-Paul Raynal and Professor Fatima-Zohra Sbihi-Alaoui from the Institut National des Sciences de l'Archéologie et du Patrimoine (INSAP-Rabat) free the fossil mandible..fr)



Notes:
1) De la Préhistoire à l'Actuel : Culture, Environnement et Anthropologie (From Prehistory to Present day: Culture, Environment, and Anthropology)
2) Acheulians appeared in Africa around 1.5 million years ago and disappeared about 300,000 years ago, giving way to Middle Stone Age civilizations. Their material culture is characterized by the production of large stone fragments shaped into bifacial pieces and hatchets, and of large sharp-edged objects.
3) (Mission archéologique « littoral » Maroc, led by J.P. Raynal).
4) (INSAP-Rabat) which falls under the authority of the Moroccan Ministry of Cultural Affairs.


Dental Evidence from the Aterian Human Populations of Morocco

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~bioanth/tanya_smith/pdf/Hublin_et_al_2012.pdf


Late Pleistocene human occupation of Northwest Africa:
A crosscheck of chronology and climate change in Morocco

Gerd-Christian Weniger 1; Jörg Linstädter 2; Josef Eiwanger 3 and Abdessalam Mikdad 4


http://paleoanthro.org/posters2012/Weniger_2012poster.pdf
 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
http://www.panafprehistory.org

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

I'm an idiot.

---

LOL You said it, not me! But seriously though, not knowing about certain topics doesn't make you stupid or an idiot, it just means you're ignorant which is something that can be easily cured with education. Just do more research on the topic first. I myself used to be ignorant on certain issues discussed until I did research and learned more. Someone who is really an idiot is one who comes into discussions ignorant but acts as though they know a lot. Case in point, the trolls (lyinass included).

quote:

---

So there were people in Africa before 30k..

---

Of course. Modern humans are reported to have existed for approximately 200,000 years.

---

quote:

---

This paper provides a summary of all available numerical ages from contexts of the Moroccan Middle Palaeolithic to Epipalaeolithic and reviews some of the most important sites. Particular attention is paid to the so-called “Aterian”, albeit those so-labeled assemblages fail to show any geographical and chronological pattern. For this reason, this phenomenon should not be considered a distinct culture or techno-complex and is referred to hereinafter as Middle Palaeolithic of Aterian type. Whereas anatomical modern humans (AMH) are present in Northwest Africa from about 160 ka onwards, according to current research some Middle Palaeolithic inventories are more than 200 ka. This confirms that, for this period it is impossible to link human forms with artifact material. Perforated shell beads with traces of ochre documented from 80 ka onwards certainly suggest changes in human behavior.

The transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic, here termed Early Upper Palaeolithic – at between 30 and 20 ka – remains the most enigmatic era. However, the still scarce data from this period requires careful and fundamental revision in the frame of any future research. By integrating environmental data in reconstruction of population dynamics, clear correlations become obvious. High resolution data are lacking before 20 ka, and at some sites this period is characterized by the occurrence of sterile layers between Middle Palaeolithic deposits, possibly indicative of shifts in human population. After Heinrich Event 1, there is an enormous increase of data due to the prominent Late Iberomaurusian deposits that contrast strongly from the foregoing accumulations in terms of sedimentological features, fauna and artifact composition. The Younger Dryas shows a remarkable decline of data marking the end of the Palaeolithic. Environmental improvements in the Holocene are associated with an extensive Epipalaeolithic occupation.

---

quote:

---

Recent investigations into the origins of symbolism indicate that personal ornaments in the form of perforated marine shell beads were used in the Near East, North Africa, and SubSaharan Africa at least 35 ka earlier than any personal ornaments in Europe.

---

quote:

---

The first argues that modern cognition is unique to our species and the consequence of a genetic mutation that took place 50 ka in Africa among anatomically modern humans (AMH) (1).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


Eurasian Adam (also known as Australian/Eurasian Adam or Out of Africa Adam is a name given to the man who was the common male-line (patrilinial) ancestor of all men with the single nucleotide polymorphism mutation on the Y chromosome known as "M168". In other words he is the most recent common patrilineal ancestor of all men in Haplogroup CT, the haplogroup which is defined by having a common ancestor who had M168.

According to current research, he probably lived in Africa and his descendants and his male line descendants are the only prehistoric one to survive outside of Africa into modern times. They dominate the male population of Africa as well.

This term was developed in imitation of the concept of the more well-known "Y Chromosome Adam" indicating his important status as a second major point in human patrilineal history. However it is important to keep in mind that:

Eurasian Adam is named this way only to indicate his status as a "founding father" of a large male line within humanity; his name is not meant to imply a correspondence with Biblical Adam.
Eurasian Adam would have been a distant descendant of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living men.
This second scientific "Adam" would not necessarily or likely have been the same man made who first had the M168 mutation. M168 is simply the mutation first discovered that distinguishes his male line from those in Haplogroups A and B.

---

quote:

---

The estimates of their dates overlap (around fifth thousand years ago) and they both probably lived in northeast Africa. Africa? Yes, Africa. Although nearly all EUrasian mtDNA and Y chromosomes currently existing can be traced back to L3 and M168 respectively, M168 and L3 also had African descendants."

---

quote:

---

Y-DNA haplogroup A contains lineages deriving from the earliest branching in the human Y chromosome tree. The oldest branching event, separating A0-P305 and A1-V161, is thought to have occurred about 140,000 years ago. Haplogroups A0-P305, A1a-M31 and A1b1a-M14 are restricted to Africa and A1b1b-M32 is nearly restricted to Africa. The haplogroup that would be named A1b2 is composed of haplogroups B through T. The internal branching of haplogroup A1-V161 into A1a-M31, A1b1, and BT (A1b2) may have occurred about 110,000 years ago. A0-P305 is found at low frequency in Central and West Africa. A1a-M31 is observed in northwestern Africans; A1b1a-M14 is seen among click language-speaking Khoisan populations. A1b1b-M32 has a wide distribution including Khoisan speaking and East African populations, and scattered members on the Arabian Peninsula.

Y-DNA haplogroup B, like Y-DNA haplogroup A, is seen only in Africa and is scattered widely, but thinly across the continent. B is thought to have arisen approximately 50,000 years ago. These haplogroups have higher frequencies among hunter-gather groups in Ethiopia and Sudan, and are also seen among click language-speaking populations. The patchy, widespread distribution of these haplogroups may mean that they are remnants of ancient lineages that once had a much wider range but have been largely displaced by more recent population events.

---

quote:

---

Some geographic structuring is seen between the sub-groups B2a (B-M150) and B2b (B-M112). Sub-group B2b is seen among Central African Pygmies and South African Khoisan. Sub-group B2a is seen among Cameroonians, East Africans, and among South African Bantu speakers. B2a1a (B-M109) is the most commonly seen sub-group of B2a. About 2.3% of African-Americans belong to haplogroup B - with 1.5% of them belonging to the sub-group B2a1a.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:

---

I like to have the opinion from both of you.




--B. Lewis et al. 2008. Understanding Humans: Introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. p 297


http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110809/full/476136a/box/1.html

quote:

---

Evolutionary history of mtDNA haplogroup structure in African populations inferred from mtDNA d-loop and RFLP analysis.

(A) Relationships among different mtDNA haplogroup lineages inferred from mtDNA d-loop sequences and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies (Kivisild, Metspalu, et al. 2006). Dashed lines indicate previously unresolved relationships.

(B) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, L5, L2, L3, M, and N in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies.

(C) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, and L5 subhaplogroups (excluding L2 and L3) in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies. Haplogroup frequencies from previously published studies include East Africans (Ethiopia [Rosa et al. 2004], Kenya and Sudan [Watson et al. 1997; Rosa et al. 2004]), Mozambique (Pereira et al. 2001; Salas et al. 2002), Hadza (Vigilant et al. 1991), and Sukuma (Knight et al. 2003); South Africans (Botswana !Kung [Vigilant et al. 1991]); Central Africans (Mbenzele Pygmies [Destro-Bisol et al. 2004], Biaka Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991], and Mbuti Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991]); West Africans (Niger, Nigeria [Vigilant et al. 1991; Watson et al. 1997]; and Guinea [Rosa et al. 2004]). L1*, L2*, and L3* from previous studies indicate samples that were not further subdivided into subhaplogroups.

---

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/757/F1.expansion




--Norman A. Johnson (2007) Darwinian Detectives: Revealing the Natural History of Genes and Genomes pg100

quote:

---

Genetic evidence of an early exit of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa

The mitochondrial haplogroup M, first regarded as an ancient marker of East-Asian origin4, 5, has been found at high frequency in India6 and Ethiopia7, raising the question of its origin.(A haplogroup is a group of haplotypes that share some sequence variations.) Its variation and geographical distribution suggest that Asian haplogroup M separated from eastern-African haplogroup M more than 50,000 years ago.

Two other variants (489C and 10873C) also support a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa.

These findings, together with the virtual absence of haplogroup M in the Levant and its high frequency in the South-Arabian peninsula, render M the first genetic indicator for the hypothesized exit route from Africa through eastern Africa/western India. This was possibly the only successful early dispersal event of modern humans out of Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:
@Djehuti

What does this link tell us?
http://picturestack.com/968/840/XwNSchermafbe8QU.png

And do you have sources on the oldest remains in North Africa besides Egypt?

---

Newcomer in early eurafrican population ?

quote:

---

A complete mandible of Homo erectus was discovered at the Thomas I quarry in Casablanca by a French-Moroccan team co-led by Jean-Paul Raynal, CNRS senior researcher at the PACEA(1) aboratory (CNRS/Université Bordeaux 1/ Ministry of Culture and Communication). This mandible is the oldest human fossil uncovered from scientific excavations in Morocco. The discovery will help better define northern Africa's possible role in first populating southern Europe.

A Homo erectus half-jaw had already been found at the Thomas I quarry in 1969, but it was a chance discovery and therefore with no archeological context.


This is not the case for the fossil discovered May 15, 2008, whose characteristics are very similar to those of the half-jaw found in 1969. The morphology of these remains is different from the three mandibles found at the Tighenif site in Algeria that were used, in 1963, to define the North African variety of Homo erectus, known as Homo mauritanicus, dated to 700,000 B.C.


The mandible from the Thomas I quarry was found in a layer below one where the team has previously found four human teeth (three premolars and one incisor) from Homo erectus, one of which was dated to 500,000 B.C. The human remains were grouped with carved stone tools characteristic of the Acheulian(2) civilization and numerous animal remains (baboons, gazelles, equines, bears, rhinoceroses, and elephants), as well as large numbers of small mammals, which point to a slightly older time frame. Several dating methods are being used to refine the chronology.

The Thomas I quarry in Casablanca confirms its role as one of the most important prehistoric sites for understanding the early population of northwest Africa. The excavations that CNRS and the Institut National des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine du Maroc have led there since 1988 are part of a French-Moroccan collaboration. They have been jointly financed by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs(3), the Department of Human Evolution at the Max Plank Institute in Leipzig (Germany), INSAP(4)(Morocco) and the Aquitaine region.

---

Photo 1 – Photograph of the fossil human mandible discovered May 15, 2008 at the Thomas I quarry site in Casablanca.




Photo 2 – Jean-Paul Raynal and Professor Fatima-Zohra Sbihi-Alaoui from the Institut National des Sciences de l'Archéologie et du Patrimoine (INSAP-Rabat) free the fossil mandible..fr)



Notes:
1) De la Préhistoire à l'Actuel : Culture, Environnement et Anthropologie (From Prehistory to Present day: Culture, Environment, and Anthropology)
2) Acheulians appeared in Africa around 1.5 million years ago and disappeared about 300,000 years ago, giving way to Middle Stone Age civilizations. Their material culture is characterized by the production of large stone fragments shaped into bifacial pieces and hatchets, and of large sharp-edged objects.
3) (Mission archéologique « littoral » Maroc, led by J.P. Raynal).
4) (INSAP-Rabat) which falls under the authority of the Moroccan Ministry of Cultural Affairs.


Dental Evidence from the Aterian Human Populations of Morocco

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~bioanth/tanya_smith/pdf/Hublin_et_al_2012.pdf


Late Pleistocene human occupation of Northwest Africa:
A crosscheck of chronology and climate change in Morocco

Gerd-Christian Weniger 1; Jörg Linstädter 2; Josef Eiwanger 3 and Abdessalam Mikdad 4


http://paleoanthro.org/posters2012/Weniger_2012poster.pdf

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I don't know about the form found in the Horn but I've had discussions with folks in other forums in regards to the provenance of NRY T. I believe the clade arose 20k-34kybp, though most sources say it is Asian in origin, I find it peculiar that it has its highest frequency in Africa particularly around the Horn region. Djibouti and northwestern Somalia have the highest frequency thus far. Outside Africa, some indigenous groups in Bangladesh and a few in southeastern India have its highest frequency.

hg T used to be called K2 and here is what Luis et al. said on the issue in his 'The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations' (2004):

K2-M70 is believed to have originated in Asia after the emergence of the K-M9 polymorphism (45–30 ky) (Underhill et al. 2001a). As deduced from the collective data (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002; present study), K2-M70 individuals, at some later point, proceeded south to Africa. These chromosomes are seen in relatively high frequencies in Egypt, Oman, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Morocco and are especially prominent in the Fulbe (18% [Scozzari et al. 1997, 1999]), the highest concentration of this haplogroup found so far. The current patchy distribution of K2-M70 in Africa may be a remnant of a more widespread occupation. Subsequent demic events introducing chromosomes carrying the E3b-M35, E3a-M2, G-M201, and J-12f2 haplogroups may have overwhelmed the K2-M70 representatives in some areas. Like the R1*-M173 males, the M70 individuals could represent the relics of an early back migration to Africa from Asia, since these chromosomes are not associated with the G-M201, J-12f2, and R1-M173 derivatives, lineages that represent more-recent Eurasian genetic contributions (Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001b). The K2-M70 expansion estimates in Egypt (17.5–13.7 ky; see table 3) are consistent with an early African diaspora. From the present-day African distribution of K2-M70, it is difficult to determine which of the two Africa/Asia migratory passages, if any, prevailed in its southward journey. However, the BATWING expansion estimates of both the Egyptian and Turkish K2-M70 lineages (13.7 ky and 9.0 ky, respectively) are much older than that of Oman (1.6 ky), which suggests that the Levantine corridor may have been used more extensively in the African dissemination of this lineage as well.

As far as NRY K proper, I've read about its presence in Africa as well but this is the first time I've heard of underived K* being present there.

---

I know the Fulani with this admixture carry this from the Baggara Arabs. I however don't know about the other ethnic groups.

And I do think the Nubian Complex, is becoming more complex.








Arab horseman photographed by French Colonials, at Dékakiré, Chad. c.1910s. From L'Afrique Équatoriale Française: le pays, les habitants, la colonisation, les pouvoirs publics. Préf. de M. Merlin. (published 1918).



Cattle Herder / Portrait by Iris (Irene Becker) Happy Xmas, Happy New Year, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35240543@N02/4560212766/in/set-72157622808929582/
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
^ You are welcome.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I don't know about the form found in the Horn but I've had discussions with folks in other forums in regards to the provenance of NRY T. I believe the clade arose 20k-34kybp, though most sources say it is Asian in origin, I find it peculiar that it has its highest frequency in Africa particularly around the Horn region. Djibouti and northwestern Somalia have the highest frequency thus far. Outside Africa, some indigenous groups in Bangladesh and a few in southeastern India have its highest frequency.

hg T used to be called K2 and here is what Luis et al. said on the issue in his 'The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations' (2004):

K2-M70 is believed to have originated in Asia after the emergence of the K-M9 polymorphism (45–30 ky) (Underhill et al. 2001a). As deduced from the collective data (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002; present study), K2-M70 individuals, at some later point, proceeded south to Africa. These chromosomes are seen in relatively high frequencies in Egypt, Oman, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Morocco and are especially prominent in the Fulbe (18% [Scozzari et al. 1997, 1999]), the highest concentration of this haplogroup found so far. The current patchy distribution of K2-M70 in Africa may be a remnant of a more widespread occupation. Subsequent demic events introducing chromosomes carrying the E3b-M35, E3a-M2, G-M201, and J-12f2 haplogroups may have overwhelmed the K2-M70 representatives in some areas. Like the R1*-M173 males, the M70 individuals could represent the relics of an early back migration to Africa from Asia, since these chromosomes are not associated with the G-M201, J-12f2, and R1-M173 derivatives, lineages that represent more-recent Eurasian genetic contributions (Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001b). The K2-M70 expansion estimates in Egypt (17.5–13.7 ky; see table 3) are consistent with an early African diaspora. From the present-day African distribution of K2-M70, it is difficult to determine which of the two Africa/Asia migratory passages, if any, prevailed in its southward journey. However, the BATWING expansion estimates of both the Egyptian and Turkish K2-M70 lineages (13.7 ky and 9.0 ky, respectively) are much older than that of Oman (1.6 ky), which suggests that the Levantine corridor may have been used more extensively in the African dissemination of this lineage as well.

As far as NRY K proper, I've read about its presence in Africa as well but this is the first time I've heard of underived K* being present there.

---

I know the Fulani with this admixture carry this from the Baggara Arabs. I however don't know about the other ethnic groups.

And I do think the Nubian Complex, is becoming more complex.








Arab horseman photographed by French Colonials, at Dékakiré, Chad. c.1910s. From L'Afrique Équatoriale Française: le pays, les habitants, la colonisation, les pouvoirs publics. Préf. de M. Merlin. (published 1918).



Cattle Herder / Portrait by Iris (Irene Becker) Happy Xmas, Happy New Year, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35240543@N02/4560212766/in/set-72157622808929582/

---

quote:

---

A History of Race in Muslim West Africa, 1600–1960
...
Rebel demands in Mali for the liberation of the Azawad region (the Saharan area immediately north of the Niger Bend) as a Tuareg and Arab homeland met with similar responses. In a pamphlet published during the conflict by sympathizers of the loyalist black militias created during the war, the territorial claims made by rebel groups were mocked: The Azawad is free. It is not occupied by any Songhay, or by any Fulbe, or Sarakolle. No black sedentary people claim the Azawad [which is nothing but] an expanse of desert. The real aim of the rebel movement, the pamphlet claimed, was the recognition of a right to the villainous appropriation of the land of the regions, the property of the sedentary peoples. The rebels are racists and enslavers. They consider all blacks to be slaves, inferior beings. They want recognition of the right to dominate the black people. The Tuareg have always been bandits, living from theft, raids and brigandage. The people of the North have a foreign body in the social tissue.

The language of slavery was central to the racial framework of the conflict and, as we will see, to the larger history of racial ideas in the wider region. In Mano Dayak’s book, he attempted to downplay the history of slavery in Tuareg society: In times of war, the winner took his booty. The Tuareg frequently took prisoners whom they brought back with them to their camp. But after that, these slaves integrated into Tuareg families. Instead of being treated as slaves, these captives were treated practically in the same manner as everyone else. They could acquire livestock and gain their freedom. Dayak argued that even using the term slaves was a mischaracterization of history, and of the racial situation in the present. They were more domestic servants than slaves. Their descendants are the black-skinned Tuareg that we find amongst us today. For Dayak, [t]he theme of slavery has been, and continues to be, used to stir up the hatred of the people of the South against us. The harsh policy which the governments of Mali and Niger have adopted towards the Tuareg represents nothing more than the continuation of vengeance. They … speak to us again and again about this past in which they were the servants and we were the masters.

The writers of the anti-Tuareg pamphlet had an answer to claims made by those like Dayak: Co-citizens of the North, let us sweep all of the nomadic presence from our towns and villages, from our lands, even the uncultivated lands! Tomorrow the nomads will settle there as a dominating people. Black sedentary peoples, from Nioro to Meneka, let us organize ourselves, and let us arm ourselves for the great battle which is brewing. Let us drive the nomads back into the sands of the Azawad. To end the rebellion, the pamphlet writers proposed a full race war: The only way to put an end to the war is for the black sedentary peoples to rise against the nomads. The authorities and the military know it. The nomads know it also … We must not be naïve. The white Tamachek are not our brothers. They know it and we know it.
...

---

quote:

---

The Iwellemmedan (Iw?ll?m?dan sp. var. Aulliminden, Ouilliminden, Lullemmeden, Iwellemmeden) are one of the seven major Tuareg tribal or clan confederations (called "Drum groups"). Their communities, historically nomadic and intermixed with other ethnic groups are found in an arc from east and north central Mali, through the Azawagh valley into northwestern Niger and south into northern Nigeria. While once a single confederation of dozens of Tuareg clans, subject peoples, and allied groups, since the 18th century they are divided into Kel Ataram (west) and Kel Dinnik (east) confederations. Following colonial rule and independence, the Iwellemmedan homelands cross the Mali/Niger border, and their traditional seasonal migration routes have spread Iwellemmedan communities into Burkina Faso and Nigeria as well.They speak the Tawellemmet variant of the Tamasheq language, although some current or historical sub-clans speak other Tamasheq variants as well as Songhai languages and Arabic dialects.

---

quote:

---

Since the first shots were fired in the armed rebellion against Muammar Gadhafi, opposition groups have accused the Libyan strongman of hiring black African mercenaries. These accusations led to public anger in rebel-held cities and brutal attacks by local Arabs against common laborers from sub-Saharan Africa, forcing many to hide indoors rather than risk walking to the borders.

The mysterious dark-complexioned soldiers are with a secret commando unit trained under a Pentagon anti-terrorism project in Libya. Though their nationalities vary, the majority of these desert warriors are Tuaregs from the deep Sahara, including parts of Algeria, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and Libya. These nomadic tribesmen, better known as the "blue men," are familiar figures on adventure programs from Discovery Channel and National Geographic, guiding camel caravans or herding sheep through the dunes and stony wastelands. In recent years, they have become the frontline fighters against the fugitive Osama bin Laden and the group Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

At remote gunnery ranges outside of Sabha, a military town in the southwestern Fezzan region, the Tuareg commandos receive training from American special-forces instructors in automatic-weapons-handling, sniper marksmanship and communications. These masters of desert survival need no outside training in tracking and outmaneuvering the AQIM, who in the Sahara region are called the Salafists. The counter-terrorism cooperation between the U.S. and Libya, two countries with a history of rocky relations, is kept out of media view. Neither is this joint project ever mentioned in the U. S. Africa Command's Trans-Sahara Terrorism Program, which openly includes every other country of the vast arid region.

Though the Libyan Tuaregs' clandestine mission is kept under wraps by the Pentagon, a similar taste of desert warfare can be gained (courtesy of WikiLeaks) from December 2009 diplomatic cables out of the U.S. Embassy in Bamako, Mali, describing a Timbuktu boot camp run by U.S. Army trainers from Fort Carson, Colorado. "The (Malian) colonel called over one rather unimpressive soldier, an older rail-thin man with a scraggly beard and bloodshot eyes who had been lounging against a motorbike, explaining that in spite of appearances this was one of his best men and noting that he had been one of the few survivors of a July 4 ambush of a Malian Army patrol by AQIM. The soldier said the Salafists would never confront the Army head-on, and if the Army engaged, they would flee, but if there is not proper security, they will creep back and murder you in the most cruel, unimaginable ways."

The oldest veterans among the clandestine Libyan unit are re-enlistees from a long-since disbanded unit called the Islamic Pan-African Legion, which fought major battles against French forces in Chad during the 1980s. How these Tuareg fighters were regrouped and bolstered by younger tribesmen goes back to the beginnings of the Afghan War, immediately after the 9/11 attacks.

Bin Laden's Escape from Tora Bora

Early in the Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda chieftain Osama bin Laden took shelter from U.S. bombing raids inside a warren of caves dug into the mountains of Tora Bora, near the Afghan-Pakistan border. As American ground troops tightened the noose, militant commanders decided that their "emir" and his family should leave the battlefield to ensure the spread of the global jihad against infidels and Muslim hypocrites.

A members of the Taliban inner circle told me—inside a borderland tribal area that autumn, just days after the daring escape—Bin Laden's party of 26 aides and family members retreated to "south of Afghanistan," where they were picked up by a jet owned by a longtime business friend. The irony, as the militants put it, was that the airplane was provided by one of Bin Laden's closest business partners, who happened to be Jewish.

"In the world as it really is, not as people believe it to be, business is business and politics is a lesser matter. War, elections, disputes— these last only for a short time, but business is for the rest of your life. A mature businessman knows the difference regardless of his own political beliefs," said a Taliban elder with an aura of gravity.

"So where did he go?" I asked casually, so as not to show any of the eagerness of rookie journalists and war hounds.

"To Africa, to the Sahara."

Rebooting the War for Blood Diamonds

Over several months in the United Arab Emirates, I traced Bin Laden's rescue plane to a Russian arms dealer depicted as the fictional "Yuri Orlov" in the Nicholas Cage movie "Lord of War." Now in federal custody after his extradition from Thailand last year, Victor Bout fit the description to a tee: a Bukharan Jew born in Tajikistan, he was also the owner of Ariana Airlines, the national Afghan carrier under Taliban rule.

The Russian smuggler had earlier teamed up with Bin Laden's Sunni fighters—along with Israeli intelligence agents—to wrestle away the blood diamond trade from Lebanese Shiite merchants in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire and Burkina Faso. The Israelis allied with the Sunni radicals because their secret service "could not tolerate the fact that Jewish diamond merchants in Antwerp were financing suicide bombings in Gaza," an Afghan middleman for the Taliban in the gem trade told me.

The escape plane landed in Sharjah, U.A.E, where Bin Laden parted company with his family and took a second flight with his aides to an undisclosed point in East Africa—most likely Mogadishu, Somalia. From there, with the assistance of lieutenants from the blood diamond wars, his party crossed into the Sahel, the semi-arid borderlands of the Sahara, where he vanished from sight.

My 2002 article, "Bin Laden Escaped to Africa," was published in the Hong Kong-based newsmagazine Yazhou Zhoukan to a skeptical readership. It took several years for the Pentagon to catch up, after the Defense Intelligence Agency came to recognize the accuracy of the details —an eternity when considering the priority put on capturing America's most-wanted "dead or alive."

By 2006, when the Pentagon drew up plans for a new Africa Command (AFRICOM), Bin Laden's team was running a recruitment program and setting up bases across the Sahara, a region nearly as large as the United States, adding onto that a third more space in the Sahel, plus the Horn of Africa as their backyard. The Salafists had by then formed a network of alliances with regional drug-smuggling rings, which were moving Colombian contraband into Europe.

By the time AFRICOM, under its first commander General William "Kip" Ward, opened its headquarters in Morocco in 2008 and got American boots onto the sand, the militants were demanding ransoms for Western hostages and infiltrating dozens of cells into urban centers across Northern Africa, including major cities in Morocco, Tunisia and Libya.

Blue Men and Their Strong Women

The only staunch force that stood between the religious extremists and their goal was the Tuareg, the men in indigo blue robes, but at the time they were waging their own rebellions in Mali and Niger. Gadhafi had to personally intervene to urge the Tuareg to end their guerrilla war. The Libyan leader had earned the respect of the Tuareg in the 1980s by designating their ethnic status as Arabs instead of second-class Berbers. Jobless Tuareg fighters from Mali and Niger eagerly joined the new American-trained Libyan unit headquartered at Sabha's Fort Elena, built during the Italian colonial era (when it was called Fortezza Margherita). The oasis town was a hospitable place for these desert dwellers, having served as a caravanserai for many centuries.

The traditional friction between the blue men and the Salafists is based on religion, culture, ecology and race. In contrast to the purist orthodox believers, with their veneration of patriarchy and fundamentalism, the Tuareg retain much of their ancient matriarchal culture. By Tuareg tradition, only women—not men—are allowed to read and write; and men —not women—are required to wear a veil. Their version of Islam is intermixed with pre-conversion shamanism.

The only trait that dark-complexioned Tuareg share in common with the light-skinned Salafists is the glorification of combat, making the two sides as natural of enemies as venomous adders and sharp-clawed falcons.

Their cultural differences proved to be a serious impediment to discipline in the Pentagon's earlier covert demolition-training program in Libya during the late 1970s and early 1980s, run by "rogue" CIA agent Edwin Wilson and his band of Green Berets. The boot camp was located in Benghazi, which like the rest of eastern Libya, is a stronghold of the orthodox Sanusi sect affiliated with the Salafi movement on the Saudi Peninsula. In the Libyan attack on Chad, the combination of Arab officers and Tuareg infantrymen proved disastrous. Washington's covert campaign to roll back France's expansionism in Africa was routed, as explained to me by a veteran of the French Foreign Legion, due to the order from Paris to send in elite paratroopers disguised as Chadians.

The very existence of a new Tuareg brigade came into the spotlight when dozens were killed or captured by the Al Qaeda–linked Islamic Fighting Group rebels in Libya's east. Inside the labyrinths of coastal cities, these desert warriors are at a tactical disadvantage against battle-hardened infiltrators from Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Gaza and as far away as Iraq and Afghanistan. Western diplomats watch in horror and confusion at the reported atrocities committed by "black mercenaries," forgetting as if in a haze of hashish smoke that their own forces are waging merciless combat against Al Qaeda in Iraq, Afghanistan and New York City.

---

quote:

---

Since the beginning of last year's insurgency against longtime Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi, weapons have streamed out of Libya, looted from depots and sold on the black market. Difficult to track and impossible to quantify, they move in many directions.

Smugglers from Zintan in the northwest move south with ease into the remote regions straddling Chad and Niger, selling munitions to militants in the Sahel region south of the Sahara desert. Israeli officials say that weapons have flowed into the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, pouring out from Egypt through tunnels. The North African-based Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, through long-established links to drug dealers and gunrunners, reportedly acquired Libyan arms as early as March 2011.

According to a United Nations report released in late January, smuggled weapons include "rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns with antiaircraft visors, automatic rifles, ammunition, grenades, explosives (Semtex), and light antiaircraft artillery (light-caliber bi-tubes) mounted on vehicles."

Substantial numbers of weapons have moved south, ending up in Mali, the report says, bought by Malian Tuareg mercenaries who fought for Kadafi.

Racked by drought and food shortages, the Sahara-Sahel strip is host to some of the world's busiest smuggling routes. People. Weapons. Colombian cocaine. All pass through this sweltering desert expanse.

The U.N. Security Council has called on Libya's interim authorities to take action to stem the flow of weapons, fearing transnational destabilization in the Sahel, which is experiencing a severe food crisis and political turmoil.

"We are concerned about the porous nature of the border between Chad, Niger and Libya and the risk of weapons, including MANPADS [shoulder-launched missiles capable of downing a low-flying airliner], moving across those borders," Rosemary DiCarlo, the U.S. deputy representative to the United Nations, said this year during a Security Council briefing in New York.

"These weapons, in the hands of terrorists, could further destabilize already fragile areas of the Sahel and surrounding regions," DiCarlo said.

---

quote:

---

Appearing local

Yet it is not just the militias aiming to retake the north that have their eye on Mali’s ethnic fault lines. On November 24, the jihadist forum Ansar al-Mujahideen published a statement in Arabic by the ‘Majlis Shura al-Mujahidin in Gao’ following the outbreak of fighting in Gao between the MNLA and the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO), a splinter group of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). This fighting, which broke out on November 16 near Ansongo and Ménaka, appears to have ended in defeat for the MNLA in the movement's last major stronghold. While both sides and third parties have given dramatically different tolls from the fighting, witnesses and town notables have indicated that MUJAO forces executed some of those involved in defending the town, including the president of the local cercle, Alwabégat Ag Salakatou.

In the forum statement, the 'Majlis Shura al-Mujahidin' – indicating the leadership council for MUJAO, whom Gao inhabitants generally refer to simply as "the mujahidin" – justified their combat against the MNLA, saying in an English translation posted several days later by the Ansar al-Mujahideen English Forum: "we [are] in our war with the MNLA (National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad) this secular movement that doesn’t want the implementation of the Islamic Sharia…the mujahidin fought it because they became like the Tawagit [tyrants]". It continued: "we call them to resort to the Sharia [law] of Allah but they refuse" and claimed the MNLA was oppressing Muslims "by taking their money unjustly and killing them and their dividing of the Muslims".

In addition to the theft of property and other alleged crimes, however, the statement adds that for the MNLA: "the black has no right and the white has right, when the messenger of Allah peace and blessings of Allah be upon him said: O people, your Lord is one, and your father (Adam) is one, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety'."

In an interview just a week later with the Mauritanian newspaper al-Akhbar, Ahmed Ould a member of MUJWA’s leadership council and the head of its "Osama bin Laden" katiba used nearly the same language and the same religious reference when discussing the MNLA. The U.S. State Department today labelled Ould Amir, known alternately as Ahmed el-Tilemsi or Ahmed al-Telmasi, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.

While racial equality in Islam is a common theme in discourse from across the spectrum of Muslim belief, the language of "white" and "black" has specific resonance in Mali and the broader Sahel, where Tuareg and Arabs are often referred to as "white". And MUJAO and its allies have previously proven adept at playing to and operating within local racial and ethnic politics.

---

quote:

---

In addition to the large numbers of Africans who come to Libya to work, many native Libyans, such as the nomadic Tuaregs of southern Libya, are Black.

---

quote:

---

On November 20, six gunmen abducted a Portuguese-born Frenchman from the town of Diema in the western Kayes region, which borders Senegal and Mauritania. This indicates a southward geographical expansion of jihadist activity from bases in the northern regions of Gao, Timbuktu and Kidal. The militant Islamist group, Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO), claimed responsibility for the kidnap. The hostage is currently being held near Timbuktu, about 700km from Diema.

The expansion of the group’s operations to new areas has been facilitated by their prolonged control of parts of northern Mali and motivated by a shortage of kidnap targets in the north. Further, ethnic Tuaregs, particularly, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA), have opposed the Islamist groups and looked to retake territory. In mid-November, MNLA launched an unsuccessful offensive to recover the town of Menaka from MUJAO, close to the borders with Burkina Faso and Niger.

Burkina Faso’s President Blaise Compaore, who is leading ECOWAS' mediation efforts, is likely to propose an end to hostilities between the MNLA and Islamists Ansar Dine, much of whose leadership is Tuareg. On December 3, representatives from the Malian government travelled to Ouagadougou to engage in dialogue for the first time with the two groups. However, negotiations are unlikely to be successful without significant concessions by all sides.

Ansar Dine’s renouncement of relations with MUJAO and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and possible cooperation with MNLA would increase risks of kidnap and targeted attacks against mining assets in southern Mali, including Kayes, but would probably restrict MUJAO and AQIM access to Burkina Faso and Niger. The risk of improvised explosive device (IED) attacks on commercial and diplomatic assets in Bamako would also increase. French assets are particularly likely to be targeted, given France's continuing support for the proposed ECOWAS military intervention.

---

quote:

---

Mining

Mining has long been an important aspect of the Malian economy. Gold, the third largest source of Malian exports, is still mined in the southern region: at the end of the 20th century Mali had the third highest gold production in Africa (after South Africa and Ghana).[3] These goldfields, the largest of which lie in the Bambouk Mountains in western Mali (Kenieba Cercle), were a major source of wealth and trade as far back as the Ghana Empire. As well, salt mining in the far north, especially in the Saharan oases of Taoudenni and Taghaza have been a crucial part of the Malian economy for at least seven hundred years. Both resources were vital components of the Trans-Saharan trade, stretching back to the time of the Roman Empire.

From the 1960s to the 1990s state owned mining—especially for gold—expanded, followed by a period of expansion by international contract mining.

In 1991, following the lead of the International Development Association, Mali relaxed the enforcement of mining codes which led to greater foreign investment in the mining industry.[4] From 1994 to 2007, national and foreign companies were granted around 150 operating licences along with more than 25 certificates for exploitation and more than 200 research permits. Gold mining in Mali has increased dramatically, with more than 50 tonnes in 2007 from less than half a tonne produced annually at the end of the 1980s. Mining revenue totaled some 300 billion CFA francs in 2007 more than a thirty times increase from the 1995 total national mining revenue of less than 10 billion CFA. Government revenues from mining contracts, less than 1% of the state income in 1989 were almost 18% in 2007.[5]
Gold

Gold accounted for some 80% of mining activity in the mid 2000s, while there remain considerable proven reserves of other minerals not currently exploited. Gold has become Mali's third-largest export, after cotton—historically the basis of Mali's export industry—and livestock. The emergence of gold as Mali's leading export product since 1999 has helped mitigate some of the negative impacts caused by fluctuations in world cotton markets and loss of trade from the Ivorian Civil War to the south.[6] Large private investments in gold mining include Anglogold-Ashanti ($250 million) in Sadiola and Yatela, and Randgold Resources ($140 million) in Morila - both multinational South African companies located respectively in the north-western and southern parts of the country.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mali


And trust me white people do want to see the Tuaregs as historically white people, as found in this recent Italian movie starring Mark Harmon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuareg_%E2%80%93_The_Desert_Warrior



Original Tuareg girl from Niger

http://www.flickr.com/photos/courregesg/3674650911/in/set-72157629555423647/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/courregesg/3659777712/in/set-72157629555423647

Algerian Tuareg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27749604@N08/5292763030

Now of course there are some lighter skinned folks among the Tuareg, but this idea that these lighter skinned people are original and "pure" Tuareg is purely a boatload of b.s. created by the white racists over the last few hundred years.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] Interestingly enough, the concept of "race" in the Sahel is something that the Europeans are desperate to use in the continued subjugation of Africans in their own countries. It is simply a continuation of the divide and conquer tactics used in the past to promote their interests. So now it is again coming to play in Northern Mali as white folks are desperate to turn this into a case of "white" Tuareg trying to oppress "black" Africans which is a total complete and historical farce.

---

There's no need to divide an conquer in Mali. Many Tuareg are already fighting to divide into a separate state.
If the U.S. wanted to divide Mali they would support the Tuareg separtists but I don't think that is happening.

Review the leadership of the Turaeg and the government of Mali


The Tuareg separatists are currently led by the secular MNLA ( National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad)
and the Islamic fundamnetalist group Ansar Dine
heavily armed jihadists have control of more than half of Mali. They are applying strict Sharia – with shocking results similar to those of the Taliban in Afghanistan – and have stated their intent to continue to spread


____________TUAREG_______________________________


Moussa Ag Acharatoumane, founder of MNLA


.

Secretary-General of the MNLA Bilal Ag Acherif



Iyad Ag Ghali , leader of Ansar Dine

_________________________________________________________


____________________________MALI GOVERNMENT__________________

Mali interim president, Dioncounda Traore


former President of Mali Amadou Toure

 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Yes Doug this is so true. You can clearly see European propaganda and misunderstanding of African History/Islamic Colorism in their contradictory attempts to make the Tauregs the evil scary black men in Gadaffi's Mercenary Army and White slavers in the Mali Conflict.

The fact is that while Colorism does play a role it has nothing to do with the European concept of Race, the idea that white people are intellectually culturally and physically and distinct people who have the divine right to Rule over dark races. Hell Europeans at one time did not consider Africans and Indians humans and to this day many Europeans don't see themselves the same as non whites, as sharing a common ancestry.

The fact is in Islam to be a "Bidane" was to occupy the lands of Dar Islam, that is the Med. and the Middle East. People considered these lands to be the ideal place for Civilization. Bidane has nothing to do with White in the Eurocentric Enlightenment definition. Many Black people were native to the Med. Many were present in these lands as natives and many Africans/Blacks Ruled in these lands.

Go To India and Indo China, go to the Maldives, Go to Morocco, Tunis, Egypt, Iran/Persia anywhere in "Dar Islam" and you will find Africans who ruled, African Saints, African Culture, Architecture etc. Why are Whites so slow to tell this story?? Why are they so obsessed with slavery?? Why not spend so much energy and time on the Millions of their Brothers/Sisters who where enslaved in North Africa alone let alone the white Slaves who went in the East.

Everytime I open a history book on Africans all I hear is slave this slave that, yet Europeans somehow forget to add their own long history of being enslaved.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Now of course there are some lighter skinned folks among the Tuareg, but this idea that these lighter skinned people are original and "pure" Tuareg is purely a boatload of b.s. created by the white racists over the last few hundred years.

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/06/mali-war-over-skin-colour








 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
All of this goes back to European Colonial meddling. The fact is the image of some Pale White person was completely Foreign to many Saharans historically..


In fact, Adams claims that he excited "uncommon curiosity" among the Moors who captured him because they "had never seen [a white man] before" (229). At the same time, the scribe parenthetically notes that Adams was "a very dark man, with short curly black hair" (229).

http://www.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v4/v4i1a10.htm

BTW Why did'nt you quote the whole post...



video on the situation..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3PbZMTI9e8
 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Juba II (King of Mauretania, 25 BC-AD 23)

An aging prince

This full face portrait with high forehead and long, sunken cheeks, is framed by a mass of short, rather wild curls, held in place by a headband. The arch of the eyebrows overshadows the inner corner of the downward slanting eyes. The nose is broad, the mouth full and sensual, and there is a deep cleft in the chin.

Despite the damage it has incurred, the features of this tired face are recognizable as those of Juba II at the age of about sixty. When the head was discovered it was immediately identified as such; this suggestion was confirmed after comparison with effigies on coins and other portraits of the prince, whose strong features, wide-set eyes, and thick hair are clearly recognizable.


Hellenistic art

The classical culture of King Juba II is apparent in this portrait of the philhellenic king, which portrays him like a Hellenistic sovereign: beardless, short-haired, and wearing a royal headband. Hellenistic art also inspired the carefully modeled flesh and the idealization (which does not, however, overlook the subject's human qualities or ethnic group).

Excerpts source LOUVRE: Juba II (King of Mauretania, 25 BC-AD 23)

===

Juba II madness

_______ Juba II Numidian African ____________ Typical Euro-Roman



The Numidian differs from the European in all the stereotypical hair and facial
features. The hair is thicker and "wilder." The eye is larger and rounder. The
cheek bones are higher and more protruding. The nose is flatter and broader
with nostrils tending to round/oval rather than oblong/slit shape. The lips are
thicker and more everted. King Juba II's antecedents thus seem the type of black
autochthonous to littoral North Africa.

---

 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
The Explorer said:
U6 is not Eurasian at any point! If you want to speak of U6's ancestor itself, well the jury is out on that as well, unless you want to point out the specifics of that ancestral clade, and exactly the parental Eurasian population it emerged in.

Saying that it derives from mtDNA R does not absolve U6 from being an autochthonous northwestern African marker, or as marker of gene flow from Africa to "Eurasia". In fact, many of the ancestors of those maternal markers tagged as "Eurasian" have not been identified...so, it's anyone's guess, where these ancestors exactly emerged. It seems to me that 'western' researchers simply like to attach too much significance to "Eurasia", because otherwise the development of the human species in the main had been in Africa.

^^How a marker of gene flow from Africa to Eurasia?
Are you saying that the gene flow went forth initially
that was autochthonous U6, or proto U6 from Africa?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Pennarun et al argue that the jury is still out on the origin of U6.

Divorcing the Late Upper Palaeolithic demographic histories of mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 in Africa
Pennarun et al 2012 BMC Evolutionary Biology 2012, 12:234

"a haplogroup that has been termed “the main indigenous North African cluster” [13],
and, to a lesser extent the variation in M1, which is more predominantly found in Eastern
Africa/Ethiopia [14-16]. U6 and M1 both share the feature of being African-specific sub
clades of haplogroups otherwise spread only in non-African populations.

Whilst backed bladelet production is broadly shared across the different regions of North and East Africa, there was
also a level of regional cultural diversity during this period, possibly mirroring a
diversification of populations. The Sahara Desert expanded considerably during the LGM,
perhaps concentrating human groups along the North African coastal belt and the Nile
Valley. Climatic conditions improved in North Africa ~15 KYA, marking the beginning of a
dramatic arid-to-humid transition [25]. This increase in humidity may have opened up
ecological corridors, connecting North and Sub-Saharan Africa and allowing population
dispersals between the two regions. An additional arid-humid transition occurred at 11.5–11
KYA [25]; this period coincides with a widespread change in the archaeological record that
marks the beginning of Capsian lithic technologies. The Capsian is argued to have developed
in situ in North Africa, marking a continuity from the Iberomaurusian and Oranian into the
Capsian [21,24,26].

A Southwest Asian origin has been proposed for U6 and M1 [27-29]. Yet, this claim remains
speculative unless some novel “earlier” Southwest Asian-specific clades, distinct from the
known haplogroups, are found in which the described so far M1 and U6 lineages are nested.
Claims for basal mutations shared with M1 have recently been made in the case of
haplogroup M51 and M20 (both East Asian-specific clades [40,41]): They share a root
mutation (C14110T) with M1. However, one should be cautious with phylogenetic inferences
drawn from these findings because this mutation is not unique in the phylogeny of mtDNA: it
also occurs in the background of non-M haplogroups and therefore identity by descent within
haplogroup M remains uncertain. Unfortunately, the sampling of extant populations of Africa
and West Asia may not solve the question of their origin.

Assuming that M1 and U6 were introduced to Africa by a dispersal event from Asia, it would
be difficult to accept their involvement in the first demographic spread of anatomically
modern humans around 40–45 KYA, as suggested by Olivieri et al. (2006), [29] who
associated these two clades with the spread of Dabban industry in Africa. It has indeed been
previously suggested that the colonisation of North Africa from the Levant took place during
the early Upper Paleolithic, as marked by the “Dabban” industry in North Africa [42].
However, comparison of early Upper Palaeolithic artefacts from Haua Fteah and Ksar Akil
does not support the notion that the early Dabban of Cyrenaica is an evidence of a population
migration from the Levant into North Africa [43]. Marks [44] also noted differences between
the two areas in terms of the methods of blade production, further arguing against a
demographic connection between the regions. Likewise, the new coalescent date estimates
for M1 obtained in this study are not compatible with the model implying the spread of M1 in
Africa during the Early Upper Palaeolithic, 40–45 KYA.

Given the sequence data from 242 complete sequences and genotype data of 222 mtDNAs,
we were unable to find conclusive evidence that any of the geographic regions of Africa or
Concerning haplogroup M1 individually, a significant correlation with languages was
observed. Furthermore, within M1, it appears that the correlation is mostly due to M1a.
However, given the small sample size of M1b, any potential signal correlating with language
might not be detectable. Interestingly, M1a has a likely East African origin, but its coalescent
age of ~21 KYA still largely predates that of the proto-AA. Maybe a sub-clade of M1a would
still give a similar correlation, but there are not sufficient samples to allow splitting M1a into
its various sub-clades, and to test for a correlation. Although we found a correlation, limited
sample sizes do not allow drawing unambiguous connection between genes and languages.
Furthermore, it is also possible that this putative sub-clade of M1 does not testify for the
expansion of AA speaking people, but was already present among the people who inhabited
the area before the spread of the AA languages.

Our analyses do not support the model according to which mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6
represent an early dispersal event of anatomically modern humans at around 40–45 KYA in
association with the spread of Dabban industry in North Africa as proposed earlier [28,29]. A
West Asian origin for these haplogroups still remains a viable hypothesis as sister clades of U
(and ancestral to it, macro-hg N (including R)) and M are spread overwhelmingly outside
Africa, notably in Eurasia, even though the phylogeographic data on extant populations do
not present a clear support for it.

No southwest Asian specific clades for M1 or U6 were discovered.
U6 and M1 frequencies in North Africa, the Middle East and
Europe do not follow similar patterns, and their sub-
clade divisions do not appear to be compatible with
their shared history reaching back to the Early Upper
Palaeolithic.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
LOL! The war in Mali is a war based on Arabs calling themselves Tuareg and moving south to reconquer and plunder Timbuktu in the name of Islam and to assist those white supremacists who are supporting them in order to push this nonsense that all these people in North Africa were historically white. Yet how is it that these folks are calling the Tuareg white in Mali, a black country, yet then turn around and call the Tuareg of Libya black? Because it is an agenda to decimate black people in North Africa. The Arabs in Sudan are doing it with the assistance of the Arabs and the same in Somalia. This is all about destabilizing West Africa and the West using the Arabs or arabized Africans to create a buffer in North Africa against blacks and pushing them further and further south. At no time in history did anyone ever describe Tuareg as white except in the mouths of the racist whites who did everything they could to put whites on top of the Tuaregs, whether this was reality or not, because this is how whites believe it is supposed to be.

quote:

---

Reprisals against Libyan Tuareg who supported Gaddafi
The Tuareg of one Libyan town are discovering there are serious consequences for the support some of them gave to Colonel Gaddafi.

"Really, Mr Justin, now we are in good condition. Believe me, I am too happy to see you. My God, now I feel shy."

The exuberant greetings are one of the great joys of travelling in Libya.

In this case, my old friend Mohammed Ali from the southern Libyan oasis town of Ghadames was particularly effusive, having heard that I had just been released by my Tuareg kidnappers after being held captive in the desert.

We had not seen each other in almost 13 years.

I had wanted to travel south from Tripoli to meet old friends from a desert expedition years before.

I had also wanted to look into stories I had been hearing about conflict breaking out in Ghadames between the town's mixed Arab-Berber population and the Tuareg.

Held hostage

The two populations have lived together, sometimes uneasily, for centuries.

Gaddafi's use of the Tuareg as local enforcers during the revolution had stirred up these divisions. Now that the town had risen up and expelled them, reprisals were in the air.

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14948319

There has always been a desire by some Arab groups in North Africa to use the Tuaregs history of warfare and rebellion as a cover to move south and to pose as Tuareg revolutionaries in order to push Arab rule further south. And this is exactly what is happening here, with Qaddafi himself having a lot to do with promoting this as many of the Tuaregs he supported had "leaders" who were lighter skinned and labeled by Qadafi as "arabs".

Son of Qadafi with Tuaregs.

http://newscastmedia.com/skeptics-on-gadhafi2.html

Any clown can wrap a turban around their head and call themselves a tuareg but that does not make them a TRUE Tuareg in any real sense.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] LOL! The war in Mali is a war based on Arabs calling themselves Tuareg and moving south to reconquer and plunder Timbuktu in the name of Islam and to assist those white supremacists who are supporting them in order to push this nonsense that all these people in North Africa were historically white. Yet how is it that these folks are calling the Tuareg white in Mali, a black country, yet then turn around and call the Tuareg of Libya black? Because it is an agenda to decimate black people in North Africa. The Arabs in Sudan are doing it with the assistance of the Arabs and the same in Somalia. This is all about destabilizing West Africa and the West using the Arabs or arabized Africans to create a buffer in North Africa against blacks and pushing them further and further south. At no time in history did anyone ever describe Tuareg as white except in the mouths of the racist whites who did everything they could to put whites on top of the Tuaregs, whether this was reality or not, because this is how whites believe it is supposed to be.

---

Below are some of the most powerful influential Mali Tuaregs at present. I don't know if you consider them "Arabs" or not but they are leaders. if you think they are "clowns" and anybody can wrap a turban around their head" you are sadly mistaken and have not researched Tuareg power structure at all, especially form a current events perspective.

In Mauritania people with a skin tone similar to the Tuaregs below are called by people in Mauritania "white Moors" or Beidane. It's wrong to assume 'white' in American/European sense. In North Africa it means people like the Tuaregs below who are lighter brown sometimes with a yellowish tone. It's a relative thing. There are millions of people who look like the below and also called Berbers. There are also darker Berbers and darker Tuareg Berbers. They are part of tribes and thinking one is fake and the other is real is completely irrelevant AA persoective especially considering that the leadership tends to be lighter and so do the slave owners, something which still goes on today in Mali and Mauritania. There are also dark skinned Tuaregs who own slaves but they tend to be more lighter skinned. I know they look cool in their blue robes and riding camels but they are an independant movement and have political agendas and they may not be perfect human beings entirely innocent. The Moors for instance were radical Islamic fundamenatlists from the start in Morocco and Mauritania and you can read about it in Molefi Kete Asante's book. In Mali the Tuareg have a mixture of skin tones, light brown, dark brown etc. The Malians who are not Tuareg all look dark like Sanogo.

In fact if you were to look deeply at the issue the Tuaregs who are a variety of skin tones form light to dark brown have felt that they were not being respected from the other Malians, the majority, the ones who run the government and who are all dark. So there are a number of color issues that have been going on for a long time in addition to outside attempts by foreign power who might try to manipulate the situation.
However I would not say that race is the primary conflict, it's power and radical Islam.
The U.S. has historically had good relations with the Malian government and not supported the Tuareg.
Only recently has the U.S. cut relations with Mali due to the coup, not the Turaegs but the a miltary coup within the Malian army.


Consider this, The Tropic of Capricorn runs through the Kalahari desert. Tha San who have been living there for thousands of years are notably lighter skinned due to the fact that they are further form the Equator. Even note the complexion of Nelson and Winnie Mandela not as dark as equatorial Africans.
Now look in the other direction, North of the equator but the exact same distance from the equator, The Tropic of Capricorn. It passes through Northern Mali, Southern Algeria and Southern Libya. Some of the Tuareg live in these areas as well as more South and darker skinned.
if you wnat to talk about Libya mre than 3/4ths of it is above the Tropic of Cancer. Skin tone darkness/lightness , with some dietary exceptions and depending on how long people have been living in an area largely corresponds to latitude. With a few exceptions the broad pattern is that Africans who live closer to the equator are darker than Africans who live further form the equator. The San, a perfect example

Make no mistake the Tuareg have been multiethnic nomads for many hundreds of years.
There have been lighter skinned Tuareg in North Africa for many hundreds of years.
One of the major Tuareg separatist groups are Muslim but not radcial and not in support if sharia law, the MNLA.
However half of Mali is run by jihadists.
What has happened recently is that radical Islamic fundamentalist Tuareg group Aswar Dine, their leader below, Iyad Ag Ghali had been fighting for separatism but also collaborating with Al Queda arabs and their Sharia law agenda.
They were cooperting for a while but now Al Queda has taken a lot of power and they are now having problems with their own ally. And the jihaists have taken over half of Mali.

_______________________________________________

The Tuareg separatists are currently led by the secular MNLA ( National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad)
and the Islamic fundamnetalist group Ansar Dine
heavily armed jihadists have control of more than half of Mali. They are applying strict Sharia – with shocking results similar to those of the Taliban in Afghanistan – and have stated their intent to continue to spread


____________TUAREG_______________________________


Moussa Ag Acharatoumane, founder of MNLA


.

Secretary-General of the MNLA Bilal Ag Acherif



Tuareg spokesman Mossa ag Attaher


Iyad Ag Ghali , leader of Ansar Dine

[/QUOTE]
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Like I said, these movements just popped up recently and are primarily made up of mixed blood Arabs/Tuaregs using the plight of the Tuareg as a front to come in and cause conflict and impose Arab/mulatto rule in the region and has nothing to do with traditional "real" Tuareg identity or power. Tuareg identity and power is based on the Kels or clans of the Tuareg and has absolutely nothing to do with these bogus movements. That is exactly what I mean by mixed bloods and Islamists using the influence and weapons from the outside to usurp Tuareg identity in Mali and cause conflict.....

Yes there are lighter skinned Tuareg, but for anyone to claim these are "white" people or that these lighter skinned Tuareg represent the historic "white" ruling class of the Tuareg or that tuareg noble lines are historically "white" or lighter skinned is pure absolute NON SENSE.

quote:

---

The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad or the Azawad National Liberation Movement , formerly National Movement of Azawad is a political and military organisation based in Azawad/northern Mali. The movement is made up of Tuareg, and some of them are believed to have previously fought in the Libyan army, during the 2011 Libyan civil war (though other Tuareg MNLA fighters were also on the side of the National Transitional Council) and returned to Mali after that war. The movement was founded in October 2011 and had stated that it includes other Saharan peoples. The Malian government has accused the movement of having links to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. However, the MNLA deny the claims. By 1 April, the MNLA, along with Ansar Dine, were in control of virtually all of northern Mali, including the three biggest cities of Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu. However, tensions between the two factions continued to rise, culminating in the Battle of Gao, in which the MNLA lost control of northern Mali's cities to Ansar Dine and Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Movement_for_the_Liberation_of_Azawad

Claiming that these people represent "the Tuareg" outside of the traditional Kels and Clans of the Tuareg is nonsense. They represent the money and weapons that outsiders have given them to bring conflict and chaos to Mali. Period. It is all simply a set up to justify foreigners to go into Mali and re colonize and allows these white folks to start promoting this nonsense about white Tuareg identity as some historical "race" separate from the rest of the Tuareg.....

The Tuareg do not distinguish Tuareg identity based on skin color. Tuareg identity is based on Clan and Kels and relationships within those clans. Any clown trying to turn this into a case of Lighter skinned "whites" over darker skinned blacks is simply promoting a racist agenda and a revision of history. They want to turn Africans into outsiders in their own continent and history. They promoted the Libyan rebels who they knew were racists to go in and start killing the native blacks of Libya, then they sent these same sorts of folks South to then usurp the identity of the Tuareg and try and impose the same kind of racist framework further South and to steal the history and culture of the ancient people and towns of Timbuktu under their banner. And of course the whites love this because it allows them to continue promoting their fantasy world views of history that North Africa was always populated by Eurasians who enslaved and subjugated blacks.

Now if you don't believe that is what is happening note this even more recent movie about the Tuaregs from the Italians. Now if "warrior of the desert" wasnt bad enough with a white European actor as the main star, then what about this one with more white European actors:


http://www.wikideep.it/cat/film-d%27avventura/le-quattro-porte-del-deserto/
This film is supposed to be about the Tuareg encountered by Charles Foucald in Africa. Now there are still pictures of Dassine floating around on the web, and she never looked anywhere near as light as this white woman playing her.
There is an agenda here, there always has been and they are still pushing it.


http://news.cinecitta.com/film/film.asp?id=993

Now the real Dassine:

http://imzadanzad.com/english/dassine1_ev.html

And another modern Tuareg woman:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/courregesg/3698217083/in/faves-clojovi/
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:


_______ Juba II Numidian African


____________ Typical Euro-Roman



The Numidian differs from the European in all the stereotypical hair and facial
features. The hair is thicker and "wilder."

---

same sculpture as above:


His nose and lips look partially African but your analysis of the hair is ridiulous and assumes all Europeans have neat straight hair.
Arguing that a small minority of Africans might hair hair like Juba II here is one thing but to suggest that his hair here looks more African than European is pure silliness.
Further, when people like the person below get very short hair cuts their hair appears a lot straighter because they have large curls and large curls need a certain amount of length to begin to form into recognizable curls.

If you looks at depictions of the Numidian kings on coins and so on (-ones in good condition not all worn down) you can easily tell they are not pure Africans, they have quite a bit of Greco-Roman admixture




^^^this guy's hair is closer to Beja than is that bronze of Juba II


 

---

Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
 
Lioness your bust is not the real Juba II.The Juba II bust in wikipedia look more black African.
 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Juba II (King of Mauretania, 25 BC-AD 23)

An aging prince

This full face portrait with high forehead and long, sunken cheeks, is framed by a mass of short, rather wild curls, held in place by a headband. The arch of the eyebrows overshadows the inner corner of the downward slanting eyes. The nose is broad, the mouth full and sensual, and there is a deep cleft in the chin.

Despite the damage it has incurred, the features of this tired face are recognizable as those of Juba II at the age of about sixty. When the head was discovered it was immediately identified as such; this suggestion was confirmed after comparison with effigies on coins and other portraits of the prince, whose strong features, wide-set eyes, and thick hair are clearly recognizable.


Hellenistic art

The classical culture of King Juba II is apparent in this portrait of the philhellenic king, which portrays him like a Hellenistic sovereign: beardless, short-haired, and wearing a royal headband. Hellenistic art also inspired the carefully modeled flesh and the idealization (which does not, however, overlook the subject's human qualities or ethnic group).

Excerpts source LOUVRE: Juba II (King of Mauretania, 25 BC-AD 23)

===

Juba II madness

_______ Juba II Numidian African ____________ Typical Euro-Roman



The Numidian differs from the European in all the stereotypical hair and facial
features. The hair is thicker and "wilder." The eye is larger and rounder. The
cheek bones are higher and more protruding. The nose is flatter and broader
with nostrils tending to round/oval rather than oblong/slit shape. The lips are
thicker and more everted. King Juba II's antecedents thus seem the type of black
autochthonous to littoral North Africa.

---

---

Modern North African. Who actually relates to the ancient North Africans. "Instead of some European", as proposed as usually by the feeble minded lying ass.



 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
P.s.


^platyrrhine and full lipped.


^
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mena7:
Lioness your bust is not the real Juba II.The Juba II bust in wikipedia look more black African.

---

it's the exact same sculpture from a different angles and better lighting on the hair and his fetaures look just as partially African as in the other photo. His lips look somehwat African but his forehead looks for Greco Roman to me.

His hair does not look African. There is no tribe of pure African people that have hair like this. The boy above is probably part Arab (as usual no background information is given on him)

They say the Moors derive from the Numidians. I think it's questionable maybe only partially true. I think the Numidians were more of Greco-Roman descent mixed with native Aficans and the later Almoravid Moors were more of a mixture of Arabs and native Africans. And some of the same of all these people are also called "Berbers" sometimes. All of these people have been multi ethnic nomads for many hundreds of years.
Some kooks however are into racial purity and now think multi culturalism is a form of racism, go figure.

Type "list of Numidian kings" in google. Then look at the coins. Most of these kings look part Greco-Roman. The Romans knew how to portray fully African people as we can see here:


^^^ the Numidan king coins do not look like this unless you go in carefully picking out the heavily worn out ones .



Juba I


Juba II




Juba I


The Greeks and Roman were in Africa, deal with it. Some of them mixed with native Africans.
The Phoenicians had a large city called Carthage. They people who founded it were not Africans. This is history
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


Now the real Dassine:

http://imzadanzad.com/english/dassine1_ev.html

---

 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

1.No recurrent (accross populations) set of L lineages among the recognized recurrent OOA uniparental parcel (mtDNA U, T, J, R, M, N etc) in most non-Africans.

---

quote:

---

3.The earliest Europeans show hap U in excess of 80% and other lineages and none of their lineages are a part of the Early Upper Palaeolihic heritage of modern Africans, showing that the ancestors of these AMHs and the AMH ancestors of modern day tropical Africans diverged way before OOA.

---

quote:

---

4.Additionally, modern Eurasians also don't carry anything pre NRY CT, independent of African admixture. This is further confirmation that all distinct OOA waves were composed of the same or related young population (relative to tropical African AMHs, who would have carried L lineages and pre CT), and that such older populations (Africans who predate the Eurasian maternal and paternal MRCA) had little genetic contact with OOA populations.

---

quote:

---

5.Non-Africans comprise of several (at least 3 [David Reich et al. 2011]) successful OOA expansions with >25ky in between them (40kya-70kya, and all of them show a broadly consistent mtDNA M, N and NRY CT pattern. This is detrimental to your case for two reasons. 1) it means that there were multiple chances for L lineages to survive founder effect, had the said lineages been a part of the make-up of the peripheral Africans from which non-Africans descend

---

quote:

---

2) across a 20ky period, participants of distinct OOA events (Europeans and Australians East Asians) are broadly similar if you look at the macro haplogroups to which they belong. It cannot be explained as an accident that non-Africans are all NRY CT and mtDNA N and M. Africa was clearly structured and OOA source populations were distinct from L carrying Africans.

---

quote:

---

6.If there was mtDNA L among Ibero-Maurusians, it would have spilled over into the Iberian refugium and expanded with other post LGM Iberian lineages, which repopulated Europe after the LGM, but its absent, both in wider Europe and among the most clear descendant population of the Iberian refugium (i.e., Saami). That's at least 4 clear chances for mtDNA L to survive founder effect.

---

quote:

---

Your description of the lack of L in Eurasia as ''highly questionable'' is a clear case of emotion-driven denial.

---

quote:

---

Last time I checked European hunter gatherer mtDNA hasn't been acknowledged as part of the indigenous Early Upper Palaeolithic mtDNA signature of modern Africans. Since the said European AMHs would nonetheless would have to have come from Africans (they're OOA populations), yeah, I think that would hint at extinction.

---

quote:

---

Post the specifics.

---

quote:

---

You made an ignorant statement, most likely based on a confused interpretation of the aDNA article posted by MOM.

---

quote:

---

That most European mtDNA is attested in Farmer aDNA is implied in the article, is stated in the paper which led to that article, and is confirmed by other aDNA studies. I will not play your 'onus' games, which are evidently ploys to hide your inability to put money where your mouth is. A large portion of the European mtDNA haplogroups (and specific haplotypes) are attested in farmer DNA, and I dare anyone to show otherwise.

---

quote:

---

You're not looking at the wider picture, which I partly summarized above. Various forms of genetic drift cannot explain all the data. Only a pre OOA split between the ancestors of tropical Africans and the ancestors of non-Africans, explains the data.

---

quote:

---

BTW, what do you mean with low quantities? I get the feeling that this too will shortly be revealed to be an unsubstantiated assumption/fabrication.

---

quote:

---

Wow, you mean to tell me you didn't know bottlenecks occurred during the LGM? I find that telling.

---

quote:

---

I said that? Where?

---

quote:

---

It doesn't follow that a late Westward dispersal of Berber speakers negates the entry of mtDNA H V, U5 from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge following the Terminal Pleistocene.

---

quote:

---

In fact, the fact that modern Maghrebis carry the said lineages only confirms genetic exchanges with older populations in the region, precisely because the late Berber presence in the region rules out direct contact with populations in the Franco-Cantabrian refuge. Do you not understand that, for these lineages to occur in Berber speakers, mediators are required?

---

quote:

---

You must be referring to lineages other than U5b1b, V, H (H1 and H3) then, as, like I said before, these lineages are said to have entered Africa from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Osteological and genetic data have shown that EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi populations are not the ancestral source population of contemporary Maghrebi populations.

---

Which no one is claiming (i.e., the ''ancestral source'' strawman).

---

quote:

---

Before you start parading your pseudo-scientific 'discontinuity' evidence around, it needs to be substantiated first that the cranio-metric difference observed between Ibero-Maurusians and Berbers is any larger than AMH-late Holocene morphological gaps noted elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Irrelevant. Even dynastic Egyptians show a discontinuity to the folks that preceded them that's similar to the Ibero-Maurusian Berber record.

---

quote:

---

Exactly. So why is the Ibero-Maurusians-North African distance not substantially different from the distance seen between Cro-Magnons-Norse, in Groves? Could it be that your cranio-metric test for assessing Ibero-Maurusian persistence in Maghrebi populations is wholly made up, arbitrary and pseudo-scientific?

---

quote:

---

Is it safe to say that you're entirely oblivious to the fact that ALL Palaeolithic populations with a retained generalized physique, broadly resemble each other in cranio-metric analysis.

---

quote:

---

You're not making sense. There isn't even a difference; I never said that what you said wasn't true, just that its semantics. Its not unlike the troll tendency to make E-M78 in Greece somehow not African derived/representative of African ancestry, because Greek examples bear ''autochtonous'' mutations.

---

quote:

---

I have no idea what you're talking about here, or how it relates to my posts (I said the opposite).

---

quote:

---

I just did.

---

quote:

---

Parrotting Brace will get you nowhere as Brace's own Upper Palaeolithic European sample has been shown to possess affinities with Yomon and Nubian/Somali's BEFORE showing affinities with Europe (Brace 2001). Additionally, the European AMH sample in Brace 2005 doesn't cluster with his Basque sample (who supposedly have the greatest Palaeolithic hunter gatherer genetic signal) either.

---

quote:

---

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/saharan-populations-compared1.png

^Knock yourself out.

---

quote:

---

Thanks for stating the obvious. Everyone can see how pseudo-scientific your question is. Bodyplan informative variables/ratio's are never exclusive to two populations, but broadly correlating with temperature. Hence, my directing you to Bergman's rule, as your question reeks of your ignorance of it.

---

quote:

---

That point was arrived at in conjunction with other bodyplan related data. This is what I mean with the need for directing you to Bergman. You reason in a manner which suggest you're just now getting familiarized with it.

---

quote:

---

Even more pseudo-scientific reasoning. If Ibero-Maurusian specimen could diverge from MSA, LSA and modern Africans in just about every measurement, without implied genetic differences, there wouldn't be any sense to your attempts to show cranio-metric links between Africans and Ibero-Maurusians. Additionally, there wouldn't any sense in pointing out discontinuity between Berbers and Ibero-Maurusians, as there would be nothing ''that would make it impossible'' for Berbers and Ibero-Maurusians to by genetically similar despite cranio-metric distance.

---

quote:

---

I guess this is where your habit of face saving comes in. Uniparentally it is quite possible for individuals of the Berber group to have phylogenetic links with the Ibero-Maurusian group, just like Ramses III's Y chromosome has a phylogenetic link with many West Africans, despite belonging to the larger Egyptian group. You must be half asleep when you write such retarded fabrications.

---

quote:

---

What you left out (typical), is that your last statement didn't just say that Berbers brought L lineages there, what you said was that they were the first to bring lineages there.

---

quote:

---

THATS what's not compatible with your analysis of Kefi, and your insistence on the fairytale that Ibero-Maurusians weren't divorced from Africans.

---

quote:

---

Another blatant display of a non-sequitor, after your earlier nonsensical claim that H and V couldn't have trickled into the Maghreb in the Terminal Pleistocene, because the Berber populations that carry the said lineages today, weren't near the Maghreb back then, you're now suggesting that Berber populations in East Africa were the only ones in tropical Africa capable of introducing L lineages to Ibero-Maurusians.

---

quote:

---

^This is further evidence that you're not mentally fit to be having discussions.

---

quote:

---

Lying again. I didn't block off anything, as the quote ends with the end of your sentence. And my next refutation of what you say thereafter picks off where the said sentence ends. Bottom line: you fabricated that I had claimed that the human samples used by Casas et al and Cerezo et al were identical, even though I had clearly said that the Medieval L1b sample was related to the other 16178 bearing samples.

---

quote:

---

Just admit it, your homoplasy comment is only something a face-saving douchebag would say. While me and Takruri had figured out the necessary information to infer for ourselves that the Russian sample is indeed identical to the Medieval sample in its HVR 1 sequence, you're still lagging behind, asking stupid sh!t, and speculating like a vegetative slow-poke coon who has to be held by hand and can't get with the program...just admit it. Like a true coon, you were prepared to use the lack of 175 in the other L1b1a8 samples as evidence that the Russian sample was somehow not what Casas et al referred to.

---

You are losing it. Frantically cursing and fussing here and there, safely behind a computer monitor is a sign of emotional and mental breakdown, obviously brought about by piling pressure to defend untenable ideas. Of course I can reply in kind, and do a better job at insulting, but what good will it do? I’m only interested in setting the record straight at this time.

If this pressure for fact-setting is becoming too much for you, just step aside and let the adults continue this discussion uninterrupted (you initiated interaction with me).

quote:

---

**WHERE*** does my latest interpretation of Casas et al fit this description.

---

quote:

---

In the referenced articles, where else? How would Casas et al know the relatedness of the German and Russian clade 175 bearing clade if not from the articles they cite right after mentioning the German and Russian sample? You probably never traced down an article in your life due to your child-like dependency to wait on people to throw you a bone.

---

quote:

---

That citation is inconsistent with what I said, how?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

The Explorer said:
U6 is not Eurasian at any point! If you want to speak of U6's ancestor itself, well the jury is out on that as well, unless you want to point out the specifics of that ancestral clade, and exactly the parental Eurasian population it emerged in.

Saying that it derives from mtDNA R does not absolve U6 from being an autochthonous northwestern African marker, or as marker of gene flow from Africa to "Eurasia". In fact, many of the ancestors of those maternal markers tagged as "Eurasian" have not been identified...so, it's anyone's guess, where these ancestors exactly emerged. It seems to me that 'western' researchers simply like to attach too much significance to "Eurasia", because otherwise the development of the human species in the main had been in Africa.

^^How a marker of gene flow from Africa to Eurasia?

---

quote:

---

Are you saying that the gene flow went forth initially
that was autochthonous U6, or proto U6 from Africa?

---

quote:

---

Pennarun et al argue that the jury is still out on the origin of U6.

---

quote:

---

Your language barely makes sense,

---

quote:

---

Who are these “earliest Europeans”? Provide their sample numbers

---

quote:

---

You speak of “tropical African AMHs” as though they were some homogenous entity

---

quote:

---

possibly some sort of a subspecies onto its own

---

quote:

---

which frankly, is as preposterous as it gets...

---

quote:

---

If so, provide the full context and backdrop against which such an extraordinary situation would have taken place.

---

quote:

---

does not mean that remnants of L types do not show up among OOA populations, usually in modest incidences.

---

quote:

---

You could have only arrived at the conclusion that the dominating components of L3M/N and Y-DNA CT* in non-African populations is “detrimental” to anything I’ve said thus far, if you were ignorant of what founder effect events mean.

---

quote:

---

Also reconcile how “OOA-source populations” could have been “distinct from L carrying Africans”, if L3M and L3N themselves derive from an L type?

---

quote:

---

Your claim with regards to the so-called “Ibero-Maurusian” gene flow into Iberia glaringly lacks substantive context

---

quote:

---

and doesn’t even make sense, considering we were just discussing the prospects of L1a markers having had a possible upstream expansion time from of 20+ years.

---

quote:

---

Why, because you say so?

---

quote:

---

without providing proof of this supposedly now extinct OOA-“source” African population(s) that was supposedly isolated from L-carryng Africans.

---

quote:

---

How about the European specific-L types--extending as far as Russia. What was once known as the European/"Near Eastern" specific L3E , can serve as another.

---

quote:

---

It should be noted that reports of hg L incidences outside Africa, particularly beyond Europe and the “Near East” are often found by chance, given that most of the time researchers don’t even actively look for them,

---

quote:

---

And this “ignorant statement” would be the one you protested, but have still not provided counter-material otherwise, as pressed?

---

quote:

---

what Paleolithic Eurasian remains have been tested in abundance; give me the numbers, the identity and age of the specimens, and the detailed DNA-sequence reports?

---

quote:

---

“Bottleneck” is not the same thing as “decimated”. You are very confused!

---

quote:

---

Forgetful, here:
“When agriculturalist entered Europe, they were greeted with sparsely populated plains and technologically (and soon numerically) inferior hunter gatherers.” - by Swenet

---

quote:

---

Yes it does

---

quote:

---

by providing biological/DNA proof of “direct contact with populations in the Franco-Cantabrian refuge” prior to arrival of "Berbers" in the Maghreb...besides the evidence obtained from living Europeans themselves

---

quote:

---

I’m referring to the very clades that you are implicating in contemporary Maghrebi populations along the north coast.

---

quote:

---

You are/were:

“Ibero-Maurusians are grossly no different from Northwestern Africans (Moroccans) than North Africans on the other end of the continent (Egyptians) are from the Wadi Kubbaniya/Wadi Halfa groups.” - by Swenet

---

quote:

---

So you didn’t heed the advise to refer to Brace et al., as an example? Go through it, then tell me why it is “pseudo-scientific”!

---

quote:

---

You bring up Egyptian link with ancient groups of this same geography, and then when commented on, you say it’s irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

since much of dynastic elements came from integration of early mid-Holocene emigre from the drying Sahara and some in situ upper Nile Valley groups, who moved further down the Nile.

---

quote:

---

So you are agreeing that you are full of BS (?).

---

quote:

---

your claim about contemporary North Africans assuming closer relationship with the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi specimens than the Jebel Sahaba series is simply more hot-air

---

quote:

---

Greek E-M78 is not a standalone marker from E-M78 sub-haplogroup. U6 is a standalone marker within the U haplogroup. It is not a sub-clade of any preexisting U sub-haplogroup.

---

quote:

---

African origin of the predecessor lineage of E-M78 is not in doubt. On the other hand, the origins of proto-U6 in “Eurasia” is in doubt. The African origins of E-M35 is not in doubt; whereas the jury is still out on the geographical origins of mtDNA R clade.

---

quote:

---

This is looking to be a pattern. I cite Brace et al. 2005, and you talk of some comparison made in 2001

---

quote:

---

..and you accuse others of pseudo-science. Another irony. I also gather that you are clueless about matters that you broach yourself, and incapable of putting together your own words, backed with evidential material.

---

quote:

---

How can my request for substantiation of your context-free reference to “broad shoulders” be pseudo-science?

---

quote:

---

to imply a foreign origin for the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi series, for which you apparently have zero evidence.

---

quote:

---

this must be your supposed answer to "what specifically makes EpiPaleolithic mandible impossible to be biologically autochthonous to Africa, and therefore has to be European in origin

---

quote:

---

You will never get the concept as explained to you several occasions, even as simple as it is.

---

quote:

---

Cite the piece, wherein I say “Berbers were the first to bring lineages (presumably L) there”

---

quote:

---

How can they be divorced from Africans, when they themselves were Africans, which no less you confuse with a fairytale?

---

quote:

---

I take it that you are, even though you remember doing things you haven’t actually done?

---

quote:

---

Correction: You equated Cerezo et al.’s L1b1a8 clade with Casas et al.’s L1b, presumably to undermine the coalescence age estimation reported by the later.

---

quote:

---

You are guilty as charged!

---

quote:

---

Rather, I was talking about your as-yet-to-be-substantiated inference that the referenced Russian haplotype from Malyarchuk et al. (2004) is necessarily the same one referenced from Malyarchuk et al. (2008)

---

quote:

---

The citation was reaffirming my interpretation and nullifying your version of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Any three year old can run their mouth.

---

quote:

---

By not including an argument for why it doesn't make sense, I take it you just don't know how to refute it.

---

quote:

---

Reaching. I clearly spoke of structured populations in Upper Palaeolithic Africa...

Reaching. Only an ignoramus ignorant of the occurrence, spread and diversity of L lineages could fabricate such a spacey interpretation of my post.

---

quote:

---

Didn't I just tell you that UP mtDNAs don't occur in modern Africans, and that African specific uniparentals don't occur in Eurasian aDNA outside of admixture with Africans?

---

quote:

---

Bottom line: you're at a loss as to how the explain the absence of both L lineages and anything pre-CT in Europe, and UP aDNA parallels in modern Africans, which you're trying to hide with redundant (and retarded) questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Prove that the L lineages you mention are survivals of OOA uniparentals

---

quote:

---

Actually you're ignorant of what founder effect means. Only an ignoramus would insinuate that founder effects chop off uniparental lineages along age lines so that only roughly contemporary mtDNA M and N and NRY CT bearing lineages survive, and ancestral Y and mtDNA lineages conveniently die out.

---

quote:

---

Above, you yourself indicate that mtDNA M and N are not the same thing as L lineages. Are you sure you're ok?

---

quote:

---

Only to an ignoramus such as yourself. Last time I checked, the higher diversities of U6 in Iberia are perfectly consistent with Late Upper Palaeolithic to mid Holocene Ibero-Maurusian migrations to Iberia.

---

quote:

---

You're clearly talking mumbo jumbo here. I was clearly talking about (the descendants of) peripheral UP North Africa, and whether L was more than negligible in them. Bottom line, no explanation as to why no African mtDNA L lineages dating to the Ibero-Maurusian have been found in Iberia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
No, because you've yet to offer a rebuttal to any of the points I offered.

---

quote:

---

You were invited to refute the points I posted (which you utterly failed to do). That being the case, the notion that proofs weren't posed must then be a function of your degrading memory, which was noted elsewhere when you said readers weren't pointed to the relevant Cerezo et al 2012 figs, per your memory.

---

quote:

---

So, let me get this right. In support of the notion that OOA source populations carried L lineages, you cite lineages that have not been dated to Middle palaeolithic/Upper Palaeolithic OOA episodes, and in the case of the Russian sample (L1b), most likely didn't even exist yet (Salas et al 2002, Behar et al 2008)? Your desperation to correlate mtDNA L with OOA populations stands out like lioness' presence in an intelligent debate.

---

quote:

---

ALL haplogroups are found by chance. Researchers have no hand in what uniparentals they will uncover. In your desperate attempt to make excuses for the lack of Upper Palaeolithic L lineages in Eurasians, you're only exposing how much you're emotionally driven.

---

quote:

---

That's right. I expect people to at least have elementary knowledge of the things they're discussing. Your fabrications regarding the continuation of farmer aDNA in modern Europeans and characterizations of prehistoric European aDNA as ''very low'' glaringly scream out how ignorant you are on the subject. Its not my duty to bring you up to speed. My invitation for you to proactively substantiate your fabrication that most farmer DNA is not found in modern Europeans, is still open.

---

quote:

---

I asked you what your characterization of the volume of UP European mtdna lineages was based on. You're reduced to answering with more questions. Evidently a ploy to hide your glaring ignorance on the topic.

---

quote:

---

YOU are confused, as I've never said that any bottleneck was the same as ''decimated''. Reading properly is a prerequisite to having an online discussion, you do realize that, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:

Forgetful, here:

“When agriculturalist entered Europe, they were greeted with sparsely populated plains and technologically (and soon numerically) inferior hunter gatherers.” - by Swenet

---

So, where exactly does the part come in where I said that the **first farmers** outnumbered hunter gatherers. Again, reading properly is a prerequisite to having an online discussion.

---

quote:

---

So, just to confirm to myself that you're not as challenged as I think you are: there is absolutely no scenario in which Berber speakers could have inherited the said Iberian lineages from intermediary populations who, unlike Berber speakers, were in the region back then?

---

quote:

---

^Moving the goal post. Who do you think you are that you can arbitrarily change regular academic standards for acceptable evidence, dictate them to others, and expect others to actually go along with it? The sharing of rare Franco-Cantabrian associated lineages in North Africans with 1) North African specific mutations (Achilli et al 2005) and 2) without accompanying modern Iberian lineages of which the same can be said, are more than enough to rule out late Holocenic introductions of the said mtDNA lineages. Besides, your insistence on evidence based on something other than modern Euro's makes little sense, as I've already informed you of the fact that the majority of Kefi's Taforalt mtDNA (H, V) is associated with the Franco-Cantabrian refuge.

---

quote:

---

Success correlating North African specific control and coding mutations bearing U5b1b to historic slaves, when U5b1b **without the North African mutations** is already rare in Europe.

---

quote:

---

You are reaching, as usual. In no way, shape or form does that excerpt imply wholesale continuation of Berbers from Ibero-Maurusians, as was implied by your ''ancestral source population'' comment. Again, reading properly is a prerequisite to having an online discussion.

---

quote:

---

^Clearly appealing to authority. Any implication in Brace that gaps between prehistorics and moderns are necessarily indicative of a similar amount of genetic discontinuity are indeed, pseudo-scientific, as this notion has been contradicted many times (e.g., Zulu who share closer relationships to UP Europeans than Norse, Berg and other Euro samples in Hubbe et al 2010). Neither did the absolute lack of supporting evidence in the literature for this simpleton ''craniometric distance = genetic distance'' garbage stop him, or you for that matter, from using the observed Ibero-Maurusian to Berber craniometric distance as diagnostic for a matching amount of genetic distance.

---

You questioned the “authority provided”, and so, it’s only fitting you be requested to provide proof of the ungrounded allegation. If to you that amounts to “appealing to authority”, then so be it. Your charge of pseudo-scientific intentions of Brace et al. (2005) , or I “for that matter”, is bunkum; simply put, there are no apparent close cranio-metric ties between the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi remains and those of contemporary coastal-north Maghrebi series, which would suggest a close parent-to-offspring phylogenetic relationship between the series. This is only reaffirmed by molecular genetics, wherein it emerges that contemporary Maghrebi populations are products of source demographic events that took place from the mid early Holocene onward. Pseudo-science is ignoring these scientific observations, as you have clearly done here.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Explorer,

In
Sensitive Detection of Chromosomal Segments of Distinct Ancestry in Admixed Populations 2009

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000519

In this SNP based study Price et all say:


We show that the Mozabite have inherited roughly
78% ancestry from a European-related population and
22% ancestry from a population related to sub-Saharan
Africans. Our analysis also shows that the Mozabite
admixture has occurred over a period that began at
least [b]100 generations ago (~2,800 years ago)[

(8th century BC)

______________________________

Genetic Structure of north-west Africans STR

However in this STR based study(PDF link)
Bosch et al say

"Mozabites are a well defined Berber population in Algeria: they speak Mzab (a distinct Berber language) an originiated form the Ibadite religious community who settled in this region in the 11th century (AD)







______________________________________________


Do these studies fit together or are they in contradiction?
First off they don't fit historically. One says Mozabites are 11th century AD settlers. They other says they go back to 8th c BC.
The 11th c Bosch article says they are a distint NA population diverting from bothe Europeans and other Africans but the Price calls them 78% European and also may have Middle Eastern affinities. So which article paints a clearer picture of the Mozabites?
________________________________

update

-Just read some more so I will answer my own question.
Mozabites were originally European. They came to North Africa at least 2,800 years ago probably earlier. They mixed with native Africans to about 20% admix. Due to founder effect and/or drift they became isolated in STR analysis although HAPMIX SNP based analysis detects their Euroepean origin.
Over the centuries due to isolation they have become unique genetically. In the 11th c AD they were converted to Ibadi Islam but were not replaced by a small number of MId East migrants who converted them
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

My ''irrelevant'' comment had nothing to do with the link I proposed, but with your irrelevant (it was relevant indeed) dismissal of the said link. It has been, how many times now that your lacking reading comprehension has been noted?

---

quote:

---

You apparently need schooling on the fact that the said predynastic drying Sahara folks would have descended from Upper Palaeolithic groups with whom they show a similar cranio-metric distance (the AMH to modern cranio-metric gap isn't specific to the Nile Valley and Maghrebi record).

---

quote:

---

What exactly is inconsistent about noting dual ties, i.e., broad cranio-metric affinities of AMHs with other AMHs, while also noting that some modern populations (e.g., North Africans) are more related to some AMHs (Ibero-Maurusians) than others (Jebel Sahabans)? You'll have to fill me in here.

---

quote:

---

Even more subjective pseudo-scientific hogwash based on fake standards (i.e., making ''standalone marker'' status, and the amount of African upstream markers deciding factors) that you've just made up. E-V13 need not qualify for any of that, for it to be an autochtonous marker, and for the comparison of your irrational fanaticism concerning U6 (with similar irrational fanaticism on the part of Euronuts who dread their E=V13 component), to be justified.

---

quote:

---

Everything you said here with the exception of proto-U6 is an outright lie. There has been more debate (both then and now) on the origin of E and/or derived lineages than mtDNA R. Even your proto-U6 comment is garbage, since U IS proto-U6, the possibility of the prehistoric existence of closer proto-haplogroups notwithstanding.

---

quote:

---

Stop lying and replying to posts if you're not going to address what was said. Stating that I cited Brace 2001 is no substitute for actually addressing what I said. Your implicit lies won't go unnoticed. I clearly referenced Brace 2001 along with Brace 2005, both have yet to receive replies.

---

quote:

---

Again, it would do you good to stop lying. That (your request for substantiation) is not at all what I characterized as pseudo-scientific. Its the way you formulate your queries and still continue to do so, using phrases like ''prove its impossible for others to have those traits'' and ''prove that only Europeans had them'', when that's not at all what cranio-metric analysis is capable of ruling out.

---

quote:

---

Another lie. Evidence of clear cut divergence from contemporary MSA, LSA and modern tropical Africans (mandible, teeth, bodyplan variables) was posted, in tandem with similarities with (Late) Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, at which point you performed your usual sleight of mouth by moving the goal post and suddenly making it an issue of interpretation re: ''prove that only Europeans can have the said traits''.

---

quote:

---

This is exactly what I mean with your pseudo-scientific tendencies. Only an uninformed retard on Lioness' level would expect others to prove that which cannot be conclusively proven with the discipline at hand. However, in the many types of analysis I've already summed up, Biological Anthropology (including [ancient] population genetics) up until this point has gotten as close as possible to prove ties with Eurasia.

---

quote:

---

If there is no evidence of L lineages in the Maghreb dating to 20 kya, then it is perhaps because of that “little known fact” that I keep referring to; that the proto-Tamazight ancestors of contemporary Maghreb population were not in that region then.
--The Explorer
Let the face saving begin.

---

quote:

---

I was talking about divorced from Africans, in terms of the continent they inhabited, where?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Takruri, interesting paper. However, the specific group it is referring to (with transition 16175) seems to be what Cerezo et al (2012) call L1b1a8 (see fig 2)
--Swenet

Your eyes must be deteriorating faster than Steve Urkel's, for you to miss my reference to fig 2 in a short three sentence post.

---

quote:

---

Try again. This time, try to actually include what is being asked of you, re: **latest interpretation of Casas et al**, rather than blatently posting what was clearly revised as my correspondence with alTakruri went on.

---

quote:

---

What part about tracking down references, do you not understand? Is it, for example, new to you that authors reference their work in later articles? Do you think the Russian sample in Malyarchuk et al. (2008) isn't going to be referenced in a manner that allows one to rule out whether both Russian samples are the same? BTW, did I already mention that alTakruri and the rest of the world managed to do figure this out on their own by 15 December?

---

quote:

---

No textual demonstration, just baseless opinionating to hide your glaring blunder. If your interpretation of the text is correct, and the ''precise African origin'' part doesn't refer to the origin of the Medieval muslims, point out to me where the 175 transition is mentioned in this excerpt, or prior to it:

The significant higher number of sub-Saharan African
lineages (L1 and L2, Table 2) in MP, two of which are
also found in NW Africa, points to the important role of
Moslem migrations in the present gene distribution in
Iberia. The unique sharing of L1b (126 127 189 223 264
278 311) with the Sahara points to this area as the most
probable origin. Nevertheless, the high number of non-
shared lineages impedes the determination of the precise
African origin.

---

This recounting is a total mess, logically and factually; where do I begin? Let’s try reciting my original post, part of which was already posted above:

One: Cerezo et al. cite Malyarchuk et al 2008, while Casas et al. cited Malyarchuk’s research team from 2004! Two: While there’s certainly a possibility that Malyarchuk revisited their Russian sample from an earlier study, it should not be taken for granted that this need be the case, unless stated. Nor should it taken for granted either, that Casas et al.'s German haplotype was necessarily of the same L1b sub-clade as the Russian counterpart, or either two with respect to their 2 Iberian haplotypes, and possibly two other European haplotypes. The said 2 Iberian haplotypes may have been included in the overall 4 incidences of this obviously rare association within the L1b clade. The authors language may speak to this prospect...

Nevertheless, the high number of non-shared lineages impedes the determination of the precise African origin. Moreover, the fact that the closest sequences to the two L1b haplotypes with the 16175 transition are not in Africa but in Germany (Richards et al., 2000) and Russia (Malyarchuk et al., 2004) clouds the origin of these haplotypes. - Casas et al. (2006)

If the clades were exact matches, this is not the language that would likely be used to describe the fact. “Closest” implies that of the haplotypes available, only those which shared the most nucleotide profile were considered, not necessarily entirely identical. On the other hand, the said determination of the “precise African origin”, suggests that the African origin is a given, but that the profiles of Iberian L1b markers didn’t exhibit a sufficiently consistent pattern among themselves or with respect to the African haplotypes; otherwise, it would have been very clear that they carried a modal haplotype that very likely came about after an introduction from Africa.

Nowhere in the above, is there mention of “origins of the Medieval Muslims”! Reference made to “precise African origin”, was made with regards to the source of Iberian L clades, particularly L1b clade in general, not as you assumed: a supposed exclusive inference for just 16175-bearing haplotypes.

It seems that for a moment, Casas et al. were exploring the possible role of slave trade with “sub-Saharan” Africa as the ultimate underlying vehicle for transmission of the “higher number of sub-Saharan African lineages (L1 and L2)” in MP (aka Medieval Priego), than perhaps those found in other Iberian samples of different era. L1 and L2 are generally treated as markers of “sub-Saharan African" ancestry by the authors, so it seems. Right after this, the “unique sharing of L1b with the Sahara” is broached.

It then follows that the implication here, is that the sharing of L1b strengthens the prospect of a sub-Saharan source, transmitted via the coastal-north Africa--or else read as “Sahara”, given consideration of other L lineages (sans “two of which were also found in NW”), but then at the same time, there was not sufficient degree of matching between the Iberian L1b examples and their African counterparts, be it the “Saharan” or “sub-Saharan” examples, to extrapolate the “precise African origin” of the MP clades. To repeat myself, this intimates that an African source is not contentious, but rather, the most likely source-locale. Had the collective Iberian MP L1b profile leaned heavily towards profiling for “Saharan” and/or “coastal-north African" , then the “precise African origin” would have been resolved; likewise, had the trend pointed to a heavy leaning towards “sub-Saharan” gene pool, then the “precise African origin question” would not be an issue.

Keep in mind, that the authors proceeded to inform readers about how rare nucleotide relationship with two other European haplotypes only further “clouded” the precise origin question. It therefore stands, that the Iberian clades “didn’t exhibit a sufficiently consistent pattern among themselves or with respect to the African haplotypes”, as I noted in my original post!

Warning: If you keep hurling gratuitous keyboard-oriented insults at me, then I will no longer indulge your time-wasting posts and regurgitative spams. I answered this time around, to make a point that I have no qualms whatsoever about confronting you purely on topical-issues, as opposed to child-like resorts to name-calling from a safe distance. I'm only concerned here at this time, with unraveling the substantive merits of ideas posited here. Were it a matter of indulging the usual ES trolling, that you seem very keen on dragging me into, I would not be wasting my time here, as my erratic postings these days underlie. It’s up to you: you can focus on issues, or choose the easy way out: trolling!
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

Explorer,

In
Sensitive Detection of Chromosomal Segments of Distinct Ancestry in Admixed Populations 2009

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000519

In this SNP based study Price et all say:


We show that the Mozabite have inherited roughly
78% ancestry from a European-related population and
22% ancestry from a population related to sub-Saharan
Africans. Our analysis also shows that the Mozabite
admixture has occurred over a period that began at
least [b]100 generations ago (~2,800 years ago)[

(8th century BC)

______________________________

Genetic Structure of north-west Africans STR

However in this STR based study(PDF link)
Bosch et al say

"Mozabites are a well defined Berber population in Algeria: they speak Mzab (a distinct Berber language) an originiated form the Ibadite religious community who settled in this region in the 11th century (AD)







______________________________________________


Do these studies fit together or are they in contradiction?
First off they don't fit historically. One says Mozabites are 11th century AD settlers. They other says they go back to 8th c BC.
The 11th c Bosch article says they are a distint NA population diverting from bothe Europeans and other Africans but the Price calls them 78% European and also may have Middle Eastern affinities. So which article paints a clearer picture of the Mozabites?
________________________________

update

-Just read some more so I will answer my own question.
Mozabites were originally European. They came to North Africa at least 2,800 years ago probably earlier. They mixed with native Africans to about 20% admix. Due to founder effect and/or drift they became isolated in STR analysis although HAPMIX SNP based analysis detects their Euroepean origin.
Over the centuries due to isolation they have become unique genetically. In the 11th c AD they were converted to Ibadi Islam but were not replaced by a small number of MId East migrants who converted them

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:

It seems that for a moment, Casas et al. were exploring the possible role of slave trade with “sub-Saharan” Africa as the ultimate underlying vehicle for transmission of the “higher number of sub-Saharan African lineages (L1 and L2)” in MP (aka Medieval Priego)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
My position when I first got here was that Iberomaurusians were Eurasian immigrants. I then started opening up to the indigenous African argument but I couldn't really get the data behind me to back it up, so I mostly kept my silence on my views of their ethnic affinity.

The real cue that my original position (when I came to this forum) was right, was when Henn et al 2012 came out, which states, among other things, that the North African genetic component comprises a recent departure (older than 10 kya) from Middle Eastern ancestry. I first disagreed with this, which some of the data allows (present day Middle Easterners could also be descendent from [folks like] them), but after a recent study came out saying that this indigenous component has Neanderthal in it (sometimes even more than Eurasian ancestry has Neanderthal in it), that made me see it as a confirmation of Henn et al 2012's interpretation that this ancestry really was brought into Africa from the outside.

The argument for their African origin is Iberomaurusians is this:

--They're more platyrrhine (broad nosed) than prehistoric Europeans

--They had limb proportions in the range of Africans

--Their 'Mechtoid' features extend well into the Sahara and Sub-Sahara Africa (e.g., Asselar man, Hassi el albiod, Izriten 1)

--Their tradition of removing their incisors is still practiced by modern Sub Saharan groups

--They were prognathous and had facial disharmony (long neurocrania and short faces)

The argument AGAINST their African origin is that the above examples are applicable to prehistoric Europeans as well, and the data sometimes even fits them better:

--Prehistoric Europeans had notable examples of platyrrhiny as well, and as a whole they border Iberomaurusians, being on the slightly narrower side (mesorrhine)

--Prehistoric Europeans had tropical limbs as well. It has been said that by the time of the Iberomaurusians (20.000-10.000) Europeans were underway to cold adaptation, and Iberomaurusian tropical limbs couldn't have come from Europe. This is false however. Europeans had tropical limbs well into the Mesolithic and often even in the Neolithic, which post dates Iberomaurusians for the most part.

--The mechtoid features of populations in the Southern parts of the Sahara cluster with Africans in the facial areas that are less plastic, while Iberomaurusians show little affinity with Africans in this type of analysis (mandible measurements). Pinhasi, and Vermeersch for example, shows that Asselar man and hassi el abiod cluster with Mesolithic Egypto-Nubians and with Bantu speakers, while Iberomaurusians definitely don't:

In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.

--Incisor removal occurs also in the Levant, while its absent in contemporary Egypto-Nubia.

--The facial disharmoney of Iberomaurusians is identical to prehistoric Europeans. There is affinity in the Sub-Saharan African direction, but the latter don't have as extreme short faces as seen in the Iberomaurusian and European prehistoric.

--I could go on for a while but I would say that the most important one is that the Iberomaurusians had big bodies, large body mass and were non-linear (stocky builds), which is unlike Africans and correlated with cold climates. Granted, they lived in a sub-tropical climates, and so such features aren't entirely out of place, but so did many Africans who never evolved this physique. Their stocky builds are totally unlike their Nilotic neighbors to the east who, at worst, had intermediate bodies (in between linear Africans and stocky Europeans), and at best, were well within the African range.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:


_______ Juba II Numidian African


____________ Typical Euro-Roman



The Numidian differs from the European in all the stereotypical hair and facial
features. The hair is thicker and "wilder."

---

same sculpture as above:


His nose and lips look partially African but your analysis of the hair is ridiulous and assumes all Europeans have neat straight hair.
Arguing that a small minority of Africans might hair hair like Juba II here is one thing but to suggest that his hair here looks more African than European is pure silliness.
Further, when people like the person below get very short hair cuts their hair appears a lot straighter because they have large curls and large curls need a certain amount of length to begin to form into recognizable curls.

If you looks at depictions of the Numidian kings on coins and so on (-ones in good condition not all worn down) you can easily tell they are not pure Africans, they have quite a bit of Greco-Roman admixture




^^^this guy's hair is closer to Beja than is that bronze of Juba II

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:

quote:

---

No textual demonstration, just baseless opinionating to hide your glaring blunder. If your interpretation of the text is correct, and the ''precise African origin'' part doesn't refer to the origin of the Medieval muslims, point out to me where the 175 transition is mentioned in this excerpt, or prior to it:

The significant higher number of sub-Saharan African
lineages (L1 and L2, Table 2) in MP, two of which are
also found in NW Africa, points to the important role of
Moslem migrations in the present gene distribution in
Iberia. The unique sharing of L1b (126 127 189 223 264
278 311) with the Sahara points to this area as the most
probable origin. Nevertheless, the high number of non-
shared lineages impedes the determination of the precise
African origin.

---

This recounting is a total mess, logically and factually; where do I begin? Let’s try reciting my original post, part of which was already posted above:

One: Cerezo et al. cite Malyarchuk et al 2008, while Casas et al. cited Malyarchuk’s research team from 2004! Two: While there’s certainly a possibility that Malyarchuk revisited their Russian sample from an earlier study, it should not be taken for granted that this need be the case, unless stated. Nor should it taken for granted either, that Casas et al.'s German haplotype was necessarily of the same L1b sub-clade as the Russian counterpart, or either two with respect to their 2 Iberian haplotypes, and possibly two other European haplotypes. The said 2 Iberian haplotypes may have been included in the overall 4 incidences of this obviously rare association within the L1b clade. The authors language may speak to this prospect...

Nevertheless, the high number of non-shared lineages impedes the determination of the precise African origin. Moreover, the fact that the closest sequences to the two L1b haplotypes with the 16175 transition are not in Africa but in Germany (Richards et al., 2000) and Russia (Malyarchuk et al., 2004) clouds the origin of these haplotypes. - Casas et al. (2006)

If the clades were exact matches, this is not the language that would likely be used to describe the fact. “Closest” implies that of the haplotypes available, only those which shared the most nucleotide profile were considered, not necessarily entirely identical. On the other hand, the said determination of the “precise African origin”, suggests that the African origin is a given, but that the profiles of Iberian L1b markers didn’t exhibit a sufficiently consistent pattern among themselves or with respect to the African haplotypes; otherwise, it would have been very clear that they carried a modal haplotype that very likely came about after an introduction from Africa.

Nowhere in the above, is there mention of “origins of the Medieval Muslims”! Reference made to “precise African origin”, was made with regards to the source of Iberian L clades, particularly L1b clade in general, not as you assumed: a supposed exclusive inference for just 16175-bearing haplotypes.

It seems that for a moment, Casas et al. were exploring the possible role of slave trade with “sub-Saharan” Africa as the ultimate underlying vehicle for transmission of the “higher number of sub-Saharan African lineages (L1 and L2)” in MP (aka Medieval Priego), than perhaps those found in other Iberian samples of different era. L1 and L2 are generally treated as markers of “sub-Saharan African" ancestry by the authors, so it seems. Right after this, the “unique sharing of L1b with the Sahara” is broached.

It then follows that the implication here, is that the sharing of L1b strengthens the prospect of a sub-Saharan source, transmitted via the coastal-north Africa--or else read as “Sahara”, given consideration of other L lineages (sans “two of which were also found in NW”), but then at the same time, there was not sufficient degree of matching between the Iberian L1b examples and their African counterparts, be it the “Saharan” or “sub-Saharan” examples, to extrapolate the “precise African origin” of the MP clades. To repeat myself, this intimates that an African source is not contentious, but rather, the most likely source-locale. Had the collective Iberian MP L1b profile leaned heavily towards profiling for “Saharan” and/or “coastal-north African" , then the “precise African origin” would have been resolved; likewise, had the trend pointed to a heavy leaning towards “sub-Saharan” gene pool, then the “precise African origin question” would not be an issue.

Keep in mind, that the authors proceeded to inform readers about how rare nucleotide relationship with two other European haplotypes only further “clouded” the precise origin question. It therefore stands, that the Iberian clades “didn’t exhibit a sufficiently consistent pattern among themselves or with respect to the African haplotypes”, as I noted in my original post!

Warning: If you keep hurling gratuitous keyboard-oriented insults at me, then I will no longer indulge your time-wasting posts and regurgitative spams. I answered this time around, to make a point that I have no qualms whatsoever about confronting you purely on topical-issues, as opposed to child-like resorts to name-calling from a safe distance. I'm only concerned here at this time, with unraveling the substantive merits of ideas posited here. Were it a matter of indulging the usual ES trolling, that you seem very keen on dragging me into, I would not be wasting my time here, as my erratic postings these days underlie. It’s up to you: you can focus on issues, or choose the easy way out: trolling!

---

Explorer - you sound somewhat like someone I used to communicate with about holocene north Africa. If you are not Shomarka himself, or Kittles, I think you would be better off discussing or debating these matters with him or people in your own academic league as it's going to be a long time in coming before you get people to stop casting insults on this forum when they feel threatened or think they're losing an argument.lol!

At least that's what I've found. That's just the way it goes.

But thanks for being here anyway.
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Explorer,

In
Sensitive Detection of Chromosomal Segments of Distinct Ancestry in Admixed Populations 2009

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000519

In this SNP based study Price et all say:


We show that the Mozabite have inherited roughly
78% ancestry from a European-related population and
22% ancestry from a population related to sub-Saharan
Africans. Our analysis also shows that the Mozabite
admixture has occurred over a period that began at
least [b]100 generations ago (~2,800 years ago)[

(8th century BC)

______________________________

Genetic Structure of north-west Africans STR

However in this STR based study(PDF link)
Bosch et al say

"Mozabites are a well defined Berber population in Algeria: they speak Mzab (a distinct Berber language) an originiated form the Ibadite religious community who settled in this region in the 11th century (AD)







______________________________________________


Do these studies fit together or are they in contradiction?
First off they don't fit historically. One says Mozabites are 11th century AD settlers. They other says they go back to 8th c BC.
The 11th c Bosch article says they are a distint NA population diverting from bothe Europeans and other Africans but the Price calls them 78% European and also may have Middle Eastern affinities. So which article paints a clearer picture of the Mozabites?
________________________________

update

-Just read some more so I will answer my own question.
Mozabites were originally European. They came to North Africa at least 2,800 years ago probably earlier. They mixed with native Africans to about 20% admix. Due to founder effect and/or drift they became isolated in STR analysis although HAPMIX SNP based analysis detects their Euroepean origin.
Over the centuries due to isolation they have become unique genetically. In the 11th c AD they were converted to Ibadi Islam but were not replaced by a small number of MId East migrants who converted them

---

Mozabites as most people who've bothered study Maghreb history already know are descendants of Iranic Eurasian peoples mixed with Berbers i.e. the Africans. For that reason many fairer skin Mozabites claim descent from Persians. They are a mixture of Persians who've absorbed Berber blood so most likely that Eurasian genetic import is about a mere 1,250 years ago when Eurasians are KNOWN to have settled the region.
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 
I'm sorry the authors of the article may have failed to mention this.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Since no rebuttals have been posted nor any indications of an intention to do so, and discussions with Explorer have only amounted to him getting free spoon-fed education of studies he was unaware of until others helped familiarize him, not to mention, his never ending lies, distractions and clumsy reading of my posts, I'll just make a list of my points and challenge more intelligent and capable readers to step up and do what Explorer fell short of doing ever since he showed up on 17 December, without even making a single contribution to the new data that was shared in this thread, or bringing the Cerezo, Malyarchuk and Casas related discussions past what was already figured out by alTakruri, me and others before 15 December:

--European L1b1a characterized by the 16175
transition does not bespeak diverge times from
African L1b1a longer than ~10kya. Casas et al do
not reveal the rationalizations for their
estimation of how how long this clade has been in
Europe, and most of their range falls short of
most of the currently known expansion ages of
this clade. None of the calculated expansion
dates of L1b1a date to the the earliest Ibero-
Maurusian (related) technologies.

--L lineages in South/Central Asia have not been
shown to be distinct from post Middle/Early Upper
Palaeolithic OOA episodes (e.g., Ancient Greeks,
Arabs, Zanj, African Silk Road merchants, or even
Makrani could all have donated the said lineages).

--No Middle Palaeolithic/Upper Palaeolithic L
lineages among modern Eurasians or fossil
Eurasian aDNA.

--The >10kya Maghrebi component isolated
(albeit somewhat imperfectly) by Henn et al 2012,
was clearly inherited by pre-Berber North African
populations, and it has just as much, and
sometimes even more, Neanderthal ancestry in it
than other Eurasians, indicating that the
pre-Berbers populations in the Maghreb, who
mingled with Berbers, had spent time outside of
Africa at some point.

--Excluding admixture events, uniparentals found
in Eurasians (Eurasian specific NRY CT and mtDNA
M and N) are generally not found in Tropical
Africans, and uniparentals found in tropical
Africans (NRY Pre-CT, African specific CT and
mtDNA L lineages) are generally not found in
Eurasians, indicating divergence times that go
back to before OOA, and that Eurasians are
not a subset of Tropical Africans of today, but
rather, a subset of an intermediate (i.e., mtDNA
M and N carrying population), now extinct,
population in peripheral Africa.

--The cranio-metric gap in between Ibero-Maurusians
and Berbers is noted in all
Palaeolithic to modern skeletal series that are
thought to not just share the same region across
time, but to have ancestor-descendant
relationships (e.g., Palaeo-americans and modern
Amerindians). Neither Groves nor Brace 2005 are
supportive of any anomaly or peculiarity in the
Ibero-Maurusian-Berber sequence that's not seen
elsewhere.

--Higher U6 diversities in Iberia that are
consistent with the scenario of many migrations
into Iberia, some of which are good candidates
for Ibero-Maurusian era immigration. Despite this
being the case, no Late Upper Palaeolithic L
lineages among the said U6 carrying Iberian
populations have been uncovered, that fit the
Ibero-Maurusian time frame and associated
lineages (M1 and U6), expansion wise.

--Plenty of North African signals in Berber
speakers that were inherited from preceding North
African populations (U6, U5, V, H3 and H1), but
none of them are L lineages. All L lineages
uncovered in Berbers seem to have arrived either
from the greater Nile Valley region and
surrounding plateaus or West Africa.

--Despite partial Ibero-Maurusian descendancy, no
Berber Y chromosomes of African origin
have been found, that can be correlated and
attributed to the Ibero-Maurusians. This is
further substantiation of the case that these
folks were predominantly Eurasian.

--There is a clear metric discontinuity between
contemporary LSA, MSA, modern Africans and
Ibero-Maurusians in various forms of metric
analysis, while European AMHs have general and
specific cranio-metric links with Ibero-Maurusians.

--There are Terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene
introductions of Iberian lineages (e.g., U5, V,
H3 and H1) to Northern Africa, that are
consistent with finds in Taforalt aDNA. These
Iberian maternal introductions to the Berber
gene-pool are among the ancestries that helped
register large portions of the Berber genepool
autosomally as subsets of Eurasian ancestry,
which parted ways with a yet to be defined
Eurasian source(s) >10kya, per Henn et al 2012.

--Attempts to call U6 autochtonous and African
because Eurasians don't have their own,
independent, U6, are in the same boat as pathetic
Euronut attempts to marginalize their African
ancestry, because their autochtonous version of
E-M78 (E-V13) is not indigenous to Africa. That
E-V13 is not a ''standalone haplogroup'' is of no
consequence to this noted pattern (among both
Euro and Afronuts) of plain fanatic wide-eyed
denialism.
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 
Alright, here’s the deal: One on one “discussion,” if one can even call it that, with this, obviously a drama queen character--swenet, had over-extended its useful course a good while back; so belatedly, I’ve decided to remove myself from it. The aforementioned character is simply too crippled by emotionalism, and judgment-impaired by intellectual imbalance, to be viable for a serious conversation. Just figured that I’d shoulder on for a little bit longer than warranted, if only to give the correspondence a chance--however slim the prospects were looking to be--to turn around for a bit more issues-oriented course, as opposed to flame-war baiting, but all I got back was mere repetitive rants littered with gratuitous tantrums of unsophisticated keyboard-insults. However, I will continue to keep the spotlight on certain unresolved matters, as provided below. Anyone who’s capable of replying as a human being, and old enough to handle an adult conversation, may feel free to give it a go:

Pointing out the location of this “U” clade which we had just been informed about, that is supposed to be serving as the until-now elusive “proto-U6“ clade.

Pointing out the nucleotide and molecular specifics that supposedly render this “U” clade "proto-U6".

Laying out a detailed phylogenetic basis of a non-African origin of the E clade.

Pointing out the supposed physiological attributes of the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi series, which make an autochthonous or an African origin virtually improbable.

This will do for now.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:


I have not come across any major study on Y-DNA of coastal-north Maghrebi samples to date, which point to a primarily European ancestral-source. To this end, Price et al.'s conclusion sounds suspect, about Mozabites being presentatives of some settler-European community that eventually mixed with Africans.

As for the dating issues, it is not surprising to see these contradictory observations, given that, while Mozabite gene flow from European-sources could have extended beyond the common era, a good size of it, is very likely the result of more recent historic slavery, predominantly favoring European females. Furthermore, a collective assessment of some European-specific alleles, may leave an impression of earlier transmission than what the actual case may be. [/QB]

---

Is Price's 78% European related ancestry for Mozabites true but it's just dating that is in question?

On what basis do you argue against:

"occurred over a period that began at
least [b]100 generations ago (~2,800 years ago)" ?

As per slavery of Europeans I look at the historical possbilites as to how much input that could have had in my thread called:

European Slaves of The Mahgreb: did it alter the population?


One item there:




And there's the Turkish population in Algeria:

The foundation of Ottoman Algeria was directly linked to the establishment of the Ottoman province (beylerbeylik) of the Maghreb at the beginning of the 16th century. At the time, fearing that their city would fall into Spanish hands, the inhabitants of Algiers called upon Ottoman corsairs for help.

The exceptionally high number of colonizers greatly affected the character of the city of Algiers, and that of the province at large. In 1587, the province was divided into three different provinces, which were established where the modern states of Algeria, Libya and Tunisia, were to emerge.


Before the Turks the was a Spanish period and Arab period.
It's not like the place was completely indigenous African before there were European slaves.
It doesn't seem reasonable that the basis of the light skinned beber is primarily the enslavement of Europeans, primarily by the Turks.

Prior to these periods we find Masinissa (c. 240 or 238 BC - c. 148 BC) King of Numidia, an ancient North African nation of ancient Berber tribes. As a successful general, Masinissa fought in the Second Punic War (218-201 BC), first against the Romans as an ally of Carthage and later switching sides when he saw which way the conflict was going.
Massinissa is largely viewed as a giant icon and an important forefather among modern Algerian Berbers.Masinissa was the son of the chieftain Gala of a Numidian tribal group, the Massylii. He was brought up in Carthage, an ally of his father. At the start of the Second Punic War (218-201 BC), Masinissa fought for Carthage against Syphax, the King of the Masaesyli of western Numidia (present day Algeria), who had allied himself with the Romans.

 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

Is Price's 78% European related ancestry for Mozabites true but it's just dating that is in question?

---

quote:

---

On what basis do you argue against:

"occurred over a period that began at
least [b]100 generations ago (~2,800 years ago)" ?

---

quote:

---

As per slavery of Europeans I look at the historical possbilites as to how much input that could have had in my thread called:

European Slaves of The Mahgreb: did it alter the population?

---

quote:

---

It doesn't seem reasonable that the basis of the light skinned beber is primarily the enslavement of Europeans...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lyinass twit:

---

quote:

---

His nose and lips look partially African but your analysis of the hair is ridiculous and assumes all Europeans have neat straight hair.

---

LMAO Can you make out the hypocrisy and double standard in this one sentence of yours?? You say he only looks "partially African" as if his features are not to be found in full Africans, then you go and say it is ridiculous to say that all Europeans have straight hair when YOU yourself have claimed countless times that Africans who don't have the stereotypical 'kinky' hair must be mixed.

quote:

---

Arguing that a small minority of Africans might have hair like Juba II here is one thing but to suggest that his hair here looks more African than European is pure silliness.
Further, when people like the person below get very short hair cuts their hair appears a lot straighter because they have large curls and large curls need a certain amount of length to begin to form into recognizable curls.

---

quote:

---

If you looks at depictions of the Numidian kings on coins and so on (-ones in good condition not all worn down) you can easily tell they are not pure Africans, they have quite a bit of Greco-Roman admixture.

---

And AGAIN, you restate your supposition that they are not 'pure Africans' but mixed! And what is the factual basis of your claims other than your narrow minded opinions of what pure Africans look like??!
 

---

Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
Capsian Type B of Briggs are Caucasoid (specifically types B3 and 4, the latter being Atlanto-Med), who entered North Africa during the early Holocene.

"The morphology of the North African proto-Mediterranean element is quite easily distinguished from that of the Mechta-Afalou." (Chamla, 1980)

The Mechta Type is absolutely nothing in metrics or non-metric like Type B.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Yet Capsian type B has been described by many authors including perhaps Coon as "partially negroid" in features. Oh and where is the evidence that the Capsian entered Africa from outside?? LOL
 

---

Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 

quote:

---

I and others have shown you various pictures of modern day (black) Berbers who resemble Juba II both in features as well as hair!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lyinass twit:

---

Twit, how many times must your dumbass be debunked over Juba II. I and others have shown you various pictures of modern day (black) Berbers who resemble Juba II both in features as well as hair!

---

What I said has never been debunked.




^^^this is the type of hair is not found in pure Africans.
You cannot find one photo of a group of adult African males with this hair. To say that this is African hair is ridiculous.
And there is no reason to assume Juba II 52/50 BC – AD 23) did not have out of Africa ancestry considering Greeks and Phoenicians had colonies back to around 500 BC, Carthage at it's height had half a million people. So stop being a fool and trying too hard.
You say Numidians wer pure Africans. I would like to know the reasoning behind that beyond "dana told me so"

The list of Roman province Numidians with Phoenician-Afro derived names

Last king of Numidia, Juba II
same bronze as above, different angle, Corbis images source
Africans do NOT have this type of big curl straight strand hair, get real.



The best you can do is find two individuals of unknown background who have combed out stiff hair, enough nonsense Africans do not have every hair type in the world even though that's a nice idea politically. Did you evern hear an anthropologist reporting an African tribe had straight wavy hiar like Europeans, Austrailians or staright hair like the Chinese? Name the tribe. Oh I see anybody who says Africans can't have hair like Farrah Fawcett are racists.
There is one photo I've seen posted before of an odd looking dark skinned person with wavy curly hair of unknown ancestry. That proves little. It's called anecdotal evidence. If such people existed a tribe of then would be identified. Enough racial purity antics. You do not know how to prove a case anthropologically.

Does anybody looks at a wider variety of Numidians in art?

Massinissa, at least here you can say he has rather African looking hair. But look at these kings they don;t look African despite the hair

Juba I



Syphax

Jugurtha


Vermina


Th Numidians were mixed deal with it, historical demographics, Henn and the art support that


Kings of Eastern Numidia

Name
Lifespan
Reign start
Reign end
Notes
Family
Image
Zelalsen
344 BC 274 BC
Gala
275 BC 207 BC
Ozalces
207 BC 206 BC
Capussa
206 BC 206 BC
Lacumazes
206 BC 206 BC
Massinissa
206 BC ? 202 BC


Kings of Western Numidia


Syphax
ante 215 BC 202 BC
Vermina
202 BC ?
Archobarzane
? ?

Kings of Numidia


Massinissa
202 BC 148 BC Formerly king of Eastern Numidia
Micipsa
148 BC 118 BC son of Massinissa
Gulussa
148 BC 145 BC son of Massinissa
Mastanabal
? ? son of Massinissa
Adherbal
118 BC 117 BC son of Micipsa
Hiempsal I
? ? son of Micipsa
Jugurtha
? ? son of Mastanabal
Adherbal
117 BC 112 BC
Jugurtha
117 BC 105 BC
Gauda
105 BC 88 BC
Hiempsal II
88 BC 60 BC
Juba I
60 BC 46 BC


Client-kings of Numidia

Juba II
30 BC 25 BC

__________________________________________________


The Moors are sometimes described as deriving from the Numidians, That's specualtion the Almoravids are 1000 yrs + after the Numidians
 

---

Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Yet Capsian type B has been described by many authors including perhaps Coon as "partially negroid" in features. Oh and where is the evidence that the Capsian entered Africa from outside?? LOL

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:


Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, "true" Black Africans (e.g. in their modern form) were still absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Negroids hadn't even evolved a few thousands years ago (and their current status is even debatable). The Negroid looking skulls throughout the early to even mid-holocene, still have large supraorbital ridges and other archaic traits absent in the modern Negroid morphology.

---

And skulls from all over Western Eurasia still had rates of dolichocephaly, occipital buns, rectangular eye sockets, upper facial facial shortness, that are absent in modern Europeans. Your point?


 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Show me one scrap of evidence that this type of Hair evolved outside of Africa..

The Original Arabs/Caucasians..

quote:

---

Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins.
T W Holliday

Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. 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. Following these observations, competing models of modern human origins yield different predictions concerning body proportion shifts in Late Pleistocene Europe. 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. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions. These data do not, however, preclude the possibility of some (albeit small) contribution of genes from Neandertals to succeeding populations, as is postulated in Bräuer's "Afro-European Sapiens" model.

---

quote:

---

Brachial and crural indices of European late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans.

T W Holliday

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. In contrast, Frayer et al.(1993) point out that Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans should not exhibit tropically-adapted limb proportions, since, even assuming replacement, their ancestors had experienced cold stress in glacial Europe for at least 12 millennia. This study investigates three questions tied to the brachial and crural indices among Late Pleistocene and recent humans. First, which limb segments (either proximal or distal) are primarily responsible for variation in brachial and crural indices? Second, are these indices reflective of overall limb elongation? And finally, do the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans retain relatively and/or absolutely long limbs? Results indicate that in the lower limb, the distal limb segment contributes most of the variability to intralimb proportions, while in the upper limb the proximal and distal limb segments appear to be equally variable. 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.

more Proof...

Incredible Human Journey, Episode 1, Arabia Sequence (Eden)

High atop a dusty plateau on the Arabian Peninsula, archaeologist Jeffrey Rose picked up a rock, saw something surprising, and started asking questions that could change history. His unusual discoveries in southern Oman help shape new theories about when early humans may have exited Africa, who those pioneers were, and what route they took on the first stage of their journey to every corner of the Earth.

In the late 1990s geneticists identified mitochondrial DNA signatures suggesting that the first humans to leave Africa may have traveled through Ethiopia to Yemen and Oman. Scientists theorized they were beachcombers who followed the coastline. Rose arrived in the area, eager to test the theory that Arabia was the gateway out of Africa by searching for archaeological evidence. "We surveyed for years," he recalls. "Stone Age artifacts littered the landscape; virtually any place I stopped the car, I found a Paleolithic site. But none of it showed a connection to Africa; and along the coast we found no evidence of humans at all."

He and his international team of scientists returned to Oman in 2010, and on the final day of their surveying season, at the last site on their list, "we hit the jackpot." The find was a very specific stone tool technology used by the "Nubian Complex," nomadic hunters from Africa's Nile Valley. Nubian technology is a unique method of making spear points that was previously only known from North Africa. Rose's team ultimately discovered over a hundred workshop sites where these artifacts were manufactured en masse. "It was scientific euphoria," he describes.

The Nubian origin and inland location of the discovery were equally unexpected. "We had never considered the link to Africa would come from the Nile Valley, and that their route would be through the middle of the Arabian Peninsula rather than along the coast," Rose notes. "But that's what the scientific process is all about. If you haven't proven yourself wrong, you haven't made any progress. In hindsight, the Nubian connection makes perfect sense. The Nile Valley and Oman's Dhofar region are both limestone plateaus, heavily affected by perennial rivers. It's logical that people moved from an environment they knew to another one that mirrored it. At the time when I'm suggesting they expanded out of Africa, southern Arabia was fertile grassland. The Indian Ocean monsoon system activated rivers, and as sand dunes trapped water, it became a land of a thousand lakes. It was a paradise for early humans, whose livelihood depended upon hunting on the open savanna."

Accurately dating Rose's Nubian discovery was made possible by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) technology, which can determine the last time a single buried grain of sand was exposed to light by measuring the amount of energy trapped inside of it. The technique revealed the tools to be 106,000 years old, exactly the same time the Nubian Complex flourished in Africa. This also means Rose's theory places the first exit from Africa much earlier than previously believed. "Geneticists have shown that the modern human family tree began to branch out 60,000 years ago. I'm not questioning when it happened, but where. I suggest the great modern human expansion to the rest of the world was launched from Arabia rather than Africa."

Rose's passion for the past extends beyond fieldwork to how science can be shared with the public. "A few years ago, I was going through an incredibly dramatic wadi (valley) in Oman, hours off the beaten track, and I thought, wouldn't it be great if we could share this place with other people, I bet they'd love to see this." He began shooting short videos every few days and chronicling his work via Twitter updates and website posts. "You can't put into words how unique the landscape here is. Arabia feels like this romantic lost world filled with mysterious ruins; it's a living museum of artifacts. Everyone on Earth had ancestors who passed through this place; why wouldn't you want to show it to people?"

"I'm like a kid in a candy store, there's so much to learn; and now we have so many ways to disseminate information—the Internet, blogs, myriad TV channels, documentaries—it's all making science more interesting, digestible, and relevant to the public," he says. "There's no reason for archaeology and history to be stuffy. How could you not want to know how you got here? It's been said that there's more diversity within a group of 55 chimpanzees than in the entire human population. I think if we help people conceptualize how tiny the genetic distance is between them, it might even help bridge some of the tensions in our world today."

Trying to explain what keeps him based in a desert truck stop, digging through sand, and lugging 100-pound loads of rocks in 100-degree heat, Rose says, "It's like an itch you absolutely have to scratch. An answer you have to find. Who lived here? What were they doing? Are these the people who went on to colonize the entire world? Now that we know it was the Nubians who spread from Africa, I want to know why them in particular? What was it about their technology and culture that enabled them to expand so successfully? And what happened next? That's one of the defining characteristics of our species—we've always looked to the beginning and wanted to understand how we got here. That's what it means to be human."

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/explorers/bios/jeffrey-rose/

Here is the full study by Rose et al.:

The Nubian Complex of Dhofar, Oman: An African Middle Stone Age Industry in Southern Arabia



^ Note the coastlines during that time of the Pleistocene when these cultures were extant. The Red Sea was narrower and Africa and Arabia were much closer to each other. The Bab-el-Mandeb Straits was longer and thinner separating Eritrea and Yemen by only a few miles.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,:

^^^this is the type of hair is not found in pure Africans.

---

 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
_______ Juba II Numidian African



The Numidian differs from the European in all the stereotypical hair and facial
features. The hair is thicker and "wilder."
 

---

Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:


Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, "true" Black Africans (e.g. in their modern form) were still absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966).

---

Pygmies and Nilotics who existed in Africa for there were any humans outside Africa are not "blacks" ?

If you call bantu "true blacks" the word "true" is arbitray and meaningless.

Blacks existed far before Caucasians.
Iranians existed before Nordics. If you call Nordics "true whites"
it is arbitray and meaningless.

The fact is that bantu are more similar in phenotype to pygmies and Nilotics than they are to people who later left Africa [/QB]

---

"True" = Hss, AMH. The Negroid morphology as it appears today, is only a few thousand years old.

This also goes far to completely shatter the Afroloon nonsense about thin noses and so forth being in situ adaptations in Africa - because they are completely absent from the fossil record until the Holocene. Yet Europe and West Asia already 15,000-20,000 years before had leptorrhine Cro-Magnids (Caucasoids).

Where are the Upper Palaeolithic leptorrhine fossils in Africa?
 

---

Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Negroids hadn't even evolved a few thousands years ago (and their current status is even debatable). The Negroid looking skulls throughout the early to even mid-holocene, still have large supraorbital ridges and other archaic traits absent in the modern Negroid morphology.

---

And skulls from all over Western Eurasia still had rates of dolichocephaly, occipital buns, rectangular eye sockets, upper facial facial shortness, that are absent in modern Europeans. Your point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
_______ Juba II Numidian African



The Numidian differs from the European in all the stereotypical hair and facial
features. The hair is thicker and "wilder."

---

Why do you keep saying that? White people have wilder hair than Africans:




^^^look at the difference, it's wilder. The dark skinned man you posted above is less wild because it has more orderly curls.
White people's hair can often be wilder because in these cases it's an irregular random combination of more curly and wavy hair on the same head.
Ordinary curly hair is more consistent, less wild.


^^^^ this hair is unlike the regular repeating curls that the African you posted has or other white people have.
The Juba hair is between wavy straight and curly.
And certainly you won't find Africans with hair of the super staright Chinese type.

Why when you know the Phoenician history of what later would become Roman provinces in Africa like Numidia and why when looking at Numidian coins, why would you assume that the Numidians were pure Africans rather than substancially mixed with people form outside of Africa?
I don't understand it



[
 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
The fact of the matter is Juba II doesn't resemble the Europeans you keep spamming, so sad.

The fact is we know blacks like everywhere in North Africa inhabited Tunis/Cathage from the Dawn of History. Why you keep spamming Juba I unpainted bust as if it means anything. We have plenty of Busts of the African Emperor Spetimius Severus who was def. a Black Man..but resembles a white man in his busts to the untrained eye.

Historia Augusta
p431 The Life of Pescennius Niger

quote:

---

Now when the confusion in the state was at its height, inasmuch as it was made known that there were three several emperors, Septimius Severus, Pescennius Niger, and Clodius Albinus, the priest of the Delphic Apollo was asked which of them as emperor would prove of most profit to the state, whereupon, it is said, he gave voice to a Greek verse as follows:

"Best is the Dark One, the African good, but the worst is the White One."

p449 2 And in this response it was clearly understood that Niger was meant by the Dark One, Severus by the African, and Albinus by the White One. 3 Thereupon the curiosity of the questioners was aroused, and they asked who would really win the empire. To this the priest replied with further verses somewhat as follows:

"Both of the Black and the White shall the life-blood be shed all untimely;

Empire over the world shall be held by the native of Carthage."

---

Clearly Severus was not seen as being white. We have other historical references refering to him as non white.

The Final Nail in the coffin..




-from Caesars' Wives : Sex, Power, and Politics in the Roman Empire
(Read the last line and weep..)

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

Why when you know the Phoenician history of what later would become Roman provinces in Africa like Numidia and why when looking at Numidian coins, why would you assume that the Numidians were pure Africans rather than substancially mixed with people form outside of Africa?
I don't understand it

---

 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Septimius v. Juba




Compared to Juba I



Also compare


___________________

Yet Septimus looks like this


^^^^
the Dude is darker than me..
 

---

Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
Historia Augusta
The Life of Pescennius Niger

"Niger was meant by the Dark One, Severus by the African, and Albinus by the White One"

The same text clarifies for Niger -

"...very white in all the rest of his body, yet his neck only was extremely black".

Only his neck was sunburnt dark.

So the statement "Clearly Severus was not seen as being white" is garbage. There is no physical description of Severus even in the text and busts show Severus as Caucasoid.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
jari why do you persist about Septimius Severus? Is his ancestry something to be overlooked?


Septimius Severus was born on 11 April 145 at Leptis Magna (in modern Libya), son of Publius Septimius Geta and Fulvia Pia.
Severus came from a wealthy, distinguished family of equestrian rank. He was of Italian Roman ancestry on his mother's side and of Punic or Libyan-Punic ancestry on his father's.

Lebanese men, the Phoenicians came form the region. They had colonies in ancient Africa





take the above men and mix them with Africans 1/4-1/2

Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations Brenna M. Henn P
 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
There you go spamming people without knowing their Genetic Makeup..lmao @ you trying to white-wash the Berlin Tondo..lmao.

Sad day is there are still native Blacks in Tunisia who resemble their forefather Septimius and Juba.



v


 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
No Matter how much you Try you cant white wash Septimius the Black African Emperor of Rome



The Blacks of Tunis ancient and Modern will defeat you

Show me one Leukoderm who compares more than those native Black Tunisians..
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
why do I need a picture war to defeat you when we know the man's background?


Septimius Severus was born on 11 April 145 at Leptis Magna (in modern Libya), son of Publius Septimius Geta and Fulvia Pia.
Severus came from a wealthy, distinguished family of equestrian rank. He was of Italian Roman ancestry on his mother's side and of Punic or Libyan-Punic ancestry on his father's.
 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
LMAO, B@tch Please, defeat Who??

I mean are you blind..lol I mean seriously, the Berlin Tondo is the biggest thorn in your side admit it. You keep bringing up his ancestry as if that means anything, as if there were no Blacks in the Levant/Asia Minor anyway.

Bitch I have French and Native american ancestry and Im Black phenotypically. The fact is the Berlin Tondo depicts Septimius as a Black man, anyone with two brain cells can see that.


The Final Nail in the coffin..




-from Caesars' Wives : Sex, Power, and Politics in the Roman Empire
(Read the last line and weep..)

You're already losing this war, quit while you are ahead. Admit defeat and save yourself further humiliations.