I have just downloaded this new limb proportion study onto my laptop at UCSD. If anyone's interested in taking a look, PM me your e-mail so I can send it to you.
To give you a preview of the findings, here's a dendrogram showing similarities in limb proportions between the populations measured:
Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
Interesting.
I may PM you.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
please post a little more info from this, something with numerical ratios mentioned or charted on a scale that's not dendogram
Abstract The Lower Nubian Epipaleolithic site of Jebel Sahaba (Sudan) was discovered in 1962. From 1962–1966, a total of 58 intentionally-buried skeletons were uncovered at the site. Diagnostic microliths indicative of the Qadan industry as well as the site's geology suggest an age of 14–12 ka for these burials. In this study, the body proportions of the Jebel Sahaba sample are compared to those of a large (max N = 731) sample of recent human skeletons from Europe, Africa, and circumpolar North America, as well as to terminal Pleistocene “Iberomaurusian” skeletons from the Algerian sites of Afalou-Bou-Rhummel and the later Capsian-associated Ain Dokhara specimen, as well as Natufian skeletons from the southern Levantine site of El Wad.Bivariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from recent North or sub-Saharan African samples. Multivariate analyses (PCA, PCO with minimum spanning tree, NJ cluster analyses) indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba humans is most similar to that of recent sub-Saharan Africans, and different from that of either the Levantine Natufians or the northwest African “Iberomaurusian” samples. Importantly, these results corroborate those of Irish (2000, 2005) and Franciscus (1995, 2003) who, using dental, oral, and nasal morphology, found that Jebel Sahaba was most similar to recent sub-Saharan Africans, and morphologically distinct from their penecontemporaries in other parts of North Africa or the groups that succeed them in Nubia.
Jebel Sahaba Sudan around 13,140 to 14,340 years old.
Ain Dokhara Capsian
Afalou Iberomaurusian
El Wad ( Natufian) southern Levantine
^^^^ Interesting that Ain Dokhara Capsian cluster with Africans yet they came later in the Maghreb than the Mechta-Afalou Iberomaurusian who cluster with Alaskan Eskimo groups, Koniag, Ipiutak an Tigara. It seems surprising. -but not so much in light of the study> Saami and Berbers--an unexpected mitochondrial DNA link. Achilli et al Both groups have haplotypes U (in particular, U5b) in common. However a small fraction of the Saami 5% of the Saami haplogroup diversity are also haplogroup D (D5) and Z, both of which are seen in Asian populations, possible Alakan crossover genetically. But regardless scandinavian Sami and Eskimo groups are cold adpated and have very short limb ratios. The Sami are not represented in the table however the Afalou Iberomaurusians are clustering with Eskimo groups in terms of limb ratios according to this chart
That is why if one is looking for a more African related population the Capsian who came after the Iberomaurusians are who should be looked at if you are looking for a more African affinity to modern Mahgrebian groups (assuming that there is continuity)
Green: Afalou Iberomaurusian -cluster with Eskimo limb ratios ___________________
Light Blue Ain Dokhara Capsian -cluster with Egypt/African American/Pygmy limb ratios
________________________________________________
Another thing, pygmy limb ratios. What are they? What do they average? Obviously genetically they have affinity with African groups-although they do have distnct gentic features. But strictly going by limb ratios many pygmies appears to have very long torsos. In addition I have read theorizing that their small stature may indicate Bergman's rule Regardless on the dendogram they cluster on the dendogram with African Americans. I would like to see their average ratios.
I also observe once again in this Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba, at least in this dendogram a lack of modern Near Eastern, Anatolian comparisions or Southern European.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Why don't you upload it at academia.edu or soemthing? What size is the file? Even at ESR.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I have just downloaded this new limb proportion study onto my laptop at UCSD. If anyone's interested in taking a look, PM me your e-mail so I can send it to you.
To give you a preview of the findings, here's a dendrogram showing similarities in limb proportions between the populations measured:
Interesting, I suppose. Not surprised really. Thanks for posting.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Are these findings based on limb length proportions or limb shape?? I find it interesting that the Ain Dokhara (Capsian) sample grouped with Africans overall but the Afalou (Oranian) sample clustered with Paleo-Siberian folks like Inuit and Yupik.
I'll IM you later.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
I have just downloaded this new limb proportion study onto my laptop at UCSD. If anyone's interested in taking a look, PM me your e-mail so I can send it to you.
How about posting a link here where everybody, who is interested that is, can readily download the paper, i.e. instant access as opposed to going through the trouble of PMing you, then to have you e-mail it?
Alas, if for some reason this is not possible, inform me so, and I'll go about getting it from you through the more tedious PM process.
To Whomever it applies:
I have already gone through Trenton's "Body proportions of the Jebel Sahaba sample", but subsequently lost the paper when my computer crashed earlier in the year. If anyone happens to have an electronic copy, let me know. Thanx
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
If this is an allusion to limb proportions, then it is rather odd that the San fall right within the tropical African group, when previous research has implicated them in the neighborhood of the sub-tropical average range. Then again, that could depend on the local-origin and sample size of the San test-subjects, which may not necessarily be homogeneous across all San territory.
On the other hand, if it is regarding a body shape measure, well Holliday himself has been on the record, pointing to the outlier orientation of the pygmies where body linearity was concerned. This dendrogram would seem to be at odds with that observation.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Abstract The Lower Nubian Epipaleolithic site of Jebel Sahaba (Sudan) was discovered in 1962. From 1962–1966, a total of 58 intentionally-buried skeletons were uncovered at the site. Diagnostic microliths indicative of the Qadan industry as well as the site's geology suggest an age of 14–12 ka for these burials. In this study, the body proportions of the Jebel Sahaba sample are compared to those of a large (max N = 731) sample of recent human skeletons from Europe, Africa, and circumpolar North America, as well as to terminal Pleistocene “Iberomaurusian” skeletons from the Algerian sites of Afalou-Bou-Rhummel and the later Capsian-associated Ain Dokhara specimen, as well as Natufian skeletons from the southern Levantine site of El Wad. Bivariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from recent North or sub-Saharan African samples. Multivariate analyses (PCA, PCO with minimum spanning tree, NJ cluster analyses) indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba humans is most similar to that of recent sub-Saharan Africans, and different from that of either the Levantine Natufians or the northwest African “Iberomaurusian” samples. Importantly, these results corroborate those of Irish (2000, 2005) and Franciscus (1995, 2003) who, using dental, oral, and nasal morphology, found that Jebel Sahaba was most similar to recent sub-Saharan Africans, and morphologically distinct from their penecontemporaries in other parts of North Africa or the groups that succeed them in Nubia.
The abstract could prove to be misleading, if not carefully approached. I got a glimpse of this possibility when I went through the earlier publication by Trenton, on the Jebel Sahaba body proportions. If memory serves me correctly [could be fuzzy, hence my need to revisit the now lost paper], the Mesolithic north African specimens assumed their own clustering that could be delineated from those of other specimens, particularly the more recent ones, while there was noticeable overlap between specimens, even between recent tropical African and recent European samples. In simple terms, there is more here than meets the eye of a potential reader.
Now dissecting parts of the Abstract:
One segment says that...
Bivariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from recent North or sub-Saharan African samples.
But then notes that...
Multivariate analyses (PCA, PCO with minimum spanning tree, NJ cluster analyses) indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba humans is most similar to that of recent sub-Saharan Africans, and different from that of either the Levantine Natufians or the northwest African “Iberomaurusian” samples.
Upon reading this, one might get the gratuitous impression that Natufian and northwest African "Ibero-Maurusian" series are similar, but delineated from the Jebel Sahaba series. Not so, when other reports are taken into account; take for instance, the following:
The African Mesolithic skulls are basically dolichocranic (cranial index = 72.9 for Wadi Halfa, 70.3 for site 117, 74.5 for Taforalt, and 74.6 for Afalou) while Ohalo I1 H2 is at the upper limit of mesocrany (79.4).
The differences in calvaria shape are most clearly demonstrated by the fronto/parietal index: 72.4 for Ohalo I1 H2 and a mean value of 68.0 for Afalou.
Even the curvature of the frontal bone of the crania is similar between the Mesolithic north African series, whilst distinct from a specimen from the Levant:
The frontal curvature index (84.8) is much lower than any of the North African populations: Taforalt = 88.3 (Ferembach, 1962), Nubia 117 = 88.0 (Anderson, 19681, Afalou = 87.6 (Briggs, 1955). - Hershkovitz et al. 1995
Furthermore, as another example...
The Ohalo orbits are extremely narrow (orbital index = 67.4) compared to any of the North African populations (orbital index values range from 71.1 at Jebel Sahaba 117 and Taforalt to 74.6 at Afalou). The interorbital region is wide, at 25.3 mm: the maximum width in the North African material is only 24.5 mm (Afalou; Briggs, 1955).
The Mesolithic Maghrebi series clearly have more in common with the Jebel Sahaba here, than they do with the Levantine Ohalo specimen.
Arensburg et al. 1995 also found that the Mesolithic Maghreb series had larger limb proportions than the Natufians; for instance, their femur size was larger comparatively. The Afalou series crural index reportedly ranged from 82.4 to 87.1, well within the tropical African range, yet the Taforalt series reported an even higher range...
The use of the African regression formulae is based on the crural indices of the associated Afalou skeletons, which range from 82.4 to 87.1. Nevertheless if the European regression formulae are applied, the Taforalt male mean is 179.4 cm (range : 174.3 - 182.4 cm), the Taforalt female mean is 166.0 cm (range : 150.9 - 171.1 cm), the Afalou male mean is 176.0 cm (range : 165.6 - 179.7 cm), and the Afalou female mean 167.5 cm (range :163.8 - 176.9 cm).
Hershkovitz et al.'s readings put the pooled EpiPaleolithic north African series well within the tropical African ranges; an average of 78 for the brachial index, and an average of 85 for the crural!
Like Robert Franciscus (1999) and Hershkovitz et al. (1995), Arensburg et al. found that the Mesolithic Maghreb series generally have wider nasal width than the Levantine groups.
While the Mesolithic Maghreb series differ among themselves in the size of the clavicle, they are yet distinct from the Levantine specimens:
According to Boule and Vallois 12, the mean size of the clavicle in this group is 169.6 mm, with a range of 155.0 - 185.0 mm for 10 males. These measurements exceed those of Taforalt (mean = 159.3 mm for 11 males, range : 151.0 - 168.0; 12 females mean = 143.7 mm, range : 129.0 - 153.0) 13. Only six Natufian clavicles could be measured, giving dimensions between 136.0 and 148.0 mm14. The Israel Ohalo Upper Palaeolithic clavicle is 148.0 mm long. - Arensburg et al. (1995)
Back to Trenton's abstract:
Importantly, these results corroborate those of Irish (2000, 2005) and Franciscus (1995, 2003) who, using dental, oral, and nasal morphology, found that Jebel Sahaba was most similar to recent sub-Saharan Africans, and morphologically distinct from their penecontemporaries in other parts of North Africa or the groups that succeed them in Nubia.
As a matter of fact, the Mesolithic Maghebi series had nearly identical nasal breadths to the recent Bantu sample, by Franciscus' reading, which I had posted several times in recent discussions. The Bantu was the closest recent group to the Mesolithic North African series than any other recent group compared in that analysis. Franciscus' reading is similar to those reported by Arensburg et al. (1995), which turned out to be wider than that obtained for the Natufian series, while Hershkovitz et al.'s measurements also implicate wider noses in the Mesolithic north African groups than the Levantine Ohalo. Hence, Trenton's reference may have the effect of misleading a reader who is not familiar with these reports.
quote:^^^^ Interesting that Ain Dokhara Capsian cluster with Africans yet they came later in the Maghreb than the Mechta-Afalou Iberomaurusian who cluster with Alaskan Eskimo groups, Koniag, Ipiutak an Tigara.
Again, clarity on the traits under study is warranted, but it should be noted that the Afalou series have generally been found to have similar or close attributes with the Taforalt series, even though there are certainly peculiarities [in trends] respective to each series; as such, they have generally been pooled as a composite group, and have been found to have clearly distinct body proportions from their contemporaries like the Natufians, or even other Levantine types, like the Ohalo II H2 specimen possibly represents. How so, one might ask? The Mesolithic Maghreb series lean more towards the tropical Africans, when limb proportions are considered. Against such a backdrop, I'd caution the prospect of the Afalou clustering with the likes of Alaskan groups, which tend to be fairly "cold-adapted" by many accounts, in a limb proportions comparison.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: If this is an allusion to limb proportions, then it is rather odd that the San fall right within the tropical African group
Were you in the know, you would have known that the description below the dendrogram is inconsistent with it being about limb proportions. You probably thought you were making an astute observation, but it only shows that you're in denial and desperately leeching onto a sinking ship.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: On the other hand, if it is regarding a body shape measure, well Holliday himself has been on the record, pointing to the outlier orientation of the pygmies where body linearity was concerned.
Other than your silly and obsolete observation about San limb data, your comment about pygmies doesn't make sense either. Pygmies have always clustered in the vicinity of Ancient Egyptians in Holiday's work. There is nothing out of the ordinary about their position in this dendrogram. You're just disgruntled now that hard data from the paper shows how much your belief in the tropical nature of the bodyplans of the Ibero-Maurusians is exactly that--an emotion based delusion.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I have already gone through Trenton's "Body proportions of the Jebel Sahaba sample", but subsequently lost the paper when my computer crashed earlier in the year.
Please inform us about this paper you're referring to. What are the full specifics of the paper? Publication date, journal, etc.
quote:Upon reading this, one might get the gratuitous impression that Natufian and northwest African "Ibero-Maurusian" series are similar, but delineated from the Jebel Sahaba series. Not so, when other reports are taken into account; take for instance, the following:
Other than the fact that it doesn't bespeak sense to attempt to juxtapose bodyplan related data with (isolated) cranio-metric data, you're not being truthful. What you're not telling everyone is that the Afalou sample included individuals with brachycephaly, and I quote:
''But brachycephalism was not an unknown characteristic in Algeria in the Epipalaeolithic period, for a small number of brachycephalic individuals have been found at Afalou and Columnata'' --Physical Anthropology of European Populations, 1980, p259
The same can be said of your other comparisons; you're comparing population averages with a single specimen, without having taken into account whether the Ohalo falls within the range of the Ibero-Maurusian group. In addition, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, as you're clumsily presenting your excerpts as 'Natufian vs Ibero-Maurusian', even though the Ohalo II specimen isn't even Natufian. Brings to mind your earlier confused misrepresentation of nasal breadth data as ''nasal index''.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Other than the fact that it doesn't bespeak sense to attempt to juxtapose bodyplan related data with (isolated) cranio-metric data, you're not being truthful. What you're not telling everyone is that the Afalou sample included individuals with brachycephaly, and I quote:
''But brachycephalism was not an unknown characteristic in Algeria in the Epipalaeolithic period, for a small number of brachycephalic individuals have been found at Afalou and Columnata'' --Physical Anthropology of European Populations, 1980, p259
The same can be said of your other comparisons; you're comparing population averages with a single specimen, without having taken into account whether the Ohalo falls within the range of the Ibero-Maurusian group. In addition, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, as you're clumsily presenting your excerpts as 'Natufian vs Ibero-Maurusian', even though the Ohalo II specimen isn't even Natufian. Brings to mind your earlier confused misrepresentation of nasal breadth data as ''nasal index''. [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^^^ Interesting that Ain Dokhara Capsian cluster with Africans yet they came later in the Maghreb than the Mechta-Afalou Iberomaurusian who cluster with Alaskan Eskimo groups, Koniag, Ipiutak an Tigara.
Again, clarity on the traits under study is warranted, but it should be noted that the Afalou series have generally been found to have similar or close attributes with the Taforalt series, even though there are certainly peculiarities [in trends] respective to each series; as such, they have generally been pooled as a composite group, and have been found to have clearly distinct body proportions from their contemporaries like the Natufians, or even other Levantine types, like the Ohalo II H2 specimen possibly represents. How so, one might ask? The Mesolithic Maghreb series lean more towards the tropical Africans, when limb proportions are considered. Against such a backdrop, I'd caution the prospect of the Afalou clustering with the likes of Alaskan groups, which tend to be fairly "cold-adapted" by many accounts, in a limb proportions comparison.
yet it icould be consistent with the Brenna Henn back migration hypothesis, the reason for the cold adapted limb ratios and also brachycephalism of some of the Afalou ( as well as Achilli 2005 finding common U5 hgs between Lapps (Saami) and berber)
Capsians, referred in the article to as Ain Dokhara ,on the other hand, who replaced the Iberomaurusian according to this dendogram did have tropical limb ratios.
However there is a 2000 year or more gap in the archaeological record between any green period hunter forager such as the Iberomaurusian or Capsians and modern Maghrebians although some continuity is possible.
Some of this is provisional as per this article of now because at this point it appears that Truthcentric is the only one who has read the whole article so far.
And limb ratios for certain groups can be hard to find or not well researched. San for one I'm not sure about. By well researched I mean a decent sample with raw data numerical indices recorded
note: Explorer seem to have quoted some things from>
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: If this is an allusion to limb proportions, then it is rather odd that the San fall right within the tropical African group
Were you in the know, you would have known that the description below the dendrogram is inconsistent with it being about limb proportions. You probably thought you were making an astute observation, but it only shows that you're in denial and desperately leeching onto a sinking ship.
Alright, butthead, humor me: How is the body shape determined! We know that you don't know what 'allusion' means; now let's see what you know about body shape.
quote: Other than your silly and obsolete observation about San limb data
Your "updated different" observation of San limb data is?
And I must take it that you were blind as a bat when this was added:
"Then again, that could depend on the local-origin and sample size of the San test-subjects, which may not necessarily be homogeneous across all San territory."
quote:
your comment about pygmies doesn't make sense either. Pygmies have always clustered in the vicinity of Ancient Egyptians in Holiday's work.
It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans (except for the Pygmies), and African-Americans and a second, less linear body form branch that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and Pygmies. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)]. - Holliday et al. (2009)
It must suck to be an asshole/you.
quote:
quote:Upon reading this, one might get the gratuitous impression that Natufian and northwest African "Ibero-Maurusian" series are similar, but delineated from the Jebel Sahaba series. Not so, when other reports are taken into account; take for instance, the following:
Other than the fact that it doesn't bespeak sense to attempt to juxtapose bodyplan related data with (isolated) cranio-metric data, you're not being truthful.
Ask a kindergartener to tell you what "other reports" means. While at it, get a lesson on how to read the remainder of a post.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Lioness, I'm not sure why you are quoting me and swenet simultaneously, but let's talk about the following...
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
yet it icould be consistent with the Brenna Henn back migration hypothesis, the reason for the cold adapted limb ratios and also brachycephalism of some of the Afalou ( as well as Achilli 2005 finding common U5 hgs between Lapps (Saami) and berber)
I'm to take it, lioness, that you are not yet acquainted with the idea of trends in cranio-metry? Reference was made to the average pattern of the north African crania, which as the data shows, were well within similar ranges, from the Taforalt to the Jebel Sahaba.
As for your "back-migration" theory, mind telling me the origin point of this migration, for starters, and then the timeframe. I get a lot of non-responses on this sort of request; perhaps you'll prove to be different!
quote: Capsians, referred in the article to as Ain Dokhara ,on the other hand, who replaced the Iberomaurusian according to this dendogram did have tropical limb ratios.
You are implying that the Epipaleolithic Maghreb series don't sport "tropical limb ratios", notwithstanding posts to the contrary?
PS: If I'm not mistaken, a single Capsian specimen was considered for the analysis...at least seems to be the case in the dendogram posted in the intro post.
quote:
Some of this is provisional as per this article of now because at this point it appears that Truthcentric is the only one who has read the whole article so far.
Granted this is a newer publication, but I have a hunch that it essentially piggybacks on the earlier publication around the Jebel Sahaba remains, which I'd read. Meaning, there will be a substantial amount of reiteration.
quote:note: Explorer seem to have quoted some things from>
And if you have learnt anything remotely from that paper, you would have come to the realization that your insinuation about the Mesolithic Maghrebi series not having attributes of "tropical limb ratios" is not grounded on reality, right?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
The same can be said of your other comparisons; you're comparing population averages with a single specimen, without having taken into account whether the Ohalo falls within the range of the Ibero-Maurusian group. In addition, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, as you're clumsily presenting your excerpts as 'Natufian vs Ibero-Maurusian', even though the Ohalo II specimen isn't even Natufian.
How about the Ohalo specimen being thrown into the mix, because it is an upper Paleolithic Levantine specimen, and could prove insightful in demonstrating that there is a general trend in differentiation between the Mesolithic north African series and counterparts from the Levant? That obviously did not cross your mind.
As for comparing this specimen with a series from the Maghreb, well, there just isn't enough of them Ohalo II remains; there is not much else we can do about that, now can we, other than treat the Ohalo as a possible window into the community from which it came, as is done with the case of the Nazlet Khater specimen, or the "Old Man Cro-Magnon". You are really new at this sort of thing, aren't you.
The morphological continuity for some 10,000 years between Upper Palaeolithic remains (Nahal Ein Gev, Ohalo) and the Natufian population of the Levant is on indication of a local origin and development of the latter population, despite changes in patterns of life, diet and environment. - Arensburg et al. (1995)
Perhaps this in its own way reiterates the point of comparing the Maghreb series with the Ohalo II remain(s).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: yet it icould be consistent with the Brenna Henn back migration hypothesis, the reason for the cold adapted limb ratios and also brachycephalism of some of the Afalou ( as well as Achilli 2005 finding common U5 hgs between Lapps (Saami) and berber)
Agree, but it should be noted that the Ibero-Maurusians are likely not cold-adapted in their limbs. Mesolithic European and East Asians fossils also have relatively high limb proportions. In fact, Mesolithic Europeans have much higher crural and brachial indices than Ibero-Maurusians. Their crural and brachial index are at 85.5% and 77.5 respectively per Holiday 1997. Its simply a pleisiomorphic trait from their Upper Palaeolithic ancestors, and ultimate from Africans. What you want to look at is their bodyplan in its entirety or their absolute limb length, both of which are unlikely to retain a plesiomorphic state for as long as limb proportions.
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. --Holiday, 1999
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: Capsians, referred in the article to as Ain Dokhara ,on the other hand, who replaced the Iberomaurusian according to this dendogram did have tropical limb ratios.
Caution is advised here. Ain Dokhara is just a single specimen. I wouldn't be surprised if some European or Ibero-Maurusian sample diverged in the African direction as well. In fact, what I could make out from the blurred readcube rendering of the paper is that at least one Afalou specimen clustered with the North Africans. We're talking populations with all their variations, not isolated individuals. There is also the issue of whether the introduction of the Neolithic tradition from the Sudan area influenced the Capsians biologically.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Alright, butthead, humor me: How is the body shape determined! We know that you don't know what 'allusion' means; now let's see what you know about body shape.
You're lying again I see. There is nothing in my post that suggests I misinterpreted your post. As for the your gaping stupidity where post-cranial analysis is concerned, if you knew anything about bodyplan research and Holiday's work it would have occurred to you that Holiday's reference to ''log shape data'' in that dendrogram description negates your uneducated speculation about whether the dendrogram refers to limb proportions.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Your "updated different" observation of San limb data is?
I see you're too confused to understand that you're talking gobbledygook right now, so I won't bother telling you that no disagreement on my part was expressed about your random invocation of San limb proportions. I will, however, tell you that you're a troll and that you need to start addressing what I said, rather than talking out the side of your neck.
quote:It must suck to be an asshole/you.
Unlike your uneducated troll face I actually have the paper. There are two dendrograms from that paper, prove that either one of them doesn't depict Egypt as among the Pygmy sample's closest neighbours. That excerpt doesn't even deny the fact that Pygmies have always clustered with Dynastic Egyptians in Holiday's research, it just says that in that particular analysis Pygmies came out on the other end of 'linearity', not that Egyptians and African Americans aren't near the other side of that border. Uneducated trolls always talk smack but never have anything to back it up.
quote:Ask a kindergartener to tell you what "other reports" means. While at it, get a lesson on how to read the remainder of a post.
You're lying again. Nothing in my posts about your retarded attempt to juxtapose cranio-metric data with bodyplan data suggest that I misinterpreted ''other reports''.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: How about the Ohalo specimen being thrown into the mix, because it is an upper Paleolithic Levantine specimen, and could prove insightful in demonstrating that there is a general trend in differentiation between the Mesolithic north African series and counterparts from the Levant? That obviously did not cross your mind.
Stop lying already. You habitually misrepresent your data, like with the your ''nasal index'' data, and you got called out for it. Contrary to your false presentation of Ohalo II as such, the specimen is not Natufian.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: How about posting a link here where everybody, who is interested that is, can readily download the paper, i.e. instant access as opposed to going through the trouble of PMing you, then to have you e-mail it?
I didn't think there was a place on the Internet where this paper was available for download to the public outside of UCSD.
I don't know what the big deal is with the Ibero-Maurusians. They weren't important to the peopling of the Nile Valley or any other major African civilization unless you count Carthage (a Phoenician colony).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I don't know what the big deal is with the Ibero-Maurusians. They weren't important to the peopling of the Nile Valley or any other major African civilization unless you count Carthage (a Phoenician colony). [/QB]
Ibero-Maurusian culture ended about 5000 years before Carthage began
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: How about posting a link here where everybody, who is interested that is, can readily download the paper, i.e. instant access as opposed to going through the trouble of PMing you, then to have you e-mail it?
I didn't think there was a place on the Internet where this paper was available for download to the public outside of UCSD.
It should be available to anyone with privileged access, either via subscription or affiliation with a qualified institution. I have access as well but would refrain from posting such articles publicly as not to compromise that privilege on the grounds of violating some sort of copyright or terms of use policy. Maybe pasting highlights as Evergreen used to be well known for will suffice.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The Explorer wasn't talking about journal access. He was requesting that Truth upload the paper on some filesharing site (not realizing that not everyone is a member of such a site), and put his neck on the line, just so Explorer could have one-click access.
Goes to show what an inconsiderate ass he is. He should be grateful someone even offered to send it to ES members in the first place. I wasn't going to say anything but Truth seems to have misinterpreted what he said.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The Explorer wasn't talking about journal access. He was requesting that Truth upload the paper on some filesharing site (not realizing that not everyone is a member of such a site), and put his neck on the line, just so Explorer could have one-click access.
Goes to show what an inconsiderate ass he is. He should be grateful someone even offered to send it to ES members in the first place. I wasn't going to say anything but Truth seems to have misinterpreted what he said.
Actually I did think Explorer wanted me to upload it onto a file-sharing website. I didn't do that because on a lot of these sites the files don't stay up permanently, so the link wouldn't have lasted long enough.
Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
Finished reading the whole study and it was pretty good. Thanks Truth.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The Explorer wasn't talking about journal access. He was requesting that Truth upload the paper on some filesharing site (not realizing that not everyone is a member of such a site), and put his neck on the line, just so Explorer could have one-click access.
Goes to show what an inconsiderate ass he is. He should be grateful someone even offered to send it to ES members in the first place. I wasn't going to say anything but Truth seems to have misinterpreted what he said.
Actually I did think Explorer wanted me to upload it onto a file-sharing website. I didn't do that because on a lot of these sites the files don't stay up permanently, so the link wouldn't have lasted long enough.
Indeed, I was exploring that possibility of you using a file-sharing website as others have repeatedly done here in the past, with no complications as far as I can tell. That fuckhead swenet was a repeat beneficiary of that very sort of thing, notwithstanding that menstrual-bitching about me being inconsiderate for exploring the possibility. The irony of that bitching is that the suggestion was made, as I clearly noted, to make the file more widely and readily accessible to more people, not to leave out that all that senseless baby-crying had very little to do with Truthcentric's stated reason above. No doubt I understand that such files don't stay up permanently, but I was not intending to wait forever to finally go through the study either. Access through e-mail exchange, it is then!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
I don't know what the big deal is with the Ibero-Maurusians.
Then just turn to an inquiry around why Europeans make a big deal about them. That will serve as a possible hint.
quote:They weren't important to the peopling of the Nile Valley or any other major African civilization unless you count Carthage (a Phoenician colony).
I beg to differ, in that European ideologues obviously see EpiPaleolithic coastal north Africans as another piece of a romantic jigsaw puzzle scenery, wherein coastal northern Africa, with its famous superlative ancient complexes, can be attributable to peoples supposedly more related to Europeans, as opposed to those "beastly" sub-Saharan Africans. It is part and parcel of European imperialism, for the same reason, the actual impact of Arab-Islamic influence in Europe is often downplayed and portrayed as nothing more than Muslims simply re-telling Europeans ancient Greek scholarship.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Ibero-Maurusian culture ended about 5000 years before Carthage began
No doubt, there was a considerable temporal space between the Mesolithic Maghrebi people and the complex of Carthage.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
I don't know what the big deal is with the Ibero-Maurusians.
Then just turn to an inquiry around why Europeans make a big deal about them. That will serve as a possible hint.
quote:They weren't important to the peopling of the Nile Valley or any other major African civilization unless you count Carthage (a Phoenician colony).
I beg to differ, in that European ideologues obviously see EpiPaleolithic coastal north Africans as another piece of a romantic jigsaw puzzle scenery, wherein coastal northern Africa, with its famous superlative ancient complexes, can be attributable to peoples supposedly more related to Europeans, as opposed to those "beastly" sub-Saharan Africans. It is part and parcel of European imperialism, for the same reason, the actual impact of Arab-Islamic influence in Europe is often downplayed and portrayed as nothing more than Muslims simply re-telling Europeans ancient Greek scholarship.
Truthcentric said Ibero-Maurusians weren't important to the peopling of the Nile Valley or any other major African civilization.
Setting aside what European ideologues think, do you agree or disagree with that?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] The Explorer wasn't talking about journal access. He was requesting that Truth upload the paper on some filesharing site (not realizing that not everyone is a member of such a site), and put his neck on the line, just so Explorer could have one-click access.
Goes to show what an inconsiderate ass he is. He should be grateful someone even offered to send it to ES members in the first place. I wasn't going to say anything but Truth seems to have misinterpreted what he said.
Actually I did think Explorer wanted me to upload it onto a file-sharing website. I didn't do that because on a lot of these sites the files don't stay up permanently, so the link wouldn't have lasted long enough.
Noted Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Agree, but it should be noted that the Ibero-Maurusians are likely not cold-adapted in their limbs.
Well, what an interesting turn of events. For several threads you were senselessly fidgeting and crying like a baby about the idea of Mesolithic Maghrebi having "tropical body proportions", as something like that would have most definitely contradicted your fantasy story of these folks having no physiological relations with "sub-Saharan" Africans. Nice to see that progress is being forced into your throat, however slow and begrudgingly.
quote: Mesolithic European and East Asians fossils also have relatively high limb proportions. In fact, Mesolithic Europeans have much higher crural and brachial indices than Ibero-Maurusians. Their crural and brachial index are at 85.5% and 77.5 respectively per Holiday 1997.
Rubbish. If we consider pooled Mesolithic North African limb proportions, as I noted above, the average was 78 and 85, for brachial and crural indexes respectively. The Taforalt brachial index is reportedly similar to the 76.3 of the Nazlet Khater (Hershkovitz et al.), while as noted above, the Taforalt range for crural indexes was even higher than that reported for the Afalou, which was said to range from 82.4 to 87.1.
BTW, who are these Mesolithic Europeans. Name them!
quote: Its simply a pleisiomorphic trait from their Upper Palaeolithic ancestors, and ultimate from Africans. What you want to look at is their bodyplan in its entirety or their absolute limb length, both of which are unlikely to retain a plesiomorphic state for as long as limb proportions.
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. --Holiday, 1999
As a matter of fact, the Ohalo II H2 specimen, if it's any indicator of what a Levantine population was like in the Upper Paleolithic, bears sub-tropical limb proportions, while the Mesolithic Maghrebi series have longer limb bones than the Natufians [who seem to have higher limb proportions than the Ohalo specimen], as evidenced by the femoral size. Long lower-limb bones suggests that the EpiPaleolithic Maghreb series were relatively linear in stature, as compared to their contemporaries in the Levant, while the Holliday piece above suggests that body linearity seems to have become less of an attribute in the later early Europeans. So, your attempt at trying to portray the Mesolithic Maghrebi series as extensions of Eurasians is proving to be a fiasco.
But all this is a distraction. We must not lose focus over the fact that the tropical body proportions in fact points to affinities that you denied were there between Mesolithic Maghrebi series and "sub-Saharans".
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
You're lying again I see. There is nothing in my post that suggests I misinterpreted your post. As for the your gaping stupidity where post-cranial analysis is concerned, if you knew anything about bodyplan research and Holiday's work it would have occurred to you that Holiday's reference to ''log shape data'' in that dendrogram description negates your uneducated speculation about whether the dendrogram refers to limb proportions.
I see that you are being your usual very childishly emotional self with no substance. How is "body shape" determined?
quote:I see you're too confused to understand that you're talking gobbledygook right now, so I won't bother telling you that no disagreement on my part was expressed about your random invocation of San limb proportions.
You crying like a spoiled infant about my observation on the San being supposedly "silly and obselete" sounds like a clear disagreement to me.
quote: I will, however, tell you that you're a troll and that you need to start addressing what I said, rather than talking out the side of your neck.
Okay, you are good at calling me names, you likely don't even understand. What else is new?
quote:
quote:It must suck to be an asshole/you.
Unlike your uneducated troll face I actually have the paper.
Yet with such an access, unlike my "uneducated troll face", the piece I quoted must have eluded you, given your uncultured reaction to the prospect of putting Holliday on record on the subject of pygmies.
quote: There are two dendrograms from that paper, prove that either one of them doesn't depict Egypt as among the Pygmy sample's closest neighbours. That excerpt doesn't even deny the fact that Pygmies have always clustered with Dynastic Egyptians in Holiday's research, it just says that in that particular analysis Pygmies came out on the other end of 'linearity', not that Egyptians and African Americans aren't near the other side of that border. Uneducated trolls always talk smack but never have anything to back it up.
The day your dumbass can perform a lick of reading, will be the day hell freezes over. The piece is in fact saying what your tramp-ass is now humorously denying, that the pygmies were an outlier among their sub-Saharan group, where body linearity was concerned.
Quoting from the horses' mouth is backing "it" up, silly donkey.
quote:Stop lying already. You habitually misrepresent your data, like with the your ''nasal index'' data, and you got called out for it. Contrary to your false presentation of Ohalo II as such, the specimen is not Natufian.
You are just too retarded to do a simple thing as reading a post in its entirety, so you can understand what's being said, as opposed to keeping your bug eye on tidbits --like a bull mesmerized by a red rag -- that you can zealously misread.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Truthcentric said Ibero-Maurusians weren't important to the peopling of the Nile Valley or any other major African civilization.
lioness, I know he is saying the above, and hence, asking why the "Ibero-Maurusians" are made into a big deal, but I'm telling him why. My guess however, is that Truthcentric was actually underhandedly saying that Africans should not mind much or argue over EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi series, since they supposedly had no direct role in "major African civilizations". But to me, that's like saying one should interject for the sake of truth, only if there is some self-serving reason behind it.
quote: Setting aside what European ideologues think, do you agree or disagree with that?
What European ideologues think cannot be set aside, as it is the driver behind that "big deal" that's puzzling to Truthcentric.
Having said that, I'll agree that the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi group have no bearing on "the peopling of the Nile Valley or any other major African civilization" in of itself, but they do have research value, in that their remains, DNA and occupational record allows inquiring minds get a wider grasp of the dynamics of climate change and population movements along the Sahara, which indeed has direct bearing on "the peopling of the Nile Valley and other major African civilizations". While still debatable, for instance, links have been made between the Nile Valley and the "Ibero-Maurusians".
The earlier Aterian industries give way to later specialised traditions (Iberomaurusian and Caspian of the Mediterranean coast), which appear 22-20 ky ago (early Iberomaurusian levels at Taforalt, Morocco; Tamar Hat, Algeria)25. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the Maghreb had a different climatic regime from that of other regions, maintaining a refuge of relatively humid conditions during the last glacial maximum. Between 20-15 ky rainfall was more irregular, and by 12-10 ky maximum aridity settled, when most of inter tropical and tropical Africa had wetter conditions. Ferembach found similarities between the Mechta, Afalou, Taforalt and the fossil of Dar-es Soltane (Aterian, Morocco), which would indicate a local origin of the group. However, the similarities between the Afalou-Taforalt and the Wadi Haifa series from Sudan suggest movements across the Sahara during late Pleistocene - early Holocene times. According to palaeoclimatic data such movements were possible at that time, and they are supported by the distribution of Ounanian and later archaeological sites in the Sahara. - Arensburg et al. 1995
With the winding down of the aridity in the early Holocene, before the return to aridity starting some time ca. 7,000 years ago or thereafter, the attraction of population movements along the Sahara may have impacted groups situated along the coasts of the Maghreb to some degree or another. They may have been absorbed by some intruding groups in some places, or they may have integrated some intruding elements giving rise to the so-called Capsian occupations in other places. There is noticeable time gap between the Mesolithic Maghrebi groups and the Capsian groups in certain places, while in central north Sahara, there appears to be less void in the occupational record.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: For several threads you were senselessly fidgeting and crying like a baby about the idea of Mesolithic Maghrebi having "tropical body proportions"
Complete lie. I’ve always maintained that they had tropical limb proportions. Recap, from the thread where you got thrashed beyond repair:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: If there are EpiPaleolithic Maghreb specimens showing "tropical" proportions, how can that then be "not tropical enough"?
Aside from not knowing what PCA is, you clearly also do not know what the difference is between a body plan and limb proportions, and the known phenomenon that a population (e.g., Ibero-Maurusian) can seem tropical in the latter, but not in the former.
^You're such a liar.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Rubbish.
You’re such a lying troll. You call my observation that the IM had lower brachial and crural indices than European Mesolithic remains ''rubbish'', and then you go on to begrudgingly admit that the IM, or at least, Taforalt, brachial index is ~76%, which is lower than that of Mesolithic Europeans with more than a full percentage. Even the crural index of the pooled North African sample, which includes the very tropically adapted Jebel Sahaba sample, does not exceed the Mesolithic European crural index, let alone when this sample is subtracted. Congratulations, you've just single handedly debunked yourself.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: BTW, who are these Mesolithic Europeans. Name them!
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Long lower-limb bones suggests that the EpiPaleolithic Maghreb series were relatively linear in stature
Lol. What the hell is ''linear in stature''? Admit it, you don’t even know what you’re talking about, do you? Just talking mumbo jumbo, like a confused puppy.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: So, your attempt at trying to portray the Mesolithic Maghrebi series as extensions of Eurasians is proving to be a fiasco.
Before this bizarre line of reasoning can be entertained, explain what the hell ''Long lower-limb bones'' have to do with linearity. Yes, the insinuation that goes out from your posturing, i.e., that your grasp of the topic is more than sub par, is disintegrating by the minute.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I see that you are being your usual very childishly emotional self with no substance. How is "body shape" determined?
Certainly not by limb proportions, if that’s where you’re going with it. Now your turn: how is the description of ''log shape data'' below fig 5 consistent with the idea that it’s depicting population relationships in limb proportions?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You crying like a spoiled infant about my observation on the San being supposedly "silly and obselete" sounds like a clear disagreement to me.
Its very simple. You tried to discredit fig 5 by referring to the moderately tropical limb proportions of the San, and how that was supposedly at odds with fig 5. The applicability of that objection, however, is now shown to be totally baseless, and you have yet to come to grips with that fact.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The piece is in fact saying what your tramp-ass is now humorously denying, that the pygmies were an outlier among their sub-Saharan group, where body linearity was concerned.
Lying through your teeth again. The excerpt doesn’t even say that the Pygmies were an outlier group. The Holiday piece only spoke of a gradient (i.e., less linear and linear). How your mind pathologically distorts this very simple to understand concept into the idea that the Pygmy sample assumed an outlier position, away from North Africans, is something mental hospitals are quite good at deciphering.
Those who actually are familiar with Holiday’s work (and who are not frauds pretending to be in the know, like you), know that the following is a recurrent theme in Holiday's work:
One might find it odd that the Pygmies cluster with North Africans. This is due to allometric effects associated with their small size. In particular HL-shape exhibits negative allometry, while FHAP-shape exhibits positive allometry (Holliday, 1995). Therefore, as a result of their small size, the Pygmies are characterized by small femoral heads and long humeri – features aligning them more closely with the North Africans than with Sub-Saharan Africans. --Holiday 1997
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You are just too retarded to do a simple thing as reading a post in its entirety
Either that or I’m too perceptive to be oblivious to a troll who performs damage control when I see it. From the Troll’s mouth:
Upon reading this, one might get the gratuitous impression that Natufian and northwest African "Ibero-Maurusian" series are similar, but delineated from the Jebel Sahaba series. Not so, when other reports are taken into account
You then went on to talk about Ohalo II, which isn’t even Natufian, just like you patently stupid claims regarding nasal index, ’’PCA that performs cluster analysis’’, ''linear statures'', ''long bones indicating linearity'' and ''outlier pygmies''. Not to mention your off the cuff speculation about about fig 5 representing limb proportions when accompanying clarifying descriptions clearly rule it out. The things you say get more retarded by the minute, and its precisely because you don't have the foggiest idea what you're rambling about.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
look at how short their legs are, how could they cluster with African Americans?
_______________________________________________
limb proprtion can change relatively quickly, alteration of body width occurs much more slowly
- Principles of Human Evolution 2013 By Robert Andrew Foley, Roger Lewin _________________________________________________
(only have access to abstract: :
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 May;136(1):28-38. Adult proportionality in small-bodied foragers: a test of ecogeographic expectations. Kurki HK, Ginter JK, Stock JT, Pfeiffer S. Source Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. helen.kurki@utoronto.ca
Abstract If predictable, ecogeographic patterning in body size and proportions of human populations can provide valuable information regarding human biology, adaptation to local environments, migration histories, and health, now and in the past. This paper evaluates the assumption that small-bodied Later Stone Age (LSA) foragers of Southern Africa show the adult proportions that would be expected of warm-adapted populations. Comparisons are also made with small-bodied foragers from the Andaman Islands (AI). Indices including brachial, crural, limb element length to skeletal trunk height, and femoral head and bi-iliac breadth to femoral length were calculated from samples of LSA (n = 124) and AI (n = 31) adult skeletons. Samples derived from the literature include those from high (Europe), middle (North Africa), and low (Sub-Saharan Africa) latitude regions. The LSA and AI samples match some but not all expected ecogeographic patterns for their particular regions of long term habitation. For most limb length to skeletal trunk height indices the LSA and AI are most similar to the other mid-latitude sample (North Africans). However, both groups are similar to low latitude groups in their narrow bi-iliac breadths, and the AI display relatively long radii. Proportions of LSA and AI samples also differ from those of African pygmies. In regions like southern-most Africa, that do not experience climatic extremes of temperature or humidity, or where small body size exists through drift or selection, body size, and proportions may also be influenced by nonclimatic variables, such as energetic efficiency.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
On what page can this be found?
"limb proprtion can change relatively quickly, alteration of body width occurs much more slowly"
- Principles of Human Evolution 2013 By Robert Andrew Foley, Roger Lewin
And what is "relatively"?
Relatively in the sense of human evolution, 15,000 to 18,000 years is indeed quickly.
quote:Migration within a larger time framework took place ca. 15,000–18,000 BP, when the first Asian populations crossed the Bering Strait, ultimately founding the modern Amerindian population. Despite having as much as 18,000 years of selection in environments as diverse as those found in the Old World, body mass and proportion clines in the Americas are less steep than those in the Old World (Newman, 1953; Roberts, 1978). In fact, as Hulse (1960) pointed out, Amerindians, even in the tropics, tend to possess some ‘‘arctic’’ adaptations. Thus he concluded that it must take more than 15,000 years for modern humans to fully adapt to a new environment (see also Trinkaus, 1992). This suggests that body proportions tend not to be very plastic under natural conditions, and that selective rates on body shape are such that evolution in these features is long-term."
- Holliday T. (1997). Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins. Jrnl Hum Evo. 32:423-447
quote:The link between anatomy and clim- ate relates to thermoregulation, or the balance between heat produced and the ability to dissipate it. This rela- tionship translates to the ratio of the surface area to the volume of the cylinder, or body mass. In hot climates, a high ratio – that is, a large surface area relative to body mass – facilitates heat loss. In cold climates, a low ratio – that is, a small surface area relative to body mass – allows heat retention. Simple geometry shows that the ratio of surface area to body mass is high when the cylinder is narrow, and low when it is wide. This finding forms the basis of Bergmann’s rule.
A strong prediction flows from this analysis: people living at low latitudes will have narrow bodies and a linear stature, while those at high latitudes will have wide bodies and a relatively bulky stature. When Ruff surveyed 71 populations around the globe, he found that the prediction was sustained very well (Fig. 6.14). He also discovered that Allen’s rule applies convincingly, with tropical people having longer, thinner limbs, which maximizes heat loss, while people at high latitudes have shorter limbs. This difference in limb proportions enhances the linear look of tropical people and the stocky appearance of high-latitude populations. A comparison of the tall Nilotic people of Africa with the relatively stocky Eskimos in the northernmost latitudes of North America illustrates this difference very clearly.
Body width represents the key variable, even though tropical people also tend to be linear. A further step of simple geometry shows that linear- ity is not a necessary feature of low-latitude populations. The ratio of the surface area to body mass in a cylindrical model of a certain width is not altered by changing its length, as Fig. 6.13 above shows. Peoples who live in similar climatic zones will have the same body width, no matter how tall or short they are, because they have the same surface area to body mass ratios (Fig. 6.15).
Page 146
quote: figure 6.18 Body proportions in early modern humans and Neanderthals: Limb proportions of modern humans in relation to temperature are shown in the graph. The limb proportions of early modern humans and Neanderthals are indicated by arrows, and suggest that the former were tropical in origin, while the latter were cold-adapted. (Courtesy of C. Stringer.)
page 150
- Principles of Human Evolution 2013 By Robert Andrew Foley, Roger Lewin
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: [QB] On what page can this be found?
"limb proprtion can change relatively quickly, alteration of body width occurs much more slowly"
- Principles of Human Evolution 2013 By Robert Andrew Foley, Roger Lewin
Complete lie. I’ve always maintained that they had tropical limb proportions. Recap, from the thread where you got thrashed beyond repair:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: If there are EpiPaleolithic Maghreb specimens showing "tropical" proportions, how can that then be "not tropical enough"?
Aside from not knowing what PCA is, you clearly also do not know what the difference is between a body plan and limb proportions, and the known phenomenon that a population (e.g., Ibero-Maurusian) can seem tropical in the latter, but not in the former.
^You're such a liar.
Let's see: How you do figure someone can have "tropical limb ratios" but not have a "tropical body plan"?
quote:You’re such a lying troll. You call my observation that the IM had lower brachial and crural indices than European Mesolithic remains ''rubbish'', and then you go on to begrudgingly admit that the IM, or at least, Taforalt, brachial index is ~76%, which is lower than that of Mesolithic Europeans with more than a full percentage.
You forgot to mention that I also quoted the pooled Mesolithic North African average indexes, which was either slightly higher or on par.
As for your runny nose about 76%, that was not the actual value for the Taforalt, dummy; it was said that the Taforalt's own was similar to this value. Also, 76.3 is the neighborhood of 77.5. A few points difference is hardly something to call "significantly higher", or else let me guess, you are probably going to tell me, that by this, you were actually speaking of the statistical significance, right?
quote: Even the crural index of the pooled North African sample, which includes the very tropically adapted Jebel Sahaba sample, does not exceed the Mesolithic European crural index, let alone when this sample is subtracted.
Why should it need to "exceed the Mesolithic European" index, when it was merely posted to show how foolish you were, to speak of a "significantly higher" of the aforementioned? You are an idiot.
We've already seen how quite high the Epipaleolithic indexes can be, as the Afalou had shown. The Jebel Sahaba's indexes, which you have not shown, has no bearing on this, just as the Taforalt's implied brachial index also suggests. You really are trying too hard to wish-away the tropical-adaptation affinities the Mesolithic share with "sub-Saharan" Africans, aren't you.
Don't lose your panties; just wanted to confirm that these were pooled European burials. I couldn't help but also notice that many of the mentioned (e.g. Hoedic and Teviec) are actually younger than the Mesolithic Maghrebi series by reported estimates.
quote:Lol. What the hell is ''linear in stature''? Admit it, you don’t even know what you’re talking about, do you? Just talking mumbo jumbo, like a confused puppy.
I take it your dumbass must not have been clued on what a linear stature is? Let me know if this is the case, so I can clue you in, rather than using fuckheaded conclusions to mask your unawareness.
quote:Before this bizarre line of reasoning can be entertained, explain what the hell ''Long lower-limb bones'' have to do with linearity. Yes, the insinuation that goes out from your posturing, i.e., that your grasp of the topic is more than sub par, is disintegrating by the minute.
See above.
quote:Certainly not by limb proportions, if that’s where you’re going with it. Now your turn: how is the description of ''log shape data'' below fig 5 consistent with the idea that it’s depicting population relationships in limb proportions?
Oh really. Tell me how body shape is determined without consideration given to limb proportions. You are obviously dancing around this issue.
quote:Its very simple. You tried to discredit fig 5 by referring to the moderately tropical limb proportions of the San, and how that was supposedly at odds with fig 5.
Let me guess. This explanation supposedly tells us that my observation on the San limb proportions is not only "silly" but also "obsolete"? LOL
quote: The applicability of that objection, however, is now shown to be totally baseless, and you have yet to come to grips with that fact.
This is even funnier than the above.
quote:Lying through your teeth again. The excerpt doesn’t even say that the Pygmies were an outlier group.
numbnut I was not speaking to the piece word for word; I was merely trying to clue your dumbass with the simplified idea, which as it turns, was not simple enough for you.
Who other than the idiot swenet has a lot of trouble understanding that the pygmies are essentially being described as an outlier among the sub-Saharan group?
It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans (except for the Pygmies), and African-Americans and a second, less linear body form branch that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and Pygmies. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)]. - Holliday et al. (2009)
quote: The Holiday piece only spoke of a gradient (i.e., less linear and linear).
So now, "linear" is a gradient, as opposed to shape. You kill me with bursting my intestine out of laughter, at you, for sheer undiluted stupidity. LOL
quote:How your mind pathologically distorts this very simple to understand concept into the idea that the Pygmy sample assumed an outlier position, away from North Africans, is something mental hospitals are quite good at deciphering.
You are not even in the same universe as that quoted piece just above. LOL
quote:Those who actually are familiar with Holiday’s work (and who are not frauds pretending to be in the know, like you), know that the following is a recurrent theme in Holiday's work:
One might find it odd that the Pygmies cluster with North Africans. This is due to allometric effects associated with their small size. In particular HL-shape exhibits negative allometry, while FHAP-shape exhibits positive allometry (Holliday, 1995). Therefore, as a result of their small size, the Pygmies are characterized by small femoral heads and long humeri – features aligning them more closely with the North Africans than with Sub-Saharan Africans. --Holiday 1997
The dingbat even goes onto quote a material from a different publication, 1997, which in any case, is not helping, but actually reaffirming what an illiterate idiot this character is.
quote:Either that or I’m too perceptive to be oblivious to a troll who performs damage control when I see it. From the Troll’s mouth:
Upon reading this, one might get the gratuitous impression that Natufian and northwest African "Ibero-Maurusian" series are similar, but delineated from the Jebel Sahaba series. Not so, when other reports are taken into account
The fat-ass donkey forgot to highlight "other reports" [that I just clued the donkey's ass in], which--for those with no problem reading the full length of the post--would be unmistakable for its intentions.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
We have seen Chris Stringers chart but what is the numerical average limb to body ratio of pygmies, Mbuti or Efe for instance? - no one can find it. No one can find the number average and an article reference to it, prove me wrong
Here is an article I don't have access to maybe it's in here ?
Body size estimation of small-bodied humans: Applicability of current methods
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Let's see: How you do figure someone can have "tropical limb ratios" but not have a "tropical body plan"?
Trying to distract the attention away from the fact that the piece you're responding to points out what a big fat liar you are, huh? No biggie, if you insist in getting educated: I had recently posted an excerpt from Holiday 1999 saying limb proportions can be a poor predictor of limb length, which is what limb proportions ultimately try to get to the bottom to. It can also a poor predictor of trunk height per Holiday. But you wouldn't know, being the uneducated troll you are.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: As for your runny nose about 76%, that was not the actual value for the Taforalt, dummy; it was said that the Taforalt's own was similar to this value.
Your astronomic stupidity goes through the roof. You don't even know that a set of digits with the tilde symbol behind it in this context depicts an approximation. No surprise, really, with all your other recent phuckups bathing in broad daylight.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Why should it need to "exceed the Mesolithic European" index, when it was merely posted to show how foolish you were, to speak of a "significantly higher" of the aforementioned?
I'm sure that that's why you posted it. Cause, lord knows, your desperate hammering on their limb data in the absence of even a hint of opposition to their limb data (other than the opposition you fabricated with your lie), and in light of the other data posted in this thread (The Afalou/Circumpolar cluster), isn't exactly jiving with the hard data at hand, showing them to cluster away from Africans where the multivariate data is concerned.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I couldn't help but also notice that many of the mentioned (e.g. Hoedic and Teviec) are actually younger than the Mesolithic Maghrebi series by reported estimates.
Which, as late as the proportions still appear, further stamps in the ground your pseudo-scientific idea that IM limb proportions further your hopeless cause, especially in light of Holiday 2013's multivariate analysis.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I take it your dumbass must not have been clued on what a linear stature is?
I asked you a question, troll. No further stalling. What the hell is ''linear in stature''?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: See above.
No, troll. Too late for damage controll. You were asked what linearity has to do with ''long lower-limb bones''. And no, me drilling on this issue isn't going to stop until you admit what a fraud you are.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Oh really. Tell me how body shape is determined without consideration given to limb proportions. You are obviously dancing around this issue.
No need to dance around the issue, as those in the know are already aware of the fact that neither of Holiday's three visualizations of his multivariate analysis utilize or incorporate limb proportion indices; they are predicated on measurements (breadths, lengths and diameters, etc). Yes indeed, your posts smack of idiocy. Now, to get back on topic, how is the description below fig 5 consistent with the idea that it's depicting population relationships in limb proportions?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: This is even funnier than the above.
Face it, you thought you had the data behind you when you made the retarded insinuation that San limb proportions discredit fig 5, when the premise that insinuation is based on had been put to sleep by Holiday as early as 1999, and a host of other authors documenting that limb proportions don't have the last say in the matter. That you laugh at the fact that this very ancient fact makes your comment obsolete is further evidence of the fact that you're a total fraud.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Who other than the idiot swenet has a lot of trouble understanding that the pygmies are essentially being described as an outlier among the sub-Saharan group?
Well, since you insist on trolling and lying, **prove** that the position of the Pygmy sample conformed to the following dictionary description of 'outlier' in the dendrograms that 2009 excerpt discusses. Perhaps you're better at gawking at dendrogram images than letters:
Outlier
quote: A value far from most others in a set of data
quote:So now, "linear" is a gradient, as opposed to shape.
You're such a lying cretin. How does saying ''The Holiday piece only spoke of a gradient (i.e., less linear and linear)'' equal saying ''linear is a gradient, as opposed to shape''?
quote:The dingbat even goes onto quote a material from a different publication, 1997, which in any case, is not helping
Troll, the Holiday 1997 piece I cited makes direct references to commonalities between the North African sample and the Pygmy sample, which, according to Holiday, makes them cluster. How are such inherent commonalities susceptable to change depending on the publication, when the publication you cited, or any other for that matter, isn't even in conflict with it, horrendously stupid megatroll? The Pygmy sample in fig 5 still occupies a position adjacent to the ''outlier'' (LOL) Christian era Nubian sample, which smacks the taste out of your retarded claim that fig 5 is contradicted by Holiday 2009.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The fat-ass donkey forgot to highlight "other reports" [that I just clued the donkey's ass in], which--for those with no problem reading the full length of the post--would be unmistakable for its intentions.
Troll, your desperate hammering on your reference to ''other reports'' doesn't get your troll paws out of hot water, as it is preceded by a certain claim about Natufians, that you intended to to add substance to. If it wasn't your intention to add substance to that claim about Natufians, the coherence of your entire post falls apart. Not that that's a rarity for you, of course.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: [QB] On what page can this be found?
"limb proprtion can change relatively quickly, alteration of body width occurs much more slowly"
- Principles of Human Evolution 2013 By Robert Andrew Foley, Roger Lewin
Temperature regulates limb length in homeotherms by directly modulating cartilage growth Maria A. Serrata,1, Donna Kingb, and C. Owen Lovejoy
(
I read the page. And as suspected relative is within the timeframe of the anatomical modern human.
So from that point of view 15,000-18,000 year is relative.
Hence how they correlate the section with "the new world" / Amerindians. And indirectly referring to:
quote:Migration within a larger time framework took place ca. 15,000–18,000 BP, when the first Asian populations crossed the Bering Strait, ultimately founding the modern Amerindian population. Despite having as much as 18,000 years of selection in environments as diverse as those found in the Old World, body mass and proportion clines in the Americas are less steep than those in the Old World (Newman, 1953; Roberts, 1978). In fact, as Hulse (1960) pointed out, Amerindians, even in the tropics, tend to possess some ‘‘arctic’’ adaptations. Thus he concluded that it must take more than 15,000 years for modern humans to fully adapt to a new environment (see also Trinkaus, 1992). This suggests that body proportions tend not to be very plastic under natural conditions, and that selective rates on body shape are such that evolution in these features is long-term."
- Holliday T. (1997). Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins. Jrnl Hum Evo. 32:423-447
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Modern human, early modern human and Neanderthal limb proportions A.M.W. Porter
quote: The failure of early modern humans to survive in the Levant during the early last glacial implies they were not yet physiologically and/or behaviorally well-adapted to cold climates and Palearctic environments, or at least not as well-adapted as neanderthals. [... ]As noted above, the replacement of modern humans by neanderthals in the Levant, suggests African modern humans were rather poorly-adapted to cold climates.
--Stanley H. Ambrose Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois,
Journal of Human Evolution (1998) 34, 623–651
Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans
quote:Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenetic 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.
-Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins☆ --Holliday TW.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote: Bivariate analyses distinguishJebel Sahabafrom European and circumpolar samples, butdo not tend to segregate them from recent North or sub-Saharan African samples
T. W. Holliday* 2013 Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The authors are wiping the floor with C. Coon's theories.
Leg Length, Body Proportion, and Health: A Review with a Note on Beauty
^^Good link Patrol. And re Holiday- we can see from his study..
Ambrose sez: The failure of early modern humans to survive in the Levant during the early last glacial implies they were not yet physiologically and/or behaviorally well-adapted to cold climates and Palearctic environments, or at least not as well-adapted as neanderthals. [... ]As noted above, the replacement of modern humans by neanderthals in the Levant, suggests African modern humans were rather poorly-adapted to cold climates.
--Stanley H. Ambrose
^^What other stuff do you have on Neanderthals replacing moderns in the Levant Patrol? I am not 100% sold on Ambrose's claim in the sense that said African moderns went to Europe and gradually showed adaptation- as demonstrated by the tropical retentions seen among Cro-Magnons, and older European types. Ambrose may be right but humans were adapting to climates all along. I don't see Africans moderns having any more trouble than anyone else per se. If the tropically adapted migrants eventually adapted to European environments why would they have trouble in the Levant? Based on what time frames and context?
Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
Thanks for making that chart Zaharan. Your awesome!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: The authors are wiping the floor with C. Coon's theories.
Leg Length, Body Proportion, and Health: A Review with a Note on Beauty
Leg Length, Body Proportion, and Health: A Review with a Note on Beauty
Barry Bogin and Maria Inês Varela-Silva
Coon divided living peoples of the world into five “races” based, in part, on body size and proportions. The Australian Aborigines (designated “Australoids” by Coon), have exceptionally long legs in proportion to stature, and African pygmies (“Congoids” in Coon’s taxonomy), have exceptionally short stature, long arms relative to leg length, and especially short lower legs.
Coon’s claim that African pygmies have “achondroplastic proportions” is also wrong. Shea and Bailey show that African pygmies are reduced in overall size and have a body shape that is allometrically proportional to the size reduction.
_____________________________________________
Isometric scaling occurs when changes in size (during growth or over evolutionary time) do not lead to changes in proportion.
Allometric scaling is any change that deviates from isometry. A classic example is the skeleton of mammals, which becomes much more robust and massive relative to the size of the body as the body size increases.
Eskimos and Pygmies have legs that are shorter than non-Pygmy Africans. Coon said in pygmies it was due to achondroplasia.
Achondroplasiais a common cause of dwarfism. It occurs as a sporadic mutation in approximately 75% of cases (associated with advanced paternal age) or may be inherited as an autosomal dominant genetic disorder. In the above article Bogin says Shea and Bailey say their short legs would a change in proportion due to their smaller size (Bergman's rule)
___________________________________________
Leg Length, Body Proportion, and Health: A Review with a Note on Beauty
Barry Bogin and Maria Inês Varela-Silva
The human species is distinguished from the non-human primates by several anatomical features. Among these are proportions of the arms and legs relative to total body length. The human difference is illustrated in Figure 5. In proportion to total body length, measured as stature, modern human adults have relatively long legs and short arms. Quantitative differences between adult humans, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and bonobos
The primary reason for this is human bipedal locomotion, a behavior which evolved at least by 4.4 million years ago (MYA), as shown in the fossil hominin species Ardipithecus ramidus. Leg length must approximate 50 percent of total stature to achieve the biomechanical efficiency of the human striding bipedal gait.
The sitting height ratio (SHR) is a commonly used measure of body proportion. Measured stature minus sitting height may also be used to estimate leg length but this measure does not standardize for total height making it difficult to compare individuals with different statures. Mean SHR for populations of adults varies from minimum values, i.e., relatively longest legs, for Australian Aborigines (SHR = 47.3 for men and 48.1 for women) to the maximum SHR values, i.e., relatively shortest legs, for Guatemala Maya men and Peruvian women (SHR = 54.6 and 55.8).
Two well-known ecogeographic principles, Bergmann’s and Allen’s Rules, are often cited as primary causes for the global patterns of human body shape variation.
Large body mass and relatively short extremities increase the ratio of volume-to-surface area and provide for a body shape that maximizes metabolic heat retention in a mammal. Conversely, in warmer temperatures, relative long extremities increases surface areas relative to volume and allows for greater heat loss. It has been shown experimentally that mice and other non-human mammals raised in warmer temperature experience greater bone tissue growth and longer limb bones
(Serrat MA, King D, Lovejoy CO. Temperature regulates limb length in homeotherms by directly modulating cartilage growth.)
Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules apply, to some extent, to the human species. These climate relationships, however, are not perfect. A re-analysis of the Roberts’ data by Katzmarzyk and Leonard [The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control52] modifies the importance of climate as the primary molder of human body shape. Katzmarzyk and Leonard (p. 483) state that “...although climatic factors continue to be significant correlates of world-wide variation in human body size and morphology, differential changes in nutrition among tropical, developing world populations have moderated their influence.”
Guatemala Maya, for example, consume only approximately 80% of the total energy needed for healthy growth, and 20.4% are also iodine deficient [The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control53]. Iodine deficiency during infancy and childhood results in reduced leg length, especially the distal femur, the tibia and the foot [The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control54]. Maya children and adults spend considerable time and energy at heavy labor [The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control55], which diverts available energy in the diet away from growth. This nutrition and lifestyle combination is known to reduce total stature and leg length
Leitch [The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control82] was the first medical researcher to propose that a ratio of LL to total stature could be a good indicator of the early life nutritional history and general health of an individual. Leitch (p. 145) wrote, ‘. . . it would be expected on general principles that children continuously underfed would grow into underdeveloped adults. . .with normal or nearly normal size head, moderately retarded trunk and relatively short legs.’ Reviewing the literature available at the time (pre-1950), Leitch found that improved nutrition during infancy and childhood did result in a greater increase in LL than in total height or weight.
9. Conclusion
Prenatal and postnatal undernutrition and disease account for relatively short legs in adults, but still do not explain why they are at greater risk for disease and mortality at earlier ages than the longer-legged adults.
___________________________________________
^^^ but with Pygmies a correlation with shorter stature also noted earlier
Starting in 1974 Bogin began research on the physical development of Guatemalan Maya children, and their families. Since 1992 he has researched Maya child growth and development after migration to the United States. The purpose of this research has been to document and model the social, economic, and political influences on differences in physical growth and health between Maya children living in Guatemala compared to those in the USA..
Pygmy populations, scientists have speculated, may owe their abbreviated stature to natural selection pressures that allowed them to better adapt to dense tropical forests where heat is oppressive and food is scarce. “An outstanding question for many, many years among anthropologists and human geneticists has been what is the genetic basis of the short stature trait in Pygmy populations globally and in Africa in particular, says Sarah Tishkoff, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who is a leading expert on African population genetics. “There’s a good reason to think it’s adaptive because in fact in regions of dense tropical forests globally you often have these short-statured Pygmy groups.” Tishkoff and colleagues have found an unexpected surprise in genetic evidence for Pygmy height, which reaches an average of 4 feet 11 inches in Pygmy men in Cameroon. They report in PLOS Genetics today on a set of genes that regulate immune and hormonal processes, and which only secondarily may be linked to height. Pygmies receive an intense assault from pathogens that flourish in the forest and that turn up routinely in their bush-meat diet: expected lifespan is less than 18 years. It may be that genes that protect against microbes may also hinder growth. Diminished stature could be a byproduct of bolstering immune and metabolic defenses and not a direct adaptation to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The study was the most incisive to date looking at the genetics of height in Pygmies. Tishkoff says that other studies will undoubtedly turn up genes tied to height in Pygmies and natural selection may still be found to play a direct role in giving rise to short stature.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
^ this bogus argument was already dispelled a year ago,
See Guatemala has a small population of African descent people. And some have been absorbed into the Native population.
Also the growth itself has nothing to do with tropical adaption etc....
Sone Indian guy once told me that Pakistan are taller than Indian. Because Pakistan are carnivores and eat more meat, were as Indians (Hindus) are mostly vegetarian.
quote: These claims of race-based human taxonomy, including Coon’s time thresholds for homo-sapienation, have been discredited by paleontological and genomic research showing the antiquity of modern human origins within Africa, as well as the essential genomic African nature of all living human beings[...]
Coon’s claim that African pygmies have “achondroplastic proportions” is also wrong. Shea and Bailey[...]show that African pygmies are reduced in overall size and have a body shape that is allometrically proportional to the size reduction..
--Barry Bogin* and Maria Inês Varela-Silva, Leg Length, Body Proportion, and Health: A Review with a Note on Beauty
Int J Environ Res Public Healthv.7(3); Mar 2010PMC2872302
quote:Peoples who live in similar climatic zones will have the same body width, no matter how tall or short they are, because they have the same surface area to body mass ratios (Fig. 6.15).
--- Principles of Human Evolution 2013 By Robert Andrew Foley, Roger Lewin, Page 146
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^Good link Patrol. And re Holiday- we can see from his study..
Ambrose sez: The failure of early modern humans to survive in the Levant during the early last glacial implies they were not yet physiologically and/or behaviorally well-adapted to cold climates and Palearctic environments, or at least not as well-adapted as neanderthals. [... ]As noted above, the replacement of modern humans by neanderthals in the Levant, suggests African modern humans were rather poorly-adapted to cold climates.
--Stanley H. Ambrose
^^What other stuff do you have on Neanderthals replacing moderns in the Levant Patrol? I am not 100% sold on Ambrose's claim in the sense that said African moderns went to Europe and gradually showed adaptation- as demonstrated by the tropical retentions seen among Cro-Magnons, and older European types. Ambrose may be right but humans were adapting to climates all along. I don't see Africans moderns having any more trouble than anyone else per se. If the tropically adapted migrants eventually adapted to European environments why would they have trouble in the Levant? Based on what time frames and context?
You got email.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^ this bogus argument was already dispelled a year ago,
See Guatemala has a small population of African descent people. And some have been absorbed into the Native population.
Also the growth itself has nothing to do with tropical adaption etc....
Sone Indian guy once told me that Pakistan are taller than Indian. Because Pakistan are carnivores and eat more meat, were as Indians (Hindus) are mostly vegetarian.
quote: These claims of race-based human taxonomy, including Coon’s time thresholds for homo-sapienation, have been discredited by paleontological and genomic research showing the antiquity of modern human origins within Africa, as well as the essential genomic African nature of all living human beings[...]
Coon’s claim that African pygmies have “achondroplastic proportions” is also wrong. Shea and Bailey[...]show that African pygmies are reduced in overall size and have a body shape that is allometrically proportional to the size reduction..
--Barry Bogin* and Maria Inês Varela-Silva, Leg Length, Body Proportion, and Health: A Review with a Note on Beauty
Int J Environ Res Public Healthv.7(3); Mar 2010PMC2872302
You call an argument made by Barry Bogin about Guatemala bogus yet you also quote Barry Bogin to support your argument. This makes me think you don't read the articles you use for an argument maybe you just read snippets.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
[QUOTE]Peoples who live in similar climatic zones will have the same body width, no matter how tall or short they are, because they have the same surface area to body mass ratios (Fig. 6.15).
--- Principles of Human Evolution 2013 By Robert Andrew Foley, Roger Lewin, Page 146 [/qb]
limb ratios and body width are two different things
non-pygmy Africans who live in the same latitude as pygmies have much higher limb ratios. The proportion changes according to size - allometry
-not Isometry where the proportion remains the same regardless of a change in size
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] ^^Good link Patrol. And re Holiday- we can see from his study..
These charts can't be used to make a blanket statement about Europeans because Southern European countries such as Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece are not accounted for
The shocking thing is the position of Nubia
Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
@Lioness
Southern Europeans are basically the SAME as Northern Europeans. There is very LITTLE genetic difference between the two. On people from Iberia have slight genetic differences due to the Moorish occupation. Southern Europeans are still cold adapted.
I think the chart is just right.
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
Southern European have more black African blood then Northern European due to their African origin in prehistory and ancient history. They didn't mixed strongly with the white Eurasian immigrant of the 5 cent CE comparative to the Northern European.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: @Lioness
Southern Europeans are basically the SAME as Northern Europeans. There is very LITTLE genetic difference between the two. On people from Iberia have slight genetic differences due to the Moorish occupation. Southern Europeans are still cold adapted.
I think the chart is just right.
It's funny because she was the first one to use the chard. Now that it works against her. It is all of a sudden "invalid". Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^ this bogus argument was already dispelled a year ago,
See Guatemala has a small population of African descent people. And some have been absorbed into the Native population.
Also the growth itself has nothing to do with tropical adaption etc....
Sone Indian guy once told me that Pakistan are taller than Indian. Because Pakistan are carnivores and eat more meat, were as Indians (Hindus) are mostly vegetarian.
[QUOTE] These claims of race-based human taxonomy, including Coon’s time thresholds for homo-sapienation, have been discredited by paleontological and genomic research showing the antiquity of modern human origins within Africa, as well as the essential genomic African nature of all living human beings[...]
Coon’s claim that African pygmies have “achondroplastic proportions” is also wrong. Shea and Bailey[...]show that African pygmies are reduced in overall size and have a body shape that is allometrically proportional to the size reduction..
--Barry Bogin* and Maria Inês Varela-Silva, Leg Length, Body Proportion, and Health: A Review with a Note on Beauty
Int J Environ Res Public Healthv.7(3); Mar 2010PMC2872302
You call an argument made by Barry Bogin about Guatemala bogus yet you also quote Barry Bogin to support your argument. This makes me think you don't read the articles you use for an argument maybe you just read snippets.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Peoples who live in similar climatic zones will have the same body width, no matter how tall or short they are, because they have the same surface area to body mass ratios (Fig. 6.15).
--- Principles of Human Evolution 2013 By Robert Andrew Foley, Roger Lewin, Page 146
limb ratios and body width are two different things
non-pygmy Africans who live in the same latitude as pygmies have much higher limb ratios. The proportion changes according to size - allometry
-not Isometry where the proportion remains the same regardless of a change in size [/QB]
No, I call your argument bogus. For interpreting differently. For always altering and twisting things! That's why!
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece are not accounted for
Steppe hosts of Mongolia, or aliens from mythical "lost Atlantis" are not accounted for either, but their inclusion won't make a dime's worth of difference, to the overall results pattern. Let's see you post some data on the southern Europeans.. The ball is in your court.
And a relative difference in Nubian positioning reflects different datasets and methods between Holliday and other studies- but ultimately, it doesn't make any difference either. The AEs cluster more with other African populations.. Sorry...
Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
quote:Originally posted by mena7: Southern European have more black African blood then Northern European due to their African origin in prehistory and ancient history. They didn't mixed strongly with the white Eurasian immigrant of the 5 cent CE comparative to the Northern European.
The only Southern Europeans that have 'black' in them are people of the Iberian peninsula.
Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: @Lioness
Southern Europeans are basically the SAME as Northern Europeans. There is very LITTLE genetic difference between the two. On people from Iberia have slight genetic differences due to the Moorish occupation. Southern Europeans are still cold adapted.
I think the chart is just right.
It's funny because she was the first one to use the chard. Now that it works against her. It is all of a sudden "invalid".
The chart is definitely valid...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece are not accounted for
Steppe hosts of Mongolia, or aliens from mythical "lost Atlantis" are not accounted for either, but their inclusion won't make a dime's worth of difference, to the overall results pattern. Let's see you post some data on the southern Europeans.. The ball is in your court.
I haven't drawn any conclusions because I can't find numerical data for South European limb ratios or Near Eastern limb ratios, I'm talking raw data figures not what somebody said. I think there may not even be reliable numerical data on some of these popualtions. I am aware of (Stringer and Gamble), 1993, -Yugoslavian limb ratios 83.75% (Terry) Raxter 2006 U.S. -Blacks, 83.0% (Robins/Shute) Egyptian Pharoahs 82.4%
hoiw's that for setting expectatiosn backwards?
Your position is that you haven't seen the data on Southern European limb ratios but you already know what it is.
I would rather wait and see
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Either way, the conclusions will be the same. Southern Europeans are cold adapted compared to Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: @Lioness
Southern Europeans are basically the SAME as Northern Europeans. There is very LITTLE genetic difference between the two. On people from Iberia have slight genetic differences due to the Moorish occupation. Southern Europeans are still cold adapted.
I think the chart is just right.
It's funny because she was the first one to use the chart. Now that it works against her. It is all of a sudden "invalid".
LOL @ the lyinass.
As for the Nubian sample in the dendogram.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This [Nubian sample] is the same sample that in Hanihara et al 2003 clustered away from the Naqada Giza and Kerma subcluster, and instead with with French and other Europeans. Its Christian era and postulated to be mixed with Middle Eastern elements.
Southern Europeans are basically the SAME as Northern Europeans. There is very LITTLE genetic difference between the two. On people from Iberia have slight genetic differences due to the Moorish occupation. Southern Europeans are still cold adapted.
I think the chart is just right.
It's funny because she was the first one to use the chard. Now that it works against her. It is all of a sudden "invalid".
The chart is definitely valid...
Don't mind the babble box.
quote:"During three seasons of research (in 2000, 2001 and 2003) carried out by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition at Gebel Ramlah in the southern part of the Egyptian Western Desert, three separate Final Neolithic cemeteries were discovered and excavated. Skeletal remains of 67 individuals, comprising both primary and secondary interments, were recovered from 32 discrete burial pits. Numerous grave goods were found, including lithics, pottery and ground stone objects, as well as items of personal adornment, pigments, shells and sheets of mica. Imports from distant areas prove far-reaching contacts.
Analysis of the finds sheds important light on the burial rituals and social conditions of the Final Neolithic cattle keepers inhabiting Ramlah Playa. This community, dated to the mid-fifth millennium B.C. (calibrated), was composed of a phenotypically diverse population derived from both North and sub-Saharan Africa. There were no indications of social differentiation. The deteriorating climatic conditions probably forced these people to migrate toward the Nile Valley where they undoubtedly contributed to the birth of ancient Egyptian civilization."
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [LOL @ the lyinass.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Either way, the conclusions will be the same. Southern Europeans are cold adapted compared to Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: @Lioness
Southern Europeans are basically the SAME as Northern Europeans. There is very LITTLE genetic difference between the two. On people from Iberia have slight genetic differences due to the Moorish occupation. Southern Europeans are still cold adapted.
I think the chart is just right.
It's funny because she was the first one to use the chart. Now that it works against her. It is all of a sudden "invalid".
LOL @ the lyinass.
As for the Nubian sample in the dendogram.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This [Nubian sample] is the same sample that in Hanihara et al 2003 clustered away from the Naqada Giza and Kerma subcluster, and instead with with French and other Europeans. Its Christian era and postulated to be mixed with Middle Eastern elements.
And that's a fact!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
This [Nubian sample] is the same sample that in Hanihara et al 2003 clustered away from the Naqada Giza and Kerma subcluster, and instead with with French and other Europeans. Its Christian era and postulated to be mixed with Middle Eastern elements.
where's the proof that it is a fact that Holliday 2013 used the same sample as Hanihara 2003 ?
I'm asking you not Swenet
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
This [Nubian sample] is the same sample that in Hanihara et al 2003 clustered away from the Naqada Giza and Kerma subcluster, and instead with with French and other Europeans. Its Christian era and postulated to be mixed with Middle Eastern elements.
where's the proof that it is a fact that Holliday 2013 used the same sample as Hanihara 2003 ?
I'm asking you not Swenet
LOL why should I answer you. You never reply when you are asked for an explanation on your stance. You simply go into your Eurocentric I feel superior ignore mode. Well, guess what, I go into ignore mode!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Trying to distract the attention away from the fact that the piece you're responding to points out what a big fat liar you are, huh? No biggie, if you insist in getting educated: I had recently posted an excerpt from Holiday 1999 saying limb proportions can be a poor predictor of limb length, which is what limb proportions ultimately try to get to the bottom to
Your poor excuse for a response shows how biggie of deal that question was, and corroborates my point that you've been wishing away the prospect of tropically-adaption in Mesolithic Maghrebi series. No? Point to me, an instance where one comes across "tropical limb proportions" without that relating to a tropical body plan.
Limb proportions may not predict the actual length of the limbs a priori, but high brachial and crural indexes are a very good indicator of tropical adaptation or a tropical body plan.
quote: It can also a poor predictor of trunk height per Holiday. But you wouldn't know, being the uneducated troll you are.
What a dumbass! Of course limb proportions cannot predict the trunk height, because they (body segments) are not even the same thing. Why would you assume that anyone else is as filthy dumb as you are, so as to make the stupid connection you are describing above?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Your astronomic stupidity goes through the roof. You don't even know that a set of digits with the tilde symbol behind it in this context depicts an approximation. No surprise, really, with all your other recent phuckups bathing in broad daylight.
My "astronomic stupidity" could not be as astronomic as your's. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made such a big deal about an "approximation", and one with essentially little difference at that, from the value you were making such a fuss about.
quote:I'm sure that that's why you posted it. Cause, lord knows, your desperate hammering on their limb data in the absence of even a hint of opposition to their limb data (other than the opposition you fabricated with your lie), and in light of the other data posted in this thread (The Afalou/Circumpolar cluster), isn't exactly jiving with the hard data at hand, showing them to cluster away from Africans where the multivariate data is concerned.
They cannot be "clustering away from Africans" on the account of the tropical body proportions or tropical body plan, which is what you've been denying for a while...that any such affinity exists.
You have been hell bent on saying that they only had affinities with Europeans, when in fact if anything ,it is both the Mesolithic Maghrebi and UP Europeans who would cluster with "Africans" before they did with Europeans in their average body plans and limb proportions.
quote: Which, as late as the proportions still appear, further stamps in the ground your pseudo-scientific idea that IM limb proportions further your hopeless cause, especially in light of Holiday 2013's multivariate analysis.
Rather than reading the underhanded point that you were comparing apples with oranges, you've come up with a misguided conclusion. Why would a retention of tropical limb proportions render my cause "hopeless"? It certainly doesn't advance your cause that the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi were some little lost Europeans in Africa, does it?
quote:No, troll. Too late for damage controll. You were asked what linearity has to do with ''long lower-limb bones''. And no, me drilling on this issue isn't going to stop until you admit what a fraud you are.
The longer the limbs, the more linear the body is likely to be.
Of course, you didn't know this, because you were/are trying to learn what body linearity is, albeit in underhanded way of trying to pretend you are challenging me with a question, when you are really begging to get schooled. This is why the point made about the pygmies caught you off-guard, compelling you to protest without having the slightest clue about what you were protesting.
quote:No need to dance around the issue, as those in the know are already aware of the fact that neither of Holiday's three visualizations of his multivariate analysis utilize or incorporate limb proportion indices; they are predicated on measurements (breadths, lengths and diameters, etc). Yes indeed, your posts smack of idiocy. Now, to get back on topic, how is the description below fig 5 consistent with the idea that it's depicting population relationships in limb proportions?
You trying to cover up your lack of knowledge with a distracting question. How does one determine body shape without factoring in the limb proportions? I mean, I knew what I was talking about, when I conditioned about the "allusion" to "limb proportions"; there is no indication you know exactly why you protested, other than just to be disagreeable, so you can start pretending to look smart and call me wacky kindergarten-like names.
quote:Face it, you thought you had the data behind you when you made the retarded insinuation that San limb proportions discredit fig 5, when the premise that insinuation is based on had been put to sleep by Holiday as early as 1999, and a host of other authors documenting that limb proportions don't have the last say in the matter.
How does Holliday "put to rest", the finding of sub-tropical limb proportion index among the San?
quote: That you laugh at the fact that this very ancient fact makes your comment obsolete is further evidence of the fact that you're a total fraud.
So, me "laughing" at your subsequent posts makes my earlier comment about San limb proportions "obsolete"?
quote:Well, since you insist on trolling and lying, **prove** that the position of the Pygmy sample conformed to the following dictionary description of 'outlier' in the dendrograms that 2009 excerpt discusses. Perhaps you're better at gawking at dendrogram images than letters:
I don't have to dumbass, because that is what the Holliday piece was essentially saying. Perhaps you should be busy learning what an outlier is, rather than reminding people of what an illiterate fool you are.
quote:Troll, the Holiday 1997 piece I cited makes direct references to commonalities between the North African sample and the Pygmy sample, which, according to Holiday, makes them cluster.
This is still the dumbass red herring now as it was when you first posted it in response to a citation you couldn't understand. There is no indication that any more effort at making you understand will make you any less dumb...ever!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: No? Point to me, an instance where one comes across "tropical limb proportions" without that relating to a tropical body plan.
You yourself have cited an exerpt stating that the Pygmy and the Nubian sample are ''less linear'', in spite of their clearly tropically adapted limbs, you phucking degenerate troll! They have tropical limbs, which is not so much attested in their overal bodyplan. Note: they're both more tropically adapted that the Afalou sample in multivariate space, as seen in fig 5, yet, the Afalou sample is supposedly not an outlier sample according to the crack infested heap you call your brain?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: My "astronomic stupidity" could not be as astronomic as your's. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made such a big deal about an "approximation", and one with essentially little difference at that, from the value you were making such a fuss about.
This is just a manupulative non-reply to obfuscate the fact that things got to the all time low where you needed to be schooled on what the tilde symbol exactly is.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Of course limb proportions cannot predict the trunk height, because they (body segments) are not even the same thing.
That's why your dumbass is the earth shattering buffoon that you are. Here above, you admit that trunk measurements may not co-vary with limb proportions ''because they are not the same thing'', yet a few seconds prior to writing this self-assured post, your dumbass was bewildered by the suggestion that limb proportions may yield different results than the overall bodyplan. Has to be verge of disintegrating into a brain-dead vegetable, this ''The Explorer'' character.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: They cannot be "clustering away from Africans" on the account of the tropical body proportions or tropical body plan
Another manipulative device, intended to buy time and make it seem like you didn't get your buttocks handed to you a couple of exchanges ago. The piece you're replying to talks about the fact that the IM clusters away from Sub-Saharan Africans in multivariate analysis, and your glaring inability to come to grips with that fact. You're merely confirming my reading of the situation with this post.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You have been hell bent on saying that they only had affinities with Europeans, when in fact if anything ,it is both the Mesolithic Maghrebi and UP Europeans who would cluster with "Africans" before they did with Europeans in their average body plans
Prove it, liar!
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Rather than reading the underhanded point that you were comparing apples with oranges
Pointing out the fact that it doesn't mean much that IM have tropical limp proportions because most, if not all, Late Upper Palaeolihic Eurasian samples still did, is '''comparing apples with oranges'', simply because some of the European comparative material was younger than the IM remains? Tell me, how did this shitty line of reasoning by-pass your frontal lobe, if not that its just barely functioning?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It certainly doesn't advance your cause that the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi were some little lost Europeans in Africa, does it?
What claim it doesn't advance, is your insinuated claim that the IM limb proportions would have been any different in the scenario that they came out of Eurasia. It is this specific claim that I'm tackling by using Mesolithic European limb data, and you have yet to come to grips with this inconvenient truth.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The longer the limbs, the more linear the body is likely to be.
You're such a troll. You're being told again and again that this doesn't hold up for specimen whose limb ratios contrast with their overall bodyplan, because the former is still in a pleisiomorphic state. Besides, your dumbass used the IM limb proportions as a proxy for considering them ''linear''. How did this work out for your dumbass, given the fact that the ''less linear'' Nubians and Pygmies used in this study are certainly more tropically adapted than the Afalou sample?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: How does one determine body shape without factoring in the limb proportions?
That's what you were just schooled on, and, was totally unable to refute. Despite of your glaring inability to refute what I'm saying, you still choose to reiterate the same sentiment that was thrashed an exchange ago. The true mark of a megatroll: simply ignoring past thrashings and reposting the stuff that got you thrashed in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: How does Holliday "put to rest", the finding of sub-tropical limb proportion index among the San?
Another lie and manipulative distraction to get away from the fact that you can't refute that Holiday 1999 demonstrated that limb proportions don't predict bodyplan, and that this exposes your horribly failed attempt to use San limb ratios as valid grounds to attempt to discredit fig 5, simply because it wasn't in agreement with the wishful emotion-based image you had of the Afalou.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I don't have to dumbass
Translation: ''don't mind me, I'm just doing my usual round of making up sh!t as I go along. Nothing new here''. Repeat: prove that you're even close to having a clue about what you're rambling about, and prove that the Pygmy sample doesn't cluster with North Africans in that paper. Here is your chance to shine, what are you waiting for, fraud?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: because that is what the Holliday piece was essentially saying.
Lying out your ass. Other than what your emotion-based vested interests lead you to read into the excerpt, The Holiday piece said Pygmies and their Nubian sample were ''less linear'' relative to the other African groups, without any statement pertaining to the degree of the distance between what Holiday termed ''linear'' and ''less linear''.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: This is still the dumbass red herring now as it was when you first posted it in response to a citation you couldn't understand.
The only thing that's a red herring is your crackpot notion that ''less linear'' is tantamount to ''outlier''. The irony! My citation from Holiday, which points out the existence of post-cranial relationships between Pygmies and North Africans, and that actually vindicates fig 5, is somehow a red herring, but your ''outlier'' fabrication, which is based on nothing other than the fact that you're a degenerate who doesn't even own the paper, is gospel. Such a lying troll, and unashamedly so.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Three more glaringly stupid claims led to the following investigations in your credibility, that you're running away from, ''Explorer''. You didn't think I wouldn't notice the fact that you chickened out of replying, did you?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I asked you a question, troll. No further stalling. What the hell is ''linear in stature''?
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: Now, to get back on topic, how is the description below fig 5 consistent with the idea that it's depicting population relationships in limb proportions?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I have already gone through Trenton's "Body proportions of the Jebel Sahaba sample", but subsequently lost the paper when my computer crashed earlier in the year.
Please inform us about this paper you're referring to. What are the full specifics of the paper? Publication date, journal, etc.
"So, large animals should live in cold climates because there is less SA to lose heat from and smaller animals should live in warm climates because they can increase heat dispersion (Bergmann’s). Furthermore, species living in tropical climates should have a linear body plan with most mass in the limbs (long legs) and less in the trunk (~Short torso) to dissipate heat, whereas, Arctic species should have large trunks (~long torso) and short limbs to conserve heat (Allan’s)."
In 1953 D.F. Roberts did a study to test these two rules. He looked at 116 males from around the world and found that there was a negative correlation between body mass and average temperature based on Relative Sitting Height (RSH=sitting height/stature) people in cold climates as compared to warm climates had short legs but larger RSH.
In 1998 the authors did the same type of study using a sample of 223 males and 198 females from around the world and compared it to Robert’ 116 males. The same results as Roberts’ were found but the negative regression slopes were much shallower. In addition the authors calculated the Body Mass Index (BMI=weight (kg)/height (m^2)) and body surface area (using the Bailey and Briars equation pg. 158).
RESULTS:
- When compared to Roberts’ sample, males were taller and heavier with lower SA:mass ratio. This says overweight and obesity (BMI ≥ 25kg/m^2) has risen from 3.4% to 12.2%.
- Roberts had no female data but as expected compared to males, females are shorter and lighter but have higher SA/mass ratio with a 15.6% prevalence of overweight and obesity.
- For all groups (Roberts, males and females) as body weight decreases, mean temperature increases.
- For all groups as BMI decreases, mean temperature increases.
- For all groups as SA/mass increases so does mean temperature.
- For males and females of the current sample RSH decreases as temperature increases
Overall, the results show that body mass has increased disproportionately in the tropics than the rest of the world. Body weight in the current sample is 50% larger in populations of warm climates as compared to cold climates and BMIs are twice as large as the cold climate counterparts. Again, even though there has been a relative trend for increasing body mass from 1953-1998 the tropics show disproportionately larger results.
PROBLEMS WITH BMI
The BMI is the most widely used standard in assessing nutritional status around the world for adults. The problem with using BMI is that it does not take into account body proportions and morphology. So someone very tall may be considered undernourished according to BMI when actually healthy because the ratio of height to weight causes the disparity. The example given by the authors compares Australian Aborigines and Inuit.
“…Australian Aborigines studied before the 1970s had very low BMIs, suggestive of chronic undernutrition, yet had skinfold thicknesses that indicated adequate nutritional status. Conversely, early work among Inuit men and women has shown that despite having BMIs that were at or above the threshold for “overweight,” they were relatively lean, as reflected in both skinfold measures and estimates of body fatness from hydrostatic weighing.” (164)
By correlating climate, BMI, RSH and skinfolds it was found that morphological differences directly related to climate significantly influenced BMI results. Individuals in cold climates are leaner than BMI expectancies while individuals in warm climates are fatter than BMI expectancies. Take Home= body proportions need to be taken into account when assessing BMI for nutritional status and additional anthropometric measures should be used as well.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
You yourself have cited an exerpt stating that the Pygmy and the Nubian sample are ''less linear'', in spite of their clearly tropically adapted limbs, you phucking degenerate troll!
More evidence that fuckhead does not understand what body linearity is. The "less linear" body of the pygmies does not absolve them from a tropical body plan, dummy.
quote: They have tropical limbs, which is not so much attested in their overal bodyplan. Note: they're both more tropically adapted that the Afalou sample in multivariate space, as seen in fig 5, yet, the Afalou sample is supposedly not an outlier sample according to the crack infested heap you call your brain?
Nothing mentioned about the Afalou being an outlier or otherwise, fuckheaded gorilla; just your fat-ass' habit of chasing after the imaginery.
quote:That's why your dumbass is the earth shattering buffoon that you are.
You say something incredibly stupid, and then you figure someone else is a buffoon for what you said.
quote: Here above, you admit that trunk measurements may not co-vary with limb proportions ''because they are not the same thing'', yet a few seconds prior to writing this self-assured post, your dumbass was bewildered by the suggestion that limb proportions may yield different results than the overall bodyplan.
Your filthy butt obviously emits more nerve activity than your blockhead; one cannot admit to a concept that wasn't denied [i.e. trunk being different from limbs], but that confused you, numbnut.
Secondly, the body plan factors in limb proportions, which your ass-head would know nothing about--as evidenced by repeated unfulfilled requests to show otherwise; trunk and limbs are not the same thing; try getting that hammered into your shithead.
quote: The piece you're replying to talks about the fact that the IM clusters away from Sub-Saharan Africans in multivariate analysis
Analysis which must not be speaking merely to limb proportions or body plan respectively, as other cited reports indicate.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You have been hell bent on saying that they only had affinities with Europeans, when in fact if anything ,it is both the Mesolithic Maghrebi and UP Europeans who would cluster with "Africans" before they did with Europeans in their average body plans
Prove it, liar!
No problem, fuckhead: Europeans generally have lower limb ratios and/or limb/trunk ratios than either the Mesolithic Maghrebi or the UP Europeans.
You are so thick in that primitive skull, that you don't even recall your own quotes making this very clear.
quote:Pointing out the fact that it doesn't mean much that IM have tropical limp proportions because most, if not all, Late Upper Palaeolihic Eurasian samples still did
You must be suffering from on/off-switch amnesia. In the post just above, it would appear this fact had not ever crossed your poor resolution radar.
quote:What claim it doesn't advance, is your insinuated claim that the IM limb proportions would have been any different in the scenario that they came out of Eurasia.
numbnutted neanderthal, in fact it does [advance]. The Mesolithic Europeans, as your recitation says, had "shortened" limbs; by contrast, the Mesolithic Maghrebi, as indicated, feature long limbs. Apples and oranges, dumbass.
quote: You're such a troll. You're being told again and again that this doesn't hold up for specimen whose limb ratios contrast with their overall bodyplan, because the former is still in a pleisiomorphic state.
Explain how the "limb ratios contrast" with "their" overall body plan, and how this somehow renders limb proportions "a non-factor" in body linearity. The answer to this, will undoubtedly be another reminder of the kind of peerless idiot you are.
quote:Besides, your dumbass used the IM limb proportions as a proxy for considering them ''linear''.
fuckhead, it is not a "proxy"; it is a determinant. Learn the difference.
quote: How did this work out for your dumbass, given the fact that the ''less linear'' Nubians and Pygmies used in this study are certainly more tropically adapted than the Afalou sample?
It's working out just fine, given your post is just irrelevant shitheaded talk, which belies your charade of knowing what body linearity is.
As for being "more tropically adapted than the Afalou sample", go ahead and tell away how that was specifically determined.
quote:That's what you were just schooled on, and, was totally unable to refute. Despite of your glaring inability to refute what I'm saying, you still choose to reiterate the same sentiment that was thrashed an exchange ago. The true mark of a megatroll: simply ignoring past thrashings and reposting the stuff that got you thrashed in the first place.
I see you being such a queer Spongebob cry-baby panties above; not an iota about how body shape can be determined without consideration to limbs. Trying to give lessons on steep stupidity is not "schooling".
quote:Another lie and manipulative distraction to get away from the fact that you can't refute that Holiday 1999 demonstrated that limb proportions don't predict bodyplan
How does say, tropical limb proportions, not predict body plan. Have you come across "cold-adapted" body plans with tropical limb ratios or vice versa?
quote: and that this exposes your horribly failed attempt to use San limb ratios as valid grounds to attempt to discredit fig 5, simply because it wasn't in agreement with the wishful emotion-based image you had of the Afalou.
The so-called "attempt" cannot be deemed "failed", since it has neither been positively demonstrated that the San generally have a "tropical body plan", nor that recalled limb proportions are not so. You simply offered serial toothless whino-responses about the limb proportion reference being "obsolete", which you haven't been able to rationalize to date.
quote:Lying out your ass. Other than what your emotion-based vested interests lead you to read into the excerpt, The Holiday piece said Pygmies and their Nubian sample were ''less linear'' relative to the other African groups, without any statement pertaining to the degree of the distance between what Holiday termed ''linear'' and ''less linear''.
You are the only idiot on this planet who can mistake people schooling you on a simple excerpt for lying.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The "less linear" body of the pygmies does not absolve them from a tropical body plan, dummy.
Of course it does; in your sick interpretation of Holiday, re: ''Pygmies are outliers''. Lying troll.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Nothing mentioned about the Afalou being an outlier or otherwise, fuckheaded gorilla; just your fat-ass' habit of chasing after the imaginery.
Of course your lying ass didn't; that was my entire point. Your inherently immoral lying ass nature prevents you from applying the same ''outlier'' status to the Afalou, that you did not hesitate to apply to the more tropically adapted Nubian and Pygmy sample.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: one cannot admit to a concept that wasn't denied [i.e. trunk being different from limbs], but that confused you, numbnut.
Lying troll, you're not responding to the catastrophic predicament you're in; re: the inherent contradiction in your admission that trunk height may totally contradict limb proportions, which was bizarrely followed by what can only be described as bewildered emotion-based opposition to the idea that bodyplan may display the same pattern in relationship to limb proportions, as seen in the Nubian, Pygmy and Afalou.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Secondly, the body plan factors in limb proportions
Another blatant lie, that I exposed as such earlier.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Analysis which must not be speaking merely to limb proportions or body plan respectively, as other cited reports indicate.
See this people? This is what a pathologically lying troll looks like. This fraud still has to audacity to claim that fig 5 in the opening posts doesn't depict the Afalou among cold adapted samples in bodyplan.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Europeans generally have lower limb ratios and/or limb/trunk ratios than either the Mesolithic Maghrebi or the UP Europeans.
Lying dog, neither of these evasive distractions prove what you initially claimed without a shred of evidence to back it up, re: '',it is both the Mesolithic Maghrebi and UP Europeans who would cluster with "Africans" before they did with Europeans in their average body plans''. Where is the evidence?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: In the post just above, it would appear this fact had not ever crossed your poor resolution radar.
Lying dog, what you wrote ''just above'' makes a worthless retarded claim pertaining to bodyplans, and doesn't even begin to address the inconvenient bummer that Ibero-Maurusian limb ratios would have been no different in the scenario that they came out of Eurasia, given the similar or even higher limb ratios in comparative Late Upper Palaeolithic Eurasian fossils.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: fuckhead, it is not a "proxy"; it is a determinant. Learn the difference.
Lying dog, it has already been brought to your attention that tropical ratios in the case of Mesolithic Europeans weren't even determinative for absolute limb length, let alone body shape. I'm highly appreciative of your very generous supply of evidence, to me and the forum, that you have no idea what the phuck you're talking about.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: it's working out just fine, given your post is just irrelevant shitheaded talk, which belies your charade of knowing what body linearity is.
This is just fake and empty accusing to make it seem like you have something to say. I was well aware enough of the definition to instantly call your invocation of ''linear in stature'' out for the crackpot mumbo jumbo that it is. Getting back on topic; specifically how does it work out for you that the Afalou are ''linear in stature'' (lol), when they cluster with ''less linear'' samples in fig 5?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: As for being "more tropically adapted than the Afalou sample", go ahead and tell away how that was specifically determined.
How about fig 5, posted in the opening post of this thread, troll. Is your senile dumbass asleep or something? SMH.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: not an iota about how body shape can be determined without consideration to limbs.
Aside from the fact that your rehashed lie that ''body shape cannot be determined without limb data'' is just another example in a long line of fabrications on your part (Bergman's rule can be established independently of Allen's rule), you're also pathetically deluding yourself into believing that your not so subtle switch from your initial ''limb proportion'' to ''limbs'' is going unnoticed. Bottom line, you were already schooled on the fact that Holiday's multi-variate analysis is not predicated on limb ratios. You ignored this part if my posts, yet still go on to perpetuate this fat ass lie, like the lying dog that you are.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: How does say, tropical limb proportions, not predict body plan. Have you come across "cold-adapted" body plans with tropical limb ratios or vice versa?
Dumbass troll, who has to be on crack to still not have realized by now that the Afalou sample is conforming to exactly what you're asking of me in fig 5 in the OP, have you ever bothered getting your neurone firing rate checked? You are slower than a sedated Sloth.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The so-called "attempt" cannot be deemed "failed", since it has neither been positively demonstrated that the San generally have a "tropical body plan"
Lying dumbass Sloth, I said that your attempt to use the said data as valid grounds to do what you did in that unfortunate moment of profound obtuseness, failed. Big difference. Other than that, how would fig 5 not qualify as a demonstration that the San have a tropically adapted bodyplan, troll?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You are the only idiot on this planet who can mistake people schooling you on a simple excerpt for lying.
No more evasive distractions; explain RIGHT NOW what crack-induced figment led you to conclude ''outliers'' were spoken of in Holiday's distinction between ''linear'' and ''less linear''?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
TEST
linear =
a) longer
b) thinner
c) both longer and thinner
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The most noticeable differences between chimpanzees and pygmy chimpanzees are the following: short legs, broad feet -Endangered species Wolfgang Ullrich 1972
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: TEST
linear =
a) longer
b) thinner
c) both longer and thinner
A Linear shape means having a body that's rectangular-like from front view, with relatively little laterally projecting curves combined with a less defined waistline, while a non-linear body shape is more like the stereotyped female coke bottle figure, which, as you know, does have more laterally prominent curves and thinner waists. Classical perceptions of typically male and female bodies are good at illustrating this difference. Compare:
It has nothing to do with stature, as has been claimed by the Explorer troll who is fabricating damn near everything he says.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
what about this:
" Bi-iliac breadth, or bi-cristal breadth, as it is sometimes called, is measured as the transverse diameter of the superior margin of the pelvic girdle. This raw measurement is correlated with climatic variables [Crognier, 1981 ; Ruff, 1994], but its fit with climate and/or geography significantly improves when it is scaled to a linear dimen- sion of the body such as stature [Roberts. 1978; Ruff, 1991. 1993, 1994]. For the samples presented here, stature is unknown, and therefore must be predicted from long bone length, e.g. femoral length. In such cases, then, predicted stature is each individual's femoral length subsequent to an arithmetic manipulation, [i.e., femo- ral length x slope, +Y-intercept]. Such prediction formulae inevitably introduce error into the analysis, however, since biologically speak- ing, many individuals are expected to fall well above or well below the predictive line. Thus, to avoid the introduction of further error, stature is not predicted for this analysis, but rather, femoral length [which is highly correlated with stature] is used in its stead"
____________________________________________
With regard to body shape or proportions, there are several means by which these features may be accurately reconstructed from skeletal remains; these means approximate some of the anthropometric data taken on living human subjects. The measures that are used in this study reflect the following: 1 ] intralimb proportions [i.e., relative lengths of the proximal and distal limb segments], 2] limb/ trunk proportions, 3] body linearity relative to overall body mass, and 4] body breadth relative to stature. For all analyses, Gough's Cave 1 is compared to other Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene associated skeletons as well as to a large sample of recent humans from across the western Old World [Africa and Europe]. The fossils have been placed into Mesolithic [< 10,000 BP], Late Upper Paleolithic [LUP; 1 1,000-19,000 BP], Early Upper Paleolithic [EUP; 20,000-28,000 BP] and Neandertal [> 30,000 BP] samples, while the recent humans have been placed into three geographical subsamples: Europe, North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. Detailed discussion of these samples is found in Holliday [1995].
- Bulletin of The Natural History Museum HENA.tmrai j HISTORY MUSEUM Geology Series VOLUME 58 NUMBER 1 27 JUNE 2002 The Bulletin of The Natural History Museum [formerly: Bulletin of the British Museum [Natural History] ],
What about it? It simply says that bi-iliac breadth yields a more powerful correlation with latitude when juxtaposed with height, which makes sense. A lot of measurements are influenced by stature. For example, a person's large bi-iliac breadth may simply be a reflection of their tall stature. If you scale such a tall person down to the size of smaller person with a more narrow bi-iliac breadth, they may be very similar. This is the case with Pygmies, too. If you scale the 'typical' Mbuti's body up to 1.70m, you'd probably probably see more affinity with Mediterranean populations than with many Sub-Saharan Africans in their trunk related measurements.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What about it? It simply says that bi-iliac breadth yields a more powerful correlation with latitude when juxtaposed with height, which makes sense. A lot of measurements are influenced by stature. For example, a person's large bi-iliac breadth may simply be a reflection of their tall stature. If you scale such a tall person down to the size of smaller person with a more narrow bi-iliac breadth, they may be very similar. This is the case with Pygmies, too. If you scale the 'typical' Mbuti's body up to 1.70m, you'd probably probably see more affinity with Mediterranean populations than with many Sub-Saharan Africans in their trunk related measurements.
that sounds right but they did say " a linear dimen- sion of the body such as stature " This says stature is a 'linear' dimension
The term 'linear' is common in these articles, is not so easy to pin down. It is not a term in anthropolgy glossaries I've seen
From what I've been researching, in my opinion it simply means "thin" in physical anthropolgy.
It is indirectly associated with stature in that it tends to occur at the same time as tall stature. -my opinion
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: that sounds right but they did say " a linear dimen- sion of the body such as stature " This says stature is a 'linear' dimension
But body type is not a dimension--you know that right? Also, you do know that both the populations described as ''linear'' as well as the populations described as ''less linear'' by Holiday have ''a linear dimension of the body such as stature'', right? Who doesn't have ''a linear dimension such as stature''?
Linear dimensions, or linear units, measure the distance between two points. Since two points define a line, the units of distance are sometimes called "linear" units or dimensions.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: From what I've been researching, in my opinion it simply means "thin" in physical anthropolgy.
Agree. It shows a strong association with what the piece you cited earlier said about body breadth. Body breadth, in turn, is an expression of the laterally prominent curves I mentioned earlier.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It is indirectly associated with stature in that it tends to occur at the same time as tall stature. -my opinion
Your opinion is at odds with the hard data on the table. The native people in my country are among, if not the tallest people on average in Europe and in the world, but they certainly aren't linear on average. The tropically adapted people on the other side of fig 5 aren't particularly tall, and the shortest sample (Pygmies) occupies a position that's not distant from the middle.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Of course it does; in your sick interpretation of Holiday, re: ''Pygmies are outliers''. Lying troll.
You are still showing how utterly absentminded you are about body shape items, dumbfuck.
All the same, detail how body linearity turns pygmies into some supposed non-tropically adapted transplants of sub-Saharan Africa, trash head.
quote:Of course your lying ass didn't; that was my entire point.
That would be nonsense for a point. You rely on what was not said to find something to rebuttal, when actual said items go unchallenged. What a fuckhead.
quote: Your inherently immoral lying ass nature prevents you from applying the same ''outlier'' status to the Afalou, that you did not hesitate to apply to the more tropically adapted Nubian and Pygmy sample.
The Afalou, whatever tropical adapted traits they may have, are not "sub-Saharan" Africans, so they cannot be an oultier among sub-Saharan Africans, douchebag. However, if I were relying on Holliday's cited "neighbor-joining tree", and did not question its veracity, then they would stand out as an outlier among the African samples. However, I'm not taking that item for granted. Other reports indicate tropical body proportionality of the Afalou, and their affinity with other Mesolithic-early Holocene African specimens before they do other groups.
quote:Lying troll, you're not responding to the catastrophic predicament you're in; re: the inherent contradiction in your admission that trunk height may totally contradict limb proportions
Who would respond to an irrelevant post the underscores your fuckheadedness? Body plan includes limbs; trunk on the other hand, does not include limb. You are an ass-wipe for confusing very two different concepts.
quote:Another blatant lie, that I exposed as such earlier.
The nuttless Neanderthal thinks the idea of Body plan including limbs is a lie. What next? A spherical Earth is a lie.
quote:See this people? This is what a pathologically lying troll looks like. This fraud still has to audacity to claim that fig 5 in the opening posts doesn't depict the Afalou among cold adapted samples in bodyplan.
This is the first time I've heard Afalou are "cold-dapted". Care to clue us with details of their body proportion indices, rendering them "cold-adapted".
quote:Lying dog, neither of these evasive distractions prove what you initially claimed without a shred of evidence to back it up, re: '',it is both the Mesolithic Maghrebi and UP Europeans who would cluster with "Africans" before they did with Europeans in their average body plans''. Where is the evidence?
You wouldn't recognize proof if it pinched your queer ass. The fact that recent Europeans have lower body/limb and limb proportion indices does not constitute as self-explanatory proof to this knuckleheaded zombie.
quote:Lying dog, what you wrote ''just above'' makes a worthless retarded claim pertaining to bodyplans, and doesn't even begin to address the inconvenient bummer that Ibero-Maurusian limb ratios would have been no different in the scenario that they came out of Eurasia, given the similar or even higher limb ratios in comparative Late Upper Palaeolithic Eurasian fossils.
The clueless tranny fag you are, it's not surprising that you are stumped by information contained in your own quoted pieces; the late Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans tend to have "shortened" limbs, notwithstanding their still higher indices than recent Europeans. Whereas the Mesolithic Maghrebi feature long limb bones, as their femora sizes indicate. They have higher femora size than the Natufians, who too sported higher limb indices than recent Europeans. If they were from Europe, they would have the same pattern as the late Paleolithic Europeans, dickhead. But hey, don't worry: prove that they have the same limb patterns as Late paleolithic Europeans.
You are the only clown in this universe, who uses tropical body adaptation features of ancient specimens as evidence against an African origin. LOL
quote:]Lying dog, it has already been brought to your attention that tropical ratios in the case of Mesolithic Europeans weren't even determinative for absolute limb length, let alone body shape.
Body linearity is not "absolute limb length", idiot!
quote:This is just fake and empty accusing to make it seem like you have something to say. I was well aware enough of the definition to instantly call your invocation of ''linear in stature'' out for the crackpot mumbo jumbo that it is.
Which is why you were dumbfounded at the prospect of pgymies being "less linear" and implicated as outlier among the "sub-Saharan" bunch, and even more humorously and ironically, went onto use this as evidence of a lack a of tropical body plan for pygmies. Fucking klutz.
quote: Getting back on topic; specifically how does it work out for you that the Afalou are ''linear in stature'' (lol), when they cluster with ''less linear'' samples in fig 5?
You tell me, why the Afalou would be "less linear". What are the determinants here?
quote:How about fig 5, posted in the opening post of this thread, troll. Is your senile dumbass asleep or something? SMH.
The figure doesn't tell me jack about the body shape or proportions of the Afalou, fatass. You worship that figure obviously, no doubt for ideological purposes; I don't take it for granted. It's then your duty to share the specifics that you seem to think helps your "Afalou be some little lost Europeans".
quote:Aside from the fact that your rehashed lie that ''body shape cannot be determined without limb data'' is just another example in a long line of fabrications on your part (Bergman's rule can be established independently of Allen's rule), you're also pathetically deluding yourself into believing that your not so subtle switch from your initial ''limb proportion'' to ''limbs'' is going unnoticed.
Be my guest, bonehead: How does one get an idea of body shape, without its legs. Give me the scientific details of how this is achieved. I don't have to say "limb proportions", klutz; it's tacit. You don't even have the brains to get no-brainers.
quote:Dumbass troll, who has to be on crack to still not have realized by now that the Afalou sample is conforming to exactly what you're asking of me in fig 5 in the OP, have you ever bothered getting your neurone firing rate checked? You are slower than a sedated Sloth.
So, the Afalou is an example of a "cold-adapted" group with "tropical limb proportions"; according to what set of factors? Lay them out.
quote: Lying dumbass Sloth, I said that your attempt to use the said data as valid grounds to do what you did in that unfortunate moment of profound obtuseness, failed. Big difference. Other than that, how would fig 5 not qualify as a demonstration that the San have a tropically adapted bodyplan, troll?
Just having fun with the fact that your retarded ass called my reference to San limb proportion as "obsolete", all the while not having a lick of an idea as to what makes it so.
quote:No more evasive distractions; explain RIGHT NOW what crack-induced figment led you to conclude ''outliers'' were spoken of in Holiday's distinction between ''linear'' and ''less linear''?
You are hopeless fruitcake. Ask a kindergartener to help you learn what an outlier is. I've exhausted my efforts in trying.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
For example, a person's large bi-iliac breadth may simply be a reflection of their tall stature.
This reinforces that you a cluess tranny fag who cobbles together nonsense to appear artificially bright. Large bi-iliac breadth has no apparent relationship with tallness.
quote: If you scale such a tall person down to the size of smaller person with a more narrow bi-iliac breadth, they may be very similar.
A load of malarkey.
quote: This is the case with Pygmies, too. If you scale the 'typical' Mbuti's body up to 1.70m, you'd probably probably see more affinity with Mediterranean populations than with many Sub-Saharan Africans in their trunk related measurements.
Is this a piece of the crack you smoke in your pipe?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
TEST
linear =
a) longer
b) thinner
c) both longer and thinner
A Linear shape means having a body that's rectangular-like from front view, with relatively little laterally projecting curves combined with a less defined waistline, while a non-linear body shape is more like the stereotyped female coke bottle figure, which, as you know, does have more laterally prominent curves and thinner waists. Classical perceptions of typically male and female bodies are good at illustrating this difference. Compare:
It has nothing to do with stature, as has been claimed by the Explorer troll who is fabricating damn near everything he says.
To lionness "Test", I'd go for C as an approximate answer, which is what this transvestite moron above would do too, if there was a brain upstairs.
I take it, by the douchebag's comment, that the "less linear" pygmies must look like the "coca cola bottle" to the mofish idiot.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^Indeed Lioness. Its self-evident that Pygmies aren't smaller scaled down versions of the tropically adapted Sub-Saharan Africans in their vicinity. That the ''Explorer'' not just denies, but vehemently denies this very basic reality, is just another example in a long line of epic fails coming from a masquerading pathologically lying fraud with a sup par understanding of physical anthropology. On every occasion where his comprehension of very simple anthropological concepts had the chance to shine, he failed miserably, but yet somehow manages to delude himself into thinking that his see-through feigned disguise as an authority on the matter isn't completely blown.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: If you scale such a tall person down to the size of smaller person with a more narrow bi-iliac breadth, they may be very similar.
A load of malarkey.
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: This is the case with Pygmies, too. If you scale the 'typical' Mbuti's body up to 1.70m, you'd probably probably see more affinity with Mediterranean populations than with many Sub-Saharan Africans in their trunk related measurements.
Is this a piece of the crack you smoke in your pipe?
Note that this filthy masquerading dog will either lie about this glaring phuckup, or act as if his vehement disagreement isn't indicative of his virtually non-existent understanding of physical anthropology.
Will be back later.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
^Indeed Lioness. Its self-evident that Pygmies aren't smaller scaled down versions of the tropically adapted Sub-Saharan Africans in their vicinity.
"scaled down versions", LOL. The stupidest things the mentally crippled say.
What's next? Perhaps "elongating" the "cold adapted" Europeans, like a rubber band. Perhaps that will tell us something about their "actual affinities" that the world didn't now about.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You know, it may come as a surprise to you, being used to pathologically lying to everyone including yourself, but your opinion isn't worth a rat's ass in the real world, you know, where there is gravity, and other mechanic phenomena apply which are absent in ''Explorer's'' cuckoo dream world.
Talk is cheap, you filthy dog, disproving what I said is a whole 'nother matter, which you do not dare to burn your claws on (and you'll prove that with your next fluffy, low on substance post). That's exactly why the post above is full of unsubstantiated opinions, rather than sources that contradict what I've said. Troll!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I'm noticing a pattern here. The more filthy dog explorer gets thrashed the sh!t out of him, the more his posts start to make less sense, ranging from non-reply rants to deliberate distortions, to pathological lies, with little to no relevant content in them. In short: everything BUT actual refutations of what I said. Not that it matters; the thrashings are there for everyone to see, whether the lying dog starts waving a white flag or whether the filthy dog acts as if his nose doesn't bleed. So yes, the below still stands, pending actual refutations, of course:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The "less linear" body of the pygmies does not absolve them from a tropical body plan, dummy.
Of course it does; in your sick interpretation of Holiday, re: ''Pygmies are outliers''. Lying troll.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Nothing mentioned about the Afalou being an outlier or otherwise, fuckheaded gorilla; just your fat-ass' habit of chasing after the imaginery.
Of course your lying ass didn't; that was my entire point. Your inherently immoral lying ass nature prevents you from applying the same ''outlier'' status to the Afalou, that you did not hesitate to apply to the more tropically adapted Nubian and Pygmy sample.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: one cannot admit to a concept that wasn't denied [i.e. trunk being different from limbs], but that confused you, numbnut.
Lying troll, you're not responding to the catastrophic predicament you're in; re: the inherent contradiction in your admission that trunk height may totally contradict limb proportions, which was bizarrely followed by what can only be described as bewildered emotion-based opposition to the idea that bodyplan may display the same pattern in relationship to limb proportions, as seen in the Nubian, Pygmy and Afalou.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Secondly, the body plan factors in limb proportions
Another blatant lie, that I exposed as such earlier.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Analysis which must not be speaking merely to limb proportions or body plan respectively, as other cited reports indicate.
See this people? This is what a pathologically lying troll looks like. This fraud still has to audacity to claim that fig 5 in the opening posts doesn't depict the Afalou among cold adapted samples in bodyplan.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Europeans generally have lower limb ratios and/or limb/trunk ratios than either the Mesolithic Maghrebi or the UP Europeans.
Lying dog, neither of these evasive distractions prove what you initially claimed without a shred of evidence to back it up, re: '',it is both the Mesolithic Maghrebi and UP Europeans who would cluster with "Africans" before they did with Europeans in their average body plans''. Where is the evidence?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: In the post just above, it would appear this fact had not ever crossed your poor resolution radar.
Lying dog, what you wrote ''just above'' makes a worthless retarded claim pertaining to bodyplans, and doesn't even begin to address the inconvenient bummer that Ibero-Maurusian limb ratios would have been no different in the scenario that they came out of Eurasia, given the similar or even higher limb ratios in comparative Late Upper Palaeolithic Eurasian fossils.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: fuckhead, it is not a "proxy"; it is a determinant. Learn the difference.
Lying dog, it has already been brought to your attention that tropical ratios in the case of Mesolithic Europeans weren't even determinative for absolute limb length, let alone body shape. I'm highly appreciative of your very generous supply of evidence, to me and the forum, that you have no idea what the phuck you're talking about.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: it's working out just fine, given your post is just irrelevant shitheaded talk, which belies your charade of knowing what body linearity is.
This is just fake and empty accusing to make it seem like you have something to say. I was well aware enough of the definition to instantly call your invocation of ''linear in stature'' out for the crackpot mumbo jumbo that it is. Getting back on topic; specifically how does it work out for you that the Afalou are ''linear in stature'' (lol), when they cluster with ''less linear'' samples in fig 5?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: As for being "more tropically adapted than the Afalou sample", go ahead and tell away how that was specifically determined.
How about fig 5, posted in the opening post of this thread, troll. Is your senile dumbass asleep or something? SMH.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: not an iota about how body shape can be determined without consideration to limbs.
Aside from the fact that your rehashed lie that ''body shape cannot be determined without limb data'' is just another example in a long line of fabrications on your part (Bergman's rule can be established independently of Allen's rule), you're also pathetically deluding yourself into believing that your not so subtle switch from your initial ''limb proportion'' to ''limbs'' is going unnoticed. Bottom line, you were already schooled on the fact that Holiday's multi-variate analysis is not predicated on limb ratios. You ignored this part if my posts, yet still go on to perpetuate this fat ass lie, like the lying dog that you are.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: How does say, tropical limb proportions, not predict body plan. Have you come across "cold-adapted" body plans with tropical limb ratios or vice versa?
Dumbass troll, who has to be on crack to still not have realized by now that the Afalou sample is conforming to exactly what you're asking of me in fig 5 in the OP, have you ever bothered getting your neurone firing rate checked? You are slower than a sedated Sloth.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The so-called "attempt" cannot be deemed "failed", since it has neither been positively demonstrated that the San generally have a "tropical body plan"
Lying dumbass Sloth, I said that your attempt to use the said data as valid grounds to do what you did in that unfortunate moment of profound obtuseness, failed. Big difference. Other than that, how would fig 5 not qualify as a demonstration that the San have a tropically adapted bodyplan, troll?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You are the only idiot on this planet who can mistake people schooling you on a simple excerpt for lying.
No more evasive distractions; explain RIGHT NOW what crack-induced figment led you to conclude ''outliers'' were spoken of in Holiday's distinction between ''linear'' and ''less linear''?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Three more glaringly stupid claims led to the following investigations in your credibility, that you're running away from, ''Explorer''. You didn't think I wouldn't notice the fact that you chickened out of replying, did you?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I asked you a question, troll. No further stalling. What the hell is ''linear in stature''?
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: Now, to get back on topic, how is the description below fig 5 consistent with the idea that it's depicting population relationships in limb proportions?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I have already gone through Trenton's "Body proportions of the Jebel Sahaba sample", but subsequently lost the paper when my computer crashed earlier in the year.
Please inform us about this paper you're referring to. What are the full specifics of the paper? Publication date, journal, etc.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Whenever you start recycling your old posts over and over, one knows that it's over for you, knucklehead. Only an idiot will wave a white flag over uninformed silly posts.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Explorer's inescapable phuckups that he went at pains to sweep under the rug, causing me to no longer reply to the pathologically lying troll's last post:
--That Holiday's multi-variate analysis is based on limb proportions rather than measurements --That fig 5 somehow doesn't cluster the Afalou with cold adapted groups --That the Ibero-Maurusian remains cluster with Africans, in the same way that Upper Palaeolithic Europeans do --That it's a meaningful observation that the Ibero-Maurusian limb ratios are tropical, when most, if not all, Late Upper Palaeolithic Eurasian remains had tropical limb ratios --That the description of fig 5 is consistent with his bewildered speculation that it may be based on limb data --That the San population's mildly tropical limb proportions can be used to discredit fig 5 --That fig 5 is inconsistent with how Pygmies have clustered in the past in Holiday's work --That ''less linear'' is tantamount to ''outlier'' --That there is such a thing as ''PCA that does cluster analysis'' --That Bantu speakers are homogeneous in their nasal breadth averages --That there is such a thing is ''linear in stature'' --That stature adds to or has implications for the linearity of a population --Lying pathologically about having lost access to a holiday paper which, most likely, was never even published --That limb ratios predict bodyplan --That bodyplan cannot be determined without limb proportions --That Ohalo II is Natufian --That mesocephaly precludes Ohalo II from clustering with the Ibero-Maurusian remains --That Pygmies are simply scaled down versions of the other Africans populations in their vicinity --The list goes on and on
^And this is just a list of where his dumbass was exposed spouting fabrications and not knowing what he was talking about; it doesn't even include his countless lies and distortions. The filthy lying ass dog is just a masquerading monkey who is even oblivious to the very basics of physical anthropology. ''PCA that does cluster analysis''--The Explorer.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Go ahead and say it: you stopped replying, because your ass is feeling the heat. Even your attempts at insulting are super-retarded. I cannot be a dog and a monkey at the same time. LOL
It's very sad that you have to cobble together either words that you've put into my mouth, so you can then knock them down, or dumb ideas which earned you scolding, and are hence, only good for reminding readers of how totally stupid you are. Cobble together another stupid list, and make my day.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lying dog, as predicted, I still see no refutation of the fact that you phucked up when you fabricated the things I listed above:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Talk is cheap, you filthy dog, disproving what I said is a whole 'nother matter, which you do not dare to burn your claws on (and you'll prove that with your next fluffy, low on substance post).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I have just downloaded this new limb proportion study onto my laptop at UCSD. If anyone's interested in taking a look, PM me your e-mail so I can send it to you.
To give you a preview of the findings, here's a dendrogram showing similarities in limb proportions between the populations measured:
This is for Nodnarb or Swenet, you may have read the article behind the paywall, I didn't
I'm wondering what period the Nubia sample is from. It is best not to guess. I ask this because oddly Nubia is placed at the colder end of African positions, not close to Kerma. Secondly the Norse and Germans are at the warmer end of Europeans, that seems odd also. Although Southern Europeans are not accounted for they place the French at a lower index position. I'm wondering if any more detail on the sampling is in the article
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Said it several times. It's early Medieval in date. It's likely the same or a biologically closely related skeletal sample as the Christian Nubian sample used in Hanihara et al 2003, that, at times, clustered (non-metrically speaking) outside of the "North African" subcluster (comprising of Naqada, Giza and Kerma) and with Europeans.
Holiday doesn't identify this sample in his later papers, at least not the ones I have. When he speaks on the provenance of this Nubian sample and his other oft-used samples, he simply refers his readers back to his dissertation, which isn't readily available. So this is all that we know about it for now.
We also have Christian era aDNA to help put these results in a better context:
quote:In dedicated aDNA facilities at University College Dublin, we successfully sequenced several specimens from Kulubnarti, Sudanese Nubia dated to the Early Christian era (500-1400 AD). [...] Quality control analysis indicated authenticity of the DNA and principle component analysis based on single nucleotide polymorphisms placed the individual around Middle Eastern and Central/South Asian clusters.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I'm wondering if any more detail on the sampling is in the article
From Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample (Holliday 2013) Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^thanks, much
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote: As with the previous analysis, the North Africans are intermediate between the sub- Saharan Africans and the Europeans, whereas the Europeans tend toward longer tibiae than the Inuits.
--T. W. HOLLIDAY
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote: As with the previous analysis, the North Africans are intermediate between the sub- Saharan Africans and the Europeans, whereas the Europeans tend toward longer tibiae than the Inuits.
--T. W. HOLLIDAY
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence
Obviously this statement applies to modern North Africans not the Afalou, 12,000 years ago who appear on Figure 5.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ And are you saying that Holliday's Afalou sample represents all Oranians/Iberomarusians the same way his El Wad Natufian sample represents all Natufians??
You realize that crania from the Afalou bou Rummel site differ from the Mechta el Arbi in that the former have crania that are brachycephalic and orthognathous as well as cold adapted limb proportions. The same can be said of El Wad Natufians.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ And are you saying that Holliday's Afalou sample represents all Oranians/Iberomarusians the same way his El Wad Natufian sample represents all Natufians??
yes, it's a limb ratios study, Mechta-Afalou is a cold adapted robustly proportioned population as were the Taforalt Hg H carriers, more so than modern Europeans, clustering withartic peoples, clearly a refugia popualtion
Capsians that followed them were more gracile. I have since read the entire article
Modern Europeans and Natufuians, have limb ratios intermediate between Afalou/Inuit and Africans
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote: As with the previous analysis, the North Africans are intermediate between the sub- Saharan Africans and the Europeans, whereas the Europeans tend toward longer tibiae than the Inuits.
--T. W. HOLLIDAY
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence
Obviously this statement applies to modern North Africans not the Afalou, 12,000 years ago who appear on Figure 5.
How long does it take for a tibiae to adapt fully to its region?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ And are you saying that Holliday's Afalou sample represents all Oranians/Iberomarusians the same way his El Wad Natufian sample represents all Natufians??
yes, it's a limb ratios study, Mechta-Afalou is a cold adapted robustly proportioned population as were the Taforalt Hg H carriers, more so than modern Europeans, clustering withartic peoples, clearly a refugia popualtion
Capsians that followed them were more gracile. I have since read the entire article
Modern Europeans and Natufuians, have limb ratios intermediate between Afalou/Inuit and Africans
Libya and the Maghreb: If the archaeology of the Sahara’s southern margins remains relatively poorly understood, the Maghreb has long been the focus of sustained activity focused on the Pleistocene/Holocene transition (Lubell 2000, 2005). Here and at Haua Fteah in northeastern Libya, the Iberomaurusian industry introduced in Chapter 7 continued to be made into the terminal Pleistocene (McBurney 1967; Close and Wendorf 1990). Several unusual features are of interest, including evidence, rare at this time depth, for sculpture. This takes the form of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic ceramic figurines from Afalou, Algeria, baked from locally available clay to temperatures of 500◦–800◦C (Hachi 1996, Hachi et al. 2002). Dating 15–11 kya, they are complemented by an earlier fragmentary figurine from the nearby site of Tamar Hat (Saxon 1976). Distinctive, too, are the many burials known from these later Iberomaurusian contexts, including apparent cemeteries at Afalou (Hachi 1996) and Taforalt, Morocco (almost 200 individuals; Ferembach et al. 1962). Analysis of these remains (see inset) raises issues of territoriality, limited mobility, and group identity that economic data are still too few to explore further.
Knowing that people hunted Barbary sheep and other large mammals and that they collected molluscs, both terrestrial and marine, is very different from being able to develop this checklist of ingredients into a meaningful set of recipes or menus that could illuminate the details of Iberomaurusian subsistence-settlement strategies. WHAT BONES CAN TELL: BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE HUNTER-GATHERERS OF THE MAGHREB: The extremely large skeletal samples that come from sites such as Taforalt (Fig. 8.13) and Afalou constitute an invaluable resource for understanding the makers of Iberomaurusian artifacts, and their number is unparalleled elsewhere in Africa for the early Holocene. Frequently termed Mechta-Afalou or Mechtoid, these were a skeletally robust people and definitely African in origin, though attempts, such as those of Ferembach (1985), to establish similarities with much older and rarer Aterian skeletal remains are tenuous given the immense temporal separation between the two (Close and Wendorf 1990). At the opposite end of the chronological spectrum, dental morphology does suggest connections with later Africans, including those responsible for the Capsian Industry (Irish 2000) and early mid-Holocene human remains from the western half of the Sahara (Dutour 1989), something that points to the Maghreb as one of the regions from which people recolonised the desert (MacDonald 1998).
Turning to what can be learned about cultural practices and disease, the individuals from Taforalt, the largest sample by far, display little evidence of trauma, though they do suggest a high incidence of infant mortality, with evidence for dental caries, arthritis, and rheumatism among other degenerative conditions. Interestingly, Taforalt also provides one of the oldest known instances of the practice of trepanation, the surgical removal of a portion of the cranium; the patient evidently survived for some time, as there are signs of bone regrowth in the affected area. Another form of body modification was much more widespread and, indeed, a distinctive feature of the Iberomaurusian skeletal sample as a whole. This was the practice of removing two or more of the upper incisors, usually around puberty and from both males and females, something that probably served as both a rite of passage and an ethnic marker (Close and Wendorf 1990), just as it does in parts of sub-Saharan Africa today (e.g., van Reenen 1987). Cranial and postcranial malformations are also apparent and may indicate pronounced endogamy at a much more localised level (Hadjouis 2002), perhaps supported by the degree of variability between different site samples noted by Irish (2000).
--Lawrence Barham The First Africans: African Archaeology from the Earliest Toolmakers to Most Recent Foragers (Cambridge World Archaeology) Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And are you saying that Holliday's Afalou sample represents all Oranians/Iberomarusians the same way his El Wad Natufian sample represents all Natufians??
You realize that crania from the Afalou bou Rummel site differ from the Mechta el Arbi in that the former have crania that are brachycephalic and orthognathous as well as cold adapted limb proportions. The same can be said of El Wad Natufians.
About the same quote, in its entirety, plus the El Wad Natufians.
quote: Three Jebel Sahaba individuals (117-19, 117-22 and 117-39) fall below the recent sub-Saharan African OLS line, but all the Jebel Sahaba sample fall above the recent North African OLS line.
Note that the Afalou specimens (the grey circles) all fall below the recent sub-Saharan African OLS line, with one individual (no. 28) falling below the recent European regression line and directly on the circumpolar line. Ain Dokhara 1 (the black circle), an early Holocene, Capsian-associated skeleton from Algeria (Balout 1955b), falls just above the recent sub-Saharan African OLS line. All five of the Natufian individuals from El Wad, Israel (the open squares), fall below the recent North African OLS line, and three of the five fall below the recent European regression line.
A similar, if less marked, clinal pattern is evident in the scatter plot of tibial length on femoral head size (Figure 2). Once again, the recent humans show a clinal pattern, with sub-Saharan Africans on average having the longest tibiae and circumpolar individuals possessing the shortest. As with the previous analysis, the North Africans are intermediate between the sub- Saharan Africans and the Europeans, whereas the Europeans tend toward longer tibiae than the Inuits. As a group, the Jebel Sahaba sample (the stars) tend to have longer tibiae for any given femoral head size than do the other fossil groups. Four of the eight Jebel Sahaba individuals (117-1, 117-6, 117-10 and 117-26) fall above the recent sub-Saharan African OLS line, with a fifth individual (117-19) falling directly on it. Three Jebel Sahaba individuals (117-18, 117-28 and 117-39) fall below the sub-Saharan OLS line. Of these, 117-28 lies above the recent North African OLS line, 117-39 falls directly on it and 117-18 falls just below it. In contrast, none of the Afalou skeletons (the grey circles) falls above the sub-Saharan African line; rather, they tend to cluster about the North African and European lines. Afalou 28 actually falls below the recent circumpolar human regression line for the tibial length: femoral head size relationship. Ain Dokhara 1 (the black circle) falls just above the North African and just below the sub-Saharan African OLS lines.
The El Wad Natufians (the open squares) all cluster on or below the European regression line. Multivariate analyses begin with PCA based on the variance–covariance matrix (VCM) of a data set that includes the natural logarithms of all the measurements listed in the Materials and methods: femoral head A-P diameter and femoral, humeral, tibial and radial lengths (and shape variables were calculated from these mea- surements as described in the Materials and methods). The reduction in total variance (i.e. the sum of all ei- genvalues) from the VCM of the log-transformed mea- surements to that of the log shape measurements indicate that ~18.5% of the total variance is attribut- able to shape. The results of the PCA of the log shape variables are presented in Table 4. Combined, the first and second principal components account for 84.9% of the total shape variance. The first principal component accounts for 72.3% of the variance and primarily con- trasts femoral head size with tibial and radial length. The second principal component accounts for 12.6% of the variance and contrasts radius length with femoral length. These differences are best seen visually in Figure 3, which is a plot of the PC scores for the indi- vidual fossil specimens and male and female means for the recent human samples. The scores along the first principal axis contrast those individuals and sample means on the left, who tend to have smaller femoral heads and longer radial and tibial lengths, with those individuals and sample means on the right, who tend to have larger femoral heads and shorter tibial and radial lengths. [b]This principal axis is best interpreted as a climatic adaptation gradient, with those individuals on the left evincing a heat-adapted postcranial morphology, whereas those on the right evince a more cold-adapted morphology. The second principal component does not distinguish the groups from each other. All of the Jebel Sahaba specimens lie at the heat-adapted end of the spectrum, and all but one individual 2 1 0 -1 JS 10 Africa El Wad 10290 Europe JS 19 JS 39 Circumpolar Afalou 28 (117-26, who is perhaps ‘extreme’ in its heat adap- tation) fall within the scatter of recent African means. Although not shown on the plot, the re- cent North African sample falls almost completely within the right side of the recent sub-Saharan Af- rican scatter, with one Jebel Sahaba specimen (117-39) falling within the range of both the re- cent North and sub-Saharan African sample means, a second (117-19) falling just outside the range of the North African sample means (but also within the range of the sub-Saharan Africans), whereas a third individual (117-10) falls outside of the North African range and just within the sub-Saharan Afri- can range. The Ain Dokhara specimen also falls within the scatter of recent African means. In contrast, none of the Afalou specimens, nor of the El Wad Natufian specimens, falls within the African scatter, and all lie to- ward the more cold-adapted end of the scatter. As was the case with the bivariate analyses, among the prehis- toric skeletons, Afalou 28 looks the most extreme in its cold-adapted morphology, and note that this specimen was recovered some 2 m below the other human remains at the site (see succeeding discussions)...
--T. W. HOLLIDAY
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
PS, ^
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And are you saying that Holliday's Afalou sample represents all Oranians/Iberomarusians the same way his El Wad Natufian sample represents all Natufians??
You realize that crania from the Afalou bou Rummel site differ from the Mechta el Arbi in that the former have crania that are brachycephalic and orthognathous as well as cold adapted limb proportions. The same can be said of El Wad Natufians.
quote: African groups tend to cluster together on the right side of the plot, whereas recent Europeans and circumpolar groups tend to cluster together on the left. Note that the Jebel Sahaba sample shares extremely close phenetic affinity with the recent West Africans, then is connected by two relatively short branches to the Sudanese from the site of Kerma and the East Africans, respectively. The Sudanese are then connected via one medium-length branch to the Egyptians and by a much longer branch to San. The Egyptians are connected via a short branch to recent African-Americans, who are then connected by one short branch to the recent Nubians and a second, much longer, branch to the African ‘Pygmies’. The Pygmies themselves are connected via a short branch to the single Ain Dokhara individual. Among the higher latitude groups, the Germans are tied to the exclusively African cluster described earlier via a medium-length branch to the Nubian sample. Finally, the remainder of the European and circumpolar groups cluster together on the left- hand side of the plot, with the Afalou skeletons and El Wad Natufians clustering among them.
The NJ tree based on the five postcranial shape variables is displayed in Figure 5. The tree has two major branches, one with recent Africans and the second a combined recent European/circumpolar branch. Among the African groups, the Christian-era Nubians are an outlier to the remainder of the African groups, followed by the Pygmies and the Ain Dokhara individual. On the NJ tree, the Jebel Sahaba sample shares close phenetic affinity with recent East Africans, followed by the West Africans and Sudanese. They then sequentially join the San, Egyptians and African-Americans. On the tree’s other major branch, that is, among the recent European/circumpolar groups, the Germans are the outgroup, followed by the Norse and then the El Wad Natufians. Interestingly, the three circumpolar samples cluster together (albeit on long branches), and the fossils from Afalou are an outgroup to these circumpolar people.
--T. W. HOLLIDAY
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: yes, it's a limb ratios study, Mechta-Afalou is a cold adapted robustly proportioned population as were the Taforalt Hg H carriers, more so than modern Europeans, clustering withartic peoples, clearly a refugia popualtion
Capsians that followed them were more gracile. I have since read the entire article
Modern Europeans and Natufuians, have limb ratios intermediate between Afalou/Inuit and Africans
Apparently the point I raised went over your head as usual. Exactly how well does Afalou bou Rummel represent all Oranians or El Wad all Natufians when both populations were heterogeneous. This is why Afalou samples differed from Mechta samples in that they had skulls that displayed brachycephally and more orthognathous. The typical Mechta skulls are dolichocephalic and prognathous along with other African traits. The same can be said about Natufians. Again, can you show that the Mechta el Arbi peoples displayed cold-adaption post-cranially?? What about Natufians from other sites in the Levant?
Holliday's study is based on certain samples. How can you say that the Afalou bou Rummel sample represents ALL Mechta-Afalou peoples??
Also do you have evidence that the Mechta el Arbi carried mitochondrial hg H?? I don't doubt the possibility, we know how you just make claims without any substantiation.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^ politically correct rhetoric.
I made a statement about Afalou backed by a scientfic article They were a population at extreme opposite in limb ratio to Africans. They lived in North Africa for about 10,000 years. There are numerous other articles and book chapters I am not going to entertain to politically correct rhetorical questions at this point
It is time for you to post data and references ( I said Djehuti not you Ish)
data refuting that there was a settlement of people with cold adapted proportions living for thousands of years in prehistoric North Africa and another similar population at Taforalt that carried haplogroup H the most common mtDNA haplogroup of both modern Europeans and berbers
_______________________
You tried to make it seem like it was an "influence" , that the Afalou were basically Africans and a three Eurasians showed up one day and mingled in
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
There is a misconception that, because the Afalou and Taforalt samples were cold adapted overall, they necessarily must have had cold adapted limbs,
Remember what I said in 2013
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: yet it icould be consistent with the Brenna Henn back migration hypothesis, the reason for the cold adapted limb ratios and also brachycephalism of some of the Afalou ( as well as Achilli 2005 finding common U5 hgs between Lapps (Saami) and berber)
Agree, but it should be noted that the Ibero-Maurusians are likely not cold-adapted in their limbs. Mesolithic European and East Asians fossils also have relatively high limb proportions. In fact, Mesolithic Europeans have much higher crural and brachial indices than Ibero-Maurusians. Their crural and brachial index are at 85.5% and 77.5 respectively per Holiday 1997. Its simply a pleisiomorphic trait from their Upper Palaeolithic ancestors, and ultimate from Africans. What you want to look at is their bodyplan in its entirety or their absolute limb length, both of which are unlikely to retain a plesiomorphic state for as long as limb proportions.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There is a misconception that, because the Afalou and Taforalt samples were cold adapted overall, they necessarily must have had cold adapted limbs,
There is not a misconception because the Afalou sample does have cold adapted limbs
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
In fig 1 and 2 of the Holliday 2013 paper, the Afalou sample has long radial bones and tibiae that cluster with the Jebel Sahaba sample (in terms of their length).
Explanation?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I recall you explaining this several times before not just in this thread.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^ politically correct rhetoric.
I made a statement about Afalou backed by a scientfic article They were a population at extreme opposite in limb ratio to Africans. They lived in North Africa for about 10,000 years. There are numerous other articles and book chapters I am not going to entertain to politically correct rhetorical questions at this point
It is time for you to post data and references ( I said Djehuti not you Ish)
data refuting that there was a settlement of people with cold adapted proportions living for thousands of years in prehistoric North Africa and another similar population at Taforalt that carried haplogroup H the most common mtDNA haplogroup of both modern Europeans and berbers
_______________________
You tried to make it seem like it was an "influence" , that the Afalou were basically Africans and a three Eurasians showed up one day and mingled in
LOL @ "politically correct". I don't know what politics has anything to do with it however you like xyz just make conjectures you think is based on scientific papers.
What I know about about Mechta-Afalou limb data comes from material cited in this forum. Before that, all studies I've read simply say Afalou crania resemble European Cromagnon except with more pronounced African features. Metrically overall the Mechta-Afalou show an intermediate position between Africa and Europe.
I'd rather take Swenet's intereptations and overall word than yours. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In fig 1 and 2 of the Holliday 2013 paper, the Afalou sample has long radial bones and tibiae that cluster with the Jebel Sahaba sample (in terms of their length).
Explanation?
Five postcranial measurements are included in the analysis: ______________
femoral antero-posterior head diameter (M-19; FHAP),
femoral bicondylar length (M-2; FL),
tibial maximum length (M-1; TL),
humeral maximum length (M-1; HL) and
radius maximum length (M-1; RL).
_____________
figure 1 and 2, charts in the article are femoral antero-posterior head diameter Figure 2 is tibial length regressed on femoral diameter
A ratio of limb proportions is calculated by dividing the forelimb length (humerus length + radius length) by the length of the hindlimb (femur length + tibia length).
The NJ tree based on the five postcranial shape variables is displayed in Figure 5
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Truthcentric: [qb] I have just downloaded this new limb proportion study onto my laptop at UCSD. If anyone's interested in taking a look, PM me your e-mail so I can send it to you.
To give you a preview of the findings, here's a dendrogram showing similarities in limb proportions between the populations measured:
The Nubian sample is of Christian Nubia. The fact that they are not in close proximity to East Africa/Kerma Sudan suggest Roman admixture. Between the Roman Empire and Nubia there was a relationship and interaction that lasted nearly seven centuries, from the first century BC to the sixth century AD.
Ba statue of the Viceroy Maloton, from Karanog, the Romano-Nubian cemetery Nubia, Meriotic Period, sandstone African, located in the Egyptian National Museum, Cairo, Bridgeman Images/Alinari Archives
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: figure 1 and 2, charts in the article are femoral antero-posterior head diameter Figure 2 is tibial length regressed on femoral diameter
Leaving out the horizontal axes of fig 1 and 2 for a moment (which plot femoral head diameter, which is a measure of how stocky the upper body of that individual is), we can focus on the vertical axes of fig 1 and 2 and see that they respectively plot lower arm and shin bone length. That's what we're interested in for now: the vertical axes of fig 1 and 2.
You're right that they're just linear measurements and not limb ratios, but still, you cannot ignore that their distal limb lengths are mostly in the same range as the Jebel Sahaba sample. Only a minority of European and Circumpolar samples plot there.
While you're at it, see how Djehuti's comment about Natufian limb ratio heterogeneity is evident in fig 1 and 2. While this specific Natufian sample is distant from Africans in their overall bodyplan, we can see in fig 1 and 2 that some of the Natufians' distal limbs approach North Africans. Especially their radial bone lengths show this heterogeneity.
Also: these Natufian and Afalou samples have an overall cold adapted bodyplan, but for different reasons. The Natufian sample has on average shorter limbs but not so stocky builds (i.e. smaller femoral heads). The Afalou sample has longer limbs but very stocky builds (i.e. large femoral heads). Most of the Jebel Sahaba sample, on the other hand, lacks cold adaptation in BOTH variables; they tend to plot in the upper left corner of fig 1 and 2 where we see individuals with very linear builds and long limbs.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: figure 1 and 2, charts in the article are femoral antero-posterior head diameter Figure 2 is tibial length regressed on femoral diameter
Leaving out the horizontal axes of fig 1 and 2 for a moment (which plot femoral head diameter, which is a measure of how stocky the upper body of that individual is), we can focus on the vertical axes of fig 1 and 2 and see that they respectively plot lower arm and shin bone length. That's what we're interested in for now: the vertical axes of fig 1 and 2.
You're right that they're just linear measurements and not limb ratios, but still, you cannot ignore that their distal limb lengths are mostly in the same range as the Jebel Sahaba sample. Only a minority of European and Circumpolar samples plot there.
While you're at it, see how Djehuti's comment about Natufian limb ratio heterogeneity is evident in fig 1 and 2. While this specific Natufian sample is distant from Africans in their overall bodyplan, we can see in fig 1 and 2 that some of the Natufians' distal limbs approach North Africans. Especially their radial bone lengths show this heterogeneity.
Also: these Natufian and Afalou samples have an overall cold adapted bodyplan, but for different reasons. The Natufian sample has on average shorter limbs but not so stocky builds (i.e. smaller femoral heads). The Afalou sample has longer limbs but very stocky builds (i.e. large femoral heads). Most of the Jebel Sahaba sample, on the other hand, lacks cold adaptation in BOTH variables; they tend to plot in the upper left corner of fig 1 and 2 where we see individuals with very linear builds and long limbs.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Metrically overall the Mechta-Afalou show an intermediate position between Africa and Europe.
I'd rather take Swenet's intereptations and overall word than yours.
Swenet is that your interpretation that metrically overall the Mechta-Afalou show an intermediate position between Africa and Europe?
Or do you think Mechta-Afalou were more cold adapted than Europeans and cluster with Arctic people?
overall
yes or no, if you don't mind
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: Mechta-Afalou is a so-called physical type. It's not the same thing as the Afalou sample. Therefore, your position (mostly Eurasian, and overall cold-adapted Afalou) and his position (African influences in Mechta-Afalou samples) are not in contradiction. You already know what you both think about the Afalou sample. You haven't discussed the remaining Mechta-Afalou samples.
I myself subscribe to both points. Although I still stand by my older point from 2013 that African-like influences among Mechta-Afalou samples don't all have to be recent African influences. This is because all OOA populations had African-like metric features for obvious reasons. Some can be recent African influences, some can be plesiomorphic traits inherited from OOA people.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Short answer: yes.
If the Afalou, as per all 5 variables cluster with Arctic peoples as we see in figure 5 and the closely related Taforalt remains carried haplogroup H and U
were they indigenous Africans or had they originally come from outside of Africa?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: I now think E-V257 (which contains M81) has an old (around the time of the LGM) presence in [the Maghreb]. I adopted this view based on certain clues in Trombetta et al 2015 and how this fits with other data.
And
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: Another slight alteration is that I now make a distinction between the widely studied Taforalt and Afalou samples vs their ancestors in the region. I still think these specific Taforalt and Afalou samples have a lot of Eurasian ancestry. But I also think their ancestors [in the Maghreb] had that to a lesser degree, being more associated with E-V257, L3k, etc (as opposed to mtDNA H1, H3, V, U5, etc).
And:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: E-V257 has all the right features of being old in the Maghreb, as opposed to having just an early/mid holocene presence [in the Maghreb]
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
individuals in their samples who were E-V257, but not E-M81. A Borana from Kenya, a Marrakesh Berber, a Corsican, a Sardinian, a southern Spaniard and a Cantabrian. As mentioned above, Trombetta et al. 2011 propose that the absence of E-V257* in the Middle East makes a maritime movement from northern Africa to southern Europe the most plausible hypothesis so far to explain its distribution.
___________________
E-V257 is newly discovered and barely known about
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: If the Afalou, as per all 5 variables cluster with Arctic peoples as we see in figure 5 and the closely related Taforalt remains carried haplogroup H and U
BTW, sometimes when you're given longer answers, it's for a reason. What you may think of as long-winded and unnecessary to the point at hand can help you understand a larger picture that is needed to understand a smaller question.
For instance, if you heeded the larger picture explained here and here, you would have known that H and U carrying Eurasians and Iberomaurusians did not necessarily have the same pattern of cold adaptation. So, just because there is an overall cold adaptation among the Taforalt and Afalou, it doesn't mean that ALL of it can be explained by H and U carrying Eurasians.
Admixture with Mesolithic Europeans might increase limb ratios (more 'African'), while increasing pelvic bone width (less 'African'). If Mesolithic Europeans were less stocky than Afalou and Taforalt, admixture could also decrease femoral head diameter (more 'African'). This is why when we're discussing populations who have retained OOA phenotypes, it's important to just focus on the fact that the overall pattern is cold adapted, as opposed to focusing on isolated variables.
Nazlet Khater has a brachial index of 76. That's not high, but also not low. But it's lower than the brachial index of the general Mesolithic European sample. A literal interpretation of this would lead to the clumsy conclusion that Mesolithic Europeans are more African than Nazlet.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
were the Iberomaurusians indigenous to North Africa?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Are you trolling?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Another slight alteration is that I now make a distinction between the widely studied Taforalt and Afalou samples vs their ancestors in the region. I still think these specific Taforalt and Afalou samples have a lot of Eurasian ancestry. But I also think their ancestors [in the Maghreb] had that to a lesser degree, being more associated with E-V257, L3k, etc (as opposed to mtDNA H1, H3, V, U5, etc).
So you know that there was opportunity for a degree of local cold adaptation in Iberomaurusian sites. I don't see why any of this should confuse you, unless you're trolling. So please explain what is so confusing that you have to ask the same question multiple times..?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: were the Iberomaurusians indigenous to North Africa?
It's a simple and basic question. Is the foundation population of Iberomaurusians indigenous to Africa?
If you are unsure say so
Their morphology is highly different from other African populations and I have read this in book after book, article after article. and the question is , why is it different, not how which you keep harping on
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Short answer: yes.
Long answer: Mechta-Afalou is a so-called physical type. It's not the same thing as the Afalou sample. Therefore, your position (mostly Eurasian, and overall cold-adapted Afalou) and his position (African influences in Mechta-Afalou samples) are not in contradiction. You already know what you both think about the Afalou sample. You haven't discussed the remaining Mechta-Afalou samples.
I myself subscribe to both points. Although I still stand by my older point from 2013 that African-like influences among Mechta-Afalou samples don't *all* have to be recent African influences. This is because all OOA populations had African-like metric features for obvious reasons. Some can be recent African influences, some can be plesiomorphic traits inherited from OOA people.
^ The above is a perfectly concise and succinct answer, yet Lioness goes on with more questions.
Either she is dumb or she is simply trolling. Perhaps both. LMAO
It seems she still doesn't understand the difference between the Afalou sample i.e. Afalou bou Rummel and the overall Mechta-Afalou population. LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Nubian sample is of Christian Nubia. The fact that they are not in close proximity to East Africa/Kerma Sudan suggest Roman admixture. Between the Roman Empire and Nubia there was a relationship and interaction that lasted nearly seven centuries, from the first century BC to the sixth century AD.
Ba statue of the Viceroy Maloton, from Karanog, the Romano-Nubian cemetery Nubia, Meriotic Period, sandstone African, located in the Egyptian National Museum, Cairo, Bridgeman Images/Alinari Archives
There you go again throwing out conjectures without any substantiation. Can you prove that this distance from Kerman samples is due to Eurasian admixture let alone "Roman admixture"?? You realize that there were three Christian kingdoms in Nubia-- Nobatia, Makuria, and Alodia. All three were founded by nomadic groups from the West who were totally different peoples from the Kermans/Meroites. So are you saying these Saharan groups were Roman-mixed?? LOL Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
So are you saying these Saharan groups were Roman-mixed?? LOL
of course, they intermarried with Romans
how long will you perpetuate the idea that foreigners have never set foot in North Africa?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
In my book, being mostly of African extraction makes you indigenous.
And even if they weren't mostly African, if they remained ideologically and culturally the same despite admixture, there is still a continuity there that you can hardly call 'non indigenous'. There was no population replacement by colonists. That's the point. South African Boers and other 'Rhodesian' colonists are examples of non-indigenous populations.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] In my book, being mostly of African extraction makes you indigenous.
So the Iberomaurusian were mostly African rather than mostly a population that came from outside of Africa?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
So are you saying these Saharan groups were Roman-mixed?? LOL
of course, they intermarried with Romans
how long will you perpetuate the idea that foreigners have never set foot in North Africa?
Strawman argument. I never said that foreigners never set foot in Africa let alone never intermarry or mingle with the natives.
I merely said prove that the skeletal sample was that of someone with Roman ancestry.
Funny how you love to demand evidence for others claims but never yield anything for your own claims. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] The Nubian sample is of Christian Nubia. The fact that they are not in close proximity to East Africa/Kerma Sudan suggest Roman admixture. Between the Roman Empire and Nubia there was a relationship and interaction that lasted nearly seven centuries, from the first century BC to the sixth century AD.
Refer to what I said I said their position on the chart suggests Roman admixture, "suggests" does not mean "proves"
Again, you try to hard
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So the Iberomaurusian were mostly African rather than mostly a population that came from outside of Africa?
Well how else do you explain why there are just as many differences between them and Eurasians as there are between them and Africans if not more so phenotypically, and better yet why the very Iberomaurusian culture shows affinities with other African cultures than anything in Europe i.e. back-bladelets and rituals of incisor avulsion??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Refer to what I said I said their position on the chart suggests Roman admixture, "suggests" does not mean "proves"
Again, you try to hard
But why suggest anything at all unless the evidence itself suggests it. Being a Christian Nubian sample does not mean Roman admixture.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Refer to what I said I said their position on the chart suggests Roman admixture, "suggests" does not mean "proves"
Again, you try to hard
But why suggest anything at all unless the evidence itself suggests it.
Because I have studied the topic in books and know that Nubians intermarried with Romans
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL @ you "studying the topic in books". Then who did the Germans intermarry with for them to be distant from Bohemians?? By the way, the Romans were never able to conquer Rome the way they did Egypt so while there was obviously a Roman presence in Nubia which I never denied, how significant was it, according to you?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In my book, being mostly of African extraction makes you indigenous.
So the Iberomaurusian were mostly African rather than mostly a population that came from outside of Africa?
The first Iberomaurusians were a subset of eastern Saharan variations 25ky ago. Yet, when we find the Afalou and Taforalt samples 10ky later they fit more easily with UP Europeans.
Eastern Saharan Wadi Kubbaniya easier to distinguish from UP Europeans, generally 'preferring' older, regional, 'North African' AMHs over UP Europeans and UP Levantines:
quote:Procrustes distance tree further shows Irhoud 1, DS5, the two Qafzeh specimens, and Wadi Kubbaniya clustering together in one of the two modern human branches [...]
Later Iberomaurusians, on the other hand, harder to distinguish from UP Europeans:
quote:The Iberomaurusian specimens, on the other hand, are in both cases placed with the recent human groups and close to the Upper Paleolithic Europeans.
Origins of the Iberomaurusian in NW Africa: New AMS radiocarbon dating of the Middle and Later Stone Age deposits at Taforalt Cave, Morocco R.N.E. Barton a,
Discussion The AMS record of 54 dates for Taforalt provides the largest coherent set of radiocarbon determinations yet available for this period in the Maghreb and is an important baseline for under- standing the development of this LSA technology and its relation- ship with stratigraphically older industries here and across North Africa. The unmodelled ages indicate a timespan of at least 9000 calendar years for Iberomaurusian occupation, beginning abruptly and with no obvious antecedents at 22,093e21,420 Cal BP (the earliest Sector 9 sample at two s) and ending in this cave (Sector 8) at 12,698e12,548 Cal BP (at two s), though younger ages at other sites indicate a prolonged existence in the region (Bouzouggar et al., 2008; Linstädter et al., 2012).
According to published studies, the earliest conventional radiocarbon ages for the Iberomaurusian come from Grotte des Pigeons (Taforalt), Morocco and Tamar Hat in Algeria. At Taforalt, Roche (1976) recorded two very early ages from ‘terre charbonneuse’ (charcoal- rich sediments) of 21,900 ` 400 BP (Gif-2587) and 21,100 ` 400 BP (Gif-2586). But, for reasons that will be discussed below, both of these are now regarded as highly doubtful. Elsewhere in the Maghreb, the oldest radiocarbon date recorded for the Iber- omaurusian is (MC-822) 20,600 ` 500 BP from Layer 84/5 at Tamar Hat (Saxon et al., 1974).
Outside the Maghreb, the best dating for the oldest Iberomaurusian still comes from the Haua Fteah in Cyrenaica, where layers excavated by McBurney can be shown to be no older than two radiocarbon dates of 16,070 ` 100 BP (GrN-2586) and 18,620 ` 150 BP (GrN-2585) (Close, 1986). Nonetheless the dating was again based on bulked charcoal samples and therefore susceptible to similar doubts over reliability.
____________________________
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
The first Iberomaurusians were a subset of eastern Saharan variations 25ky ago....
Afalou and Taforalt samples 10ky later they fit more easily with UP Europeans.
Does " Saharan variations " mean a population that did not come from outside of Africa?
If not Taforalt, Grotte des Pigeons what particular site remains are you talking about?
If an older population in that region was gracile and a later one is cold adapted. that is two different populations, one would be African the other not African. That would be replacement not continuity The older population is Aterian preceded by Mousterian
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Outside the Maghreb, the best dating for the oldest Iberomaurusian still comes from the Haua Fteah in Cyrenaica, where layers excavated by McBurney can be shown to be no older than two radiocarbon dates of 16,070 ` 100 BP (GrN-2586) and 18,620 ` 150 BP (GrN-2585) (Close, 1986).
Your google session came up short because you don't know the right keywords. Try to learn about a subject before jumping in discussions using google as your lifeline. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL She should take a cue from her boss Mathilda who at least is knowledgeable in pertinent info before making conjectures.
Hey Lioness, answer my question: Who did the Germans intermarry for them to be distant from next-door Bohemmians??
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Outside the Maghreb, the best dating for the oldest Iberomaurusian still comes from the Haua Fteah in Cyrenaica, where layers excavated by McBurney can be shown to be no older than two radiocarbon dates of 16,070 ` 100 BP (GrN-2586) and 18,620 ` 150 BP (GrN-2585) (Close, 1986).
Your google session came up short because you don't know the right keywords. Try to learn about a subject before jumping in discussions using google as your lifeline.
That is a quote from a relatively recent 2013 peer reviewed article on the origin of the Iberomaurusian
It was not written by google.
Face the information not search engines
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I'm not going to continue this with you here. I have a blogpost scheduled for this which I will publish in the near future. But you have no point. That's all you need to know.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL Why not? Don't you want to have some fun with Mathilda's girl??
Hey Lioness..
In the above dendogram Germans are distant from Bohemians as well so who did they mix with for them to branch that far away from next-door neighbors according to your mixed-up logic??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I'm still waiting for an answer to the above question, lioness.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
That moment of cricket chirps when you know she's not responding because she doesn't have answers. That's when you know she knows you hit a softspot.
Don't let her off the hook on this one, DJ. Lol.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ Oh believe me I won't let that twit go!
quote: Hey Lioness
In the above dendogram Germans are distant from Bohemians as well so who did they mix with for them to branch that far away from next-door Bohemians??
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The question assumes Germans had to mix with someone to become distant from the Bohemians, but among the higher latitude groups in the study the Germans are tied to the exclusively African cluster by a medium length branch to the Nubian sample. So if mixture explains all variation as you theorize, the question would be why did the Bohemians mix with not the Germans.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^
LMAO
Hey twit, "mixture explains all variation" as I theorize??!! It was YOU who assumed the Christian Nubians had to be "Roman admixed" to be as distant as they are from Kermans!! So when Germans are distant from Bohemians it is due to inherent variation but when Christian Nubians are distant from Kermans it is due to European admixture! Your double-think as well as your projection are all too embarassing! Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
So when Germans are distant from Bohemians it is due to inherent variation but when Christian Nubians are distant from Kermans it is due to European admixture!
Why do you assume when Germans are distant from Bohemians it is due to inherent variation?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I am not assuming anything unlike YOU! I merely asked you why YOU think Christian Nubians position in the dendogram is due to admixture while you don't assume the same for Germans? Come now Lioness, if you're digging yourself a hole don't you dare drag me in with you!
Mathilda needs to fire your ass as you are not at all a good agent.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I am not assuming anything unlike YOU! I merely asked you why YOU think Christian Nubians position in the dendogram is due to admixture while you don't assume the same for Germans? Come now Lioness, if you're digging yourself a hole don't you dare drag me in with you!
Mathilda needs to fire your ass as you are not at all a good agent.
I never said anything about Germans when you asked that. So that is a straw man argument. You mentioned Bohemians. I haven't studied Bohemians so I don't know about their background and relation to Germans.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The Nubians here may not even be Africans, Nubians by nationality perhaps of European or Near Eastern descent. Southern Europeans are not included in the sample
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL Again, you make such presumptions without any basis. Instead of assuming such a distance from Kerma is the result of inherent diversity you assume it is due to admixture with non-Africans or even complete non-Africans. Again Christian Nubians are descended from recent immigrants from the Western Deserts NOT Rome or the Mediterranean!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I never said anything about Germans when you asked that. So that is a straw man argument. You mentioned Bohemians. I haven't studied Bohemians so I don't know about their background and relation to Germans.
Bohemia is the old name for the country that is now the Czech Republic. It is right next to Germany. Yet Germans in the same dendogram are also just as distant from next-door Bohemians. So why don't you assume their distance is due to admixture with say Africans??
Of course you don't because you are Eurocentric hypocrite. Take your sorry ass back to Mathilda.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Again for the extremely thick. The Christian Nubian sample here may not be of Africans at all, it may be Southern Europeans or West Asians who were there in Nubia
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ And again for the exremely brain-dead, that is your presumption based on what?? By your same logic the German sample may not be actual Germans but African migrants living in Germany!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^
LMAO
Hey twit, "mixture explains all variation" as I theorize??!! It was YOU who assumed the Christian Nubians had to be "Roman admixed" to be as distant as they are from Kermans!! So when Germans are distant from Bohemians it is due to inherent variation but when Christian Nubians are distant from Kermans it is due to European admixture! Your double-think as well as your projection are all too embarassing!
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And again for the exremely brain-dead, that is your presumption based on what?? By your same logic the German sample may not be actual Germans but African migrants living in Germany!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:“Pleistocene through to the Christian periods, reveals a break in population continuity between the Pleistocene (Jebel Sahaba) and the Final Neolithic (Gebel Ramlah, dating to the first half of the fifth millennium BC) samples. The dental traits from Jebel Sahaba align more closely with modern sub-Saharan populations, while Gebel Ramlah and later align closer to Egypt specifically and to the Sahara in general.”
Irish’s results are particularly informative in light of his earlier study of the human mortuary remains from Nabta Playa (Irish, 2001). Analyses of dental and osseous non-metric traits exhibit both sub-Saharan and North African linkages, with cranial morphologies yielding a similar result.
--Michael Brass
Reconsidering the emergence of social complexity in early Saharan pastoral societies, 5000 – 2500 B.C.
^ Now now Ish, don't do lioness's homework for her! She is after all a big girl who can wear big girl panties and do the big task of doing her own research...
Like proving that the Christian Nubian sample in Holliday's work comprised non-African individuals.
Until she can answer that, she will remain a childish nuisance.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
In a proper reading of this chart only horizontal distances count. The chart shows Nubians closer to Germans than to East Africans.
That means the Nubians in the sample are only part indigenous Africans or not at all
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^Someone is obviously trolling.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^Someone is obviously trolling.
That is a stupid remark. You obviously don't know what "trolling" means
I am more informed about this article that others commenting on it. I know more about the samples, have read other information on them. So stop being a witless buffoon
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
^^ absolutely incredible, lmaoooo
ClydeWinters might be 100% correct, Lioness is an open troll account managed by multiple personnel.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^Someone is obviously trolling.
That is a stupid remark. You obviously don't know what "trolling" means
I am more informed about this article that others commenting on it. I know more about the samples, have read other information on them. So stop being a witless buffoon
ANYONE can read the chart and nowhere is it even saying that the Nubians are "partially" African or hardly African. What the heck are you even going on about.
By your silly logic Germans are now only "partially" European or hardly European due to being close to Nubians(again by your logic). See! See! I can troll too.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ^^ absolutely incredible, lmaoooo
ClydeWinters might be 100% correct, Lioness is an open troll account managed by multiple personnel.
Trying to bring Clyde in won't help your lies
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^Someone is obviously trolling.
That is a stupid remark. You obviously don't know what "trolling" means
I am more informed about this article that others commenting on it. I know more about the samples, have read other information on them. So stop being a witless buffoon
ANYONE can read the chart and nowhere is it even saying that the Nubians are "partially" African or hardly African. What the heck are you even going on about.
By your silly logic Germans are now only "partially" European or hardly European due to being close to Nubians(again by your logic). See! See! I can troll too.
I'm not using logic. I'm using additional information about the sample that I know about and you you dumb motherfuckas don't. I'm keeping it a secret for now to watch the antics
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
There is no "secret". Attentive readers of African aDNA papers know Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration. Already posted earlier in this thread:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Said it several times. It's early Medieval in date. It's likely the same or a biologically closely related skeletal sample as the Christian Nubian sample used in Hanihara et al 2003, that, at times, has clustered outside of the "North African" subcluster (comprised of Naqada, Giza and Kerma) and with Europeans.
Holliday doesn't identify this sample in his later papers, at least not the ones I have. When he speaks on the provenance of this Nubian sample and his other oft-used samples, he simply refers his readers back to his dissertation, which isn't readily available. So this is all that we know about it for now.
We also have Christian era aDNA to help put these results in a better context:
quote:In dedicated aDNA facilities at University College Dublin, we successfully sequenced several specimens from Kulubnarti, Sudanese Nubia dated to the Early Christian era (500-1400 AD). [...] Quality control analysis indicated authenticity of the DNA and principle component analysis based on single nucleotide polymorphisms placed the individual around Middle Eastern and Central/South Asian clusters.
Now, back to the question at hand: why does the relative position of the German sample not indicate migration from a warmer region? Still waiting, lioness.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Quote:” Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.” Is there genetic proof of that. As I said many times. And no one has proven and prove me incorrect to date.
There is no genetic proof that “Greek” and “Romans’ conquered Egypt and Africa. Nein! Unless the Greeks and Romans were E1b1b and other types of Africans. The only supposed invasion of Africa where there is proof is by the Ottoman Turks.
Henn et al and many others have confirmed there was no invasion of Arabs into Africa which means the Islamic of Spain/Iberians were either Indigenes to Spain or Africans conquering Spain.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.
Is there genetic proof of that.
There is, gramps. Read between the lines. Also read the Hassan 2008 aDNA paper. The Christian Nubian samples tested genetically so far are different. They tend to stand out from earlier periods. Some Christian Nubian samples studied metrically and non metrically also differ in a skeletal sense from older samples.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^Someone is obviously trolling.
I think the obsession is a mental illness. I am serious here.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quote:” Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.” Is there genetic proof of that. As I said many times. And no one has proven and prove me incorrect to date.
There is no genetic proof that “Greek” and “Romans’ conquered Egypt and Africa. Nein! Unless the Greeks and Romans were E1b1b and other types of Africans. The only supposed invasion of Africa where there is proof is by the Ottoman Turks.
Henn et al and many others have confirmed there was no invasion of Arabs into Africa which means the Islamic of Spain/Iberians were either Indigenes to Spain or Africans conquering Spain.
Historically what is known in Egypt, is that Romans didn't go to the South. But you'll find small amounts of E-V13 in the South. Something like 3%, if I remember correctly. In the North the presence of E-V13 is much higher. Although some of Roman culture was transplanted there.
I found this here, but I am not sure if it is correct, since it speaks somewhat different for what I remember:
quote:"Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."
--Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009 Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
In a proper reading of this chart only horizontal distances count. The chart shows Nubians closer to Germans than to East Africans.
That means the Nubians in the sample are only part indigenous Africans or not at all
In a more proper reading of the chart. The stems of the branches are taken into account. The 'Nubians' and Germans are on different stems of the dendogram, one on the African side and the other on the European side respectively. You claim Nubians are closer to Germans than they are to East Africans but by that very conjecture the Germans are closer to Nubians than they are to Central Europeans.
According to your reasoning, that means the Germans in the sample are only part indigenous Europeans or not at all.
Do you not understand??
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You are blowing smoke. The R1b found in the Hassan study is R1b-V88. So what are you on about? More BSing young man. Put up or shut up! Stop mis-directing readers. So I repeat again. There is no genetic proof of non-African invasion to Sudan in the Christian or other eras. Nein!
QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.
Is there genetic proof of that.
There is, gramps. Read between the lines. Also read the Hassan 2008 aDNA paper. The Christian Nubian samples tested genetically so far are different. They tend to stand out from earlier periods. Some Christian Nubian samples studied metrically and non metrically also differ in a skeletal sense from older samples. [/QUOTE]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There is no "secret". Attentive readers of African aDNA papers know Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration. Already posted earlier in this thread:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Said it several times. It's early Medieval in date. It's likely the same or a biologically closely related skeletal sample as the Christian Nubian sample used in Hanihara et al 2003, that, at times, has clustered outside of the "North African" subcluster (comprised of Naqada, Giza and Kerma) and with Europeans.
Holliday doesn't identify this sample in his later papers, at least not the ones I have. When he speaks on the provenance of this Nubian sample and his other oft-used samples, he simply refers his readers back to his dissertation, which isn't readily available. So this is all that we know about it for now.
We also have Christian era aDNA to help put these results in a better context:
quote:In dedicated aDNA facilities at University College Dublin, we successfully sequenced several specimens from Kulubnarti, Sudanese Nubia dated to the Early Christian era (500-1400 AD). [...] Quality control analysis indicated authenticity of the DNA and principle component analysis based on single nucleotide polymorphisms placed the individual around Middle Eastern and Central/South Asian clusters.
Now, back to the question at hand: why does the relative position of the German sample not indicate migration from a warmer region? Still waiting, lioness.
Indeed, I never denied foreign presence and/or influence in Christian era Nubia. My only query is why lioness's claim is one-sided wherein she states Nubian affinities to German but not German affinities to Nubian! Anyone with half a brain would notice this glaring hypocrisy but lioness herself.
So I await her explanation... if she ever gives one. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Yep. Normally, samples on the peripheral edges of their respective branches (in this case, the Christian era Nubian and German samples) also have a degree of closeness to samples on other branches. So, in this case, the German sample has ties with the bottom branch (since it's on the bottom branch) AND a degree of closeness to samples on the upper branch.
Holliday also clearly explains in this paper that the German sample gravitates a bit towards the African samples. So lioness is arbitrarily singling out the Nubian sample and ignoring the German sample as you correctly pointed out pages ago.
quote:Among the higher latitude groups, the Germans are tied to the exclusively African cluster described earlier via a medium-length branch to the Nubian sample.
--Holliday 2013
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
...
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
E-V13 Quote from Wiki: However, earlier entry into Europe is also possible. Battaglia et al. (2008), for example, propose that the E-M78* lineage ancestral to all modern E-V13 men moved rapidly out of a Southern Egyptian homeland, in the wetter conditions of the early Holocene; arrived in the Balkans with only Mesolithic technologies and then only subsequently integrated with Neolithic cultures which arrived later in the Balkans. E-V13 is in any case often described in population genetics as one of the components of the European genetic composition which shows a relatively recent link of populations from the Middle East, entering Europe and presumably associated with bringing new technologies.[25][26][27] As such, it is also sometimes remarked that it is a relatively recent genetic movement out of Africa into Eurasia, and has been described as "a signal for a separate late-Pleistocene migration from Africa to Europe over the Sinai ... which is not manifested in mtDNA haplogroup distributions".[28]
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You are blowing smoke. The R1b found in the Hassan study is R1b-V88. So what are you on about? More BSing young man. Put up or shut up! Stop mis-directing readers. So I repeat again. There is no genetic proof of non-African invasion to Sudan in the Christian or other eras. Nein!
QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.
Is there genetic proof of that.
There is, gramps. Read between the lines. Also read the Hassan 2008 aDNA paper. The Christian Nubian samples tested genetically so far are different. They tend to stand out from earlier periods. Some Christian Nubian samples studied metrically and non metrically also differ in a skeletal sense from older samples.
Stop trying to 'beef up' and what I said so you can seem like you have winning point. I said "immigrants". How do you go from that to invasion?
quote:Haplogroups A-M13 was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples. Haplogroup F-M89 and YAP appeared to be more frequent among Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods.
Either take it or leave it.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
That’s right. Change your tune from Greek and Roman (conquerors) to peasant “immigrants”. You do know immigrants imply poverty. Lol! You are hilarious. Carry on! DJ enjoys sucking black D…..
From Hassan 2008 Study Oh! As Table2 shows . There was no E-V13 found in the Sudanese sample from the Hassan 2008. Nein! No E-V13 nor R1b-M269! The R1b is R1b V88. So I repeat. Provide genetic proof that there were Romans and Greeks in Sudan?!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.
Is there genetic proof of that.
There is, gramps. Read between the lines. Also read the Hassan 2008 aDNA paper. The Christian Nubian samples tested genetically so far are different. They tend to stand out from earlier periods. Some Christian Nubian samples studied metrically and non metrically also differ in a skeletal sense from older samples.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: That’s right. Change your tune from Greek and Roman (conquerors) to peasant “immigrants”. You do know immigrants imply poverty. Lol! You are hilarious. Carry on! DJ enjoys sucking black D…..
From Hassan 2008 Study Oh! As Table2 shows . There was no E-V13 found in the Sudanese sample from the Hassan 2008. Nein! No E-V13 nor R1b-M269! The R1b is R1b V88. So I repeat. Provide genetic proof that there were Romans and Greeks in Sudan?!
Oh! As Table2 shows . There was no E-V13 found in the Sudanese sample from the Hassan 2008. Nein! No E-V13 nor R1b-M269. The R1b is R1b V88. So I repeat. Provide genetic proof that there was Romans and Greeks in Sudan?!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.
Is there genetic proof of that.
There is, gramps. Read between the lines. Also read the Hassan 2008 aDNA paper. The Christian Nubian samples tested genetically so far are different. They tend to stand out from earlier periods. Some Christian Nubian samples studied metrically and non metrically also differ in a skeletal sense from older samples.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Thats right. Roll your eyes and stop misleading readers. STOP IT!!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: That’s right. Change your tune from Greek and Roman (conquerors) to peasant “immigrants”. You do know immigrants imply poverty. Lol! You are hilarious. Carry on! DJ enjoys sucking black D…..
From Hassan 2008 Study Oh! As Table2 shows . There was no E-V13 found in the Sudanese sample from the Hassan 2008. Nein! No E-V13 nor R1b-M269! The R1b is R1b V88. So I repeat. Provide genetic proof that there were Romans and Greeks in Sudan?!
Oh! As Table2 shows . There was no E-V13 found in the Sudanese sample from the Hassan 2008. Nein! No E-V13 nor R1b-M269. The R1b is R1b V88. So I repeat. Provide genetic proof that there was Romans and Greeks in Sudan?!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.
Is there genetic proof of that.
There is, gramps. Read between the lines. Also read the Hassan 2008 aDNA paper. The Christian Nubian samples tested genetically so far are different. They tend to stand out from earlier periods. Some Christian Nubian samples studied metrically and non metrically also differ in a skeletal sense from older samples.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Swenet, do you perhaps know from where they gathered this information?
quote: "I is a branch of haplogroup F* (M89 mutation), which first appeared in Africa some 45,000 years before the present. F* is believed to represent the "second-wave" of expansion out of Africa between 45 and 40 thousand years ago, that went directly to the Middle East"
quote: In human genetics, Haplogroup F* (M89) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup (Note: due to technical restrictions, the title of this page does not contain an "*").
This haplogroup first appeared in Africa some 45,000 years before present. It is believed to represent the "second-wave" of expansion out of Africa.
Haplogroup F* is an ancestral haplogroup to Y-chromosome haplogroups G (M201), H (M52), I (M170), J (12f2.1), and K (M9) along with its descendant haplogroups (L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R).
In a proper reading of this chart only horizontal distances count. The chart shows Nubians closer to Germans than to East Africans.
That means the Nubians in the sample are only part indigenous Africans or not at all
In a more proper reading of the chart. The stems of the branches are taken into account. The 'Nubians' and Germans are on different stems of the dendogram, one on the African side and the other on the European side respectively. You claim Nubians are closer to Germans than they are to East Africans but by that very conjecture the Germans are closer to Nubians than they are to Central Europeans.
According to your reasoning, that means the Germans in the sample are only part indigenous Europeans or not at all.
Do you not understand??
Why waste ATP on typing such things lmao Lioness should know the basic concept behind a neighbor joining tree ... I mean it's basic phylogenetic classification lol. Nonetheless, in what world would the Sudanese be more OOA related than both Somali & Egyptians, the fucking North African gatekeepers lmaoo.
I'm sorry, Lioness must be a cooperation, this trolling is a team effort, in which everyone isn't on the same page.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
what world would the Sudanese be more OOA related than both Somali & Egyptians, the fucking North African gatekeepers lmaoo.
I don't see you being able to formulate a clear thought. You're criticizing me yet raising the same issue I raised. That doesn't make sense. Then in your confusion you think the problem I mentioned is different, and you think that is trolling.
yes, why in the world would a Sudanese Nubian be closer to OOA populations than to Egyptians?
Tell us genius, tell us why that is not a problem
quote:Among the higher latitude groups, the Germans are tied to the exclusively African cluster described earlier via a medium-length branch to the Nubian sample. --Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence T. W. HOLLIDAY*
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The troll provocateur above does not understand that the Nubian sample still remains in the African branch while the German sample remains in the Eurasian branch. While both lie on different branches, they both are outliers within their respective branches. Why that is could be due to a number of reasons. Yet the troll provocateur claims the Nubians are outliers due to admixture or even being non-Africans yet she does not say the same for the Germans.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: That’s right. Change your tune from Greek and Roman (conquerors) to peasant “immigrants”. You do know immigrants imply poverty...
And you apparently don't know that "immigrant" simply mean one who migrates into an area. There is no socio-economic status involved. An immigrant can be one of middle to upper-class who simply wants to live in a new area, and in the case of conquest colonization by the conquering peoples is still considered immigration you dummy! LOL
quote:Lol! You are hilarious. Carry on! DJ enjoys sucking black D…..
Now now, don't project your inclinations on to me. Just because I'm from Atlanta doesn't mean I engage in such activity though since it seems you can't keep my name out your posts you must have a thing for me.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The logic is simple. Nubians are at a more tropical latitude than Egyptians. Therefore if the people are indigenous they would have longer limb proportions than Egyptians. Instead this Christian Nubian sample from a Romano-Nubian cemetery have a less tropical proportions than Egyptians. Therefore the idea that they might not be Africans in the Nubian sample or might be admixed is quite reasonable and is a position that is actually more afrocentric. Between the Roman Empire and Nubia there was a relationship and interaction that lasted nearly seven centuries, from the first century BC to the sixth century AD.
That is why zarahan is not stupid like the rest of you, note the red print in his graphic. That Christian Nubian sample is the same 24 person sample in Holliday's 2010 and 2013 articles as well as 1995 dissertation
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
This result where Africans don't neatly fall on the 'African' side of the tree is because of the inclusion of pelvic width as a variable (note that this Holiday paper uses six variables as compared to the five variables of Holliday 2013).
A lot of ideologues are salty about pelvic width. Studies that question that the AE were "super negroid" in overall bodyplan usually emphasize pelvic width (or some other correlate of body mass). See Raxter 2011 and Bleuze et al 2013.
Interestingly, the Afalou and Taforalt pelvic width is not cold adapted.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: Interestingly, the Afalou and Taforalt pelvic width is not cold adapted.
Correction.
I based this observation on Shackelford 2007. However, I tracked down and reread this paper just now and I can't verify some things she says about the Iberomaurusian sample. Also, I have reason to believe that it's more complex than she suggests. More on this later.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ It looks like the troll provocatuer missed those factors. LOL
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The logic is simple. Nubians are at a more tropical latitude than Egyptians. Therefore if the people are indigenous they would have longer limb proportions than Egyptians. Instead this Christian Nubian sample from a Romano-Nubian cemetery have a less tropical proportions than Egyptians. Therefore the idea that they might not be Africans in the Nubian sample or might be admixed is quite reasonable and is a position that is actually more afrocentric. Between the Roman Empire and Nubia there was a relationship and interaction that lasted nearly seven centuries, from the first century BC to the sixth century AD.
That is why zarahan is not stupid like the rest of you, note the red print in his graphic. That Christian Nubian sample is the same 24 person sample in Holliday's 2010 and 2013 articles as well as 1995 dissertation
The logic is simple enough yet YOU completely miss the other half of the equation. Germans are at a more cold latitude than Bosnians. Therefore if the people are indigenous they would have shorter limb proportions than Bosnians. Instead this German sample shows less cold adapted proportions than Bosnians. Therefore the idea that they might not be Europeans in the German sample or might be admixed is quite reasonable is a position that truly afrocentric and thus causing you anal pain. The provenance of Holliday's German sample must be better assessed to get a clearer picture.
This is why YOU are 2nd dumbest person in this forum (next to xyzman) because your euronut ideology blinds you to half of the picture that is you only see Eurasian presence or admixture in Africa but never the converse-- African presence or admixture in Europe!
I recommend you beg your boss Mathilda for help. Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ok fag. lol
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
^ Wow really? Just when I thought discourse on this forum couldn't reach a new low.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
It is no secret.....
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote: Abstract
The first millennium BC in Sudan sees the birth of the Kushite (Napatan and then Meroitic) Kingdom. Royal cities, cemeteries and centres of religious power have attracted archaeologists and historians while peripheral areas have only rarely seen any systematic investigations. This lack of research provides difficulties in interpreting the limited evidence of the Napatan and Meroitic periods located on the White and Blue Niles and limits our comprehension of the role of this region within the political, economic and cultural framework of the kingdom. Recently, a multiphase cemetery was discovered at the site of Al Khiday 2, on the west bank of the White Nile, which was also used by a small group that is thought to be closely related to the Meroitic. The graves excavated have produced a bio-archaeological sample that is presented here with detailed descriptions of the funerary practices, including different types of grave structures, grave goods, burial position and orientation of the inhumations, as well as an overview of the anthropological analysis of this population. These findings are placed within the wider context of Meroitic studies by providing comparisons with contemporaneous sites, highlighting the possible elements of contiguity with that world, as well as providing some reflection on future research directions.
--D. Usai, S. Salvatori, T. Jakob & R. David
The Al Khiday Cemetery in Central Sudan and its “Classic/Late Meroitic” Period Graves
Journal of African Archaeology, Volume 12 (2), 2014, pages 183-204, DOI 10.3213/2191-5784-10254
quote:"A preliminary comparison of dental nonmetric data in 15 late Pleistocene through early historic Nubian samples (n=795 individuals) with recently discovered remains from al Khiday in Upper Nubia may provide the answer. Dating to at least 9,000+ BP, the new sample (n=40) may be the first of Late Paleolithic age recovered in >40 years; however, until additional fieldwork and dating are conducted, the excavators prefer the more conservative term of "pre-Mesolithic."
Using the Arizona State University Dental Anthropology System to record traits and multivariate statistics to estimate pairwise affinities, it is evident that al Khiday is closely akin to most Holocene samples. It is widely divergent from Jebel Sahaba. As such, there does appear to be long-term biological continuity in the region after all.."
--Irish 2012. Population continuity after all? Potential late Pleistocene dental ancestors of Holocene Nubians have been found! AJPA Sup 54: 172-173
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Excavating a unique pre-Mesolithic cemetery in central Sudan
Donatella Usai, Sandro Salvatori, Paola Iacumin, Antonietta Di Matteo, Tina Jakob & Andrea Zerboni
Introduction
The population of the pre-Mesolithic cemetery at Al Khiday 2 (16-D-4, Figure 1) in central Sudan must have had a unique outlook on the afterlife. Archaeologists associate flexed inhumation burials common to prehistoric cemeteries worldwide with the foetal position, a formal expression of a 'new life'. However, what explanation can be suggested for burying the deceased in a prone and extended position as found at Al Khiday 2? Here we report on this unique cemetery with its unusual burial rite (Figure 2)
The cemetery is a multi-stratified site on a low fluvial bar, probably deposited by the Nile in the Upper Pleistocene (Williamson 2009), and is located 35km south of Omdurman, on the western bank of the White Nile. The site of Al Khiday 2 was discovered during an extensive survey covering c. 245km². Archaeological work took place in 2006-2008 excavating c. 475m². A total of 120 skeletons have so far been excavated and bioarchaeological studies, including demography, metric and non-metric analysis to establish population differences, as well as skeletal and dental pathology, were carried out. The site was excavated stratigraphically and organic material (charcoals, bones and shells) was collected for radiocarbon dating, performed at BETA Analytic Laboratory, USA (Table 1). Archaeological contexts were defined by pottery decoration, according to a classification proposed by Caneva (Caneva 1988), and supported by layer-feature specific radiometric dating. Calibration (2σ in the text) of conventional and AMS radiocarbon results used INTCAL04 under OxCal v.3.10; uncalibrated years are reported as bp while calibrated age is indicated as cal years BC/AD
So far, 50 individuals (males, females and children of all ages) have been excavated by the Is.I.A.O. (Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente) Archaeological Mission, all buried lying on their front. On the basis of radiocarbon dates (conventional and AMS) and stratigraphy the burials date to a pre-Mesolithic phase. During a well-defined Mesolithic phase (6580-6440 cal BC) the site was used as a settlement and later by a Neolithic population as a burial ground (4360-4250 cal BC). More recently, a Meroitic group selected it as their cemetery (20-140 cal AD). A total of 120 graves have been excavated and, on the basis of surface finds, nearly half of the cemetery has now been investigated. Ongoing bioarchaeological analyses indicate that the three populations differ in robusticity, occurrence of skeletal and dental diseases and tooth modification practices.
The Mesolithic features, consisting of pits of different function, allow the reconstruction of the anthropic and natural disturbances affecting the oldest graveyard phase (Figures 3 and 4). The pre-Mesolithic skeletons cannot be directly dated, being almost completely depleted of organic material (collagen), but they are placed in time through the stratigraphic evidence provided by some of these pits. Three radiocarbon dates on charcoal and shell from pits cutting through the skeletons imply a date for the human remains before 6600 cal BC (6660-6500 cal BC; 7050-6400 cal BC; 6590-6380 cal BC). These dates are supported by the pottery assemblage from the pits, which is also radiocarbon dated from a stratified layer at the nearby Al Khiday 1 settlement (Salvatori & Usai 2009), to about 6640-6450 cal BC. A radiocarbon date of 6650-6470 cal BC on organic matter in a marsh deposit formed during the Mesolithic occupation of the site, after the burial of the prone individuals, supports the attribution to a pre-Mesolithic phase.
Why are you posting seemingly random text leaving people to wonder what you're trying to say? Sometimes it takes a couple of minutes to read an article and people assume there some sort of point related to the discussion they get out of reading it. If by the end there is no coherent point and you have to wonder what the point is, you're just wasting folks' time and energy.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
If the posts above about continuity between Meroe and earlier periods were meant as a passive aggressive vent against Hassan 2009's aDNA results, the F-M89 mutation was only found in the Christian sample, not in the Meroitic sample. Hence, why I highlighted Hassan's quote the way I did.
Veteran posters have no excuse to still not know the basics of Hassan's aDNA results by now. Especially not if they're going to complain about the results.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Why are you posting seemingly random text leaving people to wonder what you're trying to say? Sometimes it takes a couple of minutes to read an article and people assume there some sort of point related to the discussion they get out of reading it. If by the end there is no coherent point and you have to wonder what the point is, you're just wasting folks' time and energy.
It's bait on the Al Khiday. I will post it to you in the email inbox the reason why.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If the posts above about continuity between Meroe and earlier periods were meant as a passive aggressive vent against Hassan 2009's aDNA results, the F-M89 mutation was only found in the Christian sample, not in the Meroitic sample. Hence, why I highlighted Hassan's quote the way I did.
Veteran posters have no excuse to still not know the basics of Hassan's aDNA results by now. Especially not if they're going to complain about the results.
Nope that's not it, but I wondered about F-M89, since some sources say it arose in Africa itself, specifically Northeast Africa.
However,
quote: Some of them, as the male haplogroups E-M78 and F-M89 and the female haplogroups M1 and T, show the highest frequencies in Egypt.
--Hajer Ennafaa
Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome microstructure in Tunisia
Journal of Human Genetics (2011) 56, 734–741; doi:10.1038/jhg.2011.92;
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: ^^Ish speaks from both sides of the mouth sometimes making it hard to understand him...
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: ^^Ish speaks from both sides of the mouth sometimes making it hard to understand him...
Get the phuck outta here, calls you alibino. But now you cite Ironlion? lol smh
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ^ Wow really? Just when I thought discourse on this forum couldn't reach a new low.
As long as you have losers like xyzman resort to ad-hominem name-calling whenever I or others burst his delusional bubble, then yeah he will bring this forum to the gutter.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Why are you posting seemingly random text leaving people to wonder what you're trying to say? Sometimes it takes a couple of minutes to read an article and people assume there some sort of point related to the discussion they get out of reading it. If by the end there is no coherent point and you have to wonder what the point is, you're just wasting folks' time and energy.
Yeah I've been noticing this too. I wish Ish would give us some contextual clue as to the purpose of his citations.
quote: If the posts above about continuity between Meroe and earlier periods were meant as a passive aggressive vent against Hassan 2009's aDNA results, the F-M89 mutation was only found in the Christian sample, not in the Meroitic sample. Hence, why I highlighted Hassan's quote the way I did.
Veteran posters have no excuse to still not know the basics of Hassan's aDNA results by now. Especially not if they're going to complain about the results.
Indeed, Hassan's findings only confirm what the archaeological record shows--- that since the last Kushite kingdom (Meroe) there was a large influx into the Nubian Nile Valley of other peoples probably leading to its fall. The archaeological material shows that the source of most of these peoples is from the west in the Saharan region. So obviously there was no continuity. Even many linguists theorize that these Saharan migrants were the Nilo-Saharan speakers who displaced the native Afrisian speakers.
The question I have though is the provenance of F-M89. Hassan and others classify it as "Eurasian", yet its presence in Arabia is relatively rare compared to Africa. The highest frequency I've seen is in the Kordofan area which is overwhelmingly Nilo-Saharan speaking with a few Arabized tribes.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The logic is simple enough yet YOU completely miss the other half of the equation. Germans are at a more cold latitude than Bosnians. Therefore if the people are indigenous they would have shorter limb proportions than Bosnians. Instead this German sample shows less cold adapted proportions than Bosnians. Therefore the idea that they might not be Europeans in the German sample or might be admixed is quite reasonable is a position that truly afrocentric and thus causing you anal pain. The provenance of Holliday's German sample must be better assessed to get a clearer picture.
This is why YOU are 2nd dumbest person in this forum (next to xyzman) because your euronut ideology blinds you to half of the picture that is you only see Eurasian presence or admixture in Africa but never the converse-- African presence or admixture in Europe!
I recommend you beg your boss Mathilda for help.
Still waiting for an explanation.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@DJ
F-M89 in Hassan 2009 is not a haplogroup but an upstream mutation. In other words, it's not the case that Hassan's result was F(xI, J, K, G, H). Hassan did not sequence any actual 'haplogroup F' (as in: F1 or F2).
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^ Okay, thanks. I was confused as well.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Many people in this forum say that Egyptians are very similar to Egyptians. If that is the case why aren't the two closer to each other
And why are Egyptians closer to pygmies on this chart than they are to Nubians?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^ Good grief.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
you're saying good grief to pretend there is some obvious answer to the question. Yet everybody knows you're bluffing Now of course, you will put up some copy and paste quotes. More pretending. If not wait for someone else to save you
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Pygmies are similar to North Africans in various subtle ways. As I posted three years ago in this thread:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:One might find it odd that the Pygmies cluster with North Africans. This is due to allometric effects associated with their small size. In particular HL-shape exhibits negative allometry, while FHAP-shape exhibits positive allometry (Holliday, 1995). Therefore, as a result of their small size, the Pygmies are characterized by small femoral heads and long humeri – features aligning them more closely with the North Africans than with Sub-Saharan Africans.
--Holiday 1997
So, Egyptians don't cluster with Pygmies at the expense of Nubians. The opposite is happening. Pygmies cluster with Egypto-Nubians (and Ain Dokhara) instead of with Sub-Saharan Africans:
(...) Pygmies are characterized by small femoral heads and long humeri – features aligning them more closely with the North Africans than with Sub-Saharan Africans. —Holliday 1997b
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: you're saying good grief to pretend there is some obvious answer to the question. Yet everybody knows you're bluffing Now of course, you will put up some copy and paste quotes. More pretending. If not wait for someone else to save you
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
