Originally posted by beyoku:
^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:They spend time on these sites because they want to be heard. These posters believe that given the genomic evidence the other posters will accept their interpretation of the data.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Clyde says:
You are wasting your time trying to teach the posters at FBF the actual Phylogeography of world populations, they don't want to hear it, and they are tired of you telling them what they already know.
Why then CLyde do some folk spend all their time on such forums building
up their content, but contribute so little to Africana forums?
Bass has spent time on these racist sites but has also contributed mightily
on the other end to ES, including cross-posting some of his debates
and data.
quote:I studied Anthropology and History at the University of Illinois. I don't think much has changed since the !970's. In the department offices they had numerous unpublished data on anthropology that students and researchers could study.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
The problem with FBF folks is that they see the results from DNA and recreate history after every study, it doesn't work like that, and some of these studies can be questioned. It doesn't make one a whining Afrocentrist to question any such study. Untill there is a useful database of Ancient sub-Saharan DNA across the continent or at least from the region being studied I can't take the FBF crew seriously. They forget that these ancient remains are very few in number.
quote:Well considering that they have recovered and published ancient DNA from African remains for years, it would be pretty weird if anyone believed that.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The biggest myth is that researchers can not recover ancient DNA from African teeth and bones. This is mythical, because recently researchers claimed you can recover ancient DNA from the dirt in cave sites. If they can recover DNA from dirt, do you really believe they have not recovered ancient DNA from ancient African teeth and bones?
quote:Stupid Euroloon they published only one paper on the ancient African DNA of a 4.5kya Ethiopian i.e., Mota, which was found in error because they claimed that as much as 6–7% of the ancestry of West and Central African groups came from the Eurasian migrants.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Well considering that they have recovered and published ancient DNA from African remains for years, it would be pretty weird if anyone believed that.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The biggest myth is that researchers can not recover ancient DNA from African teeth and bones. This is mythical, because recently researchers claimed you can recover ancient DNA from the dirt in cave sites. If they can recover DNA from dirt, do you really believe they have not recovered ancient DNA from ancient African teeth and bones?
Maybe in the bizarre parallel universe you inhabit this has not yet occurred?
quote:Exactly. The denizens therein are running the same
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
From looking at that link,, I have to laugh. I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA. It was always maintained that the civilization and its people were of African origin, period, it makes no sense to use the results of that Middle Egypt, Late Dynastic sample as a means to beat on strawman arguments.
quote:Indeed, but I would like to get their take on what they consider to be "sub-Saharan." What was sub-Saharan then might not be the same "sub-Saharan" then. If they believe that in essence they're assuming African populations don't change. Since the earliest "Eurasian" migrated OOA, no doubt they still carried residual African ancestry which means that what is "Eurasian" back then is not the same as "Eurasian" today.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Exactly. The denizens therein are running the same
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
From looking at that link,, I have to laugh. I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA. It was always maintained that the civilization and its people were of African origin, period, it makes no sense to use the results of that Middle Egypt, Late Dynastic sample as a means to beat on strawman arguments.
old game of creating extreme strawmen, set up
to "refute."
quote:No 'residual' about it, that's not a useful way to think of it. Original Eurasians were 95℅ a branch of some African population. Question is what was the position of that branch in African population structure then (and how has that structure contributed to now).
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Since the earliest "Eurasian" migrated OOA, no doubt they still carried residual African ancestry which means that what is "Eurasian" back then is not the same as "Eurasian" today.
quote:Lol. Folks keep descending deeper and deeper in their own lunacy. You probably think you said something real deep. You're doing all these gymnastics because you have a deep insatiable desire to see more SSA ancestry in the Abusir mummies than they have.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Indeed, but I would like to get their take on what they consider to be "sub-Saharan." What was sub-Saharan then might not be the same "sub-Saharan" then. If they believe that in essence they're assuming African populations don't change. Since the earliest "Eurasian" migrated OOA, no doubt they still carried residual African ancestry which means that what is "Eurasian" back then is not the same as "Eurasian" today.
quote:So why was this caveat not included when the Amarna family was deemed "Great Lakes" and "South African"? Why did no one say "what was North African then may not be North Africa today, so there is no reason to assume these alleles aren't (predominantly) North African"? Answer: DNA Tribes MLI score table was what people wanted to revel in and such a caveat, though self-evident, would only complicate the precious faith-based narrative.
What was sub-Saharan then might not be the same "sub-Saharan" then.
quote:Insults is all you have? For the record,,, my position has been that AEs were Africans, I never said they were SSA in neither the ancient nor the modern sense. Don't attempt to set up strawmen to knock down, thats not a wise position to try on me.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lol. Folks keep descending deeper and deeper in their own lunacy. You probably think you said something real deep. You're doing all these gymnastics because you have a deep insatiable desire to see more SSA ancestry in the Abusir mummies than they have.
quote:I'm not fazed by the results at al, the same way I wasn't fazed by that other genetic study that supposedly found "Eurasian" ancestry in Yoruba from a so called "massive Eurasian" farmer migration into Africa that was never reached deep into SSA. Its funny how you talk about Dienekes and the Euroclown bloggers when you're so much just like him. I have not seen the full text and don't know who these remains represent, neither have you but it hasn't stopped you from making all of these rants against so called "Afrocentric loons.
Yet, you want to pretend at the same time that you're unfazed by the results because "no one claimed they were SSA in the first place". So which is it? Do the Abusir mummies have lots of "undetected" SSA ancestry, or was it never your intention to claim they have more SSA ancestry than they have? Make up your mind.
quote:Try addressing claims and statements I make instead of trying to build up strawmen to knock down. You have not addressed my statement on whether the sub-Saharans of that time period are the same as the sub-Saharans today, yet by implication you are making the claim that they are. I don't care about Tel-Amarna DNA tribes, I saw it as nothing more than a crude approximation indicating some relatedness and ties to SSA, but it would be dumb for me to say they are SSA in the same sense as today's SSA since the later came after AE's smdh.
So why was this caveat not included when the Amarna family was deemed "Great Lakes" and "South African"? Why did no one say "what was North African then may not be North Africa today, so there is no reason to assume these alleles aren't (predominantly) North African"? Answer: DNA Tribes MLI score table was what people wanted to revel in and such a caveat, though self-evident, would only complicate the precious faith-based narrative.
Folks simply "decide" when the throw in caveats and when to leave highly misleading data as devoid of context as possible.
quote:What was sub-Saharan then might not be the same "sub-Saharan" then.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Indeed, but I would like to get their take on what they consider to be "sub-Saharan." What was sub-Saharan then might not be the same "sub-Saharan" then. If they believe that in essence they're assuming African populations don't change. Since the earliest "Eurasian" migrated OOA, no doubt they still carried residual African ancestry which means that what is "Eurasian" back then is not the same as "Eurasian" today.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Exactly. The denizens therein are running the same
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
From looking at that link,, I have to laugh. I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA. It was always maintained that the civilization and its people were of African origin, period, it makes no sense to use the results of that Middle Egypt, Late Dynastic sample as a means to beat on strawman arguments.
old game of creating extreme strawmen, set up
to "refute."
quote:What I'm saying is that geneticallly we don't know what "sub-Saharans" were back then, so moderns and ancients...while certainly related and having some continuity with each other may be genetically different.....but still "sub-saharan." Since genetically we have no proof the modern and ancient sub-Saharans were identical its illogical to to expect ancient Egyptians to have "sub-Saharan" ancestry akin to modern select sub-Saharan populations, especially from areas not even close by
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:What was sub-Saharan then might not be the same "sub-Saharan" then.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Indeed, but I would like to get their take on what they consider to be "sub-Saharan." What was sub-Saharan then might not be the same "sub-Saharan" then. If they believe that in essence they're assuming African populations don't change. Since the earliest "Eurasian" migrated OOA, no doubt they still carried residual African ancestry which means that what is "Eurasian" back then is not the same as "Eurasian" today.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Exactly. The denizens therein are running the same
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
From looking at that link,, I have to laugh. I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA. It was always maintained that the civilization and its people were of African origin, period, it makes no sense to use the results of that Middle Egypt, Late Dynastic sample as a means to beat on strawman arguments.
old game of creating extreme strawmen, set up
to "refute."
Bass I take it you have a typo here and mean "What was sub-Saharan
then, might not be the same 'sub-Saharan' NOW."
Are you saying that "sub-Saharan" is a malleable term that
assorted claimants want to fix in a static, stereotypical position,
so they can then contrast all else against the stereotypical setup?
A geographic version of the standard "true negro" bio stereotype? This would be
standard Eurocentric distortion, noted even in the literature by Keita et al.
The exact nature of what is called "sub-Saharan" can be tricky at times.
Recalling Vogel 1997-
"Populations and cultures now found south of
the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of
Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian
civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese
transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their
Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa,
by Joseph O. Vogel, (1997), pp. 465-472 )
Given the shifting movement of the desert for centuries- fluctuating
back and forth but with an overall southern trend in some eras,
what was once "below" the Sahara becomes "above" it. and African
peoples are not static entities, huddling behind some climatic
"apartheid" barrier. People moving north for example have
made themselves "non Sub-Saharan." How often have
we seen games played- where the nearby Sudan or Horn is ignored
in studies and allegedly "representative" samples from the distant
Congo or Guinea someplace are supposed to stand in
for "black Africans" or "sub-Saharan" Africans- as of
no such people are located close to Egypt, or are anomalies
or are not are worthy of study.
Fixing a moving target like "sub-Saharan" into a static "apartheid"
barrier of sorts, against which a assortment of things can be
"contrasted", fulfills a number of ideological agendas meant to
distort a truer or more balanced picture of African cultures and peoples.
How often have we seen such agendas played out both in the academic
literature and among assorted pundits and claimants.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Don't get mad at me because you are not smart enough to know what I wrote in the post. It's going to take more than an ounce of intellect, more than you have to give. Talking shyt but half the images you spam are coming from my Photobucket profile.
Originally posted by Akachi:
+ 100
Much of this is what I have been saying about several members here on Egyptsearch.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/47798-Ancient-Egyptian-Mummy-Genomes?p=1287553&viewfull=1#post1287553
quote:A move north by ancient people living in the Sudan, depending on
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
What I'm saying is that geneticallly we don't know what "sub-Saharans" were back then, so moderns and ancients...while certainly related and having some continuity with each other may be genetically different.....but still "sub-saharan." Since genetically we have no proof the modern and ancient sub-Saharans were identical its illogical to to expect ancient Egyptians to have "sub-Saharan" ancestry akin to modern select sub-Saharan populations, especially from areas not even close by
quote:I can agree here that some people clearly hurt themselves there.
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ C-Bass. I don't know if you have been lurking on the scene for the past few years but ancient DNA basically drew a line in the sand that many didn't cross. ES members were on both sides of that line. A good thread that showed some ideas were just a house of cards is here.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009335;p=1
These results are just like a strong wind against that house of cards and have one side feeling butthurt.
quote:Sure and no one credible claims that AEs were mostly
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I'm speaking for myself and I never make those claims that AE=all or mostly SSA. One can have supra-Saharan ancestry and still be black. The results of this study still don't refute or rule out an African Egypt.
quote:yes Egyptians were mostly indigenous African they weren't Eurasian
Originally posted by the lioness,:
The question is to what extent were the Egyptians indigenous Africans. That should settle everything.
If that question is resolved and then someone wants to interpret that as "black" "white""negroid" or "caucasoid" that is all irrelevant.
Those are all obsolete terms to anthropology in 2017.
to what extent were the Egyptians indigenous Africans? That should settle everything.
If you try to say it doesn't whatever you bring up will be obsolete, part of the old racial paradigm
"White" and "black" are racial terms
"Dark skinned" is not.
Were the Egyptians dark skinned?
It takes about 2 seconds to resolve this, look at some the art. The vast majority and virtually all the pharaohs are depicted as dark skinned.
Those are not scientific terms and never will be. "Whites " are not even white and the vast majority of "blacks" are not black.
"white" and " black" are simply political camps for Americans. That is nothing but a political game.
quote:Hello I'm rather new here, not sure if you read my posts or whatever.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I wouldn't really count these people here as making any real claims, but those who did argue for a pure black Egypt did hurts themselves and I saw in that link that a handful here did here. I lurk here and there but I'l be more active since I'm now fully retired from the military.
I think a lot of you over in HBF are too focused on the results of the DNA itself and not everything combined. If anyone goes to Gedmatch and runs their results against a number methods listed there they will get different admixture proportions based on the samples used. Whats problematic to be is that people take hard stances on results compared to MODERN day populations which are not good proxies for the ancients,, so while they do tell something those type results are crude, ijs
quote:UH OH, don't tell Lioness might be the person who finally cracks open what this all could mean. -Abusir sample.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
The question is to what extent were the Egyptians indigenous Africans. That should settle everything.
If that question is resolved and then someone wants to interpret that as "black" "white""negroid" or "caucasoid" that is all irrelevant.
Those are all obsolete terms to anthropology in 2017.
to what extent were the Egyptians indigenous Africans? That should settle everything.
If you try to say it doesn't whatever you bring up will be obsolete, part of the old racial paradigm
"White" and "black" are racial terms
"Dark skinned" is not.
Were the Egyptians dark skinned?
It takes about 2 seconds to resolve this, look at some the art. The vast majority and virtually all the pharaohs are depicted as dark skinned.
Those are not scientific terms and never will be. "Whites " are not even white and the vast majority of "blacks" are not black.
"white" and " black" are simply political camps for Americans. That is nothing but a political game.
quote:The mtDNA is pure maternal. It could indicate that these people had foreign wives depending on the dates.
Originally posted by beyoku:
But the mtdna still is what it is.
Your thoughts on it?
quote:I do believe this particular community that's being sampled is of mixed ancestry, rather than representing the whole indigenous AE population over time. As others have mentioned in the other thread, it would have been preferable if they had gotten some Y-DNA haplogroups along with the mtDNA and nuclear DNA data. Beyoku has told me that certain PN2 lineages appear to be native to the northeastern corner of Africa and therefore would have been abundant in AE. If a later study ends up finding a paucity of these lineages in this Abusir el-Meleq sample, it would lend credence to them representing a foreign or at least heavily admixed community.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:The mtDNA is pure maternal. It could indicate that these people had foreign wives depending on the dates.
Originally posted by beyoku:
But the mtdna still is what it is.
Your thoughts on it?
quote:My response:
There is no "Saharan climatic race"
and there is no intermediate eco-cline between
"Caucasoids" and "Negroids", as long shown here on ES. The people in question are all indigenous Africans. Africa has no "eco-apartheid" barrier that makes for "climatic races".
quote:Swenet's response who picked up on this:
'splittism'... yet i'm not the one clinging to an "African" genetic/morphological cluster (which doesn't exist). ??? You're splitting humans into continental groups which is basically the old Linnean concept of race. Are you not?
By "Saharan climatic race" I merely meant people who show biological adaptation to the Saharan region. I can split up Africa based on its different eco-zones.
quote:Now we have these same people who for years were opposing a Saharan origin of AE, saying they don't oppose this- a denial of their post histories for the past decade.
^POW!!
The irony.. the irony people.. You know this forum
has gone to sh!t when these ES "vets" are caught
red-handed violating the tenets of their own anti-
race ideology (which they clearly only support
conditionally). Notice that by arguing against
substructure in the Sahara he (Zaharan) is also undermining his purported support for OOA (OOA predicts populations will be structured according to isolation by distance). Just where do these flip-floppers stand?
Take your medication?!
quote:Forumbiodiversity is run by a negrophobic racist Arab/MiddleEasterner. Selfrespecting Blacks should stay away from it, in my humble opinion.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Hello I'm rather new here, not sure if you read my posts or whatever.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I wouldn't really count these people here as making any real claims, but those who did argue for a pure black Egypt did hurts themselves and I saw in that link that a handful here did here. I lurk here and there but I'l be more active since I'm now fully retired from the military.
I think a lot of you over in HBF are too focused on the results of the DNA itself and not everything combined. If anyone goes to Gedmatch and runs their results against a number methods listed there they will get different admixture proportions based on the samples used. Whats problematic to be is that people take hard stances on results compared to MODERN day populations which are not good proxies for the ancients,, so while they do tell something those type results are crude, ijs
I'll like to explain that while I agree with this said statement and said it already somewhere in the Abusir mummies thread.
"I think a lot of you over in HBF are too focused on the results of the DNA itself and not everything combined"
I would suggest a more cut throat approach, state how we feel without regressing. A 100% west African Egypt was never plausible, we didn't need and aDNA to prove that. but how much of an alternative explanation are we going to provide for these circumstances. Why not tread closer to what we actually believe is true using evidence gathered and discussed here in the past. It contributes nothing to complain about methods, and Idealisms when we have the capability of sourcing this population with only the leaked mtDNA lineages AND the vault of Ancient Agyptian Data ES is sitting on. Including data presented, accepted AND neglected here in the past.
they could have plucked out all the SSAfrican specimen in Abusir for all I know and or care, as long as these mummies were found there is good news. It brings us closer to a cohesive story; actual African history. I criticize Biodiversity for their collectively fickle nature and ignorance when it comes to calling back archaeological history and cultural analysis.... but at the same time, a lot of ESers are being insubordinate. We need to contribute to the bigger picture.
quote:If you barge in out of nowhere and accuse people of "intellectual dishonesty" you should have no problem with my tone. Also, my patience for wishful thinking and duplicitousness from people like you is completely up, so that also explains my tone. I'm well aware of what you position was. Your position was taking up for people like Amun Ra and then trying to play both sides of the fence when called out. Now all of a sudden you can't remember people who said AE=SSA, even though you went to great lengths to defend these people here.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Insults is all you have? For the record,,, my position has been that AEs were Africans, I never said they were SSA in neither the ancient nor the modern sense. Don't attempt to set up strawmen to knock down, thats not a wise position to try on me.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lol. Folks keep descending deeper and deeper in their own lunacy. You probably think you said something real deep. You're doing all these gymnastics because you have a deep insatiable desire to see more SSA ancestry in the Abusir mummies than they have.
quote:I'm not fazed by the results at al, the same way I wasn't fazed by that other genetic study that supposedly found "Eurasian" ancestry in Yoruba from a so called "massive Eurasian" farmer migration into Africa that was never reached deep into SSA. Its funny how you talk about Dienekes and the Euroclown bloggers when you're so much just like him. I have not seen the full text and don't know who these remains represent, neither have you but it hasn't stopped you from making all of these rants against so called "Afrocentric loons.
Yet, you want to pretend at the same time that you're unfazed by the results because "no one claimed they were SSA in the first place". So which is it? Do the Abusir mummies have lots of "undetected" SSA ancestry, or was it never your intention to claim they have more SSA ancestry than they have? Make up your mind.
quote:Try addressing claims and statements I make instead of trying to build up strawmen to knock down. You have not addressed my statement on whether the sub-Saharans of that time period are the same as the sub-Saharans today, yet by implication you are making the claim that they are. I don't care about Tel-Amarna DNA tribes, I saw it as nothing more than a crude approximation indicating some relatedness and ties to SSA, but it would be dumb for me to say they are SSA in the same sense as today's SSA since the later came after AE's smdh.
So why was this caveat not included when the Amarna family was deemed "Great Lakes" and "South African"? Why did no one say "what was North African then may not be North Africa today, so there is no reason to assume these alleles aren't (predominantly) North African"? Answer: DNA Tribes MLI score table was what people wanted to revel in and such a caveat, though self-evident, would only complicate the precious faith-based narrative.
Folks simply "decide" when the throw in caveats and when to leave highly misleading data as devoid of context as possible.
Keep on side stepping, shucking and jiving with your responses and ducking my points raised.
No Charlie, my patience with your duplicitousness is completely up.quote:Your position is that AE are climate adapted SSA groups. You were trying to argue that not being cranio-facially close to SSA groups doesn't mean you can't be genetically close to these groups. After all, they are just "climate adapted" transplants from SSA. You have been proven completely wrong where that is concerned. And another claim you made that can be dispelled today is that the Toubou belong to this "cluster" of climate-adapted SSA groups. In 2016 this was proven to be completely false; The Toubou have a substantial chunk of non-SSA ancestry (Haber et al 2016) that explains their semi-intermediate position. But when I said it back then you said I was "losing credibility fast".
Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans? Man come on with that, you're losing credibility, bioanthropology is NOT a nasal science, those things are mostly influenced by climate, not geographic specific ancestry. If Brace says that groups like Fulani, Teda and Kanuri plot in between "Niger Congo" speakers and people's of the Mediteranean Coast you know full well AEs plot in the same position. Keita's study on Northeast Africa craniofacial Variation confirmed it, so the notion tht AEs don't overlap with SSAs is bogus and it makes no sense to cite a study thats loaded with geographically distant populations like Teita, Haya, Gabonese, etc proves there is no overlap.
quote:Precisely.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:I do believe this particular community that's being sampled is of mixed ancestry, rather than representing the whole indigenous AE population over time. As others have mentioned in the other thread, it would have been preferable if they had gotten some Y-DNA haplogroups along with the mtDNA and nuclear DNA data. Beyoku has told me that certain PN2 lineages appear to be native to the northeastern corner of Africa and therefore would have been abundant in AE. If a later study ends up finding a paucity of these lineages in this Abusir el-Meleq sample, it would lend credence to them representing a foreign or at least heavily admixed community.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:The mtDNA is pure maternal. It could indicate that these people had foreign wives depending on the dates.
Originally posted by beyoku:
But the mtdna still is what it is.
Your thoughts on it?
quote:When you say this they will simply accuse you of "revised Hamiticism". Look at what has been said about me recently. You're mistaken if you think these people can be reasoned with and will settle on "indigenous African".
Originally posted by the lioness,:
The question is to what extent were the Egyptians indigenous Africans. That should settle everything.
quote:Stop lying. You are one of the biggest culprits on the forum! Furthermore we are not debating with the likes of Mary Lefkowitz. This is a prime example of when I talked or ES folks being collectively left in the Dust as far as bio/anthro and how it relates to human populations. You still posting images of Mary......she is no longer the antagonist. You bringing her up is like Trump planning up strategy to destroy imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Sure and no one credible claims that AEs were mostly
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I'm speaking for myself and I never make those claims that AE=all or mostly SSA. One can have supra-Saharan ancestry and still be black. The results of this study still don't refute or rule out an African Egypt.
SSA at all times, in all places. Who goes about "denying"
migration at various levels from the Levant...........
Based on the history and application of that construct,
AE's would be considered "black" as Mary Lefkowitz herself freely
acknowledges, and even Egyptologists like Tyson-Smith 2001,
consider the use of the label "black" as reasonable.
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DprXzn0HCsU/VMHRJCj9IcI/AAAAAAAABVU/W2LoPVCnUrE/s1600/marylefkowitz_onedrop.jpg
quote:I never understood why people so desperately tried to associate the ancient Egyptians with populations beyond Central Sudan. I still assert that Southern Egyptians and specific "Nubians" (Lower "Nubia") were ethnically very close and stem from a common origin in the predynastic period.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Stop lying. You are one of the biggest culprits on the forum! Furthermore we are not debating with the likes of Mary Lefkowitz. This is a prime example of when I talked or ES folks being collectively left in the Dust as far as bio/anthro and how it relates to human populations. You still posting images of Mary......she is no longer the antagonist. You bringing her up is like Trump planning up strategy to destroy imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Sure and no one credible claims that AEs were mostly
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I'm speaking for myself and I never make those claims that AE=all or mostly SSA. One can have supra-Saharan ancestry and still be black. The results of this study still don't refute or rule out an African Egypt.
SSA at all times, in all places. Who goes about "denying"
migration at various levels from the Levant...........
Based on the history and application of that construct,
AE's would be considered "black" as Mary Lefkowitz herself freely
acknowledges, and even Egyptologists like Tyson-Smith 2001,
consider the use of the label "black" as reasonable.
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DprXzn0HCsU/VMHRJCj9IcI/AAAAAAAABVU/W2LoPVCnUrE/s1600/marylefkowitz_onedrop.jpg
Back to you being the culprit. Nearly every one of your soft core image spams talks about the relation of AE to SSA groups via recent South North migration. Not to North Africans......not to them being distinct in their own right. Not too much on substructure. No it equates AE culture/linguistics/bio history with populations below the Sahara. There is nothing WRONG with this......but don't fake like this ain't your whole modus operati. It's on RECORD.
DNA tribes spam was about you and nearly everyone else tying AE to SSA groups. The 2 counter theories were from Swenet.....saying the data is not literal and Egyptians and horners contain a lot of these alleles.....about North African affinities in SSA due to pastoralism. And myself which argued the affinity is old and Saharan....then I argued the STR affinity was essentially extinct and the results mean very little. ES et al went batshiit.
Did ES argue that those alleles or autosomal components (Great Lakes, Southern African) were North African? Not really. Did ES argue that E1b1a in Ramses III was a North African variant of E-M2.....or that E-M2 itself was North African. Not really. The narrative what strongly in the opposite. Even when I brought up the idea that it could be V-22 folks were going bat shiit crazy.
At this point I dont recall any ES member making statements that Dynastic Egyptians.......REGARDLESS of dynasty/region would be LESS SSA and moderns.......folks want to sit back now and be like "that's what I always thought". Man y'all take a polygraph test that shiit would probably explode.
quote:That is an interesting question.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
quote:Thats not what I ever said in the genetic sense, so don't put words in my mouth. Find ONE DAMN post where I said Ancient Egyptians were genetically SSA from the beginning and always. I never said that. The peoples of the Sahara are black people, and craniometrically do cluster with people further south, despite whatever genetics they and they are still African, so don't put any damn words in my mouth where I said anything about AEs being geneticallly pure or fully SSA. I've always taken Keita's position and not even he says AEs were fully SSA.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Bass
So then what was your point for bringing up the Toubou and falsely pass them off as 1) a climate-adapted SSA population and 2) an example of a SSA population that clusters with AE? Why did you do that? You mean to say that it was your point all along to say that Toubou are genetically not closely related to AE? Let me guess: your point all along was to argue that Brace et al 1993 were right for not using them as an example of a representative SSA population?
quote:"Eurasia" covers a large swathe of the earth's landmass; "Eurasians" in the Adaman islands are at least as dark (if not darker) than the Monjang (Dinka), Rami mi raan ("Nuer") and the Chollo (Shilluk).
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:That is an interesting question.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
quote:Interesting view.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:"Eurasia" covers a large swathe of the earth's landmass; "Eurasians" in the Adaman islands are at least as dark (if not darker) than the Monjang (Dinka), Rami mi raan ("Nuer") and the Chollo (Shilluk).
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:That is an interesting question.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
But you can't be predominantly European (genetically) and be black.
quote:http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/european-genetic-identity-may-stretch-back-36000-years
Europeans carry a motley mix of genes from at least three ancient sources: indigenous hunter-gatherers within Europe, people from the Middle East, and northwest Asians from near the Great Steppe of eastern Europe and central Asia. One high-profile recent study suggested that each genetic component entered Europe by way of a separate migration and that they only came together in most Europeans in the past 5000 years. Now ancient DNA from the fossilized skeleton of a short, dark-skinned, dark-eyed man who lived at least 36,000 years ago along the Middle Don River in Russia presents a different view: This young man had DNA from all three of those migratory groups and so was already “pure European,” says evolutionary biologist Eske Willerslev of the Natural History Museum of Denmark at the University of Copenhagen, who led the analysis.
quote:—M. Gallego-Llorente, R. Pinhasi et al.
She lacked the derived variant (rs16891982) of the SLC45A2 gene associated with light skin pigmentation but had at least one copy of the derived SLC24A5 allele (rs1426654) associated with the same trait.
quote:Black is a metaphor for darker brown. You speak of a gradient level.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
can one differentiate black and brown genetically?
quote:The same can be said for white.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
you guys talk like black is a race or something
quote:John H. Van Evrie, 1868 edition of White Supremacy and Negro Subordination.
31. The essential elements that gave to Protestant Ascendancy after 1689 in Ireland and white supremacy in continental Anglo-America the character of racial oppression were those that first destroyed the original forms of social identity among the subject population, and then excluded the members of that population from admittance into the forms of social identity normal to the colonizing power. The codifications of this basic organizing principle in the Penal Laws of the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland and the slave codes of white supremacy in continental Anglo-America present four common defining characteristics of those two regimes: 1) declassing legislation, directed at property-holding members of the oppressed group; 2) the deprivation of civil rights; 3) the illegalization of literacy; and 4) displacement of family rights and authorities.46
quote:You're referencing a period that far back in time? I thought it pertained to relatively modern populations and that's why I pointed to the Andaman Islands.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Interesting view.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:"Eurasia" covers a large swathe of the earth's landmass; "Eurasians" in the Adaman islands are at least as dark (if not darker) than the Monjang (Dinka), Rami mi raan ("Nuer") and the Chollo (Shilluk).
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:That is an interesting question.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
But you can't be predominantly European (genetically) and be black.
quote:http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/european-genetic-identity-may-stretch-back-36000-years
Europeans carry a motley mix of genes from at least three ancient sources: indigenous hunter-gatherers within Europe, people from the Middle East, and northwest Asians from near the Great Steppe of eastern Europe and central Asia. One high-profile recent study suggested that each genetic component entered Europe by way of a separate migration and that they only came together in most Europeans in the past 5000 years. Now ancient DNA from the fossilized skeleton of a short, dark-skinned, dark-eyed man who lived at least 36,000 years ago along the Middle Don River in Russia presents a different view: This young man had DNA from all three of those migratory groups and so was already “pure European,” says evolutionary biologist Eske Willerslev of the Natural History Museum of Denmark at the University of Copenhagen, who led the analysis.
quote:—M. Gallego-Llorente, R. Pinhasi et al.
She lacked the derived variant (rs16891982) of the SLC45A2 gene associated with light skin pigmentation but had at least one copy of the derived SLC24A5 allele (rs1426654) associated with the same trait.
The genetics of an early Neolithic pastoralist from the Zagros, Iran
quote:The initial statement was "Even full European DNA and be "Black".
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:You're referencing a period that far back in time? I thought it pertained to relatively modern populations and that's why I pointed to the Andaman Islands.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Interesting view.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:"Eurasia" covers a large swathe of the earth's landmass; "Eurasians" in the Adaman islands are at least as dark (if not darker) than the Monjang (Dinka), Rami mi raan ("Nuer") and the Chollo (Shilluk).
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:That is an interesting question.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
But you can't be predominantly European (genetically) and be black.
quote:http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/european-genetic-identity-may-stretch-back-36000-years
Europeans carry a motley mix of genes from at least three ancient sources: indigenous hunter-gatherers within Europe, people from the Middle East, and northwest Asians from near the Great Steppe of eastern Europe and central Asia. One high-profile recent study suggested that each genetic component entered Europe by way of a separate migration and that they only came together in most Europeans in the past 5000 years. Now ancient DNA from the fossilized skeleton of a short, dark-skinned, dark-eyed man who lived at least 36,000 years ago along the Middle Don River in Russia presents a different view: This young man had DNA from all three of those migratory groups and so was already “pure European,” says evolutionary biologist Eske Willerslev of the Natural History Museum of Denmark at the University of Copenhagen, who led the analysis.
quote:—M. Gallego-Llorente, R. Pinhasi et al.
She lacked the derived variant (rs16891982) of the SLC45A2 gene associated with light skin pigmentation but had at least one copy of the derived SLC24A5 allele (rs1426654) associated with the same trait.
The genetics of an early Neolithic pastoralist from the Zagros, Iran
quote:I guess you refer to this?
Originally posted by sudaniya:
You're referencing a period that far back in time? I thought it pertained to relatively modern populations and that's why I pointed to the Andaman Islands.
quote:
Originally posted by EgalitarianJay:
I've seen very racist posters on Egyptsearch who promote the Egyptocentric position.
quote:"Tropical adaption" is certainly not a fallible argument. Euroloons have fought this for many years, and it still got you nowhere.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Nearly the whole forum (excluding me and Swenet and only one or two others) at one point was opposing a North African [Saharan i.e. autochthonous Egyptian] origin/affinity of ancient Egyptians. I was here 2013-2015 and on another forum (2016) and remember those debates well. People here are outright lying about their post histories.
Myself and others got called a "racist" by EgalitarianJay for simply arguing ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians, so-called "Egyptcentrism":
quote:
Originally posted by EgalitarianJay:
I've seen very racist posters on Egyptsearch who promote the Egyptocentric position.
Also, people here (the usual suspects) have deceptively used "tropical adapted" as a back-door for pan-Africanism. For example, since Lower/Upper Nubia (northern Sudan) is in the tropics (but the Sahara, not SSA), Afrocentrists then use "tropical adapted" to try to insert SSA's. Zaharan has been doing this for years, so did EgalitarianJay when I debated him on this.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
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.
quote:http://www.dental-tribune.com/articles/news/middleeastafrica/19254_tooth_plaque_provides_insights_into_diet_of_prehistoric_ancestors.html
Excavation of one of 90 pre-Mesolithic graves at Al Khiday 2. The graves are over 9,000 years old, and all the skeletons are buried elongated and face down, which is unique worldwide. (Photograph: Donatella Usai, Centro Studi Sudanesi e Sub-Sahariani)
quote:Blacks are indigenous to the Sahara and are there to this very day, so this "Sub-Saharan" nonsense doesn't help you in the slightest.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Nearly the whole forum (excluding me and Swenet and only one or two others) at one point was opposing a North African [Saharan i.e. autochthonous Egyptian] origin/affinity of ancient Egyptians. I was here 2013-2015 and on another forum (2016) and remember those debates well. People here are outright lying about their post histories.
Myself and others got called a "racist" by EgalitarianJay for simply arguing ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians, so-called "Egyptcentrism":
quote:
Originally posted by EgalitarianJay:
I've seen very racist posters on Egyptsearch who promote the Egyptocentric position.
Also, people here (the usual suspects) have deceptively used "tropical adapted" as a back-door for pan-Africanism. For example, since Lower/Upper Nubia (northern Sudan) is in the tropics (but the Sahara, not SSA), Afrocentrists then use "tropical adapted" to try to insert SSA's. Zaharan has been doing this for years, so did EgalitarianJay when I debated him on this.
quote:The geno-hamiticists already answered.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
To what extent should all of ancient Egypt be represented by samples exclusively sourced from the North? This is the equivalent of claiming that New Jersey is the center of American financial and economic power instead of New York and California.
quote:Cosigned.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Blacks are indigenous to the Sahara and are there to this very day, so this "Sub-Saharan" nonsense doesn't help you in the slightest.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Nearly the whole forum (excluding me and Swenet and only one or two others) at one point was opposing a North African [Saharan i.e. autochthonous Egyptian] origin/affinity of ancient Egyptians. I was here 2013-2015 and on another forum (2016) and remember those debates well. People here are outright lying about their post histories.
Myself and others got called a "racist" by EgalitarianJay for simply arguing ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians, so-called "Egyptcentrism":
quote:
Originally posted by EgalitarianJay:
I've seen very racist posters on Egyptsearch who promote the Egyptocentric position.
Also, people here (the usual suspects) have deceptively used "tropical adapted" as a back-door for pan-Africanism. For example, since Lower/Upper Nubia (northern Sudan) is in the tropics (but the Sahara, not SSA), Afrocentrists then use "tropical adapted" to try to insert SSA's. Zaharan has been doing this for years, so did EgalitarianJay when I debated him on this.
There is essentially nothing wrong with saying that ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptian provided that you don't push the absolute fantasy that the black Southern Egyptians don't exist today. You will also have to stop pretending that Southern Egyptians didn't create and dominate the ancient Egyptian civilization politically, demographically and militarily for the bulk of dynastic Egyptian history.
quote:Really man. Really? You haven't seen the biological affinity of ancient Europeans matched with their skin color? Do you visit any other sites than ES?
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:"Eurasia" covers a large swathe of the earth's landmass; "Eurasians" in the Adaman islands are at least as dark (if not darker) than the Monjang (Dinka), Rami mi raan ("Nuer") and the Chollo (Shilluk).
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:That is an interesting question.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
But you can't be predominantly European (genetically) and be black.
quote:Per the @ss backwards rule of hypodescent (concocted by Eurolunacy btw) you can. Hence you get the sheer stupidity of people who look like this being considered black/negroid and subject to all the discrimination/prejudice as people with less European admixture:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:"Eurasia" covers a large swathe of the earth's landmass; "Eurasians" in the Adaman islands are at least as dark (if not darker) than the Monjang (Dinka), Rami mi raan ("Nuer") and the Chollo (Shilluk).
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:That is an interesting question.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
But you can't be predominantly European (genetically) and be black.
but of course afroloons are the only source of dishonesty/stupidity.
. Yet its Afroloons(Cass' synonym for black people) who are pulling shenanigans???? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Did you bother to read my post following that? I clarified my position. I thought Ish was referring to relatively recent populations - not to early Europeans that could very easily be described as black.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Really man. Really? You haven't seen the biological affinity of ancient Europeans matched with their skin color? Do you visit any other sites than ES?
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:"Eurasia" covers a large swathe of the earth's landmass; "Eurasians" in the Adaman islands are at least as dark (if not darker) than the Monjang (Dinka), Rami mi raan ("Nuer") and the Chollo (Shilluk).
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:That is an interesting question.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
But you can't be predominantly European (genetically) and be black.
quote:Your question is complex. Do you mean North East or North West?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
^for your sake, I'm still trying to find what people are considering Unique North African?
Those MtDNA profiles don't look "unique" for 1.
And 2, what happened to the whole Nubian-Egyptian relationship coalition?
quote:Lower Egyptians are/were not tropically adapted. Take a look at Raxter (2011); the northern ancient Egyptian sample(s) are closer in mean crural index (pooled sexes) to southern Europeans, than Upper Egyptians & Nubians. In fact the difference is only 0.2 between Southern Europeans and Lower Egyptians... they're almost identical.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Swenet, STOP putting words in my mouth chewing on strawmen, I stated with supporting evidence from Keita, that SAEs are craniometrically similar to Upper Nile people, Saharan groups and Horners, if you have a problem with my position go see Keita and tell him the same BS that this so called new study refutes his craniometric studies. Enough of the tapdancing Swenet, address what I say and am stating or get the helll off my post setting up strawmen. You haven't addressed anything in my OP and I know why for good reason.
Middle Egyptians from the Late Dynastic period are in no way fully indicative of the entire population and its been well noted that they trend more towards Near Easterners that predynastic and Early Dynastic samples. Since this study does NOT have predynasic and early dynastic samples DNA wise no one can say they were tropically adapted Near Eastern people who got blacker.
Now I will not address any more strawmen or distortions of my position Swenet, in essence stop being a coward hiding behind an abstract from a study and man up and address my points
quote:Side note:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Lower Egyptians are/were not tropically adapted. Take a look at Raxter (2011); the northern ancient Egyptian sample(s) are closer in mean crural index (pooled sexes) to southern Europeans, than Upper Egyptians & Nubians. In fact the difference is only 0.2 between Southern Europeans and Lower Egyptians... they're almost identical.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Swenet, STOP putting words in my mouth chewing on strawmen, I stated with supporting evidence from Keita, that SAEs are craniometrically similar to Upper Nile people, Saharan groups and Horners, if you have a problem with my position go see Keita and tell him the same BS that this so called new study refutes his craniometric studies. Enough of the tapdancing Swenet, address what I say and am stating or get the helll off my post setting up strawmen. You haven't addressed anything in my OP and I know why for good reason.
Middle Egyptians from the Late Dynastic period are in no way fully indicative of the entire population and its been well noted that they trend more towards Near Easterners that predynastic and Early Dynastic samples. Since this study does NOT have predynasic and early dynastic samples DNA wise no one can say they were tropically adapted Near Eastern people who got blacker.
Now I will not address any more strawmen or distortions of my position Swenet, in essence stop being a coward hiding behind an abstract from a study and man up and address my points
Northern European: 82.5
Southern European: 83.9
Lower Egyptian: 84.1
Upper Egyptian: 85.1
Lower Nubian: 86.6
If you're talking about 'tropical adapted' Egyptians, you have to restrict this to Upper Egyptians, but this doesn't show for all post-crania metrics like body-breath, only limb metrics. Raxter (2011) found as a whole, Egyptians "tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations" in body-breadth.
quote:I think I'm fine with "restricting" it to the most important region of ancient Egypt; the area where the civilization sprang from; the area in which the population was virtually identical to Lower "Nubians"; the politically dominant region; the region that conquered the other part of Egypt - starting the dynastic period; the geographically largest; the demographically dominant region; the richer, more sophisticated and more advanced region.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Side note:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Lower Egyptians are/were not tropically adapted. Take a look at Raxter (2011); the northern ancient Egyptian sample(s) are closer in mean crural index (pooled sexes) to southern Europeans, than Upper Egyptians & Nubians. In fact the difference is only 0.2 between Southern Europeans and Lower Egyptians... they're almost identical.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Swenet, STOP putting words in my mouth chewing on strawmen, I stated with supporting evidence from Keita, that SAEs are craniometrically similar to Upper Nile people, Saharan groups and Horners, if you have a problem with my position go see Keita and tell him the same BS that this so called new study refutes his craniometric studies. Enough of the tapdancing Swenet, address what I say and am stating or get the helll off my post setting up strawmen. You haven't addressed anything in my OP and I know why for good reason.
Middle Egyptians from the Late Dynastic period are in no way fully indicative of the entire population and its been well noted that they trend more towards Near Easterners that predynastic and Early Dynastic samples. Since this study does NOT have predynasic and early dynastic samples DNA wise no one can say they were tropically adapted Near Eastern people who got blacker.
Now I will not address any more strawmen or distortions of my position Swenet, in essence stop being a coward hiding behind an abstract from a study and man up and address my points
Northern European: 82.5
Southern European: 83.9
Lower Egyptian: 84.1
Upper Egyptian: 85.1
Lower Nubian: 86.6
If you're talking about 'tropical adapted' Egyptians, you have to restrict this to Upper Egyptians, but this doesn't show for all post-crania metrics like body-breath, only limb metrics. Raxter (2011) found as a whole, Egyptians "tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations" in body-breadth.
The "Most AE lived in upper Egypt?" thread.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009590;p=1#000000
quote:These ancient DNA results are a blow to the Saharan/North African hypothesis. I gave the latter up. It now looks like sometime right at the end of the Pleistocene or early Holocene (say between 13,000 and 9,000 BP) there was a large scale demic movement into Egypt from south Levant/Arabia. It is tempting to link this to the spread of Afro-Asiatic into North Africa, and this is still being done by expert linguists despite Afrocentrics faking a scholarly consensus PAA originated inside Africa:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Blacks are indigenous to the Sahara and are there to this very day, so this "Sub-Saharan" nonsense doesn't help you in the slightest.
There is essentially nothing wrong with saying that ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptian provided that you don't push the absolute fantasy that the black Southern Egyptians don't exist today. You will also have to stop pretending that Southern Egyptians didn't create and dominate the ancient Egyptian civilization politically, demographically and militarily for the bulk of dynastic Egyptian history.
quote:- "Levant and North Africa: Afroasiatic linguistic history", Václav Blažek (2013)
This chapter examines the linguistic history of the Afroasiatic language family that spans much of the Near East and North Africa. It extends further the discussions of North African population history in chapters 12 and 14, and favors an Asian rather than African ultimate source for the whole Afroasiatic family.
quote:Hey idiot, try checked out the tropical limbs of predynastic Northern Egyptians. The sample size is small, but given the time frame:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Lower Egyptians are/were not tropically adapted. Take a look at Raxter (2011); the northern ancient Egyptian sample(s) are closer in mean crural index (pooled sexes) to southern Europeans, than Upper Egyptians & Nubians. In fact the difference is only 0.2 between Southern Europeans and Lower Egyptians... they're almost identical.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Swenet, STOP putting words in my mouth chewing on strawmen, I stated with supporting evidence from Keita, that SAEs are craniometrically similar to Upper Nile people, Saharan groups and Horners, if you have a problem with my position go see Keita and tell him the same BS that this so called new study refutes his craniometric studies. Enough of the tapdancing Swenet, address what I say and am stating or get the helll off my post setting up strawmen. You haven't addressed anything in my OP and I know why for good reason.
Middle Egyptians from the Late Dynastic period are in no way fully indicative of the entire population and its been well noted that they trend more towards Near Easterners that predynastic and Early Dynastic samples. Since this study does NOT have predynasic and early dynastic samples DNA wise no one can say they were tropically adapted Near Eastern people who got blacker.
Now I will not address any more strawmen or distortions of my position Swenet, in essence stop being a coward hiding behind an abstract from a study and man up and address my points
Northern European: 82.5
Southern European: 83.9
Lower Egyptian: 84.1
Upper Egyptian: 85.1
Lower Nubian: 86.6
Upper Nubian: 85.5
If you're talking about 'tropical adapted' Egyptians, you have to restrict this to Upper Egyptians, but this doesn't show for all post-crania metrics like body-breath, only limb metrics. Raxter (2011) found as a whole, Egyptians "tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations" in body-breadth.
quote:No such evidence for this. You're desperate and reaching. Late period genetic samples are not going to establish facts on events that transpired significantly earlier. I don't think that linguists or historians will conclude from these late period Northern Egyptian samples that Afro-Asiatic entered Africa through the Levant.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:These ancient DNA results are a blow to the Saharan/North African hypothesis. I gave the latter up. It now looks like sometime right at the end of the Pleistocene or early Holocene (say between 13,000 and 9,000 BP) there was a large scale demic movement into Egypt from south Levant/Arabia. It is tempting to link this to the spread of Afro-Asiatic into North Africa, and this is still being done by expert linguists despite Afrocentrics faking a scholarly consensus PAA originated inside Africa:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Blacks are indigenous to the Sahara and are there to this very day, so this "Sub-Saharan" nonsense doesn't help you in the slightest.
There is essentially nothing wrong with saying that ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptian provided that you don't push the absolute fantasy that the black Southern Egyptians don't exist today. You will also have to stop pretending that Southern Egyptians didn't create and dominate the ancient Egyptian civilization politically, demographically and militarily for the bulk of dynastic Egyptian history.
quote:- "Levant and North Africa: Afroasiatic linguistic history", Václav Blažek (2013)
This chapter examines the linguistic history of the Afroasiatic language family that spans much of the Near East and North Africa. It extends further the discussions of North African population history in chapters 12 and 14, and favors an Asian rather than African ultimate source for the whole Afroasiatic family.
This recent study (book chapter) is on google books.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Bla%C5%BEek
quote:"Strawmen or distortions".
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Swenet, STOP putting words in my mouth chewing on strawmen, I stated with supporting evidence from Keita, that SAEs are craniometrically similar to Upper Nile people, Saharan groups and Horners, if you have a problem with my position go see Keita and tell him the same BS that this so called new study refutes his craniometric studies. Enough of the tapdancing Swenet, address what I say and am stating or get the helll off my post setting up strawmen. You haven't addressed anything in my OP and I know why for good reason.
Middle Egyptians from the Late Dynastic period are in no way fully indicative of the entire population and its been well noted that they trend more towards Near Easterners that predynastic and Early Dynastic samples. Since this study does NOT have predynasic and early dynastic samples DNA wise no one can say they were tropically adapted Near Eastern people who got blacker.
Now I will not address any more strawmen or distortions of my position Swenet, in essence stop being a coward hiding behind an abstract from a study and man up and address my points
quote:Strawmen, I never said AEs GENETICALLY cluster that way, moron. I have a ton of posts on here stating my position going back to 2003.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:"Strawmen or distortions".
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Swenet, STOP putting words in my mouth chewing on strawmen, I stated with supporting evidence from Keita, that SAEs are craniometrically similar to Upper Nile people, Saharan groups and Horners, if you have a problem with my position go see Keita and tell him the same BS that this so called new study refutes his craniometric studies. Enough of the tapdancing Swenet, address what I say and am stating or get the helll off my post setting up strawmen. You haven't addressed anything in my OP and I know why for good reason.
Middle Egyptians from the Late Dynastic period are in no way fully indicative of the entire population and its been well noted that they trend more towards Near Easterners that predynastic and Early Dynastic samples. Since this study does NOT have predynasic and early dynastic samples DNA wise no one can say they were tropically adapted Near Eastern people who got blacker.
Now I will not address any more strawmen or distortions of my position Swenet, in essence stop being a coward hiding behind an abstract from a study and man up and address my points
Please.
You falsely portrayed Toubou as 1) a climate-adapted SSA group and 2) an example of a SSA group that clusters with AE. Now all of a sudden you were only talking about cranio-facial similarity and not genetic similarity. Perfect example of people trying to play both sides of the fence.
Charlie Bass in 2014:
- "AE cluster with groups from SSA like the Toubou"
Charlie Bass in 2017:
- "I never said AE were largely SSA. STOP POSTING STRAWMEN. I NEVER SAID THAT. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH"
quote:You brought up Brace and I called your bluff. AEs were NE Africans. NE African do NOT fall lout of the range of SSAs craniometricaly. I have yet another emaill reply from Colin P Groves, another anthropologist on this matter:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Bass, you're not going to win a craniofacial argument with me. Quoting Brace et al to salvage a point will lead nowhere.
I don't mean to interrupt your thread. Carry on. Like I said, I just wanted to react to a both-sides-of-the-fence point you made in the OP.
quote:Why don't you post data? As for the Third Intermediate Period the time from of these mummy samples, I would have to see why they studied because this period had a lot of kings of Libyan origin. Just read for yourself.
Originally posted by Swenet:
"I called your bluff".
"Made light work of this chump"
You're a funny character. I'm just going soft on you and you mistake that for a weakness or retreating. Brace says in his own work that some of his variables are climate controlled. So what is the use of posting "inside information" saying the exact same thing?
But if you insist on further embarrassment, post actual data (not opinions from academics) showing that AE "do NOT fall lout of the range of SSAs craniometricaly". The only examples you'll post is groups like the Toubou who have substantial non-SSA ancestry.
And if by the end of the discussion it has become obvious that you can't prove me wrong, you'll just do the next best thing: try to get back at me and say I'm a Hamiticist in a passive aggressive fit.
One simply can't win trying to argue people like you.
quote:Stop deflecting. I already posted data. That's what led you to post the false claim that AE cluster with "SSA groups like Toubou" in the first place back in 2014. You were trying to take up for Amun Ra and the other trolls you now try to distance yourself from when you say "I have never come across anyone who said AE=SSA".
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Why don't you post data?
quote:You didn't post data, you distorted my position. Man you're just all talk.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Stop deflecting. I already posted data. That's what led you to post the false claim that AE cluster with "SSA groups like Toubou" in the first place back in 2014. You were trying to take up for Amun Ra and the other trolls you now try to distance yourself from when you say "I have never come across anyone who said AE=SSA".
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Why don't you post data?
Will you fess up to your intellectual dishonesty and admit that the Toubou have 20-30% non-SSA ancestry and therefore are not an example of a "SSA population that clusters with AE"?
quote:Hilarious lying euroloons keep switching to adapt and claim African history.
Originally posted by Cass/:
These ancient DNA results are a blow to the Saharan/North African hypothesis. I gave the latter up. It now looks like sometime right at the end of the Pleistocene or early Holocene (say between 13,000 and 9,000 BP) there was a large scale demic movement into Egypt from south Levant/Arabia.
quote:Stop posting garbage. Branches of Afroasiatic are being spoken in West Africa as well and logically East Africa. The substratum of Afrasan is known as Semitic like: Arabic and Hebrew and these are relatively young languages, coming out of Aramaic.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:- "Levant and North Africa: Afroasiatic linguistic history", Václav Blažek (2013)
This chapter examines the linguistic history of the Afroasiatic language family that spans much of the Near East and North Africa. It extends further the discussions of North African population history in chapters 12 and 14, and favors an Asian rather than African ultimate source for the whole Afroasiatic family.
This recent study (book chapter) is on google books.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Bla%C5%BEek
quote:--Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim*,1
Archeological and paleontological evidences point to East Africa as the likely area of early evolution of modern humans. Genetic studies also indicate that populations from the region often contain, but not exclusively, representatives of the more basal clades of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome phylogenies.
Most Y-chromosome haplogroup diversity in Africa, however, is present within macrohaplogroup E that seem to have appeared 21 000–32 000 YBP somewhere between the Red Sea and Lake Chad. The combined analysis of 17 bi-allelic markers in 1214 Y chromosomes together with cultural background of 49 populations displayed in various metrics: network, multidimensional scaling, principal component analysis and neighbor-joining plots, indicate a major contribution of East African populations to the foundation of the macrohaplogroup, suggesting a diversification that predates the appearance of some cultural traits and the subsequent expansion that is more associated with the cultural and linguistic diversity witnessed today. The proto-Afro-Asiatic group carrying the E-P2 mutation may have appeared at this point in time and subsequently gave rise to the different major population groups including current speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralist populations.
[...]
The network analysis on the chromosomes carrying E haplogroupswas robust enough with a main cluster near the root represented by Kunama (KUN) encompassing most of Eritreans and Sudanese populations, including Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic speakerssuggesting that linguistic divergence is either a subsequent event topopulation divergence, language replacement or that the two linguisticfamilies may have shared a common origin.
[…]
quote:You clearly thought your Sahelian samples are "climate-adapted" SSA groups. In other words, they were supposed to be transplants from SSA who are closer to North Africans purely because of climatic adaptation. This led to your circular reasoning that Brace shouldn't be picky and use these Sahelian samples as valid SSA alternatives to his other SSA samples, since they supposedly owe their differentiation purely to climate, not mixture.
Listen Swenet, lol, let me explain this on finer terms since I actually had email contact with Brace years ago and why his methodology and using his study isn't helping your case. I inquired about Fulani and whee do they sit in his analyses and to my surprise he said he grouped them in a "Northeast African cluster," which to me is shocking since the sample he studied came from West Africa. The Somali sample he studied came from Somalia, now why does he group populations that are GEOGRAPHICALLY from sub-Saharan Africa and exclude them FROM Sub-Saharan Africa when they DO NOT fit the trend of what he thinks is "truly sub-Saharan African? In other words, in Brace's mind and watch what I say here, IF THEY DON'T LOOK what he considers sub-Saharan he systematically excludes them and puts them in a geographically distant area from where they are truly from and apart of, that's why when he says and I quote
quote:Rightmire (1984) retracted his previous claims about the East African crania. All those skeletal remains (Gamble's Cave, Elmenteita, Willey's Kopje etc.) were re-dated in the 1980s. None of them are prehistoric, but Iron Age (500 BCE).
Both Rightmire and Hiernaux
> concluded that prehistoric East Africans are ancestral
> to the above stated modern living East African
> populations.
quote:I was talking about craniometrics. Their DNA is stil lAfrican and since they are in teh Sahel why would wouldn't they have a somewhat Saharan/North African component?
Originally posted by Swenet:
Charlie Bass in 2014:
quote:You clearly thought your Sahelian samples are "climate-adapted" SSA groups. In other words, they were supposed to be transplants from SSA who are closer to North Africans purely because of climatic adaptation. This led to your circular reasoning that Brace shouldn't be picky and use these Sahelian samples as valid SSA alternatives to his other SSA samples, since they supposedly owe their differentiation purely to climate, not mixture.
Listen Swenet, lol, let me explain this on finer terms since I actually had email contact with Brace years ago and why his methodology and using his study isn't helping your case. I inquired about Fulani and whee do they sit in his analyses and to my surprise he said he grouped them in a "Northeast African cluster," which to me is shocking since the sample he studied came from West Africa. The Somali sample he studied came from Somalia, now why does he group populations that are GEOGRAPHICALLY from sub-Saharan Africa and exclude them FROM Sub-Saharan Africa when they DO NOT fit the trend of what he thinks is "truly sub-Saharan African? In other words, in Brace's mind and watch what I say here, IF THEY DON'T LOOK what he considers sub-Saharan he systematically excludes them and puts them in a geographically distant area from where they are truly from and apart of, that's why when he says and I quote
Groups like Daza, Kanembou and Toubou have been sequenced recently and you're completely wrong. But, as usual, people like you can't be falsified. When they're proven to be wrong they just secretly dissemble their goalposts, set up shop elsewhere and hold a grudge.
^Charlie's Sahelian populations are clearly mixed with a North African-like components. No wonder why he likes to spam them as valid biologically SSA alternatives.
When these so-called "SSA" samples with North African-like components are accounted for, there is nothing left for you to argue that AE "do NOT fall lout of the range of SSAs craniometricaly". This is why you deflected back to me and said I should post data instead. You have nothing other than continued trolling.
But, like I said, don't mind me. This is all off topic. Carry on your thread. I'm sure plenty of people here are anxious to hear more of your both-sides-of-the-fence arguments.
quote:Lol. Charlie said "somewhat North African". Both the light grey and the light blue include North African-like ancestry. Charlie thought I was just talking about the relatively minor "Mozabite" light blue in these Sahelian populations.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
why would wouldn't they have a somewhat Saharan/North African component?
quote:"North African" like can just as well be Saharan. Both Sahelians and North Africans would share such a component since they have ancestors from the Sahara and migrated North and South when it dried up.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Lol. Charlie said "somewhat North African". Both the light grey and the light blue include North African-like ancestry. Charlie thought I was just talking about the relatively minor "Mozabite" light blue in these Sahelian populations.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
why would wouldn't they have a somewhat Saharan/North African component?
quote:LOL @ this euroloon
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Rightmire (1984) retracted his previous claims about the East African crania. All those skeletal remains (Gamble's Cave, Elmenteita, Willey's Kopje etc.) were re-dated in the 1980s. None of them are prehistoric, but Iron Age (500 BCE).
Both Rightmire and Hiernaux
> concluded that prehistoric East Africans are ancestral
> to the above stated modern living East African
> populations.
Hiernaux (1975) is often misquoted by Afrocentrists. He never actually denied substantial "Caucasoid" mixture in the Sahel and Horn of Africa.
"The larger sample of northern Somali belonging to various groups, the best represented being the Warsingili, are much shorter (169 cm) and have a relatively narrower face and nose; apparently they are strongly Arabicized."
"We are on much firmer ground in the case of populations which exhibit values near to the 'Arab' end of the scale for a number of independent traits: the probability that factors other than genetic admixture might generate such systematic affinities with Arabs is very low. Such is clearly the case for the populations of central Ethiopia."
You flip flop from one thing to the other and it all contradicts each other, you desperate clown.
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008777;p=1#000000
Originally posted by Cass/:
"The larger sample of northern Somali belonging to various groups, the best represented being the Warsingili, are much shorter (169 cm) and have a relatively narrower face and nose; apparently they are strongly Arabicized."
"We are on much firmer ground in the case of populations which exhibit values near to the 'Arab' end of the scale for a number of independent traits: the probability that factors other than genetic admixture might generate such systematic affinities with Arabs is very low. Such is clearly the case for the populations of central Ethiopia."
quote:--Mae Goder-Goldberger
There is clear evidence of lithic technological variability in Middle Paleolithic (MP) assemblages along the Nile valley and in adjacent desert areas. One of the identified variants is the Khormusan, the type-site of which, Site 1017, is located north of the Nile's Second Cataract. The industry has two distinctive characteristics that set it apart from other MP industries within its vicinity. One is the use of a wide variety of raw materials; the second is an apparent correlation between raw material and technology used, suggesting a cultural aspect to raw material management. Stratigraphically, site 1017 is situated within the Dibeira-Jer formation which represents an aggradation stage of the Nile and contains sediments originating from the Ethiopian Highlands. While it has previously been suggested that the site dates to sometime before 42.5 ka, the Dibeira-Jer formation can plausibly be correlated with Nile alluvial sediments in northern Sudan recently dated to 83 ± 24 ka (MIS 5a). This stage coincides with the 81 ka age of sapropel S3, indicating higher Nile flow and stronger monsoon rainfall at these times.
Other sites which reflect similar raw material variability and technological traditions are the BNS and KHS sites in the Omo Kibish Formation (Ethiopia) dated to ∼100 ka and ∼190 ka respectively. Based on a lithic comparative study conducted, it is suggested that site 1017 can be seen as representing behavioral patterns which are indicative of East African Middle Stone Age (MSA) technology, adding support to the hypothesis that the Nile Valley was an important dispersal route used by modern humans prior to the long cooling and dry trend beginning with the onset of MIS 4. Techo-typological comparison of the assemblages from the Khormusan sites with other Middle Paleolithic sites from Nubia and East Africa is used to assess the possibility of tracing the dispersal of technological traits across the landscape and through time.
quote:There are other remains and there were no "Arabs in Ethiopia in prehistoric times.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Rightmire (1984) retracted his previous claims about the East African crania. All those skeletal remains (Gamble's Cave, Elmenteita, Willey's Kopje etc.) were re-dated in the 1980s. None of them are prehistoric, but Iron Age (500 BCE).
Both Rightmire and Hiernaux
> concluded that prehistoric East Africans are ancestral
> to the above stated modern living East African
> populations.
Hiernaux (1975) is often misquoted by Afrocentrists. He never actually denied substantial "Caucasoid" mixture in the Sahel and Horn of Africa.
"The larger sample of northern Somali belonging to various groups, the best represented being the Warsingili, are much shorter (169 cm) and have a relatively narrower face and nose; apparently they are strongly Arabicized."
"We are on much firmer ground in the case of populations which exhibit values near to the 'Arab' end of the scale for a number of independent traits: the probability that factors other than genetic admixture might generate such systematic affinities with Arabs is very low. Such is clearly the case for the populations of central Ethiopia."
quote:Just admit that different ancestry components in North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa have completely different evolutionary histories. You don't have to mystify this by talking about bidirectional north south migrations and "sharing" of ancestry. What does "sharing" even mean? Granted, it's shared today, but it's still North African in origin. You insist on this type of mystifying language because you don't want to call it North African, but "bidirectional". I've already called you out on your dubious word game tactics in 2014.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:"North African" like can just as well be Saharan. Both Sahelians and North Africans would share such a component since they have ancestors from the Sahara and migrated North and South when it dried up.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Lol. Charlie said "somewhat North African". Both the light grey and the light blue include North African-like ancestry. Charlie thought I was just talking about the relatively minor "Mozabite" light blue in these Sahelian populations.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
why would wouldn't they have a somewhat Saharan/North African component?
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:You're now comparing populations who migrated to northern regions and returned to equatorial Africa mostly unaltered genetically, to populations whose language phylum originated in the Sahara and who actually had/have uniparental lineages and lithic industries that testify to their deeply intertwined histories with the Sahara and extinct Saharan populations (e.g. Teda, Fulani, Ancient Egyptians Lower Nubians)? What is your point exactly? I have no idea where you're going with this or how anything you're saying refutes what got your panties up in a bunch repeatedly, re: the strong SSA/Sahara divide with certain variables (e.g. Brace 1993, Irish, Hanihara), and a more mild, but still noticeable divide using other variables (e.g. Keita's variable set).
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Where do you think the ancestors of modern West Africans come from? The Sahara, that is before it dried up.
quote:The Toubou and Kel (Tuareg) are closely related historically, so do the Daza and Kanembou to some extent. I don't see why this is odd?
Originally posted by Swenet:
Charlie Bass in 2014:
quote:You clearly thought your Sahelian samples are "climate-adapted" SSA groups. In other words, they were supposed to be transplants from SSA who are closer to North Africans purely because of climatic adaptation. This led to your circular reasoning that Brace shouldn't be picky and use these Sahelian samples as valid SSA alternatives to his other SSA samples, since they supposedly owe their differentiation purely to climate, not mixture.
Listen Swenet, lol, let me explain this on finer terms since I actually had email contact with Brace years ago and why his methodology and using his study isn't helping your case. I inquired about Fulani and whee do they sit in his analyses and to my surprise he said he grouped them in a "Northeast African cluster," which to me is shocking since the sample he studied came from West Africa. The Somali sample he studied came from Somalia, now why does he group populations that are GEOGRAPHICALLY from sub-Saharan Africa and exclude them FROM Sub-Saharan Africa when they DO NOT fit the trend of what he thinks is "truly sub-Saharan African? In other words, in Brace's mind and watch what I say here, IF THEY DON'T LOOK what he considers sub-Saharan he systematically excludes them and puts them in a geographically distant area from where they are truly from and apart of, that's why when he says and I quote
Groups like Daza, Kanembou and Toubou have been sequenced recently and you're completely wrong. But, as usual, people like you can't be falsified. When they're proven to be wrong they just secretly dissemble their goalposts, set up shop elsewhere and hold a grudge.
^Charlie's Sahelian populations are clearly mixed with North African-like components. No wonder why he likes to spam them as valid biologically SSA alternatives. That way he can make it appear like AE cranial distance to most Niger-Congo speakers boils down to climate (although now he seems to have changed his position and admits there is also a genetic difference that can't be explained with climate).
When these so-called "SSA" samples with North African-like components are accounted for, there is nothing left for you to argue that AE "do NOT fall lout of the range of SSAs craniometricaly". This is why you deflected back to me and said I should post data instead. You have nothing other than continued trolling.
But, like I said, don't mind me. This is all off topic. Carry on your thread. I'm sure plenty of people here are anxious to hear more of your both-sides-of-the-fence arguments.
quote:Am I ready this correct? Are you saying the Teda and Fulb are extinct?
Originally posted by Swenet:
… and extinct Saharan populations (e.g. Teda, Fulani, Ancient Egyptians Lower Nubians).
quote:Yep...
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
The DNA shows a location (Abu-Sir) that was mixed with different ancestry. A place that is way younger than Al Khiday.
Even funnier, ancient Egyptians themselves stated that they originated from the South.
quote:Your claim is that prior to about 1517 AD Arabians were Negroid
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The original Arabs, before the Ottoman conquest were Negroid.
quote:Ok explain this "North African-like" component. Where did it originate from?
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Just admit that different ancestry components in North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa have completely different evolutionary histories. You don't have to mystify this by talking about bidirectional north south migrations and "sharing" of ancestry. What does "sharing" even mean? Granted, it's shared today, but it's still North African in origin. You insist on this type of mystifying language because you don't want to call it North African, but "bidirectional". I've already called you out on your dubious word game tactics in 2014.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:"North African" like can just as well be Saharan. Both Sahelians and North Africans would share such a component since they have ancestors from the Sahara and migrated North and South when it dried up.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Lol. Charlie said "somewhat North African". Both the light grey and the light blue include North African-like ancestry. Charlie thought I was just talking about the relatively minor "Mozabite" light blue in these Sahelian populations.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
why would wouldn't they have a somewhat Saharan/North African component?
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:You're now comparing populations who migrated to northern regions and returned to equatorial Africa mostly unaltered genetically, to populations whose language phylum originated in the Sahara and who actually had/have uniparental lineages and lithic industries that testify to their deeply intertwined histories with the Sahara and extinct Saharan populations (e.g. Teda, Fulani, Ancient Egyptians Lower Nubians)? What is your point exactly? I have no idea where you're going with this or how anything you're saying refutes what got your panties up in a bunch repeatedly, re: the strong SSA/Sahara divide with certain variables (e.g. Brace 1993, Irish, Hanihara), and a more mild, but still noticeable divide using other variables (e.g. Keita's variable set).
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Where do you think the ancestors of modern West Africans come from? The Sahara, that is before it dried up.
quote:The forthcoming principal-component-analysis has ancient Egyptians closer to modern Levant peoples than Egyptians, although not by a large distance. This suggests an old population structure and a similar thing happened with PCA of 6-9th century Anglo-Saxons from England: they appear closer to modern Scots and Norwegians than English, but as expected modern English have more Anglo-Saxon ancestry than Scots and Norwegians:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^^
Cass,Swenet, Beyoku et al how does this prove Afroasiatic came from the Levant? People on FBD are claiming this as well
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:The forthcoming principal-component-analysis has ancient Egyptians closer to modern Levant peoples than Egyptians, although not by a large distance. This suggests an old population structure and a similar thing happened with PCA of 6-9th century Anglo-Saxons from England: they appear closer to modern Scots and Norwegians than English, but as expected modern English have more Anglo-Saxon ancestry than Scots and Norwegians:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^^
Cass,Swenet, Beyoku et al how does this prove Afroasiatic came from the Levant? People on FBD are claiming this as well
"Anglo-Saxon era samples are closer to modern Scottish and Norwegian samples. Overall, though, population genetic differences between these samples at common alleles are very slight... principal component analysis can reveal relatively old population structure."
"England samples are consistent with 38% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average, with a large spread from 25 to 50%, and the Welsh and Scottish samples are consistent with 30% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average, again with a large spread."
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408
-Modern English have more Anglo-Saxon ancestry (38%) on average than Scots (30%), but the latter appear closer to the Anglo-Saxon samples on the PCA. This points to an older population structure/in North-Western Europe; the same thing is apparent with modern Levant peoples plotting closer in principal-component-analysis to ancient Egyptians than modern Egyptians when the latter presumably will show to have more ancient Egyptian ancestry. The older population structure could be a number of different things, but PAA (Proto-Afro-Asiatic) seems plausible, especially since the forthcoming study shows a "important Natufian component" in the ancient Egyptian samples. https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/847912486196002816
quote:I didn't even notice your question until now.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^^
Cass,Swenet, Beyoku et al how does this prove Afroasiatic came from the Levant? People on FBD are claiming this as well
quote:You still here? Why ain't you off attending the latest BNP rally?
Originally posted by Cass/:
LOL. LOL. LOL.
So if you guys like Zaharan and Bass were arguing AE = Saharans [North Africans], not Sub-Saharan Africans, why the **** was I debating you on this for years?
In 2014 I called ancient Egyptians "Saharanoids" and simply pointed out Egyptians showed different climatic adaptation(s) to other populations below the Sahara.
Look at the nonsense and resistance I got by Zaharan who complained about this 'splittism'-
quote:My response:
There is no "Saharan climatic race"
and there is no intermediate eco-cline between
"Caucasoids" and "Negroids", as long shown here on ES. The people in question are all indigenous Africans. Africa has no "eco-apartheid" barrier that makes for "climatic races".
quote:Swenet's response who picked up on this:
'splittism'... yet i'm not the one clinging to an "African" genetic/morphological cluster (which doesn't exist). ??? You're splitting humans into continental groups which is basically the old Linnean concept of race. Are you not?
By "Saharan climatic race" I merely meant people who show biological adaptation to the Saharan region. I can split up Africa based on its different eco-zones.
quote:Now we have these same people who for years were opposing a Saharan origin of AE, saying they don't oppose this- a denial of their post histories for the past decade.
^POW!!
The irony.. the irony people.. You know this forum
has gone to sh!t when these ES "vets" are caught
red-handed violating the tenets of their own anti-
race ideology (which they clearly only support
conditionally). Notice that by arguing against
substructure in the Sahara he (Zaharan) is also undermining his purported support for OOA (OOA predicts populations will be structured according to isolation by distance). Just where do these flip-floppers stand?
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Laughably obsolete and the putative "Caucasoid"
Originally posted by cass:
The Admin is the "sam" dude by email.
I no longer really do this 'race' stuff and don't plan to post here after now, but if you guys have Amazon accounts... Just buy Climatic Races and Descent Groups by Grover Krantz (1980).
He discusses a "Saharan climatic race":
"Saharan: Skin color was dark with a medium fringe on the northern edge. Dark eyes and hair were universal. Cranial hair was wavy or curly with tight spiraling only in the extreme south. Body and facial hair were probably scant."
He goes on to describe their noses as being narrow or narrowish: "There is no distinction here between the Caucasoid and Saharan climatic races" and also discusses their elongated limbs, which in post-crania puts them closer to "Negroid". He describes Saharan's as being an intermediate eco-cline between "Caucasoids" and "Negroids", but as the result of in situ climatic adaptation to the dry-heat of the Sahara, rather than some outdated admixture Hamitic model.
Krantz' "Saharan climatic race" is basically the northern reddish/lighter brown skinned variant of Hierneux' "Elongated African" that Keita referenced in his debate with Snowden. The ancient egyptians were predominantly this reddish northern "Elongated African" or "Saharan". [/b]
approach therein have been rejected years ago by
a majority of ES. There is no "Saharan climatic race"
and there is no intermediate eco-cline between
"Caucasoids" and "Negroids", as long shown here on ES.
The people in question are all indigenous Africans. Africa
has no "eco-apartheid" barrier that makes for "climatic
races". As demonstrated to you 2 years ago
narrow noses are nothing special in Africa- they are
partly a function of arid dry air as in deserts, and are
as indigenous to Africa as broad noses. Let me school
you again: - QUOTE:
"The role of tall, linearly built
populations in eastern Africa's prehistory
has always been debated. Traditionally,
they are viewed as late migrants into the
area. But as there is better
palaeoanthropological and linguistic
documentation for the earlier presence of
these populations than for any other
group in eastern Africa, it is far more
likely that they are indigenous eastern
Africans. ... prehistoric linear populations
show resemblances to both Upper
Pleistocene eastern African fossils and
present-day, non-Bantu-speaking groups
in eastern Africa, with minor differences
stemming from changes in overall
robusticity of the dentition and skeleton.
This suggests a longstanding tradition of
linear populations in eastern Africa,
contributing to the indigenous
development of cultural and biological
diversity from the Pleistocene up to the
present."
(L . A . SCHEPARTZ, "Who were the
later Pleistocene eastern Africans?" The
African Archaeological Review, 6
(1988), pp. 57- 72)
"..presents all tropical Africans with
narrower noses and faces as being related
to or descended from external, ultimately
non-African peoples. However,
narrow-faced, narrow-nosed populations
have long been resident in
Saharo-tropical Africa... and their origin
need not be sought elsewhere. These
traits are also indigenous. The variability
in tropical Africa is expectedly naturally
high. Given their longstanding presence,
narrow noses and faces cannot be
deemed `non-African." [/i]
--(S.O.Y. Keita,
"Studies and Comments on Ancient
Egyptian Biological Relationships,"
History in Africa 20 (1993), page 134 )
Perhaps you will pick up more support for your "splittism" approach.
And what date is Krantz cite from that you post up above pray tell?
quote:What do you make of Cass's "splittism" approach above
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:It's not subtle at all.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
I think this is why Bass questioned what seems to
be subtle "splittism.". But notice now how long-time
racist poster Cassiteredes has suddenly joined in.
that you exposed in earlier pages of this thread? [/QB]
quote:The "Arab people" they have interacted with are practically the same, (from an ethnographic point of view) on the other side of the Red Sea. So again you make no sense.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Why are only the Warsangali Somalis, leptorrhine? Well, quite simply because as Hiernaux (1975) notes, they are a northern (coastal) Somali clan/tribe who are "heavily Arabized" by genetic admixture with Arabs hence their leptorrhiny (66.0) and leptoproscopy (94.1). Nearly all the other Somali population samples are mesorrhine and mesoproscopic, e.g: Rahanwayn Somali, NI: 72.8; FI: 88.5. Crania from Somaliland Graves (dating around 250 years ago), are also mesorrhine & mesoproscopic.
The microevolutionary in situ adaptation(s) that shaped the "elongated" East African or "Nilotid" morphotype never involved a narrow nose or narrow face. The Nilotes (Nuer, Dinka, Shilluk) in Hiernaux (1975) are also all mesoproscopic, with a greater tendency of platyrrhiny. None of these peoples have average leptorrhine or leptoproscopic indices.
quote:Okay, I see. The question to West Africans is complicated. Considering the many ethnic groups and different histories these have.
Originally posted by Swenet:
I agree I could have worded it better. I meant to say that the Sahelian populations I mentioned were in contact with North African populations during the early holocene. Some of these pre-existing North Africans they were in contact with are now extinct.
But the way I worded it is misleading. I also didn't mean to say that Sahelian populations are Saharan populations in the same way that AE are. I was trying to say these Sahelian groups have evidence of extensive interaction with North African populations contrary to Bass' West Africans who he misleadingly claims "come from" the Sahara.
quote:
I applaud Staab studios, for these awesome reconstructions.
Kiffian
Forensic reconstruction
Resin, University of Chicago and Project Exploration
http://www.staabstudios.com/galleries/arch-7.html
Tenerean
Forensic reconstruction
Resin, University of Chicago and Project Exploration
http://www.staabstudios.com/galleries/archaeology.html
Gobero People
Forensic reconstruction
Resin, University of Chicago and Project Exploration
quote:Africa is an incredibly large continent, is the birth-place of mankind and thus has the greatest variation. These factors are responsible for creating the plethora of distinct populations in Africa.
Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Zaharan
Why are you ashamed of your post history?
Your main "Nile Valley Research" thread is below; a record of what you've posted over 7 years.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006992
From that thread it is clear you argue:
-Ancient Egyptians cluster with "tropical Africans" who are well below the Sahara [so not just Nubians], but SSA's like Horn Africans (Ethiopians, Somalis) and Nilotes.
-Ancient Egyptians show close biological ties to African-Americans
-Deny population-structure inside Africa since you're a pan-Africanist. If someone simply points out North Africans (Saharans) don't cluster with SSA's you display a fit of rage because it conflicts with your pan-African political agenda.
quote:There is a Saharan ecotype: populations adapted to the Saharan desert. That's all I said in that old post. Like I noted above, you refuse to accept population (sub)structure inside Africa. Instead you try to pool together all Africans into a pan-continental "tropical adapted" group. And yes, we know about nasal index and climatic selection. However, if you look at living populations in dry-heat areas below the Sahara, with very few exceptions [and these are strongly Arab-admixed] they don't have narrow noses, although some are mesorrhine. The reason for this I've detailed before, its the same reason why Neandertals didn't have narrow noses, despite living in cold weather. Nasal breadth and intercanine breadth are correlated, so unless teeth are small there are dentognathic constraints to nasal narrowing. As Brace et al. 1993 notes, Somalis on average are not microdont but mesodont. So they have medium-sized teeth opposed to small. Somali nasal indices are mesorrhine (see the Somaliland burials); Nilotes tend to have larger teeth which is why they are mostly platyyrhine, although large portions of Kenya, Uganda, northern Tanzania and south Sudan are not arid, but humid. I'm unfamiliar with the palaeo-ecology and if this climate was once different, but my point about dental constraints is still valid.
Originally posted by Zarahan:
Laughably obsolete and the putative "Caucasoid" approach therein have been rejected years ago by a majority of ES. There is no "Saharan climatic race" and there is no intermediate eco-cline between "Caucasoids" and "Negroids", as long shown here on ES. The people in question are all indigenous Africans. Africa has no "eco-apartheid" barrier that makes for "climatic races". As demonstrated to you 2 years ago narrow noses are nothing special in Africa- they are partly a function of arid dry air as in deserts, and are as indigenous to Africa as broad noses.
Yep it's closest to Middle-easterners.
quote:It's fragmented data as usually. Some Arabic tribes moved to North Sudan, during the spread of Islam. Some intermingled with natives. It was a bidirectional process.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Nubian Ancient DNA -
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=009671#000000
quote:
Population comparisons
Based on FST values, the mitochondrial genetic diversity of Soqotra is statistically different (P \ 0.01) from the comparative populations. An MDS plot of FST values shows that the Soqotra sample is clearly distinct from all sub-Saharan, North African, Middle East, and Indian populations (see Fig. 2). High differentiation of the East African groups such as the Sandawe, Hadza, Turu, Datog, and Burunge is shown on the left side of the graph. However, there is a general similarity of the remaining sub-Saharan African populations, particularly those from the Sahel band and the Chad Basin (with the exception of the Fulani nomads). Subsequently, there is a transitional zone formed by the populations from Ethiopia and the Nile Valley but also by some Yemeni groups, particularly the ones from the eastern parts of the country (Hadramawt).
[...]
Population differentiation of Soqotra from African, Middle East and Indian populations based on NRY-SNP data manifests a similar picture although the comparative populations are different and fewer than in the mitochondrial DNA analysis (see Fig. 3). A comparison of FST values shows that the only population that is not significantly different from Soqotra is that from Yemen (P [ 0.01). Similarly to mtDNA MDS plot, we observe a cline from the Soqotri population to a cluster of Middle East and North African populations that splits into sub- Saharan and Indian populations.
Phylogenetic affiliations
Within the Soqotri samples, we identified haplotypes belonging to three of the main branches of the mtDNA phylogeny (macrohaplogroups L, N, and R); notably haplogroup M is absent (Table 2). There are only two sub- Saharan L haplotypes and they do not carry the 3594HpaI mutation so their classification is L3*; these haplotypes do not contain the specific mutations of L5b (23594HpaI) (Kivisild et al., 2004) and therefore they are possibly L3h2 as they both contain substitutions at 16111, 16184, and 16304 (see Behar et al., 2008). Macro-haplogroup N is represented by three different haplotypes of which only one can be unambiguously classified as N1a (it contains HVS-I motif 16147G-16172-16223-16248-16355). Two other N haplotypes have never been found outside Soqotra (see Table 2).
The most widespread mtDNA types in Soqotra belong to macrohaplogroup R (Table 2). The majority of R haplotypes can be classified as R0a [previously known as (preHV)1]. Three of the R haplotypes have not been previously reported. A network analysis of all Soqotri R0a haplotypes with additional sequences from Africa and Asia (see Fig. 4) shows a time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of 23,339 6 8,232 YBP for R0a. It is shown that the majority of Soqotri R0a haplotypes fall into clade R0a1 (defined by variant 16355) whose TMRCA is 11,418 6 4,198 YBP. Furthermore, within R0a1, the unique Soqotri haplotypes form a new clade that is defined by variant 16172 and that we have named R0a1a1. Abu-Amero et al. (2007) identified a hap- lotype defined by variant 16355 and named it (preHV)1a1, thus it corresponds to R0a1a using the newer nomenclature and the unique Soqotri haplotypes are derived from this lineage). This Soqotri-specific clade has a very young TMRCA (3,363 6 2,378 YBP) that suggests the R0a1a1 haplotypes evolved on Soqotra and have not dispersed elsewhere. Two other Soqotri R haplotypes are not classified further than R* and are quite common in neighboring populations. Five haplotypes within macrohaplogroup R carry the 4216N1aIII variant that places them in clade JT. Of the JT haplotypes, two are unique to Soqotra; J1b is represented by two individuals and T* is represented by one individual.
The majority of NRY haplotypes in Soqotra belong to haplogroup J (85.7%), with most (45 out of 54) unclassified as J*(xJ1,J2) and a few (the remaining 9 samples) classified as J1 (see Fig. 5). It is interesting to note that NRY haplotypes lacking both M172 and M267, as in our unclassified J*, have not been previously identified on the Arabian Peninsula (Cadenas et al., 2008). Haplogroup E is represented at a frequency of 9.5% and three other haplogroups, F*(xJ,K), K*(xO,P) and R*(xR1b), are present in one individual each. It is worth noting that none of the ancient African haplogroups (A and B) were observed in Soqotra.
quote:Sample of an *individual*. You're saying nothing of substance, as usual.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Nubian Ancient DNA -
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=009671#000000
quote:It's an "11th century CE Medieval Nubian"?
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Sample of an *individual*. You're saying nothing of substance, as usual.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Nubian Ancient DNA -
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=009671#000000
quote:Where is Punt at then? Because last I checked it was clearly in Sub Saharan Africa and the AE associated themselves with it (assuming ancient Punt is roughly associated with modern Puntland in Somalia). Sure it doesn't trump genetics but just saying.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:I never understood why people so desperately tried to associate the ancient Egyptians with populations beyond Central Sudan. I still assert that Southern Egyptians and specific "Nubians" (Lower "Nubia") were ethnically very close and stem from a common origin in the predynastic period.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Stop lying. You are one of the biggest culprits on the forum! Furthermore we are not debating with the likes of Mary Lefkowitz. This is a prime example of when I talked or ES folks being collectively left in the Dust as far as bio/anthro and how it relates to human populations. You still posting images of Mary......she is no longer the antagonist. You bringing her up is like Trump planning up strategy to destroy imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Sure and no one credible claims that AEs were mostly
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I'm speaking for myself and I never make those claims that AE=all or mostly SSA. One can have supra-Saharan ancestry and still be black. The results of this study still don't refute or rule out an African Egypt.
SSA at all times, in all places. Who goes about "denying"
migration at various levels from the Levant...........
Based on the history and application of that construct,
AE's would be considered "black" as Mary Lefkowitz herself freely
acknowledges, and even Egyptologists like Tyson-Smith 2001,
consider the use of the label "black" as reasonable.
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DprXzn0HCsU/VMHRJCj9IcI/AAAAAAAABVU/W2LoPVCnUrE/s1600/marylefkowitz_onedrop.jpg
Back to you being the culprit. Nearly every one of your soft core image spams talks about the relation of AE to SSA groups via recent South North migration. Not to North Africans......not to them being distinct in their own right. Not too much on substructure. No it equates AE culture/linguistics/bio history with populations below the Sahara. There is nothing WRONG with this......but don't fake like this ain't your whole modus operati. It's on RECORD.
DNA tribes spam was about you and nearly everyone else tying AE to SSA groups. The 2 counter theories were from Swenet.....saying the data is not literal and Egyptians and horners contain a lot of these alleles.....about North African affinities in SSA due to pastoralism. And myself which argued the affinity is old and Saharan....then I argued the STR affinity was essentially extinct and the results mean very little. ES et al went batshiit.
Did ES argue that those alleles or autosomal components (Great Lakes, Southern African) were North African? Not really. Did ES argue that E1b1a in Ramses III was a North African variant of E-M2.....or that E-M2 itself was North African. Not really. The narrative what strongly in the opposite. Even when I brought up the idea that it could be V-22 folks were going bat shiit crazy.
At this point I dont recall any ES member making statements that Dynastic Egyptians.......REGARDLESS of dynasty/region would be LESS SSA and moderns.......folks want to sit back now and be like "that's what I always thought". Man y'all take a polygraph test that shiit would probably explode.
The North may be a different kettle of fish altogether, but I'll wait for the release of this study and for the release of the paternal profiles of these mummies and their identities before concluding what the North was in dynastic times.
quote:Is there any actual evidence that the ancient Egyptians ever explicitely pointed to Punt as an ancestral land? To the ancient Egyptians, lands outside their borders were characterized as lands of chaos. Punt was apparently the god's land in the sense that it was a source of valuable myrrh, frankincense, leopard skins and other valuables.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Where is Punt at then? Because last I checked it was clearly in Sub Saharan Africa and the AE associated themselves with it (assuming ancient Punt is roughly associated with modern Puntland in Somalia). Sure it doesn't trump genetics but just saying.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:I never understood why people so desperately tried to associate the ancient Egyptians with populations beyond Central Sudan. I still assert that Southern Egyptians and specific "Nubians" (Lower "Nubia") were ethnically very close and stem from a common origin in the predynastic period.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Stop lying. You are one of the biggest culprits on the forum! Furthermore we are not debating with the likes of Mary Lefkowitz. This is a prime example of when I talked or ES folks being collectively left in the Dust as far as bio/anthro and how it relates to human populations. You still posting images of Mary......she is no longer the antagonist. You bringing her up is like Trump planning up strategy to destroy imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Sure and no one credible claims that AEs were mostly
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I'm speaking for myself and I never make those claims that AE=all or mostly SSA. One can have supra-Saharan ancestry and still be black. The results of this study still don't refute or rule out an African Egypt.
SSA at all times, in all places. Who goes about "denying"
migration at various levels from the Levant...........
Based on the history and application of that construct,
AE's would be considered "black" as Mary Lefkowitz herself freely
acknowledges, and even Egyptologists like Tyson-Smith 2001,
consider the use of the label "black" as reasonable.
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DprXzn0HCsU/VMHRJCj9IcI/AAAAAAAABVU/W2LoPVCnUrE/s1600/marylefkowitz_onedrop.jpg
Back to you being the culprit. Nearly every one of your soft core image spams talks about the relation of AE to SSA groups via recent South North migration. Not to North Africans......not to them being distinct in their own right. Not too much on substructure. No it equates AE culture/linguistics/bio history with populations below the Sahara. There is nothing WRONG with this......but don't fake like this ain't your whole modus operati. It's on RECORD.
DNA tribes spam was about you and nearly everyone else tying AE to SSA groups. The 2 counter theories were from Swenet.....saying the data is not literal and Egyptians and horners contain a lot of these alleles.....about North African affinities in SSA due to pastoralism. And myself which argued the affinity is old and Saharan....then I argued the STR affinity was essentially extinct and the results mean very little. ES et al went batshiit.
Did ES argue that those alleles or autosomal components (Great Lakes, Southern African) were North African? Not really. Did ES argue that E1b1a in Ramses III was a North African variant of E-M2.....or that E-M2 itself was North African. Not really. The narrative what strongly in the opposite. Even when I brought up the idea that it could be V-22 folks were going bat shiit crazy.
At this point I dont recall any ES member making statements that Dynastic Egyptians.......REGARDLESS of dynasty/region would be LESS SSA and moderns.......folks want to sit back now and be like "that's what I always thought". Man y'all take a polygraph test that shiit would probably explode.
The North may be a different kettle of fish altogether, but I'll wait for the release of this study and for the release of the paternal profiles of these mummies and their identities before concluding what the North was in dynastic times.
quote:Brace DID USE Nasal indices, if you go the measurements he used himself the majority were are nasal indices, you don't read studies do you? Kanembu, Daza, and Fulani are ALL SSA in craniometrical morphology.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Please don't let Charlie's "nasal science" comment from 2014 distract you. Brace et al didn't use nasal indices.
It'll just entertain these people's faith-based notion that differentiation of North Africans is predicated on climate and that the North Africans in question are "climate-adapted SSA" groups.
quote:I wasn't addressing Bass in particular. More the recent conversation I've seen here on ES on whether leptorrhine nasal indices are an indigenous development in Northeast Africa. But maybe I have my threads mixed up. Sorry.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Please don't let Charlie's "nasal science" comment from 2014 distract you. Brace et al didn't use nasal indices.
It'll just entertain these people's faith-based notion that differentiation of North Africans is predicated on climate and that the North Africans in question are "climate-adapted SSA" groups.
quote:Thanks to Perahu, he also found another source-
Ambrose further confirms the above when he observes that the chronological date proposed by R. Protsch for the cairn burials at Gamble’s Cave is grossly inaccurate. To this end, Ambrose notes that conventional charcoal dates for the older (and thus deeper) Phase 3 layer at the site range from 8,000 to 8,500 years before present. Protsch, however, had mistakenly suggested that the cairns — which were buried in a deposit above the Eburran’s final/most recent Phase 5A layer; Phase 5A was, in turn, situated around four meters above the Phase 3 layer — dated to a similar 8,020 ybp, give or take a few years. Thus, the cairns are in fact chronologically more recent than even the last Eburran cultural phase, and by extension, so are the skeletons within them.
quote:- Sutton (1974)
Repeatedly in the literature the makers of the ‘Kenya Capsian’ are described as a ‘tall Caucasoid’ or ‘Afro-Mediterranean’ people, a deduction based on examination of burials which Leakey found while digging Gamble’s Cave. Whether this racial attribution is roughly correct or not is irrelevant here. For, as is plain in Leakey’s ‘diagrammatic section’ and notes of his excavation, these burials were placed in a layer well above that containing the true ‘Kenya Capsian’ materials with the fish-bones, harpoon and ‘dotted wavy-line’ potsherd. The skeletons probably belong to a different population several thousand years later. There is therefore no direct evidence of the physical type of the makers of the ‘Kenya Capsian’.
quote:My bad. If you weren't commenting on that exchange from 2014, I haven't said anything.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:I wasn't addressing Bass in particular. More the recent conversation I've seen here on ES on whether leptorrhine nasal indices are an indigenous development in Northeast Africa. But maybe I have my threads mixed up. Sorry.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Please don't let Charlie's "nasal science" comment from 2014 distract you. Brace et al didn't use nasal indices.
It'll just entertain these people's faith-based notion that differentiation of North Africans is predicated on climate and that the North Africans in question are "climate-adapted SSA" groups.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
No [Sahelians] are not SSA in cranial morphology. They are SSA + slight shifted towards North Africans. Which is a crucial point you left out, because it shows you duplicitousness when you claim they are valid stand ins for SSA samples with no North African ancestry. They aren't.
quote:Of course since the tropics includes the southern Sahara; there are 'black' Saharans. The north of the Sahara however is above the tropics. You can simply look up a UV-index map to see the northern Sahara receives less annual (mean) sunlight than the south. What I said is northern Saharans were/are not black; I never disputed southern Saharans were/are, hence Nubians I've always described as black skinned. But the Nubians contrasted their skin colour to the Egyptians; we've been over this like 100 times.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Blacks are indigenous to North Africa and are distributed all throughout the Sahara, so your attempt to extricate North Africa for "Eurasians" is laughable. The ancient Egyptians cluster with other black populations in the Sahara over any "Eurasian" population. [/QB]
quote:.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:I never understood why people so desperately tried to associate the ancient Egyptians with populations beyond Central Sudan.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Sure and no one credible claims that AEs were mostly
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
SSA at all times, in all places. Who goes about "denying"
migration at various levels from the Levant...........
quote:A population can craniometrically SSA and dentally another thing, look at Jebel Moya, lol
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
No [Sahelians] are not SSA in cranial morphology. They are SSA + slight shifted towards North Africans. Which is a crucial point you left out, because it shows you duplicitousness when you claim they are valid stand ins for SSA samples with no North African ancestry. They aren't.
quote:Swenet STOP lying man, here are his measurements USED, do your research before you talk.
Originally posted by Swenet:
He may have used nasal breadth. But he did not use nasal height if IIRC. Either way, plugging in individual measurements has nothing to do with indices, even if those measurements can be displayed as ratios/indices.
No they are not SSA in cranial morphology. They are SSA + slight shifted towards North Africans. Which is a crucial point you left out, because it shows you duplicitousness when you claim they are valid stand ins for SSA samples with no North African ancestry. They aren't.
And BTW, I'm not going to debate you on this much longer. I don't want it to start looking like I enjoy making fun of Afrocentrics or that I like to be antagonistic just for no reason. I know how you Afrocentrist are when you feel humiliated; you start holding a grudge and start lying and eventually you will start lying about why you are being mocked as well. My only issue is with people like you pretending that you were right all along in light of these Abusir mummies and your weak non sense like "Abusir mummies have undetected SSA ancestry because SSA groups have changed in the last 3000 years". You should just own up and admit you were wrong. Don't try to come back here and spin the narrative, calling others intellectually dishonest when NO (a)DNA has supported your objections since 2014 or even before that.
quote:Correct, even though I don't work with OOA.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
[QB] @ Bass
FFS, man up and admit that the old scenario we used to believe in, wherein all native Africans cluster together into one exclusive pan-African clade, was wrong and actually contradicted the OOA theory of modern human origins. Think about it, if all OOA populations represent an offshoot of Northeast Africans, then of course indigenous Northeast Africans (including the eastern Saharan ancestors of AEs) are going to appear more closely related to OOAs than West or Central Africans. See this graph below for a visual illustration of that phenomenon.
quote:You're being daft.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Of course since the tropics includes the southern Sahara; there are 'black' Saharans. The north of the Sahara however is above the tropics. You can simply look up a UV-index map to see the northern Sahara receives less annual (mean) sunlight than the south. What I said is northern Saharans were/are not black; I never disputed southern Saharans were/are, hence Nubians I've always described as black skinned. But the Nubians contrasted their skin colour to the Egyptians; we've been over this like 100 times.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Blacks are indigenous to North Africa and are distributed all throughout the Sahara, so your attempt to extricate North Africa for "Eurasians" is laughable. The ancient Egyptians cluster with other black populations in the Sahara over any "Eurasian" population.
Afrocentrists are politicalizing the term 'black' in a pan-African sense to cover the whole continent, so they won't differentiate between light-medium brown skinned northern Saharans and those who are dark brown ('black') skinned inside the tropics, despite independent observers from different cultures (Greeks, Romans, Arabs etc.) all distinguished Egyptians to Nubians in skin colour. [/QB]
quote:Most of his measurements ARE nasal, man just check it.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
That chart got no indices in it.
quote:You don't even know what the True Negro theory is, do you? True Negro has nothing to do with assigning populations to their respective clades. It has to do with saying one of the clades is "True" or "representative" above all others. This is why you are an Afrocentric loony toon. You people aren't even competent. You are just trying to parrot Keita and co-opt his papers while secretly having completely drifted from what he says.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Its clear that you are using the true Negro theory
quote:I have always said that SSA people are diverse and do not constitute ONE grouping of people and that like Keita said there is more than one way to be SSA. I never said they all genetically cluster the same way either, please do NOT put words in my mouth. Why are we severely limiting SSA to one anthropological or genetic type? That has never been my position.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
@ Bass
FFS, man up and admit that the old scenario we used to believe in, wherein all native Africans cluster together into one exclusive pan-African clade, was wrong and actually contradicted the OOA theory of modern human origins. Think about it, if all OOA populations represent an offshoot of Northeast Africans, then of course indigenous Northeast Africans (including the eastern Saharan ancestors of AEs) are going to appear more closely related to OOAs than West or Central Africans. See this graph below for a visual illustration of that phenomenon:
Mind you, these ancestral Northeast African populations would have still had dark brown (or "black") skin, as lighter skin wouldn't develop until certain OOA populations started colonizing the northern regions of Eurasia (and even then, it wouldn't have been as widespread as it is today). So of course those people who stayed in Northeast Africa and eventually evolved into the proto-Egyptians would still have looked "black", or at least not pale or tan-skinned. But that doesn't mean you can pigeonhole them into one (exclusive) pan-African grouping with people way over in, say, the Congo. That's like trying to force them into a "true Negro" stereotype.
quote:What is sub-Saharan African to you? Define it. Stop chewing on straws because I have always supported Keita's view as well as Hiernaux's view as well. Don't ever put words in my mouth
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:You don't even know what the True Negro theory is, do you? True Negro has nothing to do with assigning populations to their respective clades. It has to do with saying one of the clades is "True" or "representative" above all others. This is why you are an Afrocentric loony toon. You people aren't even competent. You are just trying to parrot Keita and co-opt his papers while secretly having completely drifted from what he says.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Its clear that you are using the true Negro theory
quote:False and false. You are a simpleton with no idea how this works. You uploaded a Hubbe et al 2010 to your website and called it "True Negro morphology" even though the morphology isn't even True Negro and even though you supposedly have a beef with the term. You are a complete simpleton old out of touch fart no one takes serious outside of Egyptsearch.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
A population can craniometrically SSA and dentally another thing, look at Jebel Moya, lol
quote:go taken for granted needing
Originally posted by Swenet:
ancient Egyptians can be partially modeled as Angel's Anatolian and Greek samples
[white racist insult to DougM who disagrees as an ape having a fit deleted].
There, I said it. Ancient Egyptians can be modeled as partly consisting of Angel's Nea Nikomedeian sample.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
No [Sahelians] are not SSA in cranial morphology. They are SSA + slight shifted towards North Africans. Which is a crucial point you left out, because it shows you duplicitousness when you claim they are valid stand ins for SSA samples with no North African ancestry. They aren't.
quote:That's NOT false, Jebel Moya is craniometrically akin to West Africans in one study, and described as being like the Nuba people in another study, though their dental traits clustered them with "North Africans." Do your research or do I have to do it for you? You still have not defined what sub-Saharan is.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:False and false. You are a simpleton with no idea how this works. You uploaded a Hubbe et al 2010 to your website and called it "True Negro morphology" even though the morphology isn't even True Negro and even though you supposedly have a beef with the term. You are a complete simpleton old out of touch fart no one takes serious outside of Egyptsearch.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
A population can craniometrically SSA and dentally another thing, look at Jebel Moya, lol
quote:Completely incompetent. Jebel Moya has completely different pattern of relationships to other African groups showing it's morphologically in a class of its own:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:That's NOT false, Jebel Moya is craniometrically akin to West Africans in one study, and described as being like the Nuba people in another study, though their dental traits clustered them with "North Africans." Do your research or do I have to do it for you? You still have not defined what sub-Saharan is.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:False and false. You are a simpleton with no idea how this works. You uploaded a Hubbe et al 2010 to your website and called it "True Negro morphology" even though the morphology isn't even True Negro and even though you supposedly have a beef with the term. You are a complete simpleton old out of touch fart no one takes serious outside of Egyptsearch.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
A population can craniometrically SSA and dentally another thing, look at Jebel Moya, lol
quote:The southern parts of most North African countries fall within the tropics...including southern Upper Egypt.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Of course since the tropics includes the southern Sahara; there are 'black' Saharans. The north of the Sahara however is above the tropics. You can simply look up a UV-index map to see the northern Sahara receives less annual (mean) sunlight than the south. What I said is northern Saharans were/are not black; I never disputed southern Saharans were/are, hence Nubians I've always described as black skinned.
. The Badarians, the people who built Nabta Playa, etc all had ancestral ties to tropical Egypt and other populations of the surrounding area. Nice try. 
quote:Ramses 2 and his sons in combat against the "Nubians"
But the Nubians contrasted their skin colour to the Egyptians; we've been over this like 100 times.
, some Egyptians have also been portrayed as pitch black (though in many cases this is symbolic) and some Nubians have been portrayed as lighter brown than Ramses and these Nubians. No different from the brown and yellow Libyans. quote:An embarrassment of riches that you talk about afroloons not distinguishing yet you throw all africans in the tropical zone as black despite there being light brown skinned African groups in the tropical zone. Its like at first you called all SSA black, then groups like the Khoisan get thrown at you and now its tropical Africa only, and when pointed out that part of Egypt is tropical you move the goalposts again. We Afroloons/black people can't win for losing. Stick to Europe, Nazi.
Afrocentrists are politicalizing the term 'black' in a pan-African sense to cover the whole continent, so they won't differentiate between light-medium brown skinned northern Saharans and those who are dark brown ('black') skinned inside the tropics, despite independent observers from different cultures (Greeks, Romans, Arabs etc.) all distinguished Egyptians to Nubians in skin colour.
quote:Yawn,
Originally posted by Cass/:
Who remembers the poster Perahu? I found his blog.
The Elongated African fallacy
https://landofpunt.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/the-elongated-african-fallacy/
I don't agree with everything he says, but glad to see he's knows the Gamble's Cave & Elmenteitan were re-dated to Iron Age:
quote:Thanks to Perahu, he also found another source-
Ambrose further confirms the above when he observes that the chronological date proposed by R. Protsch for the cairn burials at Gamble’s Cave is grossly inaccurate. To this end, Ambrose notes that conventional charcoal dates for the older (and thus deeper) Phase 3 layer at the site range from 8,000 to 8,500 years before present. Protsch, however, had mistakenly suggested that the cairns — which were buried in a deposit above the Eburran’s final/most recent Phase 5A layer; Phase 5A was, in turn, situated around four meters above the Phase 3 layer — dated to a similar 8,020 ybp, give or take a few years. Thus, the cairns are in fact chronologically more recent than even the last Eburran cultural phase, and by extension, so are the skeletons within them.
quote:- Sutton (1974)
Repeatedly in the literature the makers of the ‘Kenya Capsian’ are described as a ‘tall Caucasoid’ or ‘Afro-Mediterranean’ people, a deduction based on examination of burials which Leakey found while digging Gamble’s Cave. Whether this racial attribution is roughly correct or not is irrelevant here. For, as is plain in Leakey’s ‘diagrammatic section’ and notes of his excavation, these burials were placed in a layer well above that containing the true ‘Kenya Capsian’ materials with the fish-bones, harpoon and ‘dotted wavy-line’ potsherd. The skeletons probably belong to a different population several thousand years later. There is therefore no direct evidence of the physical type of the makers of the ‘Kenya Capsian’.
So as I said, there are no narrow-nasal aperture crania in East Africa until as recent as the Iron Age c. 500 BCE. Afrocentrists are using the earlier erroneous dates (Leakey, 1935) to try to argue these "Caucasoid" traits evolved in situ in the Kenya & Horn of Africa from the Mesolithic-Neolithic.
quote:—Jibril B. Hirbo, Sarah A. Tishkoff (2011)
According to the archaeologists, the current East African hunter-gatherer populations once practiced related Holocene stone tool traditions collectively called Kenya Capsian [108, 127, 128], the most famous among them being the Eburran tradition, which was found in the central Rift valley [108]. Eburran is considered among the earliest refined stone tool tradition in East Africa [108, 113]; the earliest phase of this tradition is thought to have originated between 6 – 12 kya [108, 128]. The Eburran tradition had a recent phase from ~1.3 - 3.3 kya and coexisted in the same geographical range with two advanced Late Stone Age cultural traditions that are associated with pastoralism in East Africa, collectively called the Late Stone Age Neolithics or „Pastoral Neolithic‟ [109, 127, 129-133]. The earliest of these pastoralist traditions has been called Savanna Pastoral Neolithic (SPN) [127, 130-132] and the more recent one is called Elmenteitan Pastoral Neolithic [108, 109, 127, 129]. These traditions were separated both in space and time but in some cases overlapped in one or both. The spatial area inhabited by the makers of Savannah and Elmenteitan Pastoral Neolithic cultures overlap but do not co-occur [110] suggesting a separation in time. Some historians have speculated that these traditions represented peoples with different origins and cultures [108-111]. The 18 SPN existed 5.0 - 1.3 kya in Kenya and northern Tanzania, and is thought to have been practiced by southern Cushitic speakers who originated in Ethiopia [108-111]. Elmenteitan Neolithic existed 3 - 2 kya and was found in western Kenya and the central Rift Valley and is thought to have been practiced by southern Nilotic speakers [108-111]. The Turkwel Neolithic tradition [132] is more recent and was practiced in Northwestern Kenya by eastern Cushitic speakers who also originated in Ethiopia [108-111]. According to Ambrose [110] there was consistent interaction between Eburran hunter gatherers and SPN which led to some Eburran hunter-gatherers taking up a pastoral lifestyle. By contrast, the Elmenteitan Pastoralist groups may have competitively replaced the Eburran hunter-gatherers [110]. The pastoral Neolithic was distributed as far south as Zimbabwe and other parts of southern Africa [63].
[…]
Ambrose [374] considers the Datog to be the southernmost survivors of expansion of Elmenteitan Neolithic populations; he posits that they should have absorbed pre-existing southern Cushitic populations, consistent with my observations based on genetic data. The proto-Datog were cut off from the rest of the southern Nilotic groups by a Maasai expansion that probably began about 1.2 kya [374].
[…]
Based on the distribution of livestock terms in Africa, Bender [78] concluded that pastoralism spread from the putative center of domestication in Egypt to the horn of Africa after the initial divergence of Afroasiatic populations, around the time of the Cushitic-Omotic split (8 - 10 kya), and later spread into East Africa (about 3 kya) by Nilotic speakers from the putative center of proto-Nilotic expansion in Sudan [78]. These assertions are consistent with archaeological evidence indicating that pastoralism might have been initially introduced into East Africa by people classified as Pastoral Neolithic (5.0 - 1.3 kya), associated with southern Cushitic speakers, who made Late Stone Age (LSA) tools and pottery and herded domestic cattle, sheep and goats [479]. The Elmenteitan (3 - 2 kya), another pastoral tradition associated with southern Nilotic speakers is thought to be a reflection of the second wave of pastoralist movement within East Africa [108, 109]. Based on archeological evidence of the existence of possible 155 proto-Nilotic speakers in northern Kenya [87] and possibly southern Sudan, Robbins [480] argues that pastoralism spread into East Africa by socio-cultural mechanisms such as trading, bride-wealth exchange and raiding.
[…]
There were two separate migrations associated with Nilo-Saharan speakers from Sudan, possibly via southwestern Ethiopia into Kenya and Tanzania: the first 3 kya consisted of pastoralist southern Nilotic speakers associated with Elmenteitan pastoral Neolithic culture [108, 109, 127, 129] and the second consisted of eastern Nilotic speakers beginning 1.2 kya that has been associated with Lanet and Sirikwa traditions [110, 140]. The most recent migration of Nilo-Saharan speakers into Kenya involved the western Nilotic speaking Luo population from southern Sudan through Uganda [88, 89]. Lastly, the migration of Bantu speaking populations into East Africa has been associated with several pottery traditions: Urewe, Lelesu, Kwale and Maore that are dated from 2.5 – 0.6 kya [110, 134-139]. Therefore, the frequency pattern of mtDNA and Y chromosome lineages in East Africa is a reflection of these historical human population movements.
quote:Cass is dodging yall lies like:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Correct, even though I don't work with OOA.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
[QB] @ Bass
- I am not exactly familiar with what Swenet's views were pre-2013, but from 2013-2015 virtually only me and him on this forum were arguing for the Saharan theory opposed to the pan-Africanists. In 2014 he talked to me about research notes/an essay I wrote on this, and he was working on his own.
- Bizarrely all those pan-Africanists quarrelling with me & Swenet (2013-2015) including Zaharan, Bass and so on are now denying their post histories and saying they argued AE's were Saharans (not SSA's) the whole time!?
quote:Jebel Moya's craniofacial results, showing the sample has no special relationship to the SSA groups (nor to the groups further north); its metric position is roughly similar to its non-metric results:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Completely incompetent. Jebel Moya has completely different pattern of relationships to other African groups showing it's morphologically in a class of its own:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:That's NOT false, Jebel Moya is craniometrically akin to West Africans in one study, and described as being like the Nuba people in another study, though their dental traits clustered them with "North Africans." Do your research or do I have to do it for you? You still have not defined what sub-Saharan is.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:False and false. You are a simpleton with no idea how this works. You uploaded a Hubbe et al 2010 to your website and called it "True Negro morphology" even though the morphology isn't even True Negro and even though you supposedly have a beef with the term. You are a complete simpleton old out of touch fart no one takes serious outside of Egyptsearch.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
A population can craniometrically SSA and dentally another thing, look at Jebel Moya, lol
https://landofpunt.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/mukherjee1955.png
Why don't you elaborate to the people here how you labeled the Hubbe et al 2010 paper "True Negro morphology" like a confused turd. Then you want to come in here and pretend to have a beef with the term. You don't even know why Keita is against True Negro. You just co-opt his work to score your Afrocentric points.
quote:Yes, he's truly showing what winning looks like, isn't he?
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Cass is dodging yall lies like:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Correct, even though I don't work with OOA.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
[QB] @ Bass
- I am not exactly familiar with what Swenet's views were pre-2013, but from 2013-2015 virtually only me and him on this forum were arguing for the Saharan theory opposed to the pan-Africanists. In 2014 he talked to me about research notes/an essay I wrote on this, and he was working on his own.
- Bizarrely all those pan-Africanists quarrelling with me & Swenet (2013-2015) including Zaharan, Bass and so on are now denying their post histories and saying they argued AE's were Saharans (not SSA's) the whole time!?
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Who remembers the poster Perahu? I found his blog.
The Elongated African fallacy
https://landofpunt.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/the-elongated-african-fallacy/
I don't agree with everything he says, but glad to see he's knows the Gamble's Cave & Elmenteitan were re-dated to Iron Age:
quote:Thanks to Perahu, he also found another source-
Ambrose further confirms the above when he observes that the chronological date proposed by R. Protsch for the cairn burials at Gamble’s Cave is grossly inaccurate. To this end, Ambrose notes that conventional charcoal dates for the older (and thus deeper) Phase 3 layer at the site range from 8,000 to 8,500 years before present. Protsch, however, had mistakenly suggested that the cairns — which were buried in a deposit above the Eburran’s final/most recent Phase 5A layer; Phase 5A was, in turn, situated around four meters above the Phase 3 layer — dated to a similar 8,020 ybp, give or take a few years. Thus, the cairns are in fact chronologically more recent than even the last Eburran cultural phase, and by extension, so are the skeletons within them.
quote:- Sutton (1974)
Repeatedly in the literature the makers of the ‘Kenya Capsian’ are described as a ‘tall Caucasoid’ or ‘Afro-Mediterranean’ people, a deduction based on examination of burials which Leakey found while digging Gamble’s Cave. Whether this racial attribution is roughly correct or not is irrelevant here. For, as is plain in Leakey’s ‘diagrammatic section’ and notes of his excavation, these burials were placed in a layer well above that containing the true ‘Kenya Capsian’ materials with the fish-bones, harpoon and ‘dotted wavy-line’ potsherd. The skeletons probably belong to a different population several thousand years later. There is therefore no direct evidence of the physical type of the makers of the ‘Kenya Capsian’.
So as I said, there are no narrow-nasal aperture crania in East Africa until as recent as the Iron Age c. 500 BCE. Afrocentrists are using the earlier erroneous dates (Leakey, 1935) to try to argue these "Caucasoid" traits evolved in situ in the Kenya & Horn of Africa from the Mesolithic-Neolithic.
quote:
When comparing pre- and post-4500 BP metric variation within each population, the same results are observed. Interestingly, the metric variation shared between Khoesan post-2000 BP (excluding Region A specimens for reasons discussed above) and post-4500 BP Kenyan samples relates to Khoesan herders and Elmenteitan pastoralists (Bromhead’s site). Interpretation of these results should be cautious as sample sizes are very small (N=4) due to the scarcity of identified Khoesan herder individuals. The archaeology demonstrates very little material likeness between the two groups barring their mutual subsistence strategy. The Elmenteita populations do not share cultural, stone tool technology and raw material procurement, pottery traditions or settlement patterns (although there is evidence of the use of rock shelters) (Robertshaw 1988) with known herder or hunter-gatherer sites in South Africa during the LSA.
[…]
The bulk of the Kenyan dental sample ( N=52 ) is Late Holocene (Table 4.2 for details). According to Rightmire (1984), pecimens from Bromhead’s site ( N=34 ) are associated with artefacts and pottery (Bower and Nelson 1978) from the Elmenteitan, a food-producing culture first identified by L.S.B. Leakey (1931), possibly dating to no older than ca. 2500 B.P. Other skeletons from Hyrax Hill, Makalia and Wiley’s Kopje, Naishi Rock Shelter and Molo ( N=18 ) are fragmentary but well preserved. The remaining Kenyan material is early-mid Holocene, with 19 specimens dated to between 10000 – 4000 B.P. These samples are from Lothagam and Koobi Fora, near Lake Turkana in the North. The dental preservation of this material is quite good, even though the teeth are heavily worn. This material is often collectively referred to as the ‘Galana boi specimens’ from the Galana boi Holocene formation, part of a series of raised Holocene sediments that surround modern Lake Turkana, principally deposited between 12 ka – 7 ka BP (F.H. Brown and Feibel 1986; Owen and Renaut 1986). Dental material dated to > 8000 B.P. is found in southern Kenya ( N=8 ) at some of the best-known and oldest of the Kenya Holocene sites. Gamble’s Cave II has remarkably well preserved (albeit incomplete) dental remains, while a single complete cranium with full maxillary dentition from the Naivasha Railway site, first described by Leakey (1942), adds to this early collection. For statistical analyses, these data were divided into temporal two groups; those specimens that are dated to (>) 4500 BP ( N=54 ) and specimens that fit into a 4-10ka timeframe ( N=27 ).
The PCA of upper molar diagonal cervical measurements (4 variables) from Kenyan and Khoesan datasets illustrating pre- and post-4500 BP temporal separations for both populations is shown in Fig. 5.55. Large individuals from Kenya such as KNM- LT 13702 and KNM-LT 27710 from Lothagam are situated towards the left, while the smaller Khoesan individuals (i.e. SAM-AP 4813) are on the right, suggesting PC1 is related to size. Again, a closer relationship between Kenyan pre-4500 BP and Khoesan pre-4500 BP samples is observed, while more recent Kenyan material are comparable to recent Khoesan size/shape. There is little overlap between Khoesan post-4500 BP and earlier Kenyan (pre-4500 BP) samples. Component loadings are illustrated in Fig. 5.56. Loadings for both PC1 and PC2 are all positive but vary substantially. RM2 MLDBCD PC2 loadings are weighted the highest (0.542), while RM1 MLDBCD PC2 (0.058), the lowest.
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Who remembers the poster Perahu? I found his blog.
The Elongated African fallacy
https://landofpunt.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/the-elongated-african-fallacy/
…
quote:“Cultural Diversity of Africa’s Past”
Oula Seitsonen, University of Helsinki, Finland: Change and continuity in the lithics use in Nyanza Province, Kenya
The lithic assemblages excavated from single and multi-period Holocene sites in Nyanza Province, Kenya, show some interesting long-term trends of techno-typological change and continuity. These are evident for example in the raw material choices, used reduction methods and manufactured end products, and presumably mirror developments e.g. in the associated socio-economical networks and settlement patterns. Of interest is that no direct correlation exists between the changes in lithic technology and the changes of ceramic traditions or subsistence economy. This might suggest for the most part of the Holocene a gradual, autochthonous culture-historical sequence with few abrupt changes. Most important and sudden changes in the lithics use are connected to the appearance of Elmenteitan ware in South Nyanza.
quote:—Suzan B. Aradeon
A mosaic of pastoral and hunter-gatherer groups coexisted in south- ern Kenya and parts of northern Tanzania from >4000 BP onwards. After 3500 BP, two distinct specialized pastoral cultures emerged: the Elmenteitan at sites like Ngamuriak, and the Savanna Pastoral Neolithic at Narosera and Crescent Island Main (Bower, 1991; Robertshaw, 1990). Both cultures relied on intensive use of livestock, and made little use of abundant wild ungu- lates (Gifford-Gonzalez, 2000; Marshall, 2000). At the site of Enkapune Ya Muto, contemporary Eburran 5 hunter-gatherers had lithic technology and microlith styles similar to those of earlier hunter-gatherers, and consumed large quantities of wild fauna and limited stock (Ambrose, 1984b). The few domestic animals are attributed to gifts from pastoral neighbors, raiding, or limited herding (Marean, 1992). Nderit ceramics similar to those found on pastoral sites also attest to interaction between Eburran hunter-gatherers and nearby herders (Ambrose, 1998).
quote:If we use your logic, Badarians show no special relationships to Naqada nor any of the other Egyptians. Jebel Moya is closest to Ibo
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Jebel Moya's craniofacial results, showing the sample has no special relationship to the SSA groups (nor to the groups further north); its metric position is roughly similar to its non-metric results:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Completely incompetent. Jebel Moya has completely different pattern of relationships to other African groups showing it's morphologically in a class of its own:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:That's NOT false, Jebel Moya is craniometrically akin to West Africans in one study, and described as being like the Nuba people in another study, though their dental traits clustered them with "North Africans." Do your research or do I have to do it for you? You still have not defined what sub-Saharan is.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:False and false. You are a simpleton with no idea how this works. You uploaded a Hubbe et al 2010 to your website and called it "True Negro morphology" even though the morphology isn't even True Negro and even though you supposedly have a beef with the term. You are a complete simpleton old out of touch fart no one takes serious outside of Egyptsearch.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
A population can craniometrically SSA and dentally another thing, look at Jebel Moya, lol
https://landofpunt.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/mukherjee1955.png
Why don't you elaborate to the people here how you labeled the Hubbe et al 2010 paper "True Negro morphology" like a confused turd. Then you want to come in here and pretend to have a beef with the term. You don't even know why Keita is against True Negro. You just co-opt his work to score your Afrocentric points.
Irish and Koningsberg repeated the analysis and got the same results (only the erroneous position of the Badarian sample was fixed):
quote:Here is the turd who talks about himself in third person in 2010 saying "elongated Africans" underwent microevolution in SSA:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I've been on Egyptsearch since 2003, what the hell is this Negro talking about. N o one can post one quote where I said ancient Egyptians were genetically SSA.
quote:You obviously still believe this, otherwise you wouldn't talk about "climate-adapted" SSA groups that cluster with Egyptians. Why would climate adaptation matter if you're not ultimately trying to sneak in the lie that AE were originally SSA and later "morphed" into "elongated Africans". Isn't this faith-based narrative your whole point? That they were originally SSA, but later changed due to climate? Idiot.
The traits are not "Caucasoid" traits, they have nothing to do with so called "Caucasoids" nor are they adaptively trivial, he offers no proof they are, the traits are elongated East Africans traits, traits that evolved through microevolution is SSA, end of debate. Next time try reading the full text of what you read instead of cherry picking.
quote:Elongated traits are a process of micro-evolution, what can you refute about that? Are you saying that all SSAs fit one type? I'm not sneaking in anything, don't put words in my mouth because I quoted several anthropologists who stated the same thing.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:"The Bass" in 2010 saying "elongated Africans" having undergone microevolution in SSA:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I've been on Egyptsearch since 2003, what the hell is this Negro talking about. N o one can post one quote where I said ancient Egyptians were genetically SSA.
quote:You obviously still believe this, otherwise you wouldn't talk about "climate-adapted" SSA groups that cluster with Egyptians. Why would climate adaptation matter if you're not ultimately trying to sneak in the lie that AE were originally SSA and later "morphed" into "elongated Africans". Is this faith-based narrative your whole point?
The traits are not "Caucasoid" traits, they have nothing to do with so called "Caucasoids" nor are they adaptively trivial, he offers no proof they are, the traits are elongated East Africans traits, traits that evolved through microevolution is SSA, end of debate. Next time try reading the full text of what you read instead of cherry picking.
quote:I didn't say a special relationship, I said they resembled SSA more closely than to any other group. They have been said to resemble modern Nuba people, we know what Nubia people look like, lol
Originally posted by Swenet:
Like I said, you are a simpleton. That plot from Mukherjee showing the Badarians away from other Egyptians has never been reproduced. So why should anyone accept it?
It's not even supported by Mukherjee's own distance matrix; it was clearly an error.
And, at the end of the day, Jebel Moya has no special relationship to SSA samples, and the non metric and metric data show roughly the same results.
You're dismissed.
quote:The above statement would be accurate if you replaced "SSA" with simply "African". However, I can see from those quoted earlier posts of yours that you did in fact believe that "Elongated Africans" like the AE were (relatively recent) derivatives of SSA. And I will admit I would have thought the same ~7 years ago, but my beliefs have changed since those days. If your beliefs have also changed over the years, it's OK to admit that. Just don't deny what you thought all the years ago.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:I have always said that SSA people are diverse and do not constitute ONE grouping of people and that like Keita said there is more than one way to be SSA. I never said they all genetically cluster the same way either, please do NOT put words in my mouth. Why are we severely limiting SSA to one anthropological or genetic type? That has never been my position.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
@ Bass
FFS, man up and admit that the old scenario we used to believe in, wherein all native Africans cluster together into one exclusive pan-African clade, was wrong and actually contradicted the OOA theory of modern human origins. Think about it, if all OOA populations represent an offshoot of Northeast Africans, then of course indigenous Northeast Africans (including the eastern Saharan ancestors of AEs) are going to appear more closely related to OOAs than West or Central Africans. See this graph below for a visual illustration of that phenomenon:
Mind you, these ancestral Northeast African populations would have still had dark brown (or "black") skin, as lighter skin wouldn't develop until certain OOA populations started colonizing the northern regions of Eurasia (and even then, it wouldn't have been as widespread as it is today). So of course those people who stayed in Northeast Africa and eventually evolved into the proto-Egyptians would still have looked "black", or at least not pale or tan-skinned. But that doesn't mean you can pigeonhole them into one (exclusive) pan-African grouping with people way over in, say, the Congo. That's like trying to force them into a "true Negro" stereotype.
quote:That map is hela dated. Yam is estimated to be in Northern Chad. Asar Imhotep makes a great case that Punt is among the great lakes. Temeh was either Lower Egypt and/or eastern Libya.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The above is a map of all the kingdoms of ancient Sudan -- kingdoms that were contemporaries of ancient Egypt. The word "Nubian" is applied to all of them and this is where the confusion arises.
quote:Considering that last part, its apparent that I never thought all SSA were the same, nor did I ever say Ancient Egyptians were fully SSA, you all keep reaching and grasping straws.
Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness:
The African Archaeological Review, 6 (1988), pp. 57 72
Who were the later Pleistocene eastern Africans?
L . A . SCHEPARTZ
Abstract
A later Pleistocene Khoisan peopling of eastern Africa has been suggested by most researchers. The evidence cited consists of a few isolated crania, archaeological occurrences described as 'Wilton', rock paintings and scattered populations of present-day huntergatherers
speaking languages with clicks and viewed as bearing some physical resemblances to living Khoisan groups. When these different lines of evidence are evaluated, it is clear that
there is no strong basis for retaining the concept of later Pleistocene Khoisan populations in eastern Africa. Instead, the available data suggest that the later Pleistocene and Holocene eastern Africans were tall, linear peoples.
CB writes: This is in response to Thought saying Pleistocene East Africans looked more like West Africans. They didn't, instead they more like the modern Afro-Asiatic and Nilo-Saharan speakers there.
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Cass is dodging yall lies like:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Correct, even though I don't work with OOA.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
[QB] @ Bass
- I am not exactly familiar with what Swenet's views were pre-2013, but from 2013-2015 virtually only me and him on this forum were arguing for the Saharan theory opposed to the pan-Africanists. In 2014 he talked to me about research notes/an essay I wrote on this, and he was working on his own.
- Bizarrely all those pan-Africanists quarrelling with me & Swenet (2013-2015) including Zaharan, Bass and so on are now denying their post histories and saying they argued AE's were Saharans (not SSA's) the whole time!?
quote:No kid, YOU are grasping for straws once again, stop putting words in my mouth. Here is another post I made yet again in 2005, and its the same thing I said earlier in this topic:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Stop lying. You got caught red-handed. You clearly said that AE are SSA populations. This was secretly also the whole purpose why you invoked the Toubou as an example of a "climate adapted SSA population" in relation to AE in the first place.
If not, what was your point of picking a Sahelian population you insisted was SSA in ancestry, and relating them to AE? People who don't have an ulterior motive and who maintain AE originated in the Sahara have no reason to spam that line of reasoning. So who do you think you're kidding?
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness:
quote:True indeed. In fact, there is no proof and never has there any that Levantine groups and other non-Africans made up even a significant portion of pre-proto dynastic peoples of Egypt. So you are right, Irish does contradict himself, but one thing that still stands out is that the egyptians and other North African series do *NOT* cluster with Europeans based on dental traits, thus the notion that Ancient Egyptians were/are "Mediterranean Caucasoids" is again refuted.
Originally posted by Thought2:
quote:Thought Writes:
Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness:
The Egyptian population *ORIGINALLY* was composed of the former two with the latter[Levantine]group being recent, so this does in fact raise a red flag. I think Joel Irish draws sometimes too radical a conclusion based on dental traits.
This is a good point. In fact Irish contradicts himself as it relates to this proposed Levantine incursion when he states that the Nile Valley remains are varied in contrast to Western Asian dental traits.
Thought Posts:
"However, as it stands, the lone Greek Egyptian sample from Lower Egypt significantly differs from all but the small Roman-period Kharga sample. In fact, it was shown to be a major outlier that is divergent from all others.....This trait combination is reminiscent of that in Europeans and WESTERN ASIANS. Thus, if the present heterogenous sample is at all representative of peoples during the Ptolemaic times, it may suggest some measure of foreign admixture......As above, the first two traits are common in Europeans and western Asians; the latter is rare in these areas as well as greater North Africa."
quote:Yes, and the ancient Egyptians were Bantus.
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:That map is hela dated. Yam is estimated to be in Northern Chad. Asar Imhotep makes a great case that Punt is among the great lakes. Temeh was either Lower Egypt and/or eastern Libya.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The above is a map of all the kingdoms of ancient Sudan -- kingdoms that were contemporaries of ancient Egypt. The word "Nubian" is applied to all of them and this is where the confusion arises.
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness:
quote:The Egyptian population *ORIGINALLY* was composed of the former two with the latter[Levantine]group being recent, so this does in fact raise a red flag. I think Joel Irish draws sometimes too radical a conclusion based on dental traits. This study needs further critiqing.
Originally posted by Thought2:
quote:Thought Writes:
Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness:
From the full text:
"The source of any heterogeneity is thought to have stemmed from the makeup of the ‘‘proto-predynastic’’ (Keita, 1992, p. 251) founding population that may have comprised many biologically distinct peoples, including
Saharan, Nilotic, and Levant groups...
This statement alone should raise some red flags to those of keen mind. We know that based upon genetics Saharans, Nilotic and Levantine groups are NOT biologically distinct from one another based upon the E3b lineage of the Y-Chromosome.
quote:Don't try to back track now. You said people with these traits originated in SSA. Who cares if you said elsewhere that people with the same traits entered Egypt from the Sahara?
The traits are not "Caucasoid" traits, they have nothing to do with so called "Caucasoids" nor are they adaptively trivial, he offers no proof they are, the traits are elongated East Africans traits, traits that evolved through microevolution is SSA, end of debate. Next time try reading the full text of what you read instead of cherry picking.
quote:??? Bull, don't put words in my mouth, since 2005 I have held the same position and never stated Ancient Egyptians were SSA genetically, so don't throw me into that group of people.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
An animated illustration of Charlie Bass coming to terms with his past mistaken beliefs (which many of us here used to have, until the past few years):
Clearly this man's willingness to admit he was wrong at one point in his life is exemplary.
quote:When did I say dental traits are climatic adaptations? I held the position they are adaptations to DIET, not climate, smh, man stop continually putting words in my mouth. The nasal index and body proportion are climatically influenced. I never said dental traits, especially nonmetric traits are climatic. Anyone studying anthropology would know this.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Your point? You and your fellow turds think everything is plastic. You thought, and still think, that dental traits are climate adaptations. You admitted AE were Saharans because you think Saharans are also climate-adapted SSA.
quote:That's just as profoundly stupid. I don't see how this is an improvement over thinking it's climate controlled. You think everything is plastic, which is what you use to console yourself whenever you don't like the outcome of an analysis.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
When did I say dental traits are climatic adaptations? I held the position they are adaptations to DIET
quote:Don't be absurd. The ancient Egyptians were not "Sub-Saharan" Africans. The only areas in Sub-Saharan Africa that closely cluster with the ancient Egyptians are sites in Central Sudan like Jebel Moya and the Khartoum Mesolithic.
Originally posted by xyyman:
The Amarnas were SS Africans...genetically per Hawass and the JAMA Report. Rameses III carried SSA lineage per BMJ. Middle Kingdom AEians were black skinned, Chapel et al
Don't be an apologist!!
quote:The Abusir mummies are LATE INTERMEDIATE as I pointed out, and during this period many of the dynasties except for the 25 were of Libyan origin so lol, it helps to know some history about the period in question instead of blindly pounding your chest about so called angry Afrocentrists being mad.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:That's just as profoundly stupid. I don't see how this is an improvement over thinking it's climate controlled. You think everything is plastic, which is what you use to console yourself whenever you don't like the outcome of an analysis.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
When did I say dental traits are climatic adaptations? I held the position they are adaptations to DIET
See the OP. You didn't like the outcome of the Abusir mummies, so now modern SSA populations were plastic in the last 3000 years. All of a sudden we need ancient DNA from SSA to accept the Abusir results, because modern day SSA groups "changed". Everything is plastic according to you loony toons.
quote:
They [ancient Egyptians] were *NOT* local "Caucasoids" and indeed showed similarities to peoples called "Negroids:"
quote:
So much for [ancient Egyptians] being nothing like "Negroid" Africans.
quote:
Ancient Egyptians were more related to Northeast Africans, Upper Nile Valley populations and Saharans than to Middle Easterners and Southern Europeans
quote:His thread:
very close to Saharans, Nilotics and Elongated East Africans and were tropically adapted people
quote:Duh I said they had affinities with those peoples and?
Originally posted by Cass/:
Bass is outright lying about his post history. Problem for him is i'm an old ex-Anthroscape poster (pre-2010) when he posted there, so I'm familiar with his views.
Bass was arguing things like following:
quote:
They [ancient Egyptians] were *NOT* local "Caucasoids" and indeed showed similarities to peoples called "Negroids:"quote:
So much for [ancient Egyptians] being nothing like "Negroid" Africans.quote:
Ancient Egyptians were more related to Northeast Africans, Upper Nile Valley populations and Saharans than to Middle Easterners and Southern Europeansquote:His thread:
very close to Saharans, Nilotics and Elongated East Africans and were tropically adapted people
The bottom line on Ancient Egyptians
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/1416884/1/.
I cant be bothered to dig up more his posts, but its clear he was trying to cluster ancient Egyptians with SSA's such as Horn Africans, and other East Africans such as Nilotes, with the so-called "Nilotid" or "elongated African" morph. Also many of his posts like the first quote try to show Egyptians were not biologically distant to "Negroids".
quote:The AE don't directly say "we came from puntland". However, many of their inscriptions say that the God Amun comes from Punt and that Punt is a place of relaxation. Likewise, during the 18th dynasty the AE made Gebel Barkal in Sudan the sacred mountain of Amun because it looks like a Uraeus. And the priests in Karnak were known to orient their prayers and rituals towards that southern outcropping of rock. The reason being the Pharoahs of the 18th dynasty identified this as the ancestral land of Amun worship and Dynastic Kingship. It could be said that the rise of Amun was the result of Africans from the Southern regions becoming dominant after the time of fragmentation and turmoil. This is a time period when many Southern troops were used to help restore stability, similarly to how the same happened after the 2nd intermediate period and the rise of the 18th dynasty. (Note there was even a pharaoh named Nehesy in the 2nd intermediate period. Nehesy being the name for Southerners from what is now called Nubia.) Not to mention Ta Seti the first Nome of Egypt reflects the political and social integration of Early populations from Upper Egypt in what is called "Nubia". So we are talking about a continuous and ongoing relationship and renewal from the South throughout the dynastic era.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Is there any actual evidence that the ancient Egyptians ever explicitely pointed to Punt as an ancestral land? To the ancient Egyptians, lands outside their borders were characterized as lands of chaos. Punt was apparently the god's land in the sense that it was a source of valuable myrrh, frankincense, leopard skins and other valuables.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Where is Punt at then? Because last I checked it was clearly in Sub Saharan Africa and the AE associated themselves with it (assuming ancient Punt is roughly associated with modern Puntland in Somalia). Sure it doesn't trump genetics but just saying.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:I never understood why people so desperately tried to associate the ancient Egyptians with populations beyond Central Sudan. I still assert that Southern Egyptians and specific "Nubians" (Lower "Nubia") were ethnically very close and stem from a common origin in the predynastic period.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Stop lying. You are one of the biggest culprits on the forum! Furthermore we are not debating with the likes of Mary Lefkowitz. This is a prime example of when I talked or ES folks being collectively left in the Dust as far as bio/anthro and how it relates to human populations. You still posting images of Mary......she is no longer the antagonist. You bringing her up is like Trump planning up strategy to destroy imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Sure and no one credible claims that AEs were mostly
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I'm speaking for myself and I never make those claims that AE=all or mostly SSA. One can have supra-Saharan ancestry and still be black. The results of this study still don't refute or rule out an African Egypt.
SSA at all times, in all places. Who goes about "denying"
migration at various levels from the Levant...........
Based on the history and application of that construct,
AE's would be considered "black" as Mary Lefkowitz herself freely
acknowledges, and even Egyptologists like Tyson-Smith 2001,
consider the use of the label "black" as reasonable.
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DprXzn0HCsU/VMHRJCj9IcI/AAAAAAAABVU/W2LoPVCnUrE/s1600/marylefkowitz_onedrop.jpg
Back to you being the culprit. Nearly every one of your soft core image spams talks about the relation of AE to SSA groups via recent South North migration. Not to North Africans......not to them being distinct in their own right. Not too much on substructure. No it equates AE culture/linguistics/bio history with populations below the Sahara. There is nothing WRONG with this......but don't fake like this ain't your whole modus operati. It's on RECORD.
DNA tribes spam was about you and nearly everyone else tying AE to SSA groups. The 2 counter theories were from Swenet.....saying the data is not literal and Egyptians and horners contain a lot of these alleles.....about North African affinities in SSA due to pastoralism. And myself which argued the affinity is old and Saharan....then I argued the STR affinity was essentially extinct and the results mean very little. ES et al went batshiit.
Did ES argue that those alleles or autosomal components (Great Lakes, Southern African) were North African? Not really. Did ES argue that E1b1a in Ramses III was a North African variant of E-M2.....or that E-M2 itself was North African. Not really. The narrative what strongly in the opposite. Even when I brought up the idea that it could be V-22 folks were going bat shiit crazy.
At this point I dont recall any ES member making statements that Dynastic Egyptians.......REGARDLESS of dynasty/region would be LESS SSA and moderns.......folks want to sit back now and be like "that's what I always thought". Man y'all take a polygraph test that shiit would probably explode.
The North may be a different kettle of fish altogether, but I'll wait for the release of this study and for the release of the paternal profiles of these mummies and their identities before concluding what the North was in dynastic times.
There is a small mountain in Northern Sudan that the ancient Egyptians considered to be the birthplace of one of their gods.
quote:http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/10.1163/ej.9789004171978.i-606.29
The political disunity of First Intermediate Period Egypt is described traditionally as chaos, yet the changes occurring in the centre-province relationship and the social, economic and cultural patterns of the countryside may, with some exaggeration, also be described in the terms of a &t;social revolution&t;. The c. one hundred years of the First Intermediate Period witnessed prolonged struggles between the provincial magnates and the formation of two competing kingdoms with the capitals Herakleopolis and Thebes. The c. one century of the First Intermediate Period corresponds roughly with the earlier half of Phase Ib of the Nubian C-Group. In the advanced First Intermediate period there occurred conflicts between Thebes and the C-Group chiefdom. The acquisition of gold, hardstones and other materials from Lower Nubia and of exotic wares from the south became once more vitally important for a court that was to rule a vast centralized kingdom.
quote:http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/punt.htm
The oldest surviving record of a journey to Punt comes from the Palermo stone, which dates to Egypt's 5th Dynasty. Later, during the 11th Dynasty, Henenu tells us of a journey to Punt ordered by Mentuhotep III with three thousand men who transported material for building ships through Wadi Hammamat to the cost of the Red Sea:
"I left Koptos on the road set by his majesty. The soldiers I had with me came from the south. All the king's officials, the men from the city and the village, marched behind me. The scouts opened up the road ahead repulsing the king's enemies. All the officials obeyed me. They were in constant touch with the runners... "
In order to transport the material to build their ships, donkeys were used, as camels were not available until after the invasion of the Persians much later:
To every man I gave his rations, a water-bottle, a staff, two jars of water, twenty loaves of bread. The donkeys carried the jars. When one of them tired, another was substituted. I excavated twelve holes in the wadi, two holes at Idahet, twenty cubits wide and thirty deep. One hole at Idahet ten cubits in every direction, at a place where water sprang.
Mentuhotep III was the first Middle Kingdom ruler we know of to send an expedition to Punt, though such expeditions became more frequent during the 12th Dynasty.
We do know many of the routes taken to reach Punt. It could certainly be reached by boat from the Red Sea. During the Old Kingdom this involved crossing the desert east of Memphis to the Gulf of Suez, or setting off from the Sinai. It was here that one well-known expedition intent on a voyage to Punt was ambushed and massacred while building boats for the expedition (during Egypt's 6th Dynasty). During the Middle Kingdom and afterwards, the Red Sea journey to Punt usually originated from Coptos by way of Sawu or via Wadi Hammamat and Quseir. Later, during Egypt's New Kingdom, they may have even traveled from a port at Berenike, known then as Head of Nekheb.
After a suspension of trade between Egypt and Punt during the Second Intermediate Period, the most famous expedition to Punt was actually proposed by an oracle of the God, Amun. The Oracle instructed Hatshepsut, the well known 18th Dynasty Queen, to organize the first large scale expedition to that land of the New Kingdom:
It is the sacred region of God's Land; it is my place of distraction; I have made it for myself in order to cleanse my spirit, along with my mother, Hathor...the lady of Punt."
quote:http://www.jebelbarkal.org/
When the Egyptians conquered northern Sudan (Kush/”Upper Nubia”) in the early Eighteenth Dynasty (ca. 1504 BCE), they identified Jebel Barkal as the birthplace and chief southern residence of their state god Amun. As part of their program of conquest, they established the cult of Amun in many places in Nubia, but Jebel Barkal seems to have had a unique importance for them as a creation site and home of a primeval aspect of Amun who renewed life each year with the Nile inundation. Beneath the Jebel Barkal cliff the Egyptians constructed a major religious center and gave it the same name as Karnak (Ipet-Sut), Amun’s great sanctuary at Thebes, some 1250 km downriver (fig. 2). The Egyptians called the hill variously Dju-Wa’ab (“Pure Mountain”) and Nesut-Tawy (“Thrones of the Two Lands.”) (which in Dynasty 25 and the Napatan Period sometimes became Neset-Tawy [“Throne of the Two Lands”]). The settlement which grew up around it they called Napata, which became the southernmost town in their African empire.
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Don't be absurd. The ancient Egyptians were not "Sub-Saharan" Africans. The only areas in Sub-Saharan Africa that closely cluster with the ancient Egyptians are sites in Central Sudan like Jebel Moya and the Khartoum Mesolithic.
Originally posted by xyyman:
The Amarnas were SS Africans...genetically per Hawass and the JAMA Report. Rameses III carried SSA lineage per BMJ. Middle Kingdom AEians were black skinned, Chapel et al
Don't be an apologist!!
I argued that Horn Africans (Sub-Sahara) are a couple of paces down from the Saharans in their affinity to ancient Egyptians, but other Sub-Saharans are to be excluded.
quote:Indeed the royals tested did have Bantu markers
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Yes, and the ancient Egyptians were Bantus.
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:That map is hela dated. Yam is estimated to be in Northern Chad. Asar Imhotep makes a great case that Punt is among the great lakes. Temeh was either Lower Egypt and/or eastern Libya.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The above is a map of all the kingdoms of ancient Sudan -- kingdoms that were contemporaries of ancient Egypt. The word "Nubian" is applied to all of them and this is where the confusion arises.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. The linguistic argument is beyond me but I will say that the people who make the case that ancient Egyptian is a Bantuish language have far more evidence than the people who dismiss it. quote:Oh come on.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Most of his measurements ARE nasal, man just check it.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
That chart got no indices in it.
quote:But you did (and apparently still seem to) think that AEs and other Saharans would cluster with West/Central Africans (a term I personally prefer to "sub-Saharan", to be honest) sooner than they would any OOA populations. The entire concept of pre-OOA and why it contradicts your original pan-African approach seems to have eluded you. It certainly did not occur to you (and to be fair, myself and almost everyone else in this community) back in 2010.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:??? Bull, don't put words in my mouth, since 2005 I have held the same position and never stated Ancient Egyptians were SSA genetically, so don't throw me into that group of people.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
An animated illustration of Charlie Bass coming to terms with his past mistaken beliefs (which many of us here used to have, until the past few years):
Clearly this man's willingness to admit he was wrong at one point in his life is exemplary.
quote:He is correct in stating that folks are lying about their posting history. This is the same thing I said. When I talk about the past Modus Operandi of ES I include MYSELF regarding the belief in some of those doctrines. That is what some of the data supported at that time:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
R u saying Cass is right
and "y'all"is wrong?
About what?
So u ain't got no critique
for no thing Cass posits?
Yeah, a line has definitely
been drawn.
Y r u playing personalities
when u oughtta be teaching
us what u have come up with.
Y damn people for what they don't know,
then mock them instead of upping their
knowledge base?
quote:That's probably because he is a chronic liar and psycho and therefore not worth any attention. I think the same about lioness, xyyman, Akachi, and several other posters here on ES. I'm willing to engage with Bass because I used to respect him, even if that respect has eroded recently.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
I like how no one is pointing out how Cass is parading around how hes been stating AE were Saharans compared to the Afroloons, yet hes spent the past few weeks claiming AE were Levantine Hamitics and that Musa Keita of Mali was an Arab. d-_-b
quote:That is an interesting discovery. In the right pane I saw this following, also by Černý et al.:
Originally posted by Swenet:
ES' plasticity crew exposed:
ES' incompetent plasticity crew exposed as Sahelian facial shape covaries with mtDNA
According to the plasticity crew, saying what this paper concluded (that climate-adaptation doesn't fully explain differentiation in the Sahel) is subscribing to the True Negro fallacy.
quote:—Černý et al.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Dietary changes associated to shifts in subsistence strategies during human evolution may have induced new selective pressures on phenotypes, as currently held for lactase persistence. Similar hypotheses exist for arylamine N-acetyltransferase 2 (NAT2) mediated acetylation capacity, a well-known pharmacogenetic trait with wide inter-individual variation explained by polymorphisms in the NAT2 gene. The environmental causative factor (if any) driving its evolution is as yet unknown, but significant differences in prevalence of acetylation phenotypes are found between hunter-gatherer and food-producing populations, both in sub-Saharan Africa and worldwide, and between agriculturalists and pastoralists in Central Asia. These two subsistence strategies also prevail among sympatric populations of the African Sahel, but knowledge on NAT2 variation among African pastoral nomads was up to now very scarce. Here we addressed the hypothesis of different selective pressures associated to the agriculturalist or pastoralist lifestyles having acted on the evolution of NAT2 by sequencing the gene in 287 individuals from five pastoralist and one agriculturalist Sahelian populations.
RESULTS:
We show that the significant NAT2 genetic structure of African populations is mainly due to frequency differences of three major haplotypes, two of which are categorized as decreased function alleles (NAT2*5B and NAT2*6A), particularly common in populations living in arid environments, and one fast allele (NAT2*12A), more frequently detected in populations living in tropical humid environments. This genetic structure does associate more strongly with a classification of populations according to ecoregions than to subsistence strategies, mainly because most Sahelian and East African populations display little to no genetic differentiation between them, although both regions hold nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralist and sedentary agriculturalist communities. Furthermore, we found significantly higher predicted proportions of slow acetylators in pastoralists than in agriculturalists, but also among food-producing populations living in the Sahelian and dry savanna zones than in those living in humid environments, irrespective of their mode of subsistence.
CONCLUSION:
Our results suggest a possible independent influence of both the dietary habits associated with subsistence modes and the chemical environment associated with climatic zones and biomes on the evolution of NAT2 diversity in sub-Saharan African populations.
quote:Sub-Saharan to me never meant west/Central Africans, so what are you talking about? Both you and Senet make the same mistake and assumptions Brace made about Diop when he said ancient Egyptians. Sub-Saharan to me never meant solely "Broad trend" Africans, it also included Elongated African types as well. My entire time I was very active here I made this argument that sub-Saharan African traits are NOT a restricted set of traits and yet you and Swenet are doing EXACTLY that, limiting "sub-Saharan" to stereotyped West/West Central Africans. Your definition of sub-Saharan contrasts with mine
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:But you did (and apparently still seem to) think that AEs and other Saharans would cluster with West/Central Africans (a term I personally prefer to "sub-Saharan", to be honest) sooner than they would any OOA populations. The entire concept of pre-OOA and why it contradicts your original pan-African approach seems to have eluded you. It certainly did not occur to you (and to be fair, myself and almost everyone else in this community) back in 2010.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:??? Bull, don't put words in my mouth, since 2005 I have held the same position and never stated Ancient Egyptians were SSA genetically, so don't throw me into that group of people.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
An animated illustration of Charlie Bass coming to terms with his past mistaken beliefs (which many of us here used to have, until the past few years):
Clearly this man's willingness to admit he was wrong at one point in his life is exemplary.
quote:It depends on which "Sub-Saharans are being used. You guys are limiting sub-Saharan to the stereotypical true Negro type. There are Saharans and Northeast Africans who fall well within the sphere of sub-Saharan variability, my email reply from Colin Groves proves this, so what are we arguing about?
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:But you did (and apparently still seem to) think that AEs and other Saharans would cluster with West/Central Africans (a term I personally prefer to "sub-Saharan", to be honest) sooner than they would any OOA populations. The entire concept of pre-OOA and why it contradicts your original pan-African approach seems to have eluded you. It certainly did not occur to you (and to be fair, myself and almost everyone else in this community) back in 2010.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:??? Bull, don't put words in my mouth, since 2005 I have held the same position and never stated Ancient Egyptians were SSA genetically, so don't throw me into that group of people.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
An animated illustration of Charlie Bass coming to terms with his past mistaken beliefs (which many of us here used to have, until the past few years):
Clearly this man's willingness to admit he was wrong at one point in his life is exemplary.
quote:Here the liar admits it again. Elongated Africans (which includes Egyptians) are Sub-Saharan Africans. This is exactly what I mean when I say these liars are playing both sides of the fence.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Sub-Saharan to me never meant west/Central Africans, so what are you talking about? Both you and Senet make the same mistake and assumptions Brace made about Diop when he said ancient Egyptians. Sub-Saharan to me never meant solely "Broad trend" Africans, it also included Elongated African types as well. My entire time I was very active here I made this argument that sub-Saharan African traits are NOT a restricted set of traits and yet you and Swenet are doing EXACTLY that, limiting "sub-Saharan" to stereotyped West/West Central Africans. Your definition of sub-Saharan contrasts with mine [/qb]
quote:Nice summary. I wonder why the Elmenteita show great similarities with the HK43 Burial, which belongs to the first mummies of Egypt.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
lmao this is a mess,
check it out, what I learned on ES in the past 2 days...
SSA's are not monolithic.
SSA's have recently developed morphology.
Contemporary SSA's weren't wide spread below the Sahara.
Some SSA's have admixture from Saharans(north Africans?)
Egyptians are North Africans/Saharans but not related to those who mixed with west Africans.
the SSA's with similar Morphology with A.Egyptians are all mixed
But there's no true Negro/SSA model. …Makes sense.
quote:
Sub-Saharan to me never meant solely "Broad trend" Africans, it also included Elongated African types as well.
quote:
There are Saharans and Northeast Africans who fall well within the sphere of sub-Saharan variability
quote:Depending on the source and method, Sudan can be sub Sahara, East Africa or North East Africa. But is also the Sahara and Sahel.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
...for the longest time, despite me asking numerous, numerous, numerous times (and I wasn't the only one) No one define what SSA was, not even genetically and that's the easy way.
But here alas we throw the term around as if there was a consensus. my last post has a lot of words in it, but surely I have hope that some of the spineless can put 2 n 2 together on how ridiculous this circle of discussion became.
quote:Looka here dude, your little strawman games don't work with me.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Stop lying. You are one of the biggest culprits on the forum! Furthermore we are not debating with the likes of Mary Lefkowitz. This is a prime example of when I talked or ES folks being collectively left in the Dust as far as bio/anthro and how it relates to human populations. You still posting images of Mary......she is no longer the antagonist. You bringing her up is like Trump planning up strategy to destroy imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Sure and no one credible claims that AEs were mostly
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I'm speaking for myself and I never make those claims that AE=all or mostly SSA. One can have supra-Saharan ancestry and still be black. The results of this study still don't refute or rule out an African Egypt.
SSA at all times, in all places. Who goes about "denying"
migration at various levels from the Levant...........
Based on the history and application of that construct,
AE's would be considered "black" as Mary Lefkowitz herself freely
acknowledges, and even Egyptologists like Tyson-Smith 2001,
consider the use of the label "black" as reasonable.
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DprXzn0HCsU/VMHRJCj9IcI/AAAAAAAABVU/W2LoPVCnUrE/s1600/marylefkowitz_onedrop.jpg
Back to you being the culprit. Nearly every one of your soft core image spams talks about the relation of AE to SSA groups via recent South North migration. Not to North Africans......not to them being distinct in their own right. Not too much on substructure. No it equates AE culture/linguistics/bio history with populations below the Sahara. There is nothing WRONG with this......but don't fake like this ain't your whole modus operati. It's on RECORD.
DNA tribes spam was about you and nearly everyone else tying AE to SSA groups. The 2 counter theories were from Swenet.....saying the data is not literal and Egyptians and horners contain a lot of these alleles.....about North African affinities in SSA due to pastoralism. And myself which argued the affinity is old and Saharan....then I argued the STR affinity was essentially extinct and the results mean very little. ES et al went batshiit.
Did ES argue that those alleles or autosomal components (Great Lakes, Southern African) were North African? Not really. Did ES argue that E1b1a in Ramses III was a North African variant of E-M2.....or that E-M2 itself was North African. Not really. The narrative what strongly in the opposite. Even when I brought up the idea that it could be V-22 folks were going bat shiit crazy.
At this point I dont recall any ES member making statements that Dynastic Egyptians.......REGARDLESS of dynasty/region would be LESS SSA and moderns.......folks want to sit back now and be like "that's what I always thought". Man y'all take a polygraph test that shiit would probably explode.
quote:So, TP, you're saying that the Hierakonpolis burial shares these affinities with the Elmenteita?
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
I wonder why the Elmenteita show great similarities with the HK43 Burial, which belongs to the first mummies of Egypt.
quote:That is indeed an interesting proposition.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
@ISH
"Nice summary. I wonder why the Elmenteita show great similarities with the HK43 Burial, which belongs to the first mummies of Egypt.
"
Lmaoo..
Dont. Ask. Me.
You probably weren't, but hey just for fVcks and giggles why do ancient Nubian and Lake Turkana show cultural similarities through pottery & cultivation.
Wait, My bad I forgot, Egyptians had nothing to do with Sudan/Nubians. Ptolemy did say that all the way down in Elephantine, the people where definitely distinct from Subsahara... ehem* I mean Nubians.
...I wonder Sudaniya solved this mystery yet.
quote:—Michał Kobusiewicz, Jacek Kabaciński, Romuald Schild, Joel D. Irish and Fred Wendorf
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:http://nelc.yale.edu/faculty-books/gebel-ramlah-final-neolithic-cemeteries-western-desert-egypt
"Gebel Ramlah, Final Neolithic Cemeteries from the Western Desert of Egypt"
quote:http://www.ancientsudan.org/burials_01_prehistory.htm
Extensive excavations in Wadi Halfa, in Sudan,1 lead to the discovery of what is arguably the oldest evidence for human settlers in the Nile Valley, which was dated to the Paleolithic Age (Qadan- 13000-8000 BC). Other Paleolithic sites were located in the south of Lower Nubia including in Toshka and Gebel Sahaba.
[…]
In spite of the intensive archeology in Lower Nubia, no significant Neolithic graves were uncovered. The only Neolithic discoveries were found in central Sudan, particularly in Khartoum, Kadruka, Shabona, el Ghaba , and Kadero.3 However, the most important excavations were conducted in Khartoum. The excavations revealed a culture that dates back to about 6900 years ago.4
[…]
Dating to the Neolithic period, in el Ghaba, considerable amounts of circular or sub-circular pits (diameters varying from 120cm to 160cm) were found. There, the bodies were adorned with personal commodities like bracelets and necklaces, lip-plugs, stone and bone tools, pottery, ostrich feathers, and water mollusc shells. Clothes made of natural local materials, headrests and footrests, and traces of facial painting (i.e. perhaps an indication of tribal identity) were found. The finding of mollusk shells, probably obtained from the Red Sea, represents one of the world's earliest evidence for human trade and exchange.
quote:Setting up such strawmen is convenient, allowing the creators
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
This guy is clearly putting words in my mouth. I never said they were genetically SSA. Clustering craniometrically is another thing, funny you dug hard for something then created a strawman.
quote:~Explain the ancient DNA.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
I like how no one is pointing out how Cass is parading around how hes been stating AE were Saharans compared to the Afroloons, yet hes spent the past few weeks claiming AE were Levantine Hamitics and that Musa Keita of Mali was an Arab. d-_-b
quote:I say so based on a physical observation, not based on metrics. Does the DisPop result on Egypt speak of these Hierakonpolis burials like the HK43 Burial?
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:So, TP, you're saying that the Hierakonpolis burial shares these affinities with the Elmenteita?
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
I wonder why the Elmenteita show great similarities with the HK43 Burial, which belongs to the first mummies of Egypt.
Don't play yourself and end up with a position you're not willing to commit to.
quote:—L.S.B. Leakey: The Stone Age cultures of Kenya colony (Cambridge, 1931), 90–175; J.E.G. Sutton: ‘New radio- carbon dates for eastern and southern Africa’, JAH 13 (1972), 3–4.
Gamble’s Cave One of two adjacent rock- shelters with substantial internal and external Stone Age deposits. The site, overlooking Lake Elmenteita in the Eastern Rift Valley in Kenya, was formed by wave action in the wet period of the early Holocene when the level of Lake Elmenteita rose to combine with Lake Nakuru, forming a vast expanse of water that overflowed into the Nile basin. The archaeological potential of Gamble’s Cave was appreciated in the 1920s by Louis Leakey (1931) who thus undertook one of the first excavations of note in East Africa. The upper deposits contained ‘ELMENTEITAN’ lithics and pottery; below were encountered various stages of a blade tradition which Leakey at first called ‘Kenya Aurignacian’, and later ‘KENYA CAPSIAN’. The lowest levels of the site lie on a beach sand and are now dated to c.7000–5000 BC (much later than Leakey had imagined); finds here include a bone harpoon fragment of Nile basin type and a few sherds of pottery also of the Nilotic and Saharan ‘AQUALITHIC’ (or ‘Khartoum horizon’ style) of the early Holocene.
quote:Yes, ELONGATED Africans do include people in sub-Saharan African like Somalis and Bahima/Tutsis. Stating that a group shows similarity to a group of people is NOT saying they are the same damn thing. Thats your dumb assumption. To quote Keita et al:
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Nodnarb
Notice he changed his whole post. He first post said elongated Africans are SSA in ancestry. Then he edited his post to say that elongated Africans in Egypt merely overlap with SSA populations in a metric sense.
He switched to a "merely craniofacial overlap" compromise because he wants to avoid saying in public that he wants AE to be SSA in a genetic sense. I'm telling you, these turds are very calculated in how they play both sides of the fence. I've seen it many times.
They all do it. That's why they'll get exposed soon by Egyptian aDNA. I'm going to put their lies on full display whenever I see it.
Charlie Bass: Egyptians are SSA groups.
Sub-Saharan to me never meant solely "Broad trend" Africans, it also included Elongated African types as well.
Charlie Bass: Egyptians merely overlap with SSA groups, implying they are not a SSA group.
There are Saharans and Northeast Africans who fall well within the sphere of sub-Saharan variability
quote:It remains interesting, at best.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:~Explain the ancient DNA.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
I like how no one is pointing out how Cass is parading around how hes been stating AE were Saharans compared to the Afroloons, yet hes spent the past few weeks claiming AE were Levantine Hamitics and that Musa Keita of Mali was an Arab. d-_-b
"[Ancient Egyptians] cluster w. Neolithic & Bronze Age Levant. STRUCTURE: important Natufian component, some Anatolian, Iran Neolithic."
https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/847912486196002816
Shifting from a autochthonous Egyptian [Saharan] model to Hamiticism isn't too problematic. Hypothetically the Proto-Hamitic urheimat was in south Levant or Arabia, right next door to Egypt, so migration was not over a long distance.
In recent years ancient DNA has shown substantial Anatolian ancestry in Early Neolithic southern Europeans, like Aegeans. Something similar to this is going to show for North Africa via Levant, but the admixture took place end of the Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic (early Holocene) rather than Neolithic (?).
Not sure why you're criticizing me for changing my views in response to new evidence/data; the Afrocentrists in contrast just come up with excuses to dismiss the ancient DNA because it doesn't fit their theory.
quote:—M. Gallego-Llorente, R. Pinhasi et al.
She lacked the derived variant (rs16891982) of the SLC45A2 gene associated with light skin pigmentation but had at least one copy of the derived SLC24A5 allele (rs1426654) associated with the same trait.
quote:—Jones, E. R., G. Gonzalez-Fortes, S. Connell, V. Siska, A. Eriksson, R. Martiniano, R. L. McLaughlin, et al. 2015.
Populations for which the ancient Caucasus genomes are best ancestral approximations include those of the Southern Caucasus and interestingly, South and Central Asia. Western Europe tends to be a mix of early farmers and western/eastern hunter-gatherers while Middle Eastern genomes are described as a mix of early farmers and Africans.
[…]
Caucasus hunter-gatherer contribution to subsequent populations. We next explored the extent to which Bichon and CHG contributed to contemporary populations using outgroup f3(African; modern, ancient) statistics, which measure the shared genetic history between an ancient genome and a modern population since they diverged from an African outgroup.
Discussion
Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe. The separation of these populations is one that stretches back before the Holocene, as indicated by local continuity through the Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic boundary and deep coalescence estimates, which date to around the LGM and earlier.
quote:Also notice none of the soft core models on his pictures were North African. Most were African-American. His main agenda with these images is to cluster AA's with Egyptians and he even wrote that on some of them "Egyptians group with African-Americans":
Originally posted by Beyoku:
Back to you being the culprit. Nearly every one of your soft core image spams talks about the relation of AE to SSA groups via recent South North migration. Not to North Africans......not to them being distinct in their own right. Not too much on substructure. No it equates AE culture/linguistics/bio history with populations below the Sahara. There is nothing WRONG with this......but don't fake like this ain't your whole modus operati. It's on RECORD.
quote:With the way these fools are making assumptions I had to. They realy thought that me saying AEs had similarity craniometrically with some SSA groups was a back door way of saying the were full blown, stereotypical SSAs from West and central Africa which by the is their way of saying those people are the only "true" SSAs. Its annoying seeing these Knee Grows use the same SSA=True Negroes only methodology to refute so called Afrocentrists.
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
You don't have to east in parentheses. The ancestors of west Africans are east Africans.
quote:I'm not lying about a damn thing, you as well well as some of these lame Knee grows are grasping straws. That's why you can't dig up any posts of m making any such claims and instead you resort beating on strawmen.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Also notice none of the soft core models on his pictures were North African. Most were African-American. His main agenda with these images is to cluster AA's with Egyptians and he even wrote that on some of them "Egyptians group with African-Americans":
Originally posted by Beyoku:
Back to you being the culprit. Nearly every one of your soft core image spams talks about the relation of AE to SSA groups via recent South North migration. Not to North Africans......not to them being distinct in their own right. Not too much on substructure. No it equates AE culture/linguistics/bio history with populations below the Sahara. There is nothing WRONG with this......but don't fake like this ain't your whole modus operati. It's on RECORD.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y962OyaKpYA/TuwpoZWg92I/AAAAAAAAAjc/FoUvu685n54/s1600/ancient_egyptians_were_not_black_tropicalmelak.jpg
Like Bass, he's in complete denial of his posts since being exposed here.
quote:- Charlie Bass
[Ancient Egyptians] very close to Saharans, Nilotics and Elongated East Africans and were tropically adapted people
quote:Dude shut up
Originally posted by Cass/:
Bass take your meds.
quote:- Charlie Bass
[Ancient Egyptians] very close to Saharans, Nilotics and Elongated East Africans and were tropically adapted people
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/1416884/1/.
You weren't just arguing for some vague relative distance, but "very close" in the sense these populations cluster together in morphometric space. Stop denying your post history. As Nodard says, if you've changed your view (fine - many of us here including myself have changed our minds on different things), but just admit this instead of psychotically denying your entire post history for the past decade.
quote:We have already established that your elongated Africans have North African ancestry. The more you talk the more I realize that it's not ignorance, but stupidity that's your problem. You don't even know what an index is. I don't expect you to understand why it's circular reasoning to use populations that have a large chunk of non-SSA ancestry, as stand ins for SSA groups. Duplicitous turd.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Yes, ELONGATED Africans do include people in sub-Saharan African like Somalis and Bahima/Tutsis.
quote:Guy's losing it..
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Here is the turd who talks about himself in third person in 2010 saying "elongated Africans" underwent microevolution in SSA:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I've been on Egyptsearch since 2003, what the hell is this Negro talking about. N o one can post one quote where I said ancient Egyptians were genetically SSA.
quote:You obviously still believe this, otherwise you wouldn't talk about "climate-adapted" SSA groups that cluster with Egyptians. Why would climate adaptation matter if you're not ultimately trying to sneak in the lie that AE were originally SSA and later "morphed" into "elongated Africans". Isn't this faith-based narrative your whole point? That they were originally SSA, but later changed due to climate? Idiot.
The traits are not "Caucasoid" traits, they have nothing to do with so called "Caucasoids" nor are they adaptively trivial, he offers no proof they are, the traits are elongated East Africans traits, traits that evolved through microevolution is SSA, end of debate. Next time try reading the full text of what you read instead of cherry picking.
quote:Dear Dummytard. ELONGATED AFRICAN is a phenotypic description. The narrow noses and slender body plans, NOBODY is speaking of genetics. North Africans are not known to have tropically adapted bodies so why do you keep bringing up North African ancestry. Masai, Tutsis, Bahimas have NO NORTH African ancestry. Stop wasting my time playing games.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:We have already established that your elongated Africans have North African ancestry. The more you talk the more I realize that it's not ignorance, but stupidity that's your problem. You don't even know what an index is. I don't expect you to understand why it's circular reasoning to use populations that have a large chunk of non-SSA ancestry, as stand ins for SSA groups. Duplicitous turd.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Yes, ELONGATED Africans do include people in sub-Saharan African like Somalis and Bahima/Tutsis.
Might as well call this site Egyptturds.com. You turds are just squeaking on bought time at this point. I'm going to let time take care of you. Soon it will be all over.
quote:We have ignored a deeper conversation. I'm probably more Balanta than anything. Still waiting on an SNP test. But so far more Balanta than anything. Balanta, Ovambo, Fang, Ashanti.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
With the way these fools are making assumptions I had to. They realy thought that me saying AEs had similarity craniometrically with some SSA groups was a back door way of saying the were full blown, stereotypical SSAs from West and central Africa which by the is their way of saying those people are the only "true" SSAs. Its annoying seeing these Knee Grows use the same SSA=True Negroes only methodology to refute so called Afrocentrists.
quote:I could also do this with the Ashanti.
Oral tradition amongst the Balanta has it that they migrated westward from the area that is now Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia to escape drought and wars.
quote:Dnatribes and Tukuler's PopSTR both cased that I'm more related to damn near everyone than I am Yoruba however I have read that most African Americans are related to Yoruba who also trace their history to the Sudan.
Originally the Ashanti lived in the grasslands of the western Sudan where presumably they were sedentary gardeners. This we know only from their oral traditions.
quote:Bamileke
The Kpelle or Guerze lived in North Sudan during the sixteenth century, before fleeing to other parts of north west Africa into what is now Mali.[2] Their flight was due to internal conflicts between the tribes from the crumbling Sudanic empire.[2] Some migrated to Liberia, Mauritania, and Chad.[2] They still maintained their traditional and cultural heritage despite their migration. A handful are still of Kpelle origin in North Sudan. They are mixed with the Nubians of the North Sudan where they remain a large minority.
quote:
The Cameroon-Bamileke Bantu people cluster encompasses multiple Bantu ethnic groups primarily found in Cameroon, the largest of which is the Bamileke. The Bamileke, whose origins trace to Egypt, migrated to what is now northern Cameroon between the 11th and 14th centuries.
quote:The idiot knee grow Swenet is trying to use "North African" mixture in the same manner as Hamites by Sergei and Selligmann.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Guy's losing it..
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Here is the turd who talks about himself in third person in 2010 saying "elongated Africans" underwent microevolution in SSA:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I've been on Egyptsearch since 2003, what the hell is this Negro talking about. N o one can post one quote where I said ancient Egyptians were genetically SSA.
quote:You obviously still believe this, otherwise you wouldn't talk about "climate-adapted" SSA groups that cluster with Egyptians. Why would climate adaptation matter if you're not ultimately trying to sneak in the lie that AE were originally SSA and later "morphed" into "elongated Africans". Isn't this faith-based narrative your whole point? That they were originally SSA, but later changed due to climate? Idiot.
The traits are not "Caucasoid" traits, they have nothing to do with so called "Caucasoids" nor are they adaptively trivial, he offers no proof they are, the traits are elongated East Africans traits, traits that evolved through microevolution is SSA, end of debate. Next time try reading the full text of what you read instead of cherry picking.
Busy name calling.
Need be fact checking.
I see Hiernaux asno special friend of
Africa but he was kiboshing Hamitcisms
by declaring all kinds of South of Sahara
Africans elongated to rid ethnology
of negroid and other useless terms
foolishly resurrected here.
Nothing but SSAs according to the table's label.
Mythbusting geno-hamiticists are counting on
readers being unfamiliar with the literature.
Hamiticism equates pastoralism to NA lineage.
Geno-hamiticists say elongation calls for NA gene flow.
quote:--Pagani et al 2015
West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
quote:NO you are stupid trying to equate Elongated Morphololgy with non-African and or North African mixture.
Originally posted by Swenet:
^Damn you're stupid. You don't even know what an index is and you can't even read an abstract.
quote:--Pagani et al 2015
West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
quote:.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:26 SNPs? loll Ok.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Line up genomes from Charlie's Sahelian (Bulala) and Elongated African (Hema) with neighboring populations and you can immediate see why he's a trolling liar:
quote:Damn you're stupid. SMH.
26 SNPs? loll Ok.
quote:White nationalists like you represent everything I despise. And you and your patronizing pseudo-objectivity while presuming to tell *us* where our "proper" attention should be("you blacks should stick to Bantu people/West African history") while you stick your nose into any and every culture you wish make me want to vomit. Also your goalpost shifting, painting every one who disagrees with you(excepting swenet and beyoku) as afrocentrists and ignoring any counter study as misinformed/idiotic/afrolunacy (even classicists, anthropologists, africanists (which btw is not a synonym for afrocentrist) that have more expertise on Africa and her people than you EVER will) is hysterical!
Originally posted by Cass/:
Not sure why you're criticizing me for changing my views in response to new evidence/data; the Afrocentrists in contrast just come up with excuses to dismiss the ancient DNA because it doesn't fit their theory. [/QB]
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
quote:Man WTF EVER. I actually backed up what I said and stand by it. I have said NOTHING phony. If I said anything wrong point it out instead of calling names. This place used to be good but now its a division between Negroes who hide behind the studies of geneticists and have become like Dienekes and those of us vets who do multi-disciplinary approaches. The former have started using these genetic studies to validate Hamite-like people in Africa.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
@ Charlie Bass
That's it. I'm done with you. You're another one of the many ES "vets" who have let me down over the past few years. I used to look up to you as a knowledgeable source on African history and anthropology, but now I see how phony your expertise and objectivity are. You're basically another armchair anthropologist looking for validation for whatever agenda it is that you already have. What an utter disappointment you've shown yourself to be.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Damn you're stupid. SMH.
26 SNPs? loll Ok.
quote:--Pagani et al 2015
West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
quote:You can't seriously believe the Pagani quote is saying Northeast Africans' distinctive features are entirely the product of Eurasian admixture. Instead it shows exactly what I was trying to hammer into your skull earlier, namely that Northeast Africans have a stronger affinity to OOA populations than do West Africans precisely because OOA represent a derivative of Northeast Africans. The principle is simple to grasp, so why don't you wrap your head around it and admit you were wrong?
Are you saying that Elongated tropically adapted bodies come from non-African mixture? So everyone from Fulani, Somali, Tutsi, Maasai, Bahima, comes from mixture? Why aren't the non-Africans this supposedly came from "Elongated" with the same body build? Show me the Eurasian ancestors who have this elongated body plan
quote:THE HEMA you speak of are NOT ELONGATED Africans stupid, they are regular Bantu people.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Save your sleight of hand for someone else. You want me to explain things in your bogus terminology when I don't even subscribe to your terminology. You think all Tutsi and Bahima fit your description of "elongated Africans". They obviously don't from all the accounts of Tutsis and Hutus being unable to visually identify members of their own group. So there is no need for me to explain why all Hema don't fit the figments of your imagination. Don't project your pseudo-science to me, misguided turd. I want no parts of it.
What I did say is that Hema have North African and heightened East African. To the extent that they have this ancestry, they will be differentiated from their neighbours in terms of what your dumbass thinks is "climate adapted elongated African".
quote:This has NOTHING to do with the Elongated African characteristics. West Africans are not representatives of the original unmixed pre-OOA population, so I don't get why you guys are making it a point mention that quote in relation to Elongated African features. Elongated Africans are found in Niger-Congo speaking, Nilo-Saharan speaking, Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples in the Saharan, Northeast African, East Africa, West Africa and East-central all in area where the climate suites their body type and facial type......... Nobody ever argued against OOA populations being a derivative of North East Africans, what I am against is the tendency of treating West Africans like the "True Negro/African" population.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
@ Bass
To give you only one example of your recent BS:
quote:--Pagani et al 2015
West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
To which you replied:
quote:You can't seriously believe the Pagani quote is saying Northeast Africans' distinctive features are entirely the product of Eurasian admixture. Instead it shows exactly what I was trying to hammer into your skull earlier, namely that Northeast Africans have a stronger affinity to OOA populations than do West Africans precisely because OOA represent a derivative of Northeast Africans. The principle is simple to grasp, so why don't you wrap your head around it and admit you were wrong?
Are you saying that Elongated tropically adapted bodies come from non-African mixture? So everyone from Fulani, Somali, Tutsi, Maasai, Bahima, comes from mixture? Why aren't the non-Africans this supposedly came from "Elongated" with the same body build? Show me the Eurasian ancestors who have this elongated body plan
quote:"Bantu" includes at a minimum 300-600 different ethnic groups of people. Please tell me what a "regular Bantu" looks like. What is the key "Bantu" characteristics that apparently all "Bantus" share.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: they are regular Bantu people.
quote:Dummy there are Bahima who are related to Tutsis and Hema who speak a Nilo-Saharan language. Tutsis show enough of a distinction from Hutus based on measurements done by Hiernaux et al. They are distinctive enough from Hutu despite the mixing.
Originally posted by Swenet:
This turd is not even responding to what I said. Try again. This time, try to avoid the lie that all Tutsi look like that and that all Hema look like that. Or are you too much of a duplicitous turd to stop lying?
quote:I agree that not all indigenous Africans have to look like broad-featured West/Central Africans. And it probably is true that some of the facial features which Northeast Africans have evolved that differentiate them from West Africans have to do with climate adaptation over many thousands of years. However, I'm not interested in morphology at the moment, but overall biological affinity. And as you've just claimed to have acknowledged, Northeast Africans are going to have a strong OOA affinity than are West/Central Africans. So why do you act like there's a problem with people like me or Swenet stating that fact?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:This has NOTHING to do with the Elongated African characteristics. West Africans are not representatives of the original unmixed pre-OOA population, so I don't get why you guys are making it a point mention that quote in relation to Elongated African features. Elongated Africans are found in Niger-Congo speaking, Nilo-Saharan speaking, Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples in the Saharan, Northeast African, East Africa, West Africa and East-central all in area where the climate suites their body type and facial type......... Nobody ever argued against OOA populations being a derivative of North East Africans, what I am against is the tendency of treating West Africans like the "True Negro/African" population.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
@ Bass
To give you only one example of your recent BS:
quote:--Pagani et al 2015
West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
To which you replied:
quote:You can't seriously believe the Pagani quote is saying Northeast Africans' distinctive features are entirely the product of Eurasian admixture. Instead it shows exactly what I was trying to hammer into your skull earlier, namely that Northeast Africans have a stronger affinity to OOA populations than do West Africans precisely because OOA represent a derivative of Northeast Africans. The principle is simple to grasp, so why don't you wrap your head around it and admit you were wrong?
Are you saying that Elongated tropically adapted bodies come from non-African mixture? So everyone from Fulani, Somali, Tutsi, Maasai, Bahima, comes from mixture? Why aren't the non-Africans this supposedly came from "Elongated" with the same body build? Show me the Eurasian ancestors who have this elongated body plan
Your quote from the study is talking about genes, NOT Elongated African morphology.
quote:F*** you Cass, you may be sitting over there all smug but best believe you'll get your turn.
Originally posted by Cass/:
I love this. lol. All the posters fighting against each other. Did I ultimately cause all this? Reminds me of the film Needful Things, where the demon (Max von Sydow) turns people against each other.
quote:Your analysis is rather obvious from the quote Swenet posted. I just don't see how it relates to whatever point Swenet is making about Sub-Saharan Africans vs North Africans. The Pagani quote is saying that North East Africa including Sub_Saharan East Africa(Ethiopia) is more related to OOA populations than West Africans. A fact which more true of Egypt than Ethiopia. So now only West Africans are Sub-Saharan Africans or am I missing something here?
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
@ Bass
To give you only one example of your recent BS:
quote:--Pagani et al 2015
West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
To which you replied:
quote:You can't seriously believe the Pagani quote is saying Northeast Africans' distinctive features are entirely the product of Eurasian admixture. Instead it shows exactly what I was trying to hammer into your skull earlier, namely that Northeast Africans have a stronger affinity to OOA populations than do West Africans precisely because OOA represent a derivative of Northeast Africans. The principle is simple to grasp, so why don't you wrap your head around it and admit you were wrong?
Are you saying that Elongated tropically adapted bodies come from non-African mixture? So everyone from Fulani, Somali, Tutsi, Maasai, Bahima, comes from mixture? Why aren't the non-Africans this supposedly came from "Elongated" with the same body build? Show me the Eurasian ancestors who have this elongated body plan
quote:Try your sleight of hand elsewhere. These are also Bahima and Tutsi. So why should I have to explain why Hema have those phenotypes?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Dummy there are Bahima who are related to Tutsis and Hema who speak a Nilo-Saharan language. Tutsis show enough of a distinction from Hutus based on measurements done by Hiernaux et al. They are distinctive enough from Hutu despite the mixing.
Originally posted by Swenet:
This turd is not even responding to what I said. Try again. This time, try to avoid the lie that all Tutsi look like that and that all Hema look like that. Or are you too much of a duplicitous turd to stop lying?
quote:Listen dummytard for the last damn time, the hema YOU used are NOT the Bahima who are elongated Africans. They are a different people rendering your point moot. Bahima do not speak Nilo-Saharan language, the HEMA do
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Try your sleight of hand elsewhere. These are also Bahima and Tutsi. So why should I have to explain why Hema have those phenotypes?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Dummy there are Bahima who are related to Tutsis and Hema who speak a Nilo-Saharan language. Tutsis show enough of a distinction from Hutus based on measurements done by Hiernaux et al. They are distinctive enough from Hutu despite the mixing.
Originally posted by Swenet:
This turd is not even responding to what I said. Try again. This time, try to avoid the lie that all Tutsi look like that and that all Hema look like that. Or are you too much of a duplicitous turd to stop lying?
Just who do you think you're kidding?
quote:I'm using West/Central African to mean the same thing as Swenet's "sub-Saharan" term. I will admit to having a personal dislike of "sub-Saharan" as a term since it's often associated with the fallacy that dark-skinned Africans are exclusively found south of the Sahara and that North Africans have always been biological and cultural transplants from the Middle East or Mediterranean region. But I'm not going to police other people's use of the term, and I know what individuals like Swenet and beyoku mean when they invoke the term.
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:Your analysis is rather obvious from the quote Swenet posted. I just don't see how it relates to whatever point Swenet is making about Sub-Saharan Africans vs North Africans. The Pagani quote is saying that North East Africa including Sub_Saharan East Africa(Ethiopia) is more related to OOA populations than West Africans. A fact which more true of Egypt than Ethiopia. So now only West Africans are Sub-Saharan Africans or am I missing something here?
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
@ Bass
To give you only one example of your recent BS:
quote:--Pagani et al 2015
West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
To which you replied:
quote:You can't seriously believe the Pagani quote is saying Northeast Africans' distinctive features are entirely the product of Eurasian admixture. Instead it shows exactly what I was trying to hammer into your skull earlier, namely that Northeast Africans have a stronger affinity to OOA populations than do West Africans precisely because OOA represent a derivative of Northeast Africans. The principle is simple to grasp, so why don't you wrap your head around it and admit you were wrong?
Are you saying that Elongated tropically adapted bodies come from non-African mixture? So everyone from Fulani, Somali, Tutsi, Maasai, Bahima, comes from mixture? Why aren't the non-Africans this supposedly came from "Elongated" with the same body build? Show me the Eurasian ancestors who have this elongated body plan
quote:And that nullifies that there is North African ancestry in Central Africa, that all these groups share.. how?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Listen dummytard for the last damn time, the hema YOU used are NOT the Bahima who are elongated Africans. They are a different people rendering your point moot. Bahima do not speak Nilo-Saharan language, the HEMA do
quote:No idiot, that Xing et al study called it "Eurasian" ancestry, smh, for some odd reason, which was more than your 25 SNP BS
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:And that nullifies that there is North African ancestry in Central Africa, that all these groups share.. how?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Listen dummytard for the last damn time, the hema YOU used are NOT the Bahima who are elongated Africans. They are a different people rendering your point moot. Bahima do not speak Nilo-Saharan language, the HEMA do
quote:Actually this is not valid at all.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
lmao this is a mess,
Group 1 we have folks who don't really know what to think or want to express what they TRULY believe, so they just throw insults and try to demoralize others they veiw as "more wrong"
Group 2 we have the spineless, the people who suck up to group 1 and don't even realize their getting shitted on as well.
Group 3 are the slow rollers, too busy arguing with group 1 about thoughts and explanations of the past like it really fvcking matters. they fail to see that simply saying "W/E yeah I believed that in the past, but now I'm readjusting, etc." (even if it isn't necessarily true), will kill the debate and force Group 1 to actually say something of new found substance as opposed to hiding behind insults.
Group 4 we have Cass
Group 5 are the people that chose to chase Group 4 around the roundabout. When the fool is actually more useful than useless at this point in time tbh. Which is absolutely not intentional.
check it out, what I learned on ES in the past 2 days...
SSA's are not monolithic.
SSA's have recently developed morphology.
Contemporary SSA's weren't wide spread below the Sahara.
Some SSA's have admixture from Saharans(north Africans?)
Egyptians are North Africans/Saharans but not related to those who mixed with west Africans.
the SSA's with similar Morphology with A.Egyptians are all mixed
But there's no true Negro/SSA model. ...Makes sense.
^lol It's funny because West/central Africans have been receiving North/OOA-like admixture for 9K years+ , East Africans have been exposed recently 4.5KYA max, where is this distinct OOA-like or North African Admixture in East Africa during the Holocene. I ran Henns African data set including Saharan and north African population, a lot of what I read here don't hold up to scrutiny, I can say that now.
quote:And Xing et al labeling it "Eurasian" nullifies my point that there is North African ancestry in Central Africa that all these groups share? Are are you simply too dense to realize they always call North African ancestry Eurasian?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:No idiot, that Xing et al study called it "Eurasian" ancestry, smh, for some odd reason, which was more than your 25 SNP BS
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:And that nullifies that there is North African ancestry in Central Africa, that all these groups share.. how?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Listen dummytard for the last damn time, the hema YOU used are NOT the Bahima who are elongated Africans. They are a different people rendering your point moot. Bahima do not speak Nilo-Saharan language, the HEMA do
quote:It's funny cuz you asked the wrong person.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
I'm still waiting on what a "regular Bantu" looks like
quote:Lol. This just proves my point that these so-called "vets" are way overrated. They have no idea what they're talking about. This so-called "vet" still mistakes samples for populations. So when he googles Tutsis or Hema and goes to the image section, he thinks his search results represent the real diversity of these populations.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Tutsi are OVERALL distinctive
quote:If its bonafide North African ancestry explain the lack of North African uniparentals.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:And Xing et al labeling it "Eurasian" nullifies my point that there is North African ancestry in Central Africa that all these groups share? Are are you simply too dense to realize they always call North African ancestry Eurasian?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:No idiot, that Xing et al study called it "Eurasian" ancestry, smh, for some odd reason, which was more than your 25 SNP BS
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:And that nullifies that there is North African ancestry in Central Africa, that all these groups share.. how?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Listen dummytard for the last damn time, the hema YOU used are NOT the Bahima who are elongated Africans. They are a different people rendering your point moot. Bahima do not speak Nilo-Saharan language, the HEMA do
quote:Yet calling Nubians "definitely black" and the Egyptians (their closest cousins) "definitely not black" is somehow objective and rational???? Saying all sub-saharans are black and then sticking your hand in the ground when confronted with lighter skinned sub-saharans and crying foul is objective and rational?? Saying Northern Sudanese are not sub-saharan and thus not black then switching the goal posts to say all Sudanese are black because they live in the tropics is objective and rational??? Ignoring that southern Upper Egypt is tropical (and earlier claiming that none of Egypt is in the tropics) and calling afrolunacy when this ignorance is pointed out is objective and rational??? Saying Nubians were color distinguished from the Nubians and ignoring artwork where Nubians and Aegyptians overlap in skin tone is objective and rational???
If posters here had just said ancient Egyptians = North Africans [Saharans], this forum wouldn't have a bad reputation as "Afrocentric" and/or "Negrocentric" across the internet.
quote:Interesting, considering North Africa is well, ...in Africa, why would saying such a thing be non-Afrocentric? ...How Afrocentric it is to consider Egypt a northern extension of East Africa?
Originally posted by Cass/:
There's nothing "Afrocentric" about arguing ancient Egyptians were indigenous North Africans. However, this isn't what posters (with very few exceptions) on this forum were saying for years.
quote:More stupidity. Lol. How many times in a row do you intend to put your foot in your mouth?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
If its bonafide North African ancestry explain the lack of North African uniparentals.
quote:More evidence that you're completely clueless.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
which was more than your 25 SNP BS
quote:Lemba were never said to be Elongated Africans so your earlier point was moot. Second, Hema have no North African uniparentals. What you see as "North African" ancestry could be residual OOA ancestry in the Hema. There is no evidence of North Africans migrating into central Africa.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:More stupidity. Lol. How many times in a row do you intend to put your foot in your mouth?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
If its bonafide North African ancestry explain the lack of North African uniparentals.
quote:Because of his @ssbackwards claim that AE had a faint light brown (type III) skin when even Modern Egyptians are mostly type IV-V
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Interesting, considering North Africa is well, ...in Africa, why would saying such a thing be non-Afrocentric? ...How Afrocentric it is to consider Egypt a northern extension of East Africa?
Originally posted by Cass/:
There's nothing "Afrocentric" about arguing ancient Egyptians were indigenous North Africans. However, this isn't what posters (with very few exceptions) on this forum were saying for years.
W'Wait a minute...? What is an Indigenous North African? Or an Indigenous Saharan anywayz?
basically the Saharan line(which expands further south every year) for him is the barrier sanitizing North Africa of the blacks he hates so much. (Yet he cant seem to make up his mind on whether Northern Sudanese are black or not. In one breath they're above the Sahara so not black and most closely related to the AE. In the other breath they're black due to being in tropical Africa and distinct from the AE )
quote:Hema don't have North African ancestry, I saw the samples you used and in another study it popped up as "Eurasian" . Those specific Hema again are not the ones in question who are regarded as Elongated Africans. There is no evidence of North Africans migrating into the homelands of the Hema. That's the stupidity that comes with plugging samples into these genetic calculators that generate results that don't reflect history and archaeology.
Originally posted by Swenet:
I think I've entertained your nonsense long enough.
You don't even know what an index is. You can't even read an abstract and you don't know the difference between 26k SNPs and 26 SNPs. What makes you think you're in a position to argue any of this?
The bottom line is, all your so called "climate adapted elongated Africans" have North African ancestry, while those that don't have it (their neighbors), are conveniently not "climate adapted elongated Africans".
Source
Am I supposed to believe that's a coincidence? Am I supposed to believe climate and diet also created this ancestry? Independantly perhaps? One time Ethio-Somali arose in the Sahel and one time along the Red Sea coast? One correlating with diet change associated with root crop domesticates and one with pastoralism? I mean, you Egyptturds.com posters think everything is plastic, right?
As I've said, you're simply being duplicitous when you try to pass off groups with this ancestry, which is CLEARLY non-SSA, as "representative stand ins for SSA". You know very well what you doing and what you want to get out of it. It's all calculated. You're not fooling anyone.
quote:A small portion of Egypt falls inside the tropics in modern times, but the ancient boundary didn't. The southern boundary of ancient Egypt was at Aswan, today it is at Abu Simbel. So the boundary of Egypt in modern times has extended more than 200 km south. So no, I've never contradicted myself; the whole of ancient Egypt was outside of the tropics. Also, I do not deny black Egyptian individuals, however they're a small minority by frequency. I work by means/averages. By your foolishness are Swedes black haired since less than 1% have black hair?
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Yet calling Nubians "definitely black" and the Egyptians (their closest cousins) "definitely not black" is somehow objective and rational???? Saying all sub-saharans are black and then sticking your hand in the ground when confronted with lighter skinned sub-saharans and crying foul is objective and rational?? Saying Northern Sudanese are not sub-saharan and thus not black then switching the goal posts to say all Sudanese are black because they live in the tropics is objective and rational??? Ignoring that southern Upper Egypt is tropical (and earlier claiming that none of Egypt is in the tropics) and calling afrolunacy when this ignorance is pointed out is objective and rational??? Saying Nubians were color distinguished from the Nubians and ignoring artwork where Nubians and Aegyptians overlap in skin tone is objective and rational???
If posters here had just said ancient Egyptians = North Africans [Saharans], this forum wouldn't have a bad reputation as "Afrocentric" and/or "Negrocentric" across the internet.
F*** You Cass.
quote:So I like how you completely ignore all other mentions of your goalpost shucking and jiving shenanigans.
Originally posted by Cass/:
A small portion of Egypt falls inside the tropics in modern times, but the ancient boundary didn't. The southern boundary of ancient Egypt was at Aswan, today it is at Abu Simbel. So the boundary of Egypt in modern times has extended more than 200 km south. So no, I've never contradicted myself; the whole of ancient Egypt was outside of the tropics. Also, I do not deny black Egyptian individuals, however they're a small minority by frequency. I work by means/averages. By your foolishness are Swedes black haired since less than 1% have black hair? [/QB]
It also doesn't wash away predynastic predecessors of the Egyptians such as the Nabta Playans residing in this tropical zone. Badarians, who have sites throughout Egypt also had sites at this tropical zone. So yeah mention Aswan as much as you want. You can keep deluding yourself that the AE came from the Levant and lived in a iron bubble from those wretched blacks to the south. Its fantasy, nothing more.
quote:It's hilarious because there are indigenous black populations on the North African coast like the Nafusa, the Masmuda and others, so the notion that black populations are restricted to his zones is laughable. The black population of Egypt is concentrated precisely where the civilization sprang from. The majority of ancient Egypt's population was concentrated in the South until at least just after the new period and so most ancient Egyptians were black.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:So I like how you completely ignore all other mentions of your goalpost shucking and jiving shenanigans.
Originally posted by Cass/:
A small portion of Egypt falls inside the tropics in modern times, but the ancient boundary didn't. The southern boundary of ancient Egypt was at Aswan, today it is at Abu Simbel. So the boundary of Egypt in modern times has extended more than 200 km south. So no, I've never contradicted myself; the whole of ancient Egypt was outside of the tropics. Also, I do not deny black Egyptian individuals, however they're a small minority by frequency. I work by means/averages. By your foolishness are Swedes black haired since less than 1% have black hair?
The boundaries of Dynastic Egypt itself extended and waned overtime. Sudan(especially Wawet/Lower Nubia) was often considered part of Egypt despite Dynastic Egypt proper starting at Aswan.
As far as your question let me ask you, since you work in averages, wouldn't it be fair to say most of Africa (including most of SSA) isn't black since most Africans don't match tiles 35-36 on Luschan Scale nor the extremely dark (near literal black) end of Type VI skin on Fitzpatrick's scale? I mean since we're being objective and all.
Edit: to cut even more of the bull out. You state you don't deny black Egyptian individuals yet you've hooted and hollered anytime those individuals were brought up and repeatedly said the AE were not black, when in fact there were black AE, making your absolute statement falsifiable just by showing ONE black Aegyptian (let alone the legions of them that lived during Dynastic Egypt). Maybe you should stop with absolute statements you know aren't true. [/QB]
quote:LMAO!!!!
Originally posted by Cass/:
I love this. lol. All the posters fighting against each other. Did I ultimately cause all this? Reminds me of the film Needful Things, where the demon (Max von Sydow) turns people against each other.
quote:...If you are opposing all these points then obviously the sarcastic post wasn't engineered for you. All those points eventually contradict each other, it's entirely sarcasm. I'm happy you brought it up though so I can add that...
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
I ain't beating up on you dude but you make some sweeping claims.
If you have learned these things from the 'Afrocentric"
folk at ES, it would be interesting to hear who you
learned them from..
quote:Are you sure that's you speaking? Or are you simply repeating Beyoku and Swenet or what you think Beyoku and Swenet are saying? Just asking.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
@ Charlie Bass
That's it. I'm done with you. You're another one of the many ES "vets" who have let me down over the past few years. I used to look up to you as a knowledgeable source on African history and anthropology, but now I see how phony your expertise and objectivity are. You're basically another armchair anthropologist looking for validation for whatever agenda it is that you already have. What an utter disappointment you've shown yourself to be.
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
^wait, aren't you paying attention, Non-SSA admixture is the smoking gun, not just Actual North African admixture. I mean we do know that Different Cultural groups received mixture from multiple different sources right? ....right?
I mean the Inciting moment was the release of the unreleased study saying Modern Egyptians are more SSA, than before right.
It doesn't get more indigenous North African than OOA lol
I'm just playing, but no not really
quote:As long as you know you were demolished back there and you have no types of answer, comeback or escape.
Originally posted by Swenet:
I know how you Afrocentrist are when you feel humiliated; you start holding a grudge and start lying and eventually you will start lying about why you are being mocked as well.
quote:The Hema point is years and years old. But when you're mentally constipated, you can't notice the truth you secretly want to suppress. Here are the "climate adapted elongated African" Hema. I guess their non-SSA ancestry is also climate adapted?
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Charlie. I kinda give you a pass because you were off the scene for years and missed the boat.
Anyway Hema do carry Some North African ancestry. Some of the M35 derived lineages they carry are M78 positive. They, like many heterogenous folks in that region also have shared ancestry with Cushitic speakers. I won't even speak about their A3b2 but I could stretch it.
quote:That ancestry is NOT North African, stupid.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Wrong on all counts. Ethio-Somali is roughly Tishkoff's purple. So yes, it IS in Rwanda, it IS in the Masai. it IS in the Sahel and YES it is in the Hema. You're beyond incompetent. You're dismissed.
quote:You're right. The purple ancestry is climate adapted and "mutated" once in the Sahara. Before this mutation, the purple ancestry was the same ancestry as the yellow, red and green in Tishkoff et al.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
That ancestry is NOT North African, stupid.
quote:Nope buddy, we have you on RECORD. First and foremost The issue a hand is NOT CASS. The issue at hand is 90 mummies of which only 2 have mtdna L. Mtdna L is at much greater frequency NOW in northern Egypt than it was in these mummies. The issue at hand is figuring out WHY the Sub Saharan autosomal ancestry and maternal ancestry has increased since dynastic times when much of this increase seems unrelated to Slavery. This is directly at odds with a basic Afrocentric narrative That we ALL followed and that many follow today basically theorizing that Equatorial ancestry should only increase the further we go back in time REGARDLESS of region in Egypt.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Looka here dude, your little strawman games don't work with me.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Stop lying. You are one of the biggest culprits on the forum! ..........
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
[qb]
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DprXzn0HCsU/VMHRJCj9IcI/AAAAAAAABVU/W2LoPVCnUrE/s1600/marylefkowitz_onedrop.jpg
Back to you being the culprit. Nearly every one of your soft core image spams talks about the relation of AE to SSA groups via recent South North migration. Not to North Africans......not to them being distinct in their own right. Not too much on substructure. No it equates AE culture/linguistics/bio history with populations below the Sahara. There is nothing WRONG with this......but don't fake like this ain't your whole modus operati. It's on RECORD.
......
The issue at hand is the bogus argument by Cass as to his "climatic races"
and similar claims attempting to distort AEs. I fixed him. Why are you involved, save
as you are again trying to "spin" some other argument about alleged "denials"
of such and such, just like your fake arguments about the monolithic ES "mindset."
quote:Everyone of those image spams argues a basic narrative that Egypt became MORE Eurasian over time. This one is particularly Damning and a perfect example since it is dealing with MTDNA. You even try to Weasel in U and N1b
Originally posted by Swenet:
I know how you Afrocentrist are when you feel humiliated; you start holding a grudge and start lying and eventually you will start lying about why you are being mocked as well.
quote:I see what you're saying. What percentage is mtdna L attested in Sudanese Copts?
Originally posted by Swenet:
We do need to wait, I agree, but there are some things we can already say. The Abusir mummies don't show a decrease of Africa ancestry the way Sub-Saharan Africans would. The Abusir mummies show a decline in African ancestry that is the same as the Egyptian Coptic immigrant sample from Sudan or Comas' Tunisian sample. In other words, we see little Sub-Saharan African ancestry, but still North African ancestry. We don't need further information to establish this.
Look at the Makrani sample. That is how a population from Sub-Saharan African looks that has lost (most of) its African ancestry. The Abusir sample looks nothing like this.
quote:Those groups aren't the only "Nilotid".
Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Bass
I don't have a problem with the in situ theory of the "elongated African"/"Nilotid" morphology. However, "elongated Africans"/"Nilotids" don't have narrow noses. The Dinka, Shilluk and Nuer are platyrrhine (wide nosed) while Maasai are mesorrhine (medium nosed).
https://landofpunt.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/hiernaux1974nilotemeans.jpg
If you look at Somalis, with few exceptions they're mesorrhine; I posted nasal indices from skulls from Somaliland burials (250 years old), they don't have narrow nasal aperture.
quote:There are several Somali ethnic groups, of which did you post?
Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Bass
I don't have a problem with the in situ theory of the "elongated African"/"Nilotid" morphology. However, "elongated Africans"/"Nilotids" don't have narrow noses. The Dinka, Shilluk and Nuer are platyrrhine (wide nosed) while Maasai are mesorrhine (medium nosed).
https://landofpunt.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/hiernaux1974nilotemeans.jpg
If you look at Somalis, with few exceptions they're mesorrhine; I posted nasal indices from skulls from Somaliland burials (250 years old), they don't have narrow nasal aperture.
quote:The only have two L1c lineages (2/39). But with notable M1 and U6.
Originally posted by Sudaniya:
I see what you're saying. What percentage is mtdna L attested in Sudanese Copts?
quote:Don't want to interrupt the two of you, but groups like the Kel and the even more widespread Fulani reside(d) in the Southern regions of the Sahara and Sahel. In terms of shape these do follow the genetic and phenotypical cluster, depending on the ethnic subgroup.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Dear Dummytard. ELONGATED AFRICAN is a phenotypic description. The narrow noses and slender body plans, NOBODY is speaking of genetics. North Africans are not known to have tropically adapted bodies so why do you keep bringing up North African ancestry. Masai, Tutsis, Bahimas have NO NORTH African ancestry. Stop wasting my time playing games.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:We have already established that your elongated Africans have North African ancestry. The more you talk the more I realize that it's not ignorance, but stupidity that's your problem. You don't even know what an index is. I don't expect you to understand why it's circular reasoning to use populations that have a large chunk of non-SSA ancestry, as stand ins for SSA groups. Duplicitous turd.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Yes, ELONGATED Africans do include people in sub-Saharan African like Somalis and Bahima/Tutsis.
Might as well call this site Egyptturds.com. You turds are just squeaking on bought time at this point. I'm going to let time take care of you. Soon it will be all over.
quote:--Holliday TW, Hilton CE.
In fact, in terms of body shape, the European and the Inuit samples tend to be cold-adapted and tend to be separated in multivariate space from the more tropically adapted Africans, especially those groups from south of the Sahara.
quote:The Kiffian & Tenerean Occupation Of Gobero, Niger: Perhaps The Largest Collection Of Early-Mid Holocene People In Africa
This site has been called Gobero, after the local Tuareg name for the area. About 10,000 years ago (7700–6200 B.C.E.), Gobero was a much less arid environment than it is now. In fact, it was actually a rather humid lake side hometown of sorts for a group of hunter-fisher-gatherers who not only lived their but also buried their dead there. How do we know they were fishing? Well, remains of large nile perch and harpoons were found dating to this time period.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Sindhis and Makrani are a strongly admixed, but originally West/Central African populations.
Abusir mummies, on the other hand, show most shared drift with ENF groups. And we already know what their ancestry consists of. Bass and the other turds in the plasticity crew think the Abusir sample can still be salvaged as climate adapted SSA population. Lol.
Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Makrani and Sindhi are no where close to Igbo.
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Your chart shows that.
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Yes, based on the chart you posted here Sindhi and Makrani are almost indistinguishable but Igbo is fare, very far genetically from this two groups.
quote:Where did I say that they were close to Igbo. You are simply parroting what I said and throwing it back at me like there is a difference. Maybe I need to include you in the Egyptturd crew as well. Oh wait. I already have.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Makrani and Sindhi has a very small amount of Igbo componenet. Negigible amount.
quote:Sorry for asking only now, but what are these non-Africa haplotypes?
Originally posted by Swenet:
Egyptturds.com doesn't want to admit that their elongated Africans are differentiated because of this:
quote:--Pagani et al 2015
West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
Egyptturds.com wants to attribute "elongated features" to climate and diet. And here comes the joke: they expect others to fall for it. When the world doesn't follow them in the figments of their imagination, they think it's other people that are going on a limb, not them.
No wonder why they're the laughing stock everywhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
[] but originally had affinity to West/Central African populations. This can be seen clearly from the remnants of what is depected here as blue:
[/QB]
quote:Lol. Did you take your meds? I suggest you pop two for your extra erratic behaviour today. How does "European blue" or "all SNPS are the same" relate to what I said?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Fool. Europeans contain more "blue" than Makrani. WT......
Makrani is more distant to modern Africans than modern Europeans are to modern Africans...like Igbo. .....All SNPs being the same. WT....are you smoking?
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Lol. Did you take your meds? I suggest you pop two for your extra erratic behaviour today. How does "European blue" or "all SNPS are the same" relate to what I said?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Fool. Europeans contain more "blue" than Makrani. WT......
Makrani is more distant to modern Africans than modern Europeans are to modern Africans...like Igbo. .....All SNPs being the same. WT....are you smoking?
Are you okay, bro? Press that button on the wall next to your bed and someone with meds will come soon.
quote:Okay, I see.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Why not just read the paper?
quote:Are you saying they don't have African DNA but are actually very distant like the Papua New Guineans or Australians?
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] You are not going to back out of this that easily? Lol! YOU said that the blue found in Makrani is remnants of Igbo (West central Africans). I am TELLING you that is a lie or you don't know what you are talking about. Makrani are NOT related to modern Igbo or other West Central Africans. They may "look" similar but that are very distant.
quote:--Siddiqi MH et al.
To estimate genetic and forensic parameters, the entire mitochondrial DNA control region of 100 unrelated Makrani individuals (males, n=96; females, n=4) living in Pakistan (Turbat, Panjgur, Awaran, Kharan, Nasirabad, Gwadar, Buleda, Karachi and Burewala) was sequenced. We observed a total of 70 different haplotypes of which 54 were unique and 16 were shared by more than one individual. The Makrani population showed a high genetic diversity (0.9688) and, consequently, a high power of discrimination (0.9592). Our results revealed a strongly admixed mtDNA pool composed of African haplogroups (28%), West Eurasian haplogroups (26%), South Asian haplogroups (24%), and East Asian haplogroups (2%), while the origin of the remaining individuals (20%) could not be confidently assigned. The results of this study are a valuable contribution to build a database of mtDNA variation in Pakistan.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Are you saying they don't have African DNA but are actually very distant like the Papua New Guineans or Australians?
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] You are not going to back out of this that easily? Lol! YOU said that the blue found in Makrani is remnants of Igbo (West central Africans). I am TELLING you that is a lie or you don't know what you are talking about. Makrani are NOT related to modern Igbo or other West Central Africans. They may "look" similar but that are very distant.
xyyman why are you saying that when you have already read the below ?
quote:--Siddiqi MH et al.
To estimate genetic and forensic parameters, the entire mitochondrial DNA control region of 100 unrelated Makrani individuals (males, n=96; females, n=4) living in Pakistan (Turbat, Panjgur, Awaran, Kharan, Nasirabad, Gwadar, Buleda, Karachi and Burewala) was sequenced. We observed a total of 70 different haplotypes of which 54 were unique and 16 were shared by more than one individual. The Makrani population showed a high genetic diversity (0.9688) and, consequently, a high power of discrimination (0.9592). Our results revealed a strongly admixed mtDNA pool composed of African haplogroups (28%), West Eurasian haplogroups (26%), South Asian haplogroups (24%), and East Asian haplogroups (2%), while the origin of the remaining individuals (20%) could not be confidently assigned. The results of this study are a valuable contribution to build a database of mtDNA variation in Pakistan.
Leg Med (Tokyo). 2015 Mar;17(2):134-9. doi: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2014.09.007. Epub 2014 Oct 13.
Genetic characterization of the Makrani people of Pakistan from mitochondrial DNA control-region data.
______________________________
quote:Dude stop using strawmen arguments and putting words in my mouth. There is NO published study that shows Hema having North African ancestry, period. You guys run genetic runs on published data using whatever samples you wish and come to these conclusions. There are no historical evidence to back up North African mixture into Hema. These Hema are NOT elongated Africans, do you even know what Elongated African features are? Its not just about nose shape and narrow heads, its an extremely slender, linear body build. North Africans are NOT elongated Africans. The morphology did not spread with one population.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:You're right. The purple ancestry is climate adapted and "mutated" once in the Sahara. Before this mutation, the purple ancestry was the same ancestry as the yellow, red and green in Tishkoff et al.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
That ancestry is NOT North African, stupid.
quote:Dude WTF are you talking about? I said that we don't know who or what these mummies represent and that they came from a time frame where there were many dynasties of Libyan origin. I didn't say a damn thing about these mummies being climatically adapted which is a body morphology influenced by climate, stop with these damned strawmen arguments.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Sindhis and Makrani are strongly admixed, but originally had affinity to West/Central African populations. This can be seen clearly from the remnants of what is depected here as blue:
Abusir mummies, on the other hand, show most shared drift with ENF groups. And we already know what ENF ancestry consists of. Bass and the other turds in the plasticity crew think the Abusir sample can still be salvaged as climate adapted SSA population. Lol.
Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
quote:I'm always willing to review my ideas. But there has never been evidence that the so-called "elongated African" phenotype is a result of climatic adaptation. It's a badly underdeveloped idea that has never been proven. Someone just said it and people rolled with it. Just like the notion that dynastic Lower Nubians are diet-adapted versions of Mesolithic Jebel Sahabans. This is just speculative research. In fact, it's not even research; someone just said it once and it has been repeated ever since.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Damn A LOT of ethers happening right now... I do remember Swenet explaining to me perfectly that not all elongated features are due to climate adaptation.
However, I do think CERTAIN elongated Africans did in fact get their characteristics from climate adaptation. Again CERTAIN. I'll explain my position if anyone asks.
quote:I already stated my position and stand by it, that ancient Egyptians were Africans most akin to Saharans and Upper Nile valley peoples. A set of mummies from the damn 3rd intermediate Period, a time when most of the dynasties were of Libyan origin, isn't going to refute that position. The Abusir mummies won't say jack about predynastic and Early Dynastic Egyptians, so pound your chest all you want retard, trying to bash the so called Afrocentrist with your strawmen arguments isn't going to win.
Originally posted by Swenet:
You and your fellow turds are talking on bought time. You are already done. Your position has been thrashed by data for a long time. And it's about to be thrashed even more by the Abusir mummies. You just think you have a point.
quote:So do you figure the MENA ancestry in East Africa came from Arabia then?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
There is NO published study that shows Hema having North African ancestry, period. You guys run genetic runs on published data using whatever samples you wish and come to these conclusions. There are no historical evidence to back up North African mixture into Hema.
quote:Typical Egyptturd comeback. You keep talking about late dynastic Egypt being late in time and admixed, but won't mention that late dynastic Egyptians are still closer to predynastic Egyptians (all things considered) than either is to Sub-Saharan Africans.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:I already stated my position and stand by it, that ancient Egyptians were Africans most akin to Saharans and Upper Nile valley peoples. A set of mummies from the damn 3rd intermediate Period, a time when most of the dynasties were of Libyan origin, isn't going to refute that position. The Abusir mummies won't say jack about predynastic and Early Dynastic Egyptians, so pound your chest all you want retard, trying to bash the so called Afrocentrist with your strawmen arguments isn't going to win.
Originally posted by Swenet:
You and your fellow turds are talking on bought time. You are already done. Your position has been thrashed by data for a long time. And it's about to be thrashed even more by the Abusir mummies. You just think you have a point.
quote:I never knew this was an undeveloped idea. I always remembered certain older studies supporting. However, I always assumed Horners at least got their features from climate adaption from their dry climate. And me visiting Ethiopia a few months ago the climate was very dry unlike the humid like one in West Africa. I assumed that Horners were the ones who brought the "elongated features" to certain Bantus and Nilotic groups in East Africa.
Originally posted by Swenet:
I'm always willing to review my ideas. But there has never been evidence that the so-called "elongated African" phenotype is a result of climatic adaptation. It's a badly underdeveloped idea that has never been proven. Someone just said it and people rolled with it. Just like the notion that dynastic Lower Nubians are diet-adapted versions of Mesolithic Jebel Sahabans. This is just speculative research. In fact, it's not even research; someone just said it once and it has been repeated ever since.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Microevolution is very real. But the notion that desert adaptation would change a broad featured African populations that much in the coastal Maghrebi/West Eurasian direction is complete BS. It's laughably stupid.
quote:What proof do you have that proves that Elongated African traits(Elongated linear body build, narrow head, narrow noses) come from mixture? Are you taking the same position as Eurocentrists that any and all traits found in Africans below the Sahara that are not "True Negro" are the result of mixture?
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:I'm always willing to review my ideas. But there has never been evidence that the so-called "elongated African" phenotype is a result of climatic adaptation. It's a badly underdeveloped idea that has never been proven. Someone just said it and people rolled with it. Just like the notion that dynastic Lower Nubians are diet-adapted versions of Mesolithic Jebel Sahabans. This is just speculative research. In fact, it's not even research; someone just said it once and it has been repeated ever since.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Damn A LOT of ethers happening right now... I do remember Swenet explaining to me perfectly that not all elongated features are due to climate adaptation.
However, I do think CERTAIN elongated Africans did in fact get their characteristics from climate adaptation. Again CERTAIN. I'll explain my position if anyone asks.
Microevolution is very real. But the notion that desert adaptation would change a broad featured African populations that much in the coastal Maghrebi/West Eurasian direction is complete BS. It's laughably stupid.
quote:
Anyway Hema do carry Some North African ancestry. Some of the M35 derived lineages they carry are M78 positive. They, like many heterogenous folks in that region also have shared ancestry with Cushitic speakers. I won't even speak about their A3b2 but I could stretch it.
@Charlie Bass. Please clarify your position.
-Cushitic languages and autosomal ancestry comes from where exactly?
-Horn of Africans are a composite population of East African and "__________".
- The M78 derived lineages found below the Sahara come from?
quote:Evidence would be taking fossils over time from the same site and proving that change towards "elongation" does not coincide with new sources of ancestry. You would need ancient DNA for this and this has never been done. All they're doing is taking fossils and write a story about change they cannot even document. They don't even have before and after fossils, let alone DNA.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:I never knew this was an undeveloped idea. I always remembered certain older studies supporting. However, I always assumed Horners at least got their features from climate adaption from their dry climate. And me visiting Ethiopia a few months ago the climate was very dry unlike the humid like one in West Africa. I assumed that Horners were the ones who brought the "elongated features" to certain Bantus and Nilotic groups in East Africa.
Originally posted by Swenet:
I'm always willing to review my ideas. But there has never been evidence that the so-called "elongated African" phenotype is a result of climatic adaptation. It's a badly underdeveloped idea that has never been proven. Someone just said it and people rolled with it. Just like the notion that dynastic Lower Nubians are diet-adapted versions of Mesolithic Jebel Sahabans. This is just speculative research. In fact, it's not even research; someone just said it once and it has been repeated ever since.
As for the dynastic Lower Nubians vs Jebel Sahabans that definitely doesn't make sense imo.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Microevolution is very real. But the notion that desert adaptation would change a broad featured African populations that much in the coastal Maghrebi/West Eurasian direction is complete BS. It's laughably stupid.
quote:Now that you mention it. I did noticed the bolded.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Evidence would be taking fossils over time from the same site and proving that change towards "elongation" does not coincided with new sources of ancestry. You would need ancient DNA for this and this has never been done. All they're doing is taking fossils and write a story about change they cannot even document. They don't even have before and after fossils, let alone DNA.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
[] Correction....
---- so aren't analogous to the Makrani and Abusir mummies.
[/QB]
quote:No they are NOT, period, I already posted evidence they are NOT, at least not craniometrically. Th Badarians ALWAYS clusters very close to SSAs, smh. Have you read Keita's studies? :
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Typical Egyptturd comeback. You keep talking about late dynastic Egypt but won't mention that late dynastic Egyptians are still closer to predynastic Egyptians than either is to Sub-Saharan Africans.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:I already stated my position and stand by it, that ancient Egyptians were Africans most akin to Saharans and Upper Nile valley peoples. A set of mummies from the damn 3rd intermediate Period, a time when most of the dynasties were of Libyan origin, isn't going to refute that position. The Abusir mummies won't say jack about predynastic and Early Dynastic Egyptians, so pound your chest all you want retard, trying to bash the so called Afrocentrist with your strawmen arguments isn't going to win.
Originally posted by Swenet:
You and your fellow turds are talking on bought time. You are already done. Your position has been thrashed by data for a long time. And it's about to be thrashed even more by the Abusir mummies. You just think you have a point.
quote:AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)
"Badari (8) occupies a position closest to the Teita, Gaboon, Nubian, and Nagada series by centroid values and territorial maps. The Nagada and Kerma series are so similar that they are
barely distinguishable in the territorial
maps; they subsume the first dynasty series
from Abydos. The Sedment and “E” series
are the most distinct of the Nile Valley series.
The European series stands in notable isolation by centroid score (Tables 2B, 3B,
4B) from African series.
The unknown analyses of the Maghreban
crania show many to be more similar to
northern Egyptians (Sedment and “E”
series), but the presence of tropical phenotypes
is notable. Thirteen to seventeen percent
classified into the European series
(Table 5). The Badarian crania have a modal
metric phenotype that is clearly “southern”;
most classify into the Kerma (Nubian), Gaboon,
and Kenyan groups. When labile variables
and the Nubian and Nagada series are eliminated from the analysis in the eleven variable
design, >50% of the Badarian crania
classify into the equatorial African
groups (Table 6). [b]When the two equatorial
African series are combined as Group 17, the
earlier results are confirmed (Table 7)[b]. No
Badarian cranium in any analysis classified
into the European series, and few grouped
with the "E" series. In another analysis without Nagada or any dynastic Egyptians this
result was repeated. The drawback of this
study is that the Nagada I crania could not
be analyzed separately because records were not clear. As was noted earlier, Nutter (1958)
found that they were essentially identical to
the Badarian series. The classification of
crania into specific groups does not imply
identity with those specific series, only affinities with broad patterns connoting common
origin. Thus it is possible to identify a group
broadly as tropical or coastal northern African.
quote:Clarify to me how Hema acquired North African ancestry.
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ CBass
quote:
Anyway Hema do carry Some North African ancestry. Some of the M35 derived lineages they carry are M78 positive. They, like many heterogenous folks in that region also have shared ancestry with Cushitic speakers. I won't even speak about their A3b2 but I could stretch it.
@Charlie Bass. Please clarify your position.
-Cushitic languages and autosomal ancestry comes from where exactly?
-Horn of Africans are a composite population of East African and "__________".
- The M78 derived lineages found below the Sahara come from?
quote:Repeat that analysis with more late Egyptian samples and (preferably) with more variables and see how long you'll last.
When labile variables
and the Nubian and Nagada series are eliminated from the analysis in the eleven variable
design, >50% of the Badarian crania
classify into the equatorial African
groups (Table 6).
quote:[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Are you saying they don't have African DNA but are actually very distant like the Papua New Guineans or Australians?
Originally posted by xyyman:
You are not going to back out of this that easily? Lol! YOU said that the blue found in Makrani is remnants of Igbo (West central Africans). I am TELLING you that is a lie or you don't know what you are talking about. Makrani are NOT related to modern Igbo or other West Central Africans. They may "look" similar but that are very distant.
xyyman why are you saying that when you have already read the below ?
quote:--Siddiqi MH et al.
To estimate genetic and forensic parameters, the entire mitochondrial DNA control region of 100 unrelated Makrani individuals (males, n=96; females, n=4) living in Pakistan (Turbat, Panjgur, Awaran, Kharan, Nasirabad, Gwadar, Buleda, Karachi and Burewala) was sequenced. We observed a total of 70 different haplotypes of which 54 were unique and 16 were shared by more than one individual. The Makrani population showed a high genetic diversity (0.9688) and, consequently, a high power of discrimination (0.9592). Our results revealed a strongly admixed mtDNA pool composed of African haplogroups (28%), West Eurasian haplogroups (26%), South Asian haplogroups (24%), and East Asian haplogroups (2%), while the origin of the remaining individuals (20%) could not be confidently assigned. The results of this study are a valuable contribution to build a database of mtDNA variation in Pakistan.
Leg Med (Tokyo). 2015 Mar;17(2):134-9. doi: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2014.09.007. Epub 2014 Oct 13.
Genetic characterization of the Makrani people of Pakistan from mitochondrial DNA control-region data.
______________________________
quote:Yes in the article they had 28% mtDNA haplogroup L ancestry which other Pakastanis don't have
Originally posted by xyyman:
Do they have African DNA...?
quote:That is an inserting look on things.
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:Your analysis is rather obvious from the quote Swenet posted. I just don't see how it relates to whatever point Swenet is making about Sub-Saharan Africans vs North Africans. The Pagani quote is saying that North East Africa including Sub_Saharan East Africa(Ethiopia) is more related to OOA populations than West Africans. A fact which more true of Egypt than Ethiopia. So now only West Africans are Sub-Saharan Africans or am I missing something here?
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
@ Bass
To give you only one example of your recent BS:
quote:--Pagani et al 2015
West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
To which you replied:
quote:You can't seriously believe the Pagani quote is saying Northeast Africans' distinctive features are entirely the product of Eurasian admixture. Instead it shows exactly what I was trying to hammer into your skull earlier, namely that Northeast Africans have a stronger affinity to OOA populations than do West Africans precisely because OOA represent a derivative of Northeast Africans. The principle is simple to grasp, so why don't you wrap your head around it and admit you were wrong?
Are you saying that Elongated tropically adapted bodies come from non-African mixture? So everyone from Fulani, Somali, Tutsi, Maasai, Bahima, comes from mixture? Why aren't the non-Africans this supposedly came from "Elongated" with the same body build? Show me the Eurasian ancestors who have this elongated body plan
quote:--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
According to the current data East Africa is home to nearly 2/3 of the world genetic diversity independent of sampling effect. Similar figure have been suggested for sub-Saharan Africa populations [1]. The antiquity of the east African gene pool could be viewed not only from the perspective of the amount of genetic diversity endowed within it but also by signals of uni-modal distribution in their mitochondrial DNA (Hassan et al., unpublished) usually taken as an indication of populations that have passed through ‘‘recent’’ demographic expansion [33], although in this case, may in fact be considered a sign of extended shared history of in situ evolution where alleles are exchanged between neighboring demes [34].
quote:-OOA Ancestry comes from where? Did you see the Pagani article about the Egyptian and Ethiopian genomes? Is that region NOT "North Africa"?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Clarify to me how Hema acquired North African ancestry.
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ CBass
quote:
Anyway Hema do carry Some North African ancestry. Some of the M35 derived lineages they carry are M78 positive. They, like many heterogenous folks in that region also have shared ancestry with Cushitic speakers. I won't even speak about their A3b2 but I could stretch it.
@Charlie Bass. Please clarify your position.
-Cushitic languages and autosomal ancestry comes from where exactly?
-Horn of Africans are a composite population of East African and "__________".
- The M78 derived lineages found below the Sahara come from?
-Horners are East African with some Eurasian backflow and OOA ancestry.
I'm not clear about where all E-M78 lineages below the Sahara come from but I would say the Eastern Sahara would be a place that it would come from.
We have no historical evidence of North Africans mixing with Hema, period, so maybe the labels people are putting on these "ancestries" are suspect.
quote:YOU jackass, THE E series IS LATE DYANASTIC and very few of the Badarian crania grouped with them, how dumb can you be?
Originally posted by Swenet:
This is why you're a duplicitous turd:
quote:Repeat that analysis with more late Egyptian samples and (preferably) with more variables and see how long you'll last.
When labile variables
and the Nubian and Nagada series are eliminated from the analysis in the eleven variable
design, >50% of the Badarian crania
classify into the equatorial African
groups (Table 6).
This is the best you can do? Removing variables and removing northeast Africans to get a desired result? Damn you're stupid. And you have no shame trying to post this here with a straight face.
quote:The eastern and central Sahara lie closer to the southern periphery of the Sahara. If you mean "North Africa" by those regions I can agree. The badarians for example, came from t6he Southwestern desert. If you mean "North African" as in coastal North Africa I disagree.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:-OOA Ancestry comes from where? Did you see the Pagani article about the Egyptian and Ethiopian genomes? Is that region NOT "North Africa"?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Clarify to me how Hema acquired North African ancestry.
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ CBass
quote:
Anyway Hema do carry Some North African ancestry. Some of the M35 derived lineages they carry are M78 positive. They, like many heterogenous folks in that region also have shared ancestry with Cushitic speakers. I won't even speak about their A3b2 but I could stretch it.
@Charlie Bass. Please clarify your position.
-Cushitic languages and autosomal ancestry comes from where exactly?
-Horn of Africans are a composite population of East African and "__________".
- The M78 derived lineages found below the Sahara come from?
-Horners are East African with some Eurasian backflow and OOA ancestry.
I'm not clear about where all E-M78 lineages below the Sahara come from but I would say the Eastern Sahara would be a place that it would come from.
We have no historical evidence of North Africans mixing with Hema, period, so maybe the labels people are putting on these "ancestries" are suspect.
-The Eastern Sahara is "North Africa" correct? The Central Sahara is North Africa Correct? Did you read the latest on Trombetta that places V68 et al origin in North Africa?
-The Hema and nearly all those East/Central african Nilo-Cushite-Niger Congo hybrid populations have ancestry from Saharan and or Nilotic Pastoralists. African cattle are a North Africa species. Kruper et al data specifically speaks of these populatiosn leaving North African and migration as far as south Africa. look at the UNiparental data of the Hema.
quote:Are you that dumb or thick in the brain? I didn't do anything, the study was done by Keita himself. The late Dynastic Egyptian E series clustered with Magherbis and Europeans. Very few of the Badarian crania clustered with the E series, what are you not getting moron?
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lol. This is how you used to fool people and win debates at Zetaboards? Try that sleight of hands with your friends on that site. You posted data that is unfit for what you used it. Without those shifty shenanigans only 18% of the crania group with Keita's SSA samples, not >50%. Why don't you post that? When you get to Howells or Brace's measurements late dynastic Egyptians cluster with Kushites and predynastic Egyptians before SSA groups do.
It's clear that the only way you can make your point is by using tampered data.
quote:- Powell, 1989
Examination of the metric plots reveals the following general pattern of relationships. The Teita crania, as expected, are distinct from all others. Predynastic Naqada and Badari
form a separate cluster with 12-15th Dynasty Kerma. These results are consistent with
those shown by the 6 group analysis. The Egyptian and Greek sites are in general separate,
though Giza and Sedment seem to show some affinity with the Greeks, especially those
from Lerna.
quote:Where were their ancestors a few millennia earlier, when the Sahara was uninhabitable? Fishing in the Nile? (Serious question btw.)
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
The eastern and central Sahara lie closer to the southern periphery of the Sahara. If you mean "North Africa" by those regions I can agree. The badarians for example, came from t6he Southwestern desert. If you mean "North African" as in coastal North Africa I disagree.
quote:Most archaeologists suppose that they were in the Nubian Nile Valley and Nubian desert oases such as Nabta Playa, considering the fact that the rains which made the Sahara hospitable and created the Saharan Neolithic(around 9000 BC), shifted North from tropical Africa to the Sahara. Geography makes it almost impossible that they came from somewhere else besides south of the Sahara. The Nubians just moved with these rains. And besides, there are similarities in lithic technologies between the Nubian Nile Valley and Egyptian Nile Valley for that time period. To learn more about it, you can read Chapters 2 and 3 of the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Where were their ancestors a few millennia earlier, when the Sahara was uninhabitable? Fishing in the Nile? (Serious question btw.)
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
The eastern and central Sahara lie closer to the southern periphery of the Sahara. If you mean "North Africa" by those regions I can agree. The badarians for example, came from t6he Southwestern desert. If you mean "North African" as in coastal North Africa I disagree.
quote:Not just that, but also phenotypically they show similarities. It's a Eurocentric wet-dream to make claim of this.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:It's hilarious because there are indigenous black populations on the North African coast like the Nafusa, the Masmuda and others, so the notion that black populations are restricted to his zones is laughable. The black population of Egypt is concentrated precisely where the civilization sprang from. The majority of ancient Egypt's population was concentrated in the South until at least just after the new period and so most ancient Egyptians were black.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:So I like how you completely ignore all other mentions of your goalpost shucking and jiving shenanigans.
Originally posted by Cass/:
A small portion of Egypt falls inside the tropics in modern times, but the ancient boundary didn't. The southern boundary of ancient Egypt was at Aswan, today it is at Abu Simbel. So the boundary of Egypt in modern times has extended more than 200 km south. So no, I've never contradicted myself; the whole of ancient Egypt was outside of the tropics. Also, I do not deny black Egyptian individuals, however they're a small minority by frequency. I work by means/averages. By your foolishness are Swedes black haired since less than 1% have black hair?
The boundaries of Dynastic Egypt itself extended and waned overtime. Sudan(especially Wawet/Lower Nubia) was often considered part of Egypt despite Dynastic Egypt proper starting at Aswan.
As far as your question let me ask you, since you work in averages, wouldn't it be fair to say most of Africa (including most of SSA) isn't black since most Africans don't match tiles 35-36 on Luschan Scale nor the extremely dark (near literal black) end of Type VI skin on Fitzpatrick's scale? I mean since we're being objective and all.
Edit: to cut even more of the bull out. You state you don't deny black Egyptian individuals yet you've hooted and hollered anytime those individuals were brought up and repeatedly said the AE were not black, when in fact there were black AE, making your absolute statement falsifiable just by showing ONE black Aegyptian (let alone the legions of them that lived during Dynastic Egypt). Maybe you should stop with absolute statements you know aren't true.
The South is everything. The fool basically inverted the demographic reality of sncient Egypt with his ridiculous example. [/QB]
quote:I happen to have bumped into this, just a few moments ago.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
El Maestro says:
check it out, what I learned on ES in the past 2 days...
Some of what you seem to have learned appears shaky, as detailed below.
SSA's have recently developed morphology.
On what basis have you learned this? And exactly what do you call "recent"?
And what exactly is "true" SSA morphology. Further down your
list of learnings you say: "there's no true Negro/SSA model. ...Makes sense."
OK but then how do you come up with the sweeping category of
"SSA morphology"? Are broad noses something recent? Are narrow noses?
SS Africans have both. What exactly is the "true" SSA morphology
as you have learned it?
Contemporary SSA's weren't wide spread below the Sahara.
On what basis do you say this? WHat are your parameters?
If they are SSA, then by definition of "SSfA" they ARE
"below" the Sahara. And if they were not below the
Sahara then where were they before? Did contemporary
Africans all come from North Africa? Please clarify your reasoning.
Egyptians are North Africans/Saharans but not related to those who mixed with west Africans.
Who exactly makes up this West African mix? Give a concrete example.
the SSA's with similar Morphology with A.Egyptians are all mixed
LOL what is this mystical "mix" you keep talking about?
There are sub-Saharan Africans who have very
little admixture, with similar limb proportions to
the ancient Egyptians. If mystical race "mixes" are
so important, how can this be so? Studies cite Early Naqada
for example clustering with Negro morphology as far as limb
proportions (Keita 1993.) Robins and Shute examined predynastic
and dynastic limb ratios and found them to be very
tropically adapted or "super negroid" Is this because
of a "race mix" with incoming "Eurasians"? Likewise
Pygmy populations with "negro" morphology in some
studies cluster with Egyptians. Where is the alleged
"race mix", and IF there was a "race mix" why is this
the primary factor that links them with Egyptian morphology?
^lol It's funny because West/central Africans have been receiving North/OOA-like admixture for 9K years+
Explain why "race mixes" are the primary factor that relate West/central
Africans to Egyptians?
I ain't beating up on you dude but you make some sweeping claims.
If you have learned these things from the 'Afrocentric"
folk at ES, it would be interesting to hear who you
learned them from..
quote:—Author(s): Rachel Sarig ; Ofer Marder ; Omry Barzilai ; Bruce Latimer ; Israel Hershkovitz
The study on the partial calvarium discovered at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel (dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 kyr BP, Hershkovitz et al. 2015), revealed close morphological affinity with recent African skulls as well as with early Upper Paleolithic European skulls, but less so with earlier anatomically modern humans from the Levant (e.g., Skhul). The ongoing fieldwork at the Manot Cave has resulted in the discovery of several new hominin teeth. These include a lower incisor (I1), a right lower first deciduous molar (dm1), a left upper first deciduous molar (dm1) and an upper second molar (M2) all from area C (>32 kyr) and a right upper second molar (M2) from area E (>36 kyr). The current study presents metric and morphological data on the new Manot Cave teeth. These new data combined with our already existing knowledge on the Manot skull may provide an important insight on the Upper Paleolithic population of the Levant, its origin and dietary habits.
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Where were their ancestors a few millennia earlier, when the Sahara was uninhabitable? Fishing in the Nile? (Serious question btw.)
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
The eastern and central Sahara lie closer to the southern periphery of the Sahara. If you mean "North Africa" by those regions I can agree. The badarians for example, came from t6he Southwestern desert. If you mean "North African" as in coastal North Africa I disagree.
quote:This is an interesting position, on the Hema.
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Charlie. I kinda give you a pass because you were off the scene for years and missed the boat.
Anyway Hema do carry Some North African ancestry. Some of the M35 derived lineages they carry are M78 positive. They, like many heterogenous folks in that region also have shared ancestry with Cushitic speakers. I won't even speak about their A3b2 but I could stretch it.
quote:--Hassan HY1, Underhill PA, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Ibrahim ME.
Haplogroup frequencies in 15 Sudanese populations are given in Figure 2 following YCC nomenclature (2002). Haplogroups A-M13 and B-M60 are present at high frequencies in Nilo-Saharan groups except Nubians, with low frequencies in Afro-Asiatic groups although notable frequencies of B-M60 were found in Hausa (15.6%) and Copts (15.2%). Haplogroup E (four different haplotypes) accounts for the majority (34.4%) of the chromosome and is widespread in the Sudan. E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations. E-M33 (5.2%) is largely confined to Fulani and Hausa, whereas E-M2/b is restricted to Hausa. E-M215 was found to occur more in Nilo-Saharan rather than Afro-Asiatic speaking groups.
quote:—Fulvio Cruciani1, Beniamino Trombetta1, Andrea Novelletto2, Rosaria Scozzari1
In a previous issue of AJHB, Fernandes et al. (2008. Am J Hum Biol 20:185–190.) describe instances of identity by state at multiple short tandem repeat loci between human Y chromosomes belonging to different E-M35 sub-haplogroups. They interpret these findings as evidence for multiple mutational events in at least two loci (M78 and M81). Here, we introduce a novel polymorphic marker (V68), potentially useful to investigate the issue. This marker and sequence data, reported here for the first time, reinforce our previous interpretations on the phylogenetic structure of the E3b haplogroup. We discuss these results in the frame of general approaches to attain robust phylogenetic inferences based on biallelic polymorphism data. Am. J. Hum. Biol., 2008.
quote:Fair enough, but I am looking for info on the Musta Rabi and AL Musta Riba...can you help me out?
Originally posted by Cass/:
I love this. lol. All the posters fighting against each other. Did I ultimately cause all this? Reminds me of the film Needful Things, where the demon (Max von Sydow) turns people against each other.
quote:Actually it's:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Well, something is wrong with Keita's analysis; Teita (south-east Kenyans) don't plot close to Badari; 9 cranial measurements, (a) M + F separate, (b) pooled sexes together:
(a)
Key: T = Teita, K = Kerma (Nubia), G = Giza (Lower Egypt), S = Sedment (Lower Egypt), B = Badari (Upper Egypt), N = Naqada (Upper Egypt)
(b)
Key: same as above, but Greek/Aegean/Cretan samples are to the left.
quote:- Powell, 1989
Examination of the metric plots reveals the following general pattern of relationships. The Teita crania, as expected, are distinct from all others. Predynastic Naqada and Badari
form a separate cluster with 12-15th Dynasty Kerma. These results are consistent with
those shown by the 6 group analysis. The Egyptian and Greek sites are in general separate,
though Giza and Sedment seem to show some affinity with the Greeks, especially those
from Lerna.
"Metric versus non-metric skeletal traits (With special reference to crania from ancient Greece and Egypt.)"
quote:--Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007).
The Badarian population
”As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5). Finally, the biological distinctiveness of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7).
These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment."
quote:But couldn't the genetic admixture in these populations be Arab instead of North African? Autosomal distance measured by pair-wise FST is low (0.083), between "Ethio-Somali" and "Arabian" (Hodgson et al. 2014). This is the same distance between Swedes and Greeks (0.084), i.e. northern vs. southern Europeans (Cavalli-Sforza, 1994).
Originally posted by beyoku:
-The Hema and nearly all those East/Central african Nilo-Cushite-Niger Congo hybrid populations have ancestry from Saharan and or Nilotic Pastoralists. African cattle are a North Africa species. Kruper et al data specifically speaks of these populatiosn leaving North African and migration as far as south Africa. look at the UNiparental data of the Hema.
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Where were their ancestors a few millennia earlier, when the Sahara was uninhabitable? Fishing in the Nile? (Serious question btw.)
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
The eastern and central Sahara lie closer to the southern periphery of the Sahara. If you mean "North Africa" by those regions I can agree. The badarians for example, came from t6he Southwestern desert. If you mean "North African" as in coastal North Africa I disagree.
quote:--Nick Brooks et al. (2004)
Evidence from throughout the Sahara indicates that the region experienced a cool, dry and windy climate during the last glacial period, followed by a wetter climate with the onset of the current interglacial, with humid conditions being fully established by around 10,000 years BP, when we see the first evidence of a reoccupation of parts of the central Sahara by hunter gathers, most likely originating from sub-Saharan Africa (Cremaschi and Di Lernia, 1998; Goudie, 1992; Phillipson, 1993; Ritchie, 1994; Roberts, 1998).
[...]
Conical tumuli, platform burials and a V-type monument represent structures similar to those found in other Saharan regions and associated with human burials, appearing in sixth millennium BP onwards in northeast Niger and southwest Libya (Sivilli, 2002). In the latter area a shift in emphasis from faunal to human burials, complete by the early fifth millennium BP, has been interpreted by Di Lernia and Manzi (2002) as being associated with a changes in social organisation that occurred at a time of increasing aridity. While further research is required in order to place the funerary monuments of Western Sahara in their chronological context, we can postulate a similar process as a hypothesis to be tested, based on the high density of burial sites recorded in the 2002 survey. Fig. 2: Megaliths associated with tumulus burial (to right of frame), north of Tifariti (Fig. 1). A monument consisting of sixty five stelae was also of great interest; precise alignments north and east, a division of the area covered into separate units, and a deliberate scattering of quartzite inside the structure, are suggestive of an astronomical function associated with funerary rituals. Stelae are also associated with a number of burial sites, again suggesting dual funerary and astronomical functions (Figure 2). Further similarities with other Saharan regions are evident in the rock art recorded in the study area, although local stylistic developments are also apparent. Carvings of wild fauna at the site of Sluguilla resemble the Tazina style found in Algeria, Libya and Morocco (Pichler and Rodrigue, 2003), although examples of elephant and rhinoceros in a naturalistic style reminiscent of engravings from the central Sahara believed to date from the early Holocene are also present.
quote:What you post and asked is not as weird as it appears to some:
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
I don't understand this obsession with the notion of Sub_Saharan Africa. Correct me if am wrong, but wasn't the Sahara colonized by Sub-Saharan Africans during the Saharan neolithic? I mean some researchers even speculate that the main reason why the Sahara changed from green to desert is because of over-grazing and over-farming on the part of prehistoric and historic African pastoralists and farmers, modeled culturally and I assume genetically after sub-Saharan cattle herders such as the Masai, Nilotes, Bantu, etc....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4315796/How-humans-created-Sahara-desert-8-000-years-ago.html
quote:—Nick Brooks (2013): Beyond collapse: climate change and causality during the Middle Holocene Climatic Transition, 6400–5000 years before present, Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 112:2, 93-104
"In the Sahara, population agglomeration is also evident in certain areas such as the Libyan Fezzan, which (albeit much later) also saw the emergence of an indigenous Saharan “civilization” in the form of the Garamantian Tribal Confederation, the development of which has been described explicitly in terms of adaptation to increased aridity (Brooks, 2006; di Lernia et al., 2002; Mattingly et al., 2003)."
quote:--Eliška Podgorná et al.
The presence of sub-Saharan L-type mtDNA sequences in North Africa has traditionally been explained by the recent slave trade. However, gene flow between sub-Saharan and northern African populations would also have been made possible earlier through the greening of the Sahara resulting from Early Holocene climatic improvement. In this article, we examine human dispersals across the Sahara through the analysis of the sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroup L3e5, which is not only commonly found in the Lake Chad Basin (∼17%), but which also attains nonnegligible frequencies (∼10%) in some Northwestern African populations. Age estimates point to its origin ∼10 ka, probably directly in the Lake Chad Basin, where the clade occurs across linguistic boundaries. The virtual absence of this specific haplogroup in Daza from Northern Chad and all West African populations suggests that its migration took place elsewhere, perhaps through Northern Niger. Interestingly, independent confirmation of Early Holocene contacts between North Africa and the Lake Chad Basin have been provided by craniofacial data from Central Niger, supporting our suggestion that the Early Holocene offered a suitable climatic window for genetic exchanges between North and sub-Saharan Africa. In view of its younger founder age in North Africa, the discontinuous distribution of L3e5 was probably caused by the Middle Holocene re-expansion of the Sahara desert, disrupting the clade's original continuous spread.
quote:"Rapid and catastrophic environmental changes in the Holocene and human response" first joint meeting of IGCP 490 and ICSU Environmental catastrophes in Mauritania, the desert and the coast January 4-18, 2004
The reconstruction of human cultural patterns in relation to environmental variations is an essential topic in modern archaeology.
In western Africa, a first Holocene humid phase beginning c. 11,000 years BP is known from the analysis of lacustrine sediments (Riser, 1983 ; Gasse, 2002). The monsoon activity increased and reloaded hydrological networks (like the Saharan depressions) leading to the formation of large palaeolakes. The colonisation of the Sahara by vegetation, animals and humans was then possible essentially around the topographic features like Ahaggar (fig. 1). But since 8,000 years BP, the climate began to oscillate towards a new arid episode, and disturbed the ecosystems (Jolly et al., 1998; Jousse, 2003).
First, the early Neolithics exploited the wild faunas, by hunting and fishing, and occupied small sites without any trace of settlement in relatively high latitudes. Then, due to the climatic deterioration, they had to move southwards.
This context leads us to consider the notion of refugia. Figure 1 presents the main zones colonised by humans in western Africa. When the fossil valleys of Azaouad, Tilemsi and Azaouagh became dry, after ca. 5,000 yr BP, humans had to find refuges in the Sahelian belt, and gathered around topographic features (like the Adrar des Iforas, and the Mauritanians Dhar) and major rivers, especially the Niger Interior Delta, called the Mema.
Whereas the Middle Neolithic is relatively well-known, the situation obviously becomes more complex and less information is available concerning local developments in late Neolithic times.. Only some cultural affiliations existed between the populations of Araouane and Kobadi in the Mema. Elsewhere, and especially along the Atlantic coast and in the Dhar Tichitt and Nema, the question of the origin of Neolithic peopling remains unsolved.
A study of the palaeoenvironment of those refugia was performed by analysing antelopes ecological requirements (Jousse, submitted). It shows that even if the general climate was drying from 5,000 – 4,000 yr BP in the Sahara and Sahel, edaphic particularities of these refugia allowed the persistence of local gallery forest or tree savannas, where humans and animals could have lived (fig. 2). At the same time, cultural innovation like agriculture, cattle breeding, social organisation in villages are recognised. For the moment, the relation between the northern and the southern populations are not well known.
How did humans react against aridity? Their dietary behaviour are followed along the Holocene, in relation with the environment, demographic expansion, settling process and emergence of productive activities.
- The first point concerns the pastoralism. The progression of cattle pastoralism from eastern Africa (fig. 3) is recorded from 7,400 yr BP in the Ahaggar and only from 4,400 yr BP in western Africa. This trend of breeding activities and human migrations can be related to climatic evolution. Since forests are infested by Tse-Tse flies preventing cattle breeding, the reduction of forest in the low-Sahelian belt freed new areas to be colonised. Because of the weakness of the archaeozoological material available, it is difficult to know what was the first pattern of cattle exploitation.
- A second analysis was carried on the resources balance, between fishing-hunting-breeding activities. The diagrams on figures 4 and 5 present the number of species of wild mammals, fishes and domestic stock, from a literature compilation. Fishing is known around Saharan lakes and in the Niger. Of course, it persisted with the presence of water points and even in historical times, fishing became a specialised activity among population living in the Niger Interior Delta. Despite the general environmental deterioration, hunting does not decrease thanks to the upholding of the vegetation in these refugia (fig. 2). On the contrary, it is locally more diversified, because at this local scale, the game diversity is closely related to the vegetation cover. Hence, the arrival of pastoral activities was not prevalent over other activities in late Neolithic, when diversifying resources appeared as an answer to the crisis.
This situation got worse in the beginning of historic times, from 2,000 yr BP, when intense settling process and an abrupt aridity event (Lézine & Casanova, 1989) led to a more important perturbation of wild animals communities. They progressively disappeared from the human diet, and the cattle, camel and caprin breeding prevailed as today.
quote:When you have a goalpost on your back...
Originally posted by Swenet:
Egyptturds.com posters can hold a collective grudge all they want. I predicted already what was going to happen:
quote:Wonderful paper by Nikita E.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Late Period Giza sample closer to Badarians and Naqadans than to Nubians in some analyses (not saying all)
The Giza sample also has notable affinities to the Kerma sample.
Charlie Bass debates people online using deceptive manipulations of others' work. That's the only way he can make it seem like he has a point.
quote:—Nikita E, Mattingly D, Lahr MM.
"The Garamantes flourished in southwestern Libya, in the core of the Sahara Desert ~3,000 years ago and largely controlled trans-Saharan trade. Their biological affinities to other North African populations, including the Egyptian, Algerian, Tunisian and Sudanese, roughly contemporary to them, are examined by means of cranial nonmetric traits using the Mean Measure of Divergence and Mahalanobis D(2) distance. The aim is to shed light on the extent to which the Sahara Desert inhibited extensive population movements and gene flow. Our results show that the Garamantes possess distant affinities to their neighbors. This relationship may be due to the Central Sahara forming a barrier among groups, despite the archaeological evidence for extended networks of contact. The role of the Sahara as a barrier is further corroborated by the significant correlation between the Mahalanobis D(2) distance and geographic distance between the Garamantes and the other populations under study. In contrast, no clear pattern was observed when all North African populations were examined, indicating that there was no uniform gene flow in the region."
quote:--Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. (2014)
"In particular, the Tuareg have 50% to 80% of their paternal lineages E1b1b1b-M81 [34], [35]. The Tuareg are seminomadic pastoralist groups that are mostly spread between Libya, Algeria, Mali, and Niger. They speak a Berber language and are believed to be the descendents of the Garamantes people of Fezzan, Libya (500 BC - 700 CE) [34]."
quote:Is it really that weird? The African cattle Cultural complex as attested in Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba--neolithic sites in the Western desert-- seems to be a common cultural phenomenon in modern day Sub_Saharan Africa. Cattle being kept mostly for milk and blood and rarely being killed, and farmers learning how to skilfully herd cattle in semi-arid conditions and all sorts of religious and spiritual significance being placed on the cattle.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:What you post and asked is not as weird as it appears to some:
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
I don't understand this obsession with the notion of Sub_Saharan Africa. Correct me if am wrong, but wasn't the Sahara colonized by Sub-Saharan Africans during the Saharan neolithic? I mean some researchers even speculate that the main reason why the Sahara changed from green to desert is because of over-grazing and over-farming on the part of prehistoric and historic African pastoralists and farmers, modeled culturally and I assume genetically after sub-Saharan cattle herders such as the Masai, Nilotes, Bantu, etc....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4315796/How-humans-created-Sahara-desert-8-000-years-ago.html
quote:—Nick Brooks (2013): Beyond collapse: climate change and causality during the Middle Holocene Climatic Transition, 6400–5000 years before present, Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 112:2, 93-104
"In the Sahara, population agglomeration is also evident in certain areas such as the Libyan Fezzan, which (albeit much later) also saw the emergence of an indigenous Saharan “civilization” in the form of the Garamantian Tribal Confederation, the development of which has been described explicitly in terms of adaptation to increased aridity (Brooks, 2006; di Lernia et al., 2002; Mattingly et al., 2003)."
quote:--Eliška Podgorná et al.
The presence of sub-Saharan L-type mtDNA sequences in North Africa has traditionally been explained by the recent slave trade. However, gene flow between sub-Saharan and northern African populations would also have been made possible earlier through the greening of the Sahara resulting from Early Holocene climatic improvement. In this article, we examine human dispersals across the Sahara through the analysis of the sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroup L3e5, which is not only commonly found in the Lake Chad Basin (∼17%), but which also attains nonnegligible frequencies (∼10%) in some Northwestern African populations. Age estimates point to its origin ∼10 ka, probably directly in the Lake Chad Basin, where the clade occurs across linguistic boundaries. The virtual absence of this specific haplogroup in Daza from Northern Chad and all West African populations suggests that its migration took place elsewhere, perhaps through Northern Niger. Interestingly, independent confirmation of Early Holocene contacts between North Africa and the Lake Chad Basin have been provided by craniofacial data from Central Niger, supporting our suggestion that the Early Holocene offered a suitable climatic window for genetic exchanges between North and sub-Saharan Africa. In view of its younger founder age in North Africa, the discontinuous distribution of L3e5 was probably caused by the Middle Holocene re-expansion of the Sahara desert, disrupting the clade's original continuous spread.
Annals of Human Genetics
Volume 77, Issue 6, pages 513–523, November 2013
The Genetic Impact of the Lake Chad Basin Population in North Africa as Documented by Mitochondrial Diversity and Internal Variation of the L3e5 Haplogroup
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ahg.12040/abstr
quote:"Rapid and catastrophic environmental changes in the Holocene and human response" first joint meeting of IGCP 490 and ICSU Environmental catastrophes in Mauritania, the desert and the coast January 4-18, 2004
The reconstruction of human cultural patterns in relation to environmental variations is an essential topic in modern archaeology.
In western Africa, a first Holocene humid phase beginning c. 11,000 years BP is known from the analysis of lacustrine sediments (Riser, 1983 ; Gasse, 2002). The monsoon activity increased and reloaded hydrological networks (like the Saharan depressions) leading to the formation of large palaeolakes. The colonisation of the Sahara by vegetation, animals and humans was then possible essentially around the topographic features like Ahaggar (fig. 1). But since 8,000 years BP, the climate began to oscillate towards a new arid episode, and disturbed the ecosystems (Jolly et al., 1998; Jousse, 2003).
First, the early Neolithics exploited the wild faunas, by hunting and fishing, and occupied small sites without any trace of settlement in relatively high latitudes. Then, due to the climatic deterioration, they had to move southwards.
This context leads us to consider the notion of refugia. Figure 1 presents the main zones colonised by humans in western Africa. When the fossil valleys of Azaouad, Tilemsi and Azaouagh became dry, after ca. 5,000 yr BP, humans had to find refuges in the Sahelian belt, and gathered around topographic features (like the Adrar des Iforas, and the Mauritanians Dhar) and major rivers, especially the Niger Interior Delta, called the Mema.
Whereas the Middle Neolithic is relatively well-known, the situation obviously becomes more complex and less information is available concerning local developments in late Neolithic times.. Only some cultural affiliations existed between the populations of Araouane and Kobadi in the Mema. Elsewhere, and especially along the Atlantic coast and in the Dhar Tichitt and Nema, the question of the origin of Neolithic peopling remains unsolved.
A study of the palaeoenvironment of those refugia was performed by analysing antelopes ecological requirements (Jousse, submitted). It shows that even if the general climate was drying from 5,000 – 4,000 yr BP in the Sahara and Sahel, edaphic particularities of these refugia allowed the persistence of local gallery forest or tree savannas, where humans and animals could have lived (fig. 2). At the same time, cultural innovation like agriculture, cattle breeding, social organisation in villages are recognised. For the moment, the relation between the northern and the southern populations are not well known.
How did humans react against aridity? Their dietary behaviour are followed along the Holocene, in relation with the environment, demographic expansion, settling process and emergence of productive activities.
- The first point concerns the pastoralism. The progression of cattle pastoralism from eastern Africa (fig. 3) is recorded from 7,400 yr BP in the Ahaggar and only from 4,400 yr BP in western Africa. This trend of breeding activities and human migrations can be related to climatic evolution. Since forests are infested by Tse-Tse flies preventing cattle breeding, the reduction of forest in the low-Sahelian belt freed new areas to be colonised. Because of the weakness of the archaeozoological material available, it is difficult to know what was the first pattern of cattle exploitation.
- A second analysis was carried on the resources balance, between fishing-hunting-breeding activities. The diagrams on figures 4 and 5 present the number of species of wild mammals, fishes and domestic stock, from a literature compilation. Fishing is known around Saharan lakes and in the Niger. Of course, it persisted with the presence of water points and even in historical times, fishing became a specialised activity among population living in the Niger Interior Delta. Despite the general environmental deterioration, hunting does not decrease thanks to the upholding of the vegetation in these refugia (fig. 2). On the contrary, it is locally more diversified, because at this local scale, the game diversity is closely related to the vegetation cover. Hence, the arrival of pastoral activities was not prevalent over other activities in late Neolithic, when diversifying resources appeared as an answer to the crisis.
This situation got worse in the beginning of historic times, from 2,000 yr BP, when intense settling process and an abrupt aridity event (Lézine & Casanova, 1989) led to a more important perturbation of wild animals communities. They progressively disappeared from the human diet, and the cattle, camel and caprin breeding prevailed as today.
http://at.yorku.ca/c/a/m/u/27.htm
quote:Apparently it is. But yeah, what you said is true.
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
Is it really that weird? The African cattle Cultural complex as attested in Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba--neolithic sites in the Western desert-- seems to be a common cultural phenomenon in modern day Sub_Saharan Africa. Cattle being kept mostly for milk and blood and rarely being killed, and farmers learning how to skilfully herd cattle in semi-arid conditions and all sorts of religious and spiritual significance being placed on the cattle.
quote:I am looking for info on the Musta Rabi and AL Musta Riba…can you help me out? You seem to be a specialist on this topic.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:But couldn't the genetic admixture in these populations be Arab instead of North African? Autosomal distance measured by pair-wise FST is low (0.083), between "Ethio-Somali" and "Arabian" (Hodgson et al. 2014). This is the same distance between Swedes and Greeks (0.084), i.e. northern vs. southern Europeans (Cavalli-Sforza, 1994).
Originally posted by beyoku:
-The Hema and nearly all those East/Central african Nilo-Cushite-Niger Congo hybrid populations have ancestry from Saharan and or Nilotic Pastoralists. African cattle are a North Africa species. Kruper et al data specifically speaks of these populatiosn leaving North African and migration as far as south Africa. look at the UNiparental data of the Hema.
quote:The fraud is you NOT understanding a craniometric study. The Magherbis sample itself had tropical types within so its no surprise that some of the Badarians cluster with Magherbis, idiot. Most of the Badarians clustered with people to the south, who in turn themselves cluster closer to even more southerly peoples. E series is in Northern Egypt, Badarians are in the south, your point now?
Originally posted by Swenet:
We're seeing the shameless fraud that Charlie is on full display. They can't prove their point without cheating. And notice that Charlie never proved anything. Posting how many crania cluster with different groups doesn't tell you how close the Badarian sample as a whole is to any of those groups.
Case in point, Keita's Maghrebi sample and Giza sample are very similar. However, 9% of the Badarians cluster with Maghrebis while 0% of the Badarians cluster with the Late Giza sample. How can this be if this sort of analysis is a reliable indication of the position of Badarians in relation to North Africans?
Are Maghrebi closer to Egyptians than Egyptians? Damn Charlie is stupid.
quote:This study measured CRANIAL shape only.......your point?
Originally posted by Swenet:
Late Period Giza sample closer to Badarians and Naqadans than to Nubians in some analyses (not saying all)
The Giza sample also has notable affinities to the Kerma sample.
Charlie Bass debates people online using deceptive manipulations of others' work. That's the only way he can make it seem like he has a point.
quote:If they came from the Central and eastern Sahara why not say Saharan instead of North African? By that's same token I could east African ancestry "sub-Saharan" since the area in question is south of the Sahara.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Those lineages and ancestries are "North African" in plenty of the ways you want to slice it. How about North of the Tropics = North Africa. There are plenty of definitions.....you know what I am getting at.
quote:I don't think anyone is saying the Green Sahara was unimportant. All kinds of people, cultural elements, technology etc were crossing at that time, major genetic and linguistic expansions were probably driven by the appearance of all that new living space. Cattle are obviously very important; another interesting cultural marker that spread (apparently from the Maghreb to South Sudan) was the practice of pulling out incisors.
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
Is it really that weird? The African cattle Cultural complex as attested in Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba--neolithic sites in the Western desert-- seems to be a common cultural phenomenon in modern day Sub_Saharan Africa. Cattle being kept mostly for milk and blood and rarely being killed, and farmers learning how to skilfully herd cattle in semi-arid conditions and all sorts of religious and spiritual significance being placed on the cattle.
quote:--Keita 1995
Crichton (1966) found the Nakada to be more Negroid than the late dynastic northern Gizeh series, although still more similar to it than to a Kenyan series. He warned against
a typological conception of "Negro", suggesting that he may have chosen the wrong "Negro"
group or that the ancestors of the "Negroes" involved may have been different. Crichton (1966)
thought a Nubian series may have been better as the comparative Negroid group.
quote:Reminds me of
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
Is it really that weird? The African cattle Cultural complex as attested in Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba--neolithic sites in the Western desert-- seems to be a common cultural phenomenon in modern day Sub_Saharan Africa. Cattle being kept mostly for milk and blood and rarely being killed, and farmers learning how to skilfully herd cattle in semi-arid conditions and all sorts of religious and spiritual significance being placed on the cattle.
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
Probably the dryest its ever been. Obvious Horn and Mahgreb refuge exist. Not sure what C Bass has in mind. I have continually made a Joke about E-M78 folks were farming and eating sand when people trying to place humans in an area that was uninhabited do to extreme desert based on TMRCA and SNP origin dates from Published work.
Reminds me of a guy on another forum who was trying to get R1 to Europe from North America by walking across continental ice sheets grazed by mammoths.quote:Listen here jackass, the prehistoric remains were ALREADY LINEAR and Elongated if you took the time to do some research. I posted this well over 10 years ago on here:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Evidence would be taking fossils over time from the same site and proving that change towards "elongation" does not coincide with new sources of ancestry. You would need ancient DNA for this and this has never been done. All they're doing is taking fossils and write a story about change they cannot even document. They don't even have before and after fossils, let alone DNA.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:I never knew this was an undeveloped idea. I always remembered certain older studies supporting. However, I always assumed Horners at least got their features from climate adaption from their dry climate. And me visiting Ethiopia a few months ago the climate was very dry unlike the humid like one in West Africa. I assumed that Horners were the ones who brought the "elongated features" to certain Bantus and Nilotic groups in East Africa.
Originally posted by Swenet:
I'm always willing to review my ideas. But there has never been evidence that the so-called "elongated African" phenotype is a result of climatic adaptation. It's a badly underdeveloped idea that has never been proven. Someone just said it and people rolled with it. Just like the notion that dynastic Lower Nubians are diet-adapted versions of Mesolithic Jebel Sahabans. This is just speculative research. In fact, it's not even research; someone just said it once and it has been repeated ever since.
As for the dynastic Lower Nubians vs Jebel Sahabans that definitely doesn't make sense imo.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Microevolution is very real. But the notion that desert adaptation would change a broad featured African populations that much in the coastal Maghrebi/West Eurasian direction is complete BS. It's laughably stupid.
But Egyptturd loons see nothing wrong with that.
quote:African Archaeological Review
"If some of the eastern African rock paintings date to the terminal Pleistocene or early Holocene, the tall 'Kolo' peoples may represent groups like the lakeshore fishing folk thought to have been in eastern Africa at least as early as 10,000 BP (Barthelme 1977, 1981; Owen et al. 1982). Human remains from the lakeshore sites of Lothagam, the Lake Turkana Galana
Boi beds and Ishango are tall and linear, exactly the features depicted in the 'Kolo' style
paintings. This link between the 'Kolo' style paintings and skeletons from the lakeshore sites
is supported by other evidence. Archaeologists have proposed that ancestral populations of either Nilo-Saharan (Sutton 1974, 1977) or Afroasiatic language-speakers could have been responsible for these lakeshore sites; and modern speakers of both linguistic phyla are among the tallest and most slender people of eastern Africa (Hiernaux 1968, 1975).
The role of tall, linearly built populations in eastern Africa's prehistory has always been
debated. Traditionally, they are viewed as late migrants into the area. But as there is better
palaeoanthropological and linguistic documentation for the earlier presence of these populations than for any other group in eastern Africa, it is far more likely that they are indigenous eastern Africans. I have argued elsewhere (Schepartz 1985) that these prehistoric linear populations show resemblances to both Upper Pleistocene eastern African fossils and present-day, non-Bantu-speaking groups in eastern Africa[b], with minor differences stemming from changes in overall robusticity of the dentition and skeleton. [b]This suggests a longstanding tradition of linear populations in eastern Africa, contributing to the indigenous
development of cultural and biological diversity from the Pleistocene up to the present.
quote:I guess that kind of relationship between nomads and their herd animals is inevitable in harsh and brutal environments like the Sahara and the Mongolian Steppes. . Also read somewhere about Bantu tribes in Southern African or maybe even Khoisan using Oxen for battle and transport.
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Reminds me of
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
Is it really that weird? The African cattle Cultural complex as attested in Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba--neolithic sites in the Western desert-- seems to be a common cultural phenomenon in modern day Sub_Saharan Africa. Cattle being kept mostly for milk and blood and rarely being killed, and farmers learning how to skilfully herd cattle in semi-arid conditions and all sorts of religious and spiritual significance being placed on the cattle.
cept it was horse blood and horse milk with meat on special occasions.
quote:Are you serious though? Why would I need to clarify what region of North Africa they come from if we are not discussing specifics. Now if you agree that those parts of the Sahara are in "North Africa" then what are you protesting about?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:If they came from the Central and eastern Sahara why not say Saharan instead of North African? By that's same token I could east African ancestry "sub-Saharan" since the area in question is south of the Sahara.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Those lineages and ancestries are "North African" in plenty of the ways you want to slice it. How about North of the Tropics = North Africa. There are plenty of definitions.....you know what I am getting at.
quote:Different methods, different outputs, Granted when looking at the supposed dates for admixture from Gurdasani in comparison to other Africans with "known" admixture. One could simply say that clustering by snp is warped by early SNS recombination, being that West African Admixture is generally twice as old or more than anywhere else on the continent. Also we might not have an actual living representation of the Saharan or even OOA population that mixed with the Igbo, I'm gonna see if inclusion of Sardinia will shake things up for the Yoruba and mandenka as it suggests it will by Hellenthal (2014).
Originally posted by Tukuler:
This is fantastic.
Am I seeing STRUCTURE run independently
by an actual enrolled student taking courses
in the field?
Six levels of genetic African substructure.
Except for Mbuti, the peoples all have at
least three genetic clusters.
Gurdasani's early/mid Holocene non-African
admixture to Igbo or Yoruba is not replicated
in your graph. That's in line with the consensus.
Oh wait, is it there at like 1%?
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
^wait, aren't you paying attention, Non-SSA admixture is the smoking gun, not just Actual North African admixture. I mean we do know that Different Cultural groups received mixture from multiple different sources right? ....right?
I mean the Inciting moment was the release of the unreleased study saying Modern Egyptians are more SSA, than before right.
It doesn't get more indigenous North African than OOA lol
I'm just playing, but no not really
quote:That is all nice and dandy, but what about the populations / ethnic groups that have resided in the Sahara-Sahel region for thousands of years? In this model the Al Khiday is within the Sahel zone.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:I don't think anyone is saying the Green Sahara was unimportant. All kinds of people, cultural elements, technology etc were crossing at that time, major genetic and linguistic expansions were probably driven by the appearance of all that new living space. Cattle are obviously very important; another interesting cultural marker that spread (apparently from the Maghreb to South Sudan) was the practice of pulling out incisors.
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
Is it really that weird? The African cattle Cultural complex as attested in Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba--neolithic sites in the Western desert-- seems to be a common cultural phenomenon in modern day Sub_Saharan Africa. Cattle being kept mostly for milk and blood and rarely being killed, and farmers learning how to skilfully herd cattle in semi-arid conditions and all sorts of religious and spiritual significance being placed on the cattle.
But most of the time the Sahara *is* a major barrier. Populations on either side had tens of thousands of years to become differentiated prior to the Green Sahara. People spread into it from multiple directions, north to south as well as south to north. As far as I know there's no evidence that the populations across the desert became homogenized. Received gene flow, sure, but all the previous differentiation was not erased.
quote:—Černý et al.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Dietary changes associated to shifts in subsistence strategies during human evolution may have induced new selective pressures on phenotypes, as currently held for lactase persistence. Similar hypotheses exist for arylamine N-acetyltransferase 2 (NAT2) mediated acetylation capacity, a well-known pharmacogenetic trait with wide inter-individual variation explained by polymorphisms in the NAT2 gene. The environmental causative factor (if any) driving its evolution is as yet unknown, but significant differences in prevalence of acetylation phenotypes are found between hunter-gatherer and food-producing populations, both in sub-Saharan Africa and worldwide, and between agriculturalists and pastoralists in Central Asia. These two subsistence strategies also prevail among sympatric populations of the African Sahel, but knowledge on NAT2 variation among African pastoral nomads was up to now very scarce. Here we addressed the hypothesis of different selective pressures associated to the agriculturalist or pastoralist lifestyles having acted on the evolution of NAT2 by sequencing the gene in 287 individuals from five pastoralist and one agriculturalist Sahelian populations.
RESULTS:
We show that the significant NAT2 genetic structure of African populations is mainly due to frequency differences of three major haplotypes, two of which are categorized as decreased function alleles (NAT2*5B and NAT2*6A), particularly common in populations living in arid environments, and one fast allele (NAT2*12A), more frequently detected in populations living in tropical humid environments. This genetic structure does associate more strongly with a classification of populations according to ecoregions than to subsistence strategies, mainly because most Sahelian and East African populations display little to no genetic differentiation between them, although both regions hold nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralist and sedentary agriculturalist communities. Furthermore, we found significantly higher predicted proportions of slow acetylators in pastoralists than in agriculturalists, but also among food-producing populations living in the Sahelian and dry savanna zones than in those living in humid environments, irrespective of their mode of subsistence.
CONCLUSION:
Our results suggest a possible independent influence of both the dietary habits associated with subsistence modes and the chemical environment associated with climatic zones and biomes on the evolution of NAT2 diversity in sub-Saharan African populations.
quote:You know, something about this seems genuine, but naive.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Are you serious though? Why would I need to clarify what region of North Africa they come from if we are not discussing specifics. Now if you agree that those parts of the Sahara are in "North Africa" then what are you protesting about?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:If they came from the Central and eastern Sahara why not say Saharan instead of North African? By that's same token I could east African ancestry "sub-Saharan" since the area in question is south of the Sahara.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Those lineages and ancestries are "North African" in plenty of the ways you want to slice it. How about North of the Tropics = North Africa. There are plenty of definitions.....you know what I am getting at.
What I see is a clash of ideas. At this point we should clearly understand that a group of language such as Cushitic and its associated autosomal "juice" does not originate in Sub Saharan African. We don't "lose" anything if these things come from the northern part of the continent. Once you agree that they do then you have to aslo agree that many African populations show a composite of different and heterogenous North African and Equitorial African ancestries with different genetic histories.
Where is the push back against this coming from? It is nonsensical.
quote:What sides are you talking about? For the Sahara, the means of movement and settlement was via playas and oases scattered throughout the harsh desert and alongside the Nile Valley. In the case of the Late Paleolithic, Upper Egypt was occupied or at least settlement have been found from 21 000 to 12 000 years before present. Lower Egypt was also occupied, but no settlements have been discovered due to the sites being buried under sediment. I don't think there is any mystery about the Nile being used as corridor between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:I don't think anyone is saying the Green Sahara was unimportant. All kinds of people, cultural elements, technology etc were crossing at that time, major genetic and linguistic expansions were probably driven by the appearance of all that new living space. Cattle are obviously very important; another interesting cultural marker that spread (apparently from the Maghreb to South Sudan) was the practice of pulling out incisors.
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
Is it really that weird? The African cattle Cultural complex as attested in Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba--neolithic sites in the Western desert-- seems to be a common cultural phenomenon in modern day Sub_Saharan Africa. Cattle being kept mostly for milk and blood and rarely being killed, and farmers learning how to skilfully herd cattle in semi-arid conditions and all sorts of religious and spiritual significance being placed on the cattle.
But most of the time the Sahara *is* a major barrier. Populations on either side had tens of thousands of years to become differentiated prior to the Green Sahara. People spread into it from multiple directions, north to south as well as south to north. As far as I know there's no evidence that the populations across the desert became homogenized. Received gene flow, sure, but all the previous differentiation was not erased.
quote:These are from the "Erigavo District, Ogaden Somali" (US).
Originally posted by Cass/:
Compare big distance between Somalis and pre-dynastic Egyptians in PCA and three-dimensional sample affinities plot:
http://www.academia.edu/8770480/Characterization_of_biological_diversity_through_analysis_of_discrete_cranial_traits
Key: Somalis = 63, pre-dynastic Egyptians = 59.
quote:Not all of North Africa is Sahara. And not all of the Magrebi is Sahara.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Beyoku
That's what I'm saying. These people are very calculated and sneaky in how they word things. They think "Sahara" is somehow better than "North Africa" even though it's the same damn thing as far as this discussion. Why would you or I exclude the Maghrebi coast apriori? They think Sahara sounds more sexy and have their own insecurities about certain parts of the North African coast, so they will waste your time trying to get you to say Sahara instead of North Africa. That is what they do. They playing these word game tactics to score imaginary points.
quote:I seriously don't see why everything has to be such a conspiracy.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Not all of North Africa is Sahara. And not all of the Magrebi is Sahara.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Beyoku
That's what I'm saying. These people are very calculated and sneaky in how they word things. They think "Sahara" is somehow better than "North Africa" even though it's the same damn thing as far as this discussion. Why would you or I exclude the Maghrebi coast apriori? They think Sahara sounds more sexy and have their own insecurities about certain parts of the North African coast, so they will waste your time trying to get you to say Sahara instead of North Africa. That is what they do. They playing these word game tactics to score imaginary points.
quote:Forreal right lol
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:I seriously don't see why everything has to be such a conspiracy.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Not all of North Africa is Sahara. And not all of the Magrebi is Sahara.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Beyoku
That's what I'm saying. These people are very calculated and sneaky in how they word things. They think "Sahara" is somehow better than "North Africa" even though it's the same damn thing as far as this discussion. Why would you or I exclude the Maghrebi coast apriori? They think Sahara sounds more sexy and have their own insecurities about certain parts of the North African coast, so they will waste your time trying to get you to say Sahara instead of North Africa. That is what they do. They playing these word game tactics to score imaginary points.
quote:Horn Africans don't plot close to ancient Egyptians/Nubians in non-metric cranial/dental traits. In metric dental "Somalis from the Horn of East Africa sit right on the dividing line between mesodont and microdont" (Brace et al, 1993), while ancient Egyptians/Nubians are microdont - so there are also metric differences that clearly distinguish Saharan populations from Horn Africans.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Why?
quote:That most obvious truth that you are alluding to is blasphemy here, as it is "too simplistic". There is not enough confusion (obfuscation) in what you're saying. That's how these Devil's work.
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Swenet's trolling would make a white supremacist pop it's collar. Elongated Africans?
Is she elongated?
Him?
I know I know
quote:No. It is an indication of playing with the data to produce an invalid conclusion.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Sudaniya says:
It's hilarious because there are indigenous black populations on the North African coast like the Nafusa, the Masmuda and others, so the notion that black populations are restricted to his zones is laughable.
Apparently black people in Africa stay in certain "climatic apartheid"
zones- "in dey place" so to speak. But according to
recently revealed knowledge, any links they have with the AEs
and due to "race mixes"...
Doug says:
implying that mixture with these "African related" Eurasians is the best way to model the split
Could this be an indication of a racial split?
quote:What do you mean, conspiracy?
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:I seriously don't see why everything has to be such a conspiracy.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Not all of North Africa is Sahara. And not all of the Magrebi is Sahara.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Beyoku
That's what I'm saying. These people are very calculated and sneaky in how they word things. They think "Sahara" is somehow better than "North Africa" even though it's the same damn thing as far as this discussion. Why would you or I exclude the Maghrebi coast apriori? They think Sahara sounds more sexy and have their own insecurities about certain parts of the North African coast, so they will waste your time trying to get you to say Sahara instead of North Africa. That is what they do. They playing these word game tactics to score imaginary points.
quote:^Charlie saw the map with Maghrebi peaking in the Maghreb and still tried to plead with you to say Sahara as opposed to North African. I'm glad you didn't fall for it, but picked up on this immediately and called him out.
Originally posted by Beyoku:
In reference to Cushitic speakers. The main lineages associated with their language come in the form of M78 and 1515. M78 is North African. V1515 derived lineages are found in Egypt but the consensus is that it's probably Eritrean, Sudanese or Egyptian. Cushitic language show a north-south distribution with the oldest ones in North Africa (Egypt).
quote:Hold this W. Lol. We aint doing no types of:
but I stand by it.
quote:Come on now, you know as well as I know that geographical terms means a lot. Egypt is in North Africa proper, but genetically there is differentiation between Northeast Africans and Northwest Africans. People in the southernmost regions of both these areas overlap more with people to the south than to the north. When you say North African I think it should be specific for that reason. If the populations that mixed with Hema came from the Central and Eastern Sahara, why no just say that? I know what YOU mean when you say North Africa, but those not familiar with you may take it another way.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Are you serious though? Why would I need to clarify what region of North Africa they come from if we are not discussing specifics. Now if you agree that those parts of the Sahara are in "North Africa" then what are you protesting about?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
[quote:If they came from the Central and eastern Sahara why not say Saharan instead of North African? By that's same token I could east African ancestry "sub-Saharan" since the area in question is south of the Sahara.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Those lineages and ancestries are "North African" in plenty of the ways you want to slice it. How about North of the Tropics = North Africa. There are plenty of definitions.....you know what I am getting at.
quote:Never denied that part, and been knowing this since Tishkoff's study. For me its about being specific. When you say Hema have North African ancestry what exactly do you mean since as I said there is a degree of differentiation between Northwest and Northeast Africa.
What I see is a clash of ideas. At this point we should clearly understand that a group of language such as Cushitic and its associated autosomal "juice" does not originate in Sub Saharan African. We don't "lose" anything if these things come from the northern part of the continent. Once you agree that they do then you have to also agree that many African populations show a composite of different and heterogenous North African and Equitorial African ancestries with different genetic histories.
quote:My push back is with defining SSA is the narrow sense. Geneticists are defining these populations in a manner similar to the True Negro theory as a narrowly defined genetic population. West Africa in particular should NOT be treated as the pristine example of the "True unmixed" pre-OOA population or as the population with "true African" ancestry.
Where is the push back against this coming from? It is nonsensical.
quote:Who said Horn Africa have to plot with ancient Egyptians? What was said is that they were a people similarly to them. There are many groups that haven't been plotted. Ethnic groups that live in Ethiopia to Southern Egypt.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Horn Africans don't plot close to ancient Egyptians/Nubians in non-metric cranial/dental traits. In metric dental "Somalis from the Horn of East Africa sit right on the dividing line between mesodont and microdont" (Brace et al, 1993), while ancient Egyptians/Nubians are microdont - so there are also metric differences that clearly distinguish Saharan populations from Horn Africans.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Why?
Since Horn Africa is in SSA, Afrocentrists try to cluster Somalis/Ethiopians with ancient Egyptians, then they have a sneaky back-door to try to associate other SSA's with Egyptians. Their blunder is Horn Africans don't show close biological ties to ancient Egyptians.
Nubians are Southern Egyptians and Nubian is a cluster name for many sub groups. But ancient Egyptians certainly had contact with contact with these southern groups from the Horn. Anther act is that in cases the Sudan is seen as sub Sahara, and Al Khiday is in Central Sudan Sahel region. You can cry yourself to sleep over this, it is and remains the same. quote:--Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology) (1999, 2005, 2015)
There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas […]
Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.
In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation.
This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography”
quote:--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian' … we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
quote:--Godde K.
"The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).
These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix."
quote:Yes and its the same situation for Europe, dummy. Autosomal FST values are low between southern & northern Europeans (0.084 ~ Greeks/Swedes) meaning they are genetically very similar, however in terms of pigmentation there are large differences in eye, hair and skin colour. Northern Europeans have a high frequency of blue/green eye & light brown/blonde hair colours, while Southern Europeans are mostly dark brown haired and brown eyed. Northern Europeans are also lighter in skin colour, 'white', while Southern Europeans a light brown, so-called 'olive'.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Re: Nazi
Yet Sudan (including North Sudan, according to you the only Southern Africans tied to the AE) are in the tropics, the so-called "black area" of Africa per you, Nazi. Looks like you can't segregate Aegyptians from the "blacks" you hate so much even when all the evidence you don't like is ignored and we play by your rules. Pathetic.
quote:The point is that "Sub Saharan Africa" is a nonsensical and meaningless distinction because Africans are diverse across ALL of Africa. All Africans South of the Sahara do not look the same, have the same features or same DNA. Hence it is a meaningless grouping. Somalis don't look like Ugandans and don't look like Nigerians. But somehow folks are falling into the trap of defending something nonsensical.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Who said Horn Africa have to plot with ancient Egyptians? What was said is that they were a people similarly to them. There are many groups that haven't been plotted. Ethnic groups that live in Ethiopia to Southern Egypt.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Horn Africans don't plot close to ancient Egyptians/Nubians in non-metric cranial/dental traits. In metric dental "Somalis from the Horn of East Africa sit right on the dividing line between mesodont and microdont" (Brace et al, 1993), while ancient Egyptians/Nubians are microdont - so there are also metric differences that clearly distinguish Saharan populations from Horn Africans.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Why?
Since Horn Africa is in SSA, Afrocentrists try to cluster Somalis/Ethiopians with ancient Egyptians, then they have a sneaky back-door to try to associate other SSA's with Egyptians. Their blunder is Horn Africans don't show close biological ties to ancient Egyptians.
The paper spoke of "Erigavo District, Ogaden Somali". My question is why? Why specially them?
What is said is the following, which eurocentricks love to ignore:
quote:--Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology) (1999, 2005, 2015)
There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas […]
Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.
In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation.
This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography”
quote:--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian' … we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
quote:--Godde K.
"The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).
These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix."
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
quote:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-haplogroup_L_(mtDNA)
In human mitochondrial genetics, L is the mitochondrial DNA macro-haplogroup that is at the root of the human mtDNA phylogenetic tree. As such, it represents the most ancestral mitochondrial lineage of all currently living modern humans.[b]
quote:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160526105349.htm
A research group has managed to retrieve the mitochondrial genome of a fossil 35,000 years old found in the Pestera Muierii cave in Romania. That woman was part of the first population of our species that inhabited Europe following the Eurasian expansion of Homo sapiens from Africa, and the lineage she belongs to reinforces the hypothesis of a back-migration to Africa during the Upper Palaeolithic, say investigators.
The Palaeogenomics study conducted by the Human Evolutionary Biology group of the Faculty of Science and Technology, led by Concepción de la Rua, in collaboration with researchers in Sweden, the Netherlands and Romania, has made it possible to retrieve the complete sequence of the mitogenome of the Pestera Muierii woman (PM1) using two teeth. This mitochondrial genome corresponds to the now disappeared U6 basal lineage, and it is from this lineage that the U6 lineages, now existing mainly in the populations of the north of Africa, descend from.
So the study has not only made it possible to confirm the Eurasian origin of the U6 lineage but also to support the hypothesis that some populations embarked on a back-migration to Africa from Eurasia at the start of the Upper Palaeolithic, about 40-45,000 years ago. The Pestera Muierii individual represents one branch of this return journey to Africa of which there is no direct evidence owing to the lack of Palaeolithic fossil remains in the north of Africa.
"Right now, the research group is analyzing the nuclear genome the results of which could provide us with information about its relationship with the Neanderthals and about the existence of genomic variations associated with the immune system that accounts for the evolutionary success of Homo sapiens over other human species with whom it co-existed. What is more, we will be able to see what the phenotypic features of early Homo sapiens were like, and also see how population movements in the past influence the understanding of our evolutionary history," explained Prof Concepción de la Rúa.
quote:http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0520/Out-of-Africa-and-back-again-When-did-humans-return-to-Africa
But "this is much older, much more basal, so we demonstrate that the origin of these populations from north Africa were basically from western Eurasia."
This back-migration wasn't a complete surprise, says Cosimo Posth, a PhD candidate in archaeogenetics at Tübingen University in Germany, who was not part of this new study. When the U6 haplogroup was spotted in the mitochondrial DNA of people living in northern and western Africa today that is almost absent everywhere else, some scientists proposed that a back-migration had carried these genetic markers into Africa.
Finding an older version of this lineage outside of Africa would confirm that. Mr. Posth and colleagues reported a basal version of haplogroup U6 in a different skull from the same site, Peștera Muierii, in a paper published earlier this month.
"This actually suggested that this haplogroup originated somewhere outside of Africa and then migrated back into Africa during the paleolithic time," Posth says. And this new paper "is a confirmation of those previous studies."
[b]The researchers aren't sure when exactly the U6 haplogroup first migrated into Africa, as the archeological DNA record between the Romanian individuals and modern-day people is spotty.
quote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3598772/Forget-Africa-Fossils-reveal-human-farmers-migrated-continent-Europe-3-000-years-ago-populate-it.html
'Since the U6 haplogroup today is most common in North African populations we didn't expect to find it in such an ancient human from Romania.'
This surprising finding suggests people migrated back to Africa.
The researchers took DNA from two teeth and compared it to modern day genomes.
They found the man belonged to a genetic population which had not previously been identified in any ancient or present-day humans.
The modern lineage derived from this group is mainly in Africa, with a small presence in Europe that can be attributed to gene-flow from North Africa.
This means the remains can be traced to a reverse migration to North Africa.
In 2014, the skeleton of a man buried 4,500 years ago in an Ethiopian cave allowed scientists to sequence one of the first ancient African human genomes.
quote:The Berbers groups which some of the Fulani interact with closely are the Kel (Tuareg) (Masmuda / Zanata confederacy) and the Hausa.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Never said anything about "West Africa". As explained Before: North Africa is not ONE thing. Sub Saharan Africa is not ONE thing... they both consist of different heterogenous genetic components with different genetic histories.
You making that complaint is like a Euroclown objecting to "Sub Saharan" ancestry in X population Eurasians because "you shoulda said East African or Hadza".......never mind the fact that those two ancestries are SSA.
You playing games man. So now that you know what North African is........are their North African genetic admixtures in HOA, Hema, Tutsi et al?
Some time ago I objected to the idea of Berber like admixure in Fulani.l. I argued they have no M81/H/U6........multiple studies shows the huge autosomal component. I couldn't ignore it after seeing further studies and personal results of Fulani far and wide.
AFAIAK iALL the data already EXISTS. There is no need for a "wait and see" approach when dealing with the biological affinity of MODERN human populations.
quote:U lineages arose from populations carrying haplogroup L,M, upwards of 50,000 years ago. The maps show an "echo" of the ancient evolution of those lineages. The issue is whether haplogroups M, N, R (and ultimately U) split within Africa or outside Africa. Even if they didn't the populations that carried those lineages were among populations that were for all intents and purposes African in phenotype and there would have been an overlap between L3,M, N and R within specific populations with bottlenecks occurring much later as folks moved away from Africa.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:The Berbers groups which some of the Fulani interact with closely are the Kel (Tuareg) (Masmuda / Zanata confederacy) and the Hausa.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Never said anything about "West Africa". As explained Before: North Africa is not ONE thing. Sub Saharan Africa is not ONE thing... they both consist of different heterogenous genetic components with different genetic histories.
You making that complaint is like a Euroclown objecting to "Sub Saharan" ancestry in X population Eurasians because "you shoulda said East African or Hadza".......never mind the fact that those two ancestries are SSA.
You playing games man. So now that you know what North African is........are their North African genetic admixtures in HOA, Hema, Tutsi et al?
Some time ago I objected to the idea of Berber like admixure in Fulani.l. I argued they have no M81/H/U6........multiple studies shows the huge autosomal component. I couldn't ignore it after seeing further studies and personal results of Fulani far and wide.
AFAIAK iALL the data already EXISTS. There is no need for a "wait and see" approach when dealing with the biological affinity of MODERN human populations.
Festival Afoukada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPGRanrzMnY
It also hard to believe that there are people who are a mix of these two, especially since I have met them.
Ps: I have tried to figure this one out, perhaps you know the answer to this?
quote:I call people from the tropics black because they have pigmentation that falls in the 'chocolate-brown class' (Coon, 1965). People north of the tropics on average don't have dark brown ('black') skin. Not sure why you find this complicated. If Egyptians are dark brown, why are populations at their latitude light to medium brown (north Indians, south Chinese)? Simply google contrast north Indian versus south Indian. Just give up politicalizing "black". Furthermore you seem obsessed with skin colour. As other posters here pointed out its trivial when trying to determine overall biological relatedness.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
"Laughably you're calling me a white nationalist/Nazi when you are the one clinging to racial politics in how you categorize skin colours. I don't and never have said southern Europeans are 'white'. That's your white nationalist position, not mine. For you, Africa = black, Europe = white. You would fit right in at Stormfront."
Says the sh!t thats on record as hating "blacks" and does everything he can to call all of SSA black and shifts the goalposts whenever he's challenged. Kiss my @ss.
quote:This results from the fact that in population genetics papers the Black Africans/Negroes are called Sub-Saharan Africans.
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
I don't understand this obsession with the notion of Sub_Saharan Africa. Correct me if am wrong, but wasn't the Sahara colonized by Sub-Saharan Africans during the Saharan neolithic? I mean some researchers even speculate that the main reason why the Sahara changed from green to desert is because of over-grazing and over-farming on the part of prehistoric and historic African pastoralists and farmers, modeled culturally and I assume genetically after sub-Saharan cattle herders such as the Masai, Nilotes, Bantu, etc....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4315796/How-humans-created-Sahara-desert-8-000-years-ago.html
quote:I remember the claim to U6 goes back a long time, early 2000 and perhaps before that time.
Originally posted by Doug M:
So the study has not only made it possible to confirm the Eurasian origin of the U6 lineage but also to support the hypothesis that some populations embarked on a back-migration to Africa from Eurasia at the start of the Upper Palaeolithic, about 40-45,000 years ago. The Pestera Muierii individual represents one branch of this return journey to Africa of which there is no direct evidence owing to the lack of Palaeolithic fossil remains in the north of Africa..
quote:—Hervella et al. 2016
Introduction
After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation [Neandertals] to modern human [Homo sapiens] expansion on to the continent1"
[...]
The haplogroup of PM1 falls within the U clade [Fig. 1B and Supplementary Table 3], which derived from the macro-haplogroup N possibly connected to the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 [37–42 ky cal BP] also displays haplogroup N9.
quote:Here he goes again with the eugenic Coon rubbish.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:I call people from the tropics black because they have pigmentation that falls in the 'chocolate-brown class' (Coon, 1965).
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
"Laughably you're calling me a white nationalist/Nazi when you are the one clinging to racial politics in how you categorize skin colours. I don't and never have said southern Europeans are 'white'. That's your white nationalist position, not mine. For you, Africa = black, Europe = white. You would fit right in at Stormfront."
Says the sh!t thats on record as hating "blacks" and does everything he can to call all of SSA black and shifts the goalposts whenever he's challenged. Kiss my @ss.
quote:MIGRATION!!!!
Originally posted by Cass/:
People north of the tropics on average don't have dark brown ('black') skin. Not sure why you find this complicated. If Egyptians are dark brown, why are populations at their latitude light to medium brown (north Indians, south Chinese)? Simply google contrast north Indian versus south Indian. Just give up politicalizing "black". Furthermore you seem obsessed with skin colour. As other posters here pointed out its trivial when trying to determine overall biological relatedness.
quote:Man Honestly I dont even know what happened to this forum, sometimes I wonder how I even posted here....
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Beyoku
That's what I'm saying. These people are very calculated and sneaky in how they word things. They think "Sahara" is somehow better than "North Africa" even though it's the same damn thing as far as this discussion. Why would you or I exclude the Maghrebi coast apriori? They think Sahara sounds more sexy and have their own insecurities about certain parts of the North African coast, so they will waste your time trying to get you to say Sahara instead of North Africa. That is what they do. They playing these word game tactics to score imaginary points.
quote:
That's how these Devil's work.
quote:This isnt academia or even attempts to learn but religious Fundamentalism, this is a religion to these people, maybe you were right about the early times being a fluke.
That is due to the albinoid corruption of the music obviously
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:This results from the fact that in population genetics papers the Black Africans/Negroes are called Sub-Saharan Africans.
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
I don't understand this obsession with the notion of Sub_Saharan Africa. Correct me if am wrong, but wasn't the Sahara colonized by Sub-Saharan Africans during the Saharan neolithic? I mean some researchers even speculate that the main reason why the Sahara changed from green to desert is because of over-grazing and over-farming on the part of prehistoric and historic African pastoralists and farmers, modeled culturally and I assume genetically after sub-Saharan cattle herders such as the Masai, Nilotes, Bantu, etc....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4315796/How-humans-created-Sahara-desert-8-000-years-ago.html
quote:Not trying to attack Charlie Bass(trust me I'm not), but wasn't there a GIANT ass discussion on FOrumbiodiversity on the North African Berber admixture in narrow featured Africans like the Fulanis?
Originally posted by beyoku:
Never said anything about "West Africa". As explained Before: North Africa is not ONE thing. Sub Saharan Africa is not ONE thing... they both consist of different heterogenous genetic components with different genetic histories.
You making that complaint is like a Euroclown objecting to "Sub Saharan" ancestry in X population Eurasians because "you shoulda said East African or Hadza".......never mind the fact that those two ancestries are SSA.
You playing games man. So now that you know what North African is........are their North African genetic admixtures in HOA, Hema, Tutsi et al?
Some time ago I objected to the idea of Berber like admixure in Fulani.l. I argued they have no M81/H/U6........multiple studies shows the huge autosomal component. I couldn't ignore it after seeing further studies and personal results of Fulani far and wide.
AFAIAK iALL the data already EXISTS. There is no need for a "wait and see" approach when dealing with the biological affinity of MODERN human populations.
quote:Charlie pleading to use the word Saharan instead of North African is cringing, but I've seen worse. Just stop by more often and read between the lines what these people are saying.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:Man Honestly I dont even know what happened to this forum, sometimes I wonder how I even posted here....
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Beyoku
That's what I'm saying. These people are very calculated and sneaky in how they word things. They think "Sahara" is somehow better than "North Africa" even though it's the same damn thing as far as this discussion. Why would you or I exclude the Maghrebi coast apriori? They think Sahara sounds more sexy and have their own insecurities about certain parts of the North African coast, so they will waste your time trying to get you to say Sahara instead of North Africa. That is what they do. They playing these word game tactics to score imaginary points.
quote:
That's how these Devil's work.quote:This isnt academia or even attempts to learn but religious Fundamentalism, this is a religion to these people, maybe you were right about the early times being a fluke.
That is due to the albinoid corruption of the music obviously
quote:If such mixture came from the central and eastern Sahara I don't see the problem with saying Saharan. Get your panties out of a bunch and stop complaining being petty as hell. You guys think that attacking the so called "Afrocentrist" makes you look more objective when in reality your use of certain terms is just as subjective as anyone else. It seems to me that you are obsessed with restricting sub-Saharan to one specific thing, but then again as I said, your use of terms is just as subjective.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Charlie pleading to use the word Saharan instead of North African is cringing, but I've seen worse. Just stop by more often and read between the lines what these people are saying.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:Man Honestly I dont even know what happened to this forum, sometimes I wonder how I even posted here....
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Beyoku
That's what I'm saying. These people are very calculated and sneaky in how they word things. They think "Sahara" is somehow better than "North Africa" even though it's the same damn thing as far as this discussion. Why would you or I exclude the Maghrebi coast apriori? They think Sahara sounds more sexy and have their own insecurities about certain parts of the North African coast, so they will waste your time trying to get you to say Sahara instead of North Africa. That is what they do. They playing these word game tactics to score imaginary points.
quote:
That's how these Devil's work.quote:This isnt academia or even attempts to learn but religious Fundamentalism, this is a religion to these people, maybe you were right about the early times being a fluke.
That is due to the albinoid corruption of the music obviously
I'm going to keep calling it out, even if I have to burn bridges.
quote:And rare moments of an unbridled and unfiltered window into what they're really thinking:
I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA.
quote:Logically, if you deny that the AE were SSA in ancestry, then you have to be of the view that they were (primarily) North African in ancestry. But these people are so stupid that they don't even realize that denying SSA ancestry leaves only a North African choice. Once they realize they only have a North African choice, they don't want to continue that line of thought and accuse you of being a Hamiticist and subscribing to the "True Negro fallacy". So which of the two is it? These people are so full of sh!t.
Sub-Saharan to me never meant solely "Broad trend" Africans, it also included Elongated African types as well.
quote:According to Hiernaux Elongated African is just as much a sub-Saharan phenotype since it is found in sub-Saharan people irrespective of whatever mixture they have. The short stout phenotype is the other end of the spectrum. Hiernaux used Elongated East Africa for the Tutsi/Bahima, Maasai, Horners etc, and Elongated African for Fulani and Saharan peoples with narrow facial features and linear bodies. These are NOT terms I have made up with agendas.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Jari
The funny part is they want to deny they have collective beliefs. But look in this thread how they all come forward to the front of the congregation to betray their collective visceral reactions to this North African ancestry. They want to make bs claims and not be called out on them at the same time.
Hence, their repeated cat and mouse game between denial:
quote:And rare moments of an unbridled and unfiltered window into what they're really thinking:
I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA.
quote:
Sub-Saharan to me never meant solely "Broad trend" Africans, it also included Elongated African types as well.
quote:The problem is he is trying to pigeon hole diversity into absolutes. Diverse genetics, phenotypes, languages etc will give you diverse results. All you do is create a whole bunch of variables that don't fit without without some bizarre conspiracy narrative hence elongated Africans, and an elusive homeland to afro-Asiatic. That's why I would like to know what languages he thinks are closest to ME and Coptic. I would check to see if he trolling, on a wild goose chase or on the right track. It may take me a long as two years.
Originally posted by Akachi:
That most obvious truth that you are alluding to is blasphemy here, as it is "too simplistic". There is not enough confusion (obfuscation) in what you're saying. That's how these Devil's work.
quote:Yeah, I don't get some people's beef with geography.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Wake up everybody.
Ethiopia
• is South of the Sahara
• is not in North Africa
Timbuktu is farther north than Ethiopia.
Ethiopia is at the same latitude as
• Senegambia
• the Guineas
• Mandingo Mali
• Liberia
• Cote d'Ivoire
• Burkina Faso
• Ghana
• Togo
• south Niger
• Benin
• Nigeria
• south Chad
• Cameroun
• Central African Republic
• southern Sudan
• South Sudan
• north half of Somalia.
Geno-hamiticists place
Ethiopia in North Africa
just like the old Hamiticists'
Caucasian north&east Africa.
quote:Honest readers will remember that this started in 2014 when Bass used Toubou and other Sahelians not fully SSA in ancestry, as stand ins for populations that are fully SSA in ancestry. When I called out what he was doing, Charlie Bass revealed his fairy tale belief that Toubou only differed in phenotype because of adaptation in the Sahel, and denounced that they had any non-SSA ancestry
Originally posted by Swenet:
I know how you Afrocentrist are when you feel humiliated; you start holding a grudge and start lying and eventually you will start lying about why you are being mocked as well.
quote:No Charlie. Stop lying before I start thrashing you around in your own thread again. Back in 2014 I said your "elongated Africans" in East Africa and the Sahel have North African ancestry. I never said East Africa does not lie in Sub-Saharan Africa. It's not my fault that you're stupid enough to dupe yourself into believing a lie for 14 years. You believed the lie that "elongated" is divorced of non-SSA ancestry for 14 years, questioned people's credibility and intention and now you still can't make proper adjustments without playing word games.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Its clear that when you guys are talking about "sub-Saharan" Africa that you are not talking about the Eastern part of sub-Saharan/Horn of Africa and you know it.
quote:Interesting view. I do notice that L1b has a similar trend in distribution.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:U lineages arose from populations carrying haplogroup L,M, upwards of 50,000 years ago. The maps show an "echo" of the ancient evolution of those lineages. The issue is whether haplogroups M, N, R (and ultimately U) split within Africa or outside Africa. Even if they didn't the populations that carried those lineages were among populations that were for all intents and purposes African in phenotype and there would have been an overlap between L3,M, N and R within specific populations with bottlenecks occurring much later as folks moved away from Africa.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:The Berbers groups which some of the Fulani interact with closely are the Kel (Tuareg) (Masmuda / Zanata confederacy) and the Hausa.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Never said anything about "West Africa". As explained Before: North Africa is not ONE thing. Sub Saharan Africa is not ONE thing... they both consist of different heterogenous genetic components with different genetic histories.
You making that complaint is like a Euroclown objecting to "Sub Saharan" ancestry in X population Eurasians because "you shoulda said East African or Hadza".......never mind the fact that those two ancestries are SSA.
You playing games man. So now that you know what North African is........are their North African genetic admixtures in HOA, Hema, Tutsi et al?
Some time ago I objected to the idea of Berber like admixure in Fulani.l. I argued they have no M81/H/U6........multiple studies shows the huge autosomal component. I couldn't ignore it after seeing further studies and personal results of Fulani far and wide.
AFAIAK iALL the data already EXISTS. There is no need for a "wait and see" approach when dealing with the biological affinity of MODERN human populations.
Festival Afoukada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPGRanrzMnY
It also hard to believe that there are people who are a mix of these two, especially since I have met them.
Ps: I have tried to figure this one out, perhaps you know the answer to this?
A good way of looking at this over time is as a fluid dynamics simulation:
quote:--Gonder MK1, Tishkoff SA et al.
Although 2 mtDNA lineages with an African origin (haplogroups M and N) were the progenitors of all non-African haplogroups, macrohaplogroup L (including haplogroups L0-L6) is limited to sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:What is the source of that map. It's a bit confusing.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:^Charlie saw the map with Maghrebi peaking in the Maghreb and still tried to plead with you to say Sahara as opposed to North African. I'm glad you didn't fall for it, but picked up on this immediately and called him out.
Originally posted by Beyoku:
In reference to Cushitic speakers. The main lineages associated with their language come in the form of M78 and 1515. M78 is North African. V1515 derived lineages are found in Egypt but the consensus is that it's probably Eritrean, Sudanese or Egyptian. Cushitic language show a north-south distribution with the oldest ones in North Africa (Egypt).
quote:Hold this W. Lol. We aint doing no types of:
but I stand by it.
--tapdancin'
--backtrackin'
--concedin'
--bucklin'
--retractin'
--wishy washin'
--window dressin'
quote:Both scenarios are real. And modern day science does have a history in racism. To think it has ever stopped is unrealistic. And I understand how people love to fantasize about it not being real etc., but it is. Considering the rise of white supremacy in this "Trump era", you can expect a lot of weird and crazy conclusions in the upcoming years.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^Im telling you these people act like they are in a religious cult. Im reading these debates and its like if you dont abide by their "Sacraments" and established folklore/fairytales, suddenly you're an "evil white man" or a Hamiticist etc. Im starting wonder If I was like this back in the day....jeez
quote:Mar 28, 2017,
“Scientific racism” is on the rise on the right. But it’s been lurking there for years.
Scientific racism has deep roots in American culture: progressives embraced it in the early 20th century, then conservatives picked up the torch
quote:For both of you, is this correct?
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:According to Hiernaux Elongated African is just as much a sub-Saharan phenotype since it is found in sub-Saharan people irrespective of whatever mixture they have. The short stout phenotype is the other end of the spectrum. Hiernaux used Elongated East Africa for the Tutsi/Bahima, Maasai, Horners etc, and Elongated African for Fulani and Saharan peoples with narrow facial features and linear bodies. These are NOT terms I have made up with agendas.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Jari
The funny part is they want to deny they have collective beliefs. But look in this thread how they all come forward to the front of the congregation to betray their collective visceral reactions to this North African ancestry. They want to make bs claims and not be called out on them at the same time.
Hence, their repeated cat and mouse game between denial:
quote:And rare moments of an unbridled and unfiltered window into what they're really thinking:
I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA.
quote:
Sub-Saharan to me never meant solely "Broad trend" Africans, it also included Elongated African types as well.
You knee grows are hypocrites, you have a problem with me using the term Saharan to denote mixture from the central and Eastern Saharan(and distinguishing it from coastal African ancestry) yet you kneegrows use East Africa/Horner as a label to denote mixture from the Horn of Africa and to distinguish it from West African ancestry despite the fact that both places lie in "Sub-Saharan" Africa. The contradiction is well noted.
quote:--Matt Cartmill, Fred H. Smith - 2011 - Social Science
Tropically adapted groups also have relatively longer distal limb elements (tibia and radius, as compared to femur and humerus) than groups in colder climates.
quote:Can you imagine Africanists afrolooning, turding,
Detailed references to the sources allow the reader
to put the historical reconstruction to the test. ...
I am grateful to these eminent scholars and good
friends for their detailed comments and thoughtful
suggestions. They saved me from many errors of
fact and interpretation; those left are my own
responsibility.
Nehemia Levtzion 1973
quote:Toubou not being fully "SSA" is ancestry means exactly what? What are you trying to say? I never said Toubou are Elongated Africans, stupid. Stop with BS strawmen arguments, because I never ever said Toubou were fully SSA. You are going through setting up a bunch of strawmen to knock down. Are you saying that only populations that are fully SSA are the only real SSAs as they are somehow supposedly "True Negroes?" I only stated that like AEs, Toubous shared a common origin with some peoples in the Sahara since the Badarians themselves are said to have originated in the Sahara and migrated into Egypt from the southwest. If you don't fck out of here with your strawmen grasping ass.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lol. Charlie Bass running off to other threads to hide his phuckups and lie about what happened. As I predicted all along:
quote:Honest readers will remember that this started in 2014 when Bass used Toubou and other Sahelians not fully SSA in ancestry, as stand ins for populations that are fully SSA in ancestry. When I called out what he was doing, Charlie Bass revealed his fairy tale belief that Toubou only differed in phenotype because of adaptation in the Sahel, and denounced that they had any non-SSA ancestry
Originally posted by Swenet:
I know how you Afrocentrist are when you feel humiliated; you start holding a grudge and start lying and eventually you will start lying about why you are being mocked as well.
quote:For the last damn time idiot, stop creating strawmen arguments, I never said that Toubou were ever fully SSA is ancestry so why TF are you beating on strawmen arguments? Post a quote where I ever said anything about Toubou being fully SSA. If anything I said these people black people period. To be black does not mean one must have to be fully SSA. Why are you treating "North African" ancestry as if its non-African, non-Black?
Fast forward to 2017, when these populations have been sampled and we know for a fact they are not fully SSA in ancestry. It takes his dumb ass 9 thread pages of running, ducking and hiding to admit Toubou are not fully SSA in ancestry.
quote:I never made the fcking caim that Toubou and Saharan peoples were fully SSA to begin with so get TF out of here beating on strawmen. You ignore alll the other quotes I posted and go back to one in 2014 where I never even made a claim about Toubou being fully SSA and then create a strawman
When he finally gathers enough courage to admit it, he can't even do so without trying to do some sort of halfway compromise, like it's some sort of negotiation. He has to play word games like he did earlier with the aforementioned "no SSA", "yes SSA" cat and mouse game.
quote:Narrow head shape and narrow noses are a climatic adaptation. The fact that AEs plot in the same intermediate position does NOT mean I am saying they are climatically adapted SSA you jackass. I even quoted Keita's logic about what that means earlier in this topic which you ignored because your dumbass is all about trying to paint so called Afrocentrists is a negative light, read the part in red dumbass:
The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans? Man come on with that, you're losing credibility, bioanthropology is NOT a nasal science, those things are mostly influenced by climate, not geographic specific ancestry. If Brace says that groups like Fulani, Teda and Kanuri plot in between "Niger Congo" speakers and people's of the Mediteranean Coast you know full well AEs plot in the same position. Keita's study on Northeast Africa craniofacial Variation confirmed it, so the notion tht AEs don't overlap with SSAs is bogus and it makes no sense to cite a study thats loaded with geographically distant populations like Teita, Haya, Gabonese, etc proves there is no overlap.
quote:Note:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Toubou not being fully "SSA" is ancestry means exactly what? What are you trying to say? I never said Toubou are Elongated Africans, stupid. Stop with BS strawmen arguments, because I never ever said Toubou were fully SSA. You are going through setting up a bunch of strawmen to knock down. Are you saying that only populations that are fully SSA are the only real SSAs as they are somehow supposedly "True Negroes?" I only stated that like AEs, Toubous shared a common origin with some peoples in the Sahara since the Badarians themselves are said to have originated in the Sahara and migrated into Egypt from the southwest. If you don't fck out of here with your strawmen grasping ass.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lol. Charlie Bass running off to other threads to hide his phuckups and lie about what happened. As I predicted all along:
quote:Honest readers will remember that this started in 2014 when Bass used Toubou and other Sahelians not fully SSA in ancestry, as stand ins for populations that are fully SSA in ancestry. When I called out what he was doing, Charlie Bass revealed his fairy tale belief that Toubou only differed in phenotype because of adaptation in the Sahel, and denounced that they had any non-SSA ancestry
Originally posted by Swenet:
I know how you Afrocentrist are when you feel humiliated; you start holding a grudge and start lying and eventually you will start lying about why you are being mocked as well.
quote:For the last damn time idiot, stop creating strawmen arguments, I never said that Toubou were ever fully SSA is ancestry so why TF are you beating on strawmen arguments? Post a quote where I ever said anything about Toubou being fully SSA. If anything I said these people black people period. To be black does not mean one must have to be fully SSA. Why are you treating "North African" ancestry as if its non-African, non-Black?
Fast forward to 2017, when these populations have been sampled and we know for a fact they are not fully SSA in ancestry. It takes his dumb ass 9 thread pages of running, ducking and hiding to admit Toubou are not fully SSA in ancestry.
quote:I never made the fcking caim that Toubou and Saharan peoples were fully SSA to begin with so get TF out of here beating on strawmen. You ignore alll the other quotes I posted and go back to one in 2014 where I never even made a claim about Toubou being fully SSA and then create a strawman
When he finally gathers enough courage to admit it, he can't even do so without trying to do some sort of halfway compromise, like it's some sort of negotiation. He has to play word games like he did earlier with the aforementioned "no SSA", "yes SSA" cat and mouse game.
quote:Toubou span from Niger to southern Libya Northern Chad and Northwest Sudan and also go by the name Teda. I knew beforehand they were not fully SSA as a group of former anthropologists thought of them as Negro looking with Berber bloog
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Note:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Toubou not being fully "SSA" is ancestry means exactly what? What are you trying to say? I never said Toubou are Elongated Africans, stupid. Stop with BS strawmen arguments, because I never ever said Toubou were fully SSA. You are going through setting up a bunch of strawmen to knock down. Are you saying that only populations that are fully SSA are the only real SSAs as they are somehow supposedly "True Negroes?" I only stated that like AEs, Toubous shared a common origin with some peoples in the Sahara since the Badarians themselves are said to have originated in the Sahara and migrated into Egypt from the southwest. If you don't fck out of here with your strawmen grasping ass.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lol. Charlie Bass running off to other threads to hide his phuckups and lie about what happened. As I predicted all along:
quote:Honest readers will remember that this started in 2014 when Bass used Toubou and other Sahelians not fully SSA in ancestry, as stand ins for populations that are fully SSA in ancestry. When I called out what he was doing, Charlie Bass revealed his fairy tale belief that Toubou only differed in phenotype because of adaptation in the Sahel, and denounced that they had any non-SSA ancestry
Originally posted by Swenet:
I know how you Afrocentrist are when you feel humiliated; you start holding a grudge and start lying and eventually you will start lying about why you are being mocked as well.
quote:For the last damn time idiot, stop creating strawmen arguments, I never said that Toubou were ever fully SSA is ancestry so why TF are you beating on strawmen arguments? Post a quote where I ever said anything about Toubou being fully SSA. If anything I said these people black people period. To be black does not mean one must have to be fully SSA. Why are you treating "North African" ancestry as if its non-African, non-Black?
Fast forward to 2017, when these populations have been sampled and we know for a fact they are not fully SSA in ancestry. It takes his dumb ass 9 thread pages of running, ducking and hiding to admit Toubou are not fully SSA in ancestry.
quote:I never made the fcking caim that Toubou and Saharan peoples were fully SSA to begin with so get TF out of here beating on strawmen. You ignore alll the other quotes I posted and go back to one in 2014 where I never even made a claim about Toubou being fully SSA and then create a strawman
When he finally gathers enough courage to admit it, he can't even do so without trying to do some sort of halfway compromise, like it's some sort of negotiation. He has to play word games like he did earlier with the aforementioned "no SSA", "yes SSA" cat and mouse game.
The Toubou span from of North the Sahara to South of the Sahara, into the Sahel.
quote:That is correct.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Toubou span from Niger to southern Libya Northern Chad and Northwest Sudan and also go by the name Teda. I knew beforehand they were not fully SSA as a group of former anthropologists thought of them as Negro looking with Berber bloog
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Note:
The Toubou span from of North the Sahara to South of the Sahara, into the Sahel.
quote:Probably because they closely interact with Berbers from the Fezzan.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
"Negro looking with Berber bloog".
quote:My response was that is that they should not be used as proxies for SSA samples, because:
Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
I like for you to tell me that if those samples were used in his 1993 study would AEs really be as distant from SSAs?
quote:Charlie's response, clearly indicating that he thinks Sahelians owe their intermediateness to climate and that it has nothing to do with their non-SSA component:
Originally posted by Swenet:
The Teda, Fulani, Somali, Naqada etc. are either not native SSA populations, or (as in the case of the Fulani and Teda) a sizeable chunk of their ancestry doesn't originate there.
quote:In 2016 a paper came proving my point that Charlie's Sahelians can't be used the way he used them, because they have the ancestry that people are attributing to Egyptians. How can you say Egyptians cluster with SSA groups, when the purported "SSA groups" are unique from other SSA samples in having the same ancestry that is in Egyptians? This is fallacious and stupid. When comparing representatives from two regions you're not supposed to have one representative that is mixed with the other region.
Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans? Man come on with that, you're losing credibility, bioanthropology is NOT a nasal science, those things are mostly influenced by climate, not geographic specific ancestry.
quote:Europeans are consistent. They consistently promote the idea that Eurasia is "special" in terms of human evolution. Originally they did it with physical anthropology and the definition of 'races', now they are doing it with genetics. The key here is they never label any of the genes associated with the first human populations in Eurasia as "African". This is a key point behind everything being discussed here. African populations 60,000 years ago "magically" mutate overnight and all their genes become Eurasian and then these Eurasians go on to populate the rest of the planet. Or the alternate theory is Africans cross the red sea or walk into the Levant and immediately have orgies with neanderthals producing a new species of humans that go on to populate the rest of the planet. Somehow or some way they have to make up some reason why these original populations of Africans who settled Eurasia can't be called African after leaving Africa. Yet the opposite is true in reverse. Eurasians are the reason for the features and diversity in Africans as a result of ancient back migrations thousands of years ago. It is absurd and hypocritical.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:I remember the claim to U6 goes back a long time, early 2000 and perhaps before that time.
Originally posted by Doug M:
So the study has not only made it possible to confirm the Eurasian origin of the U6 lineage but also to support the hypothesis that some populations embarked on a back-migration to Africa from Eurasia at the start of the Upper Palaeolithic, about 40-45,000 years ago. The Pestera Muierii individual represents one branch of this return journey to Africa of which there is no direct evidence owing to the lack of Palaeolithic fossil remains in the north of Africa..
It was "Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch (U6 and M1 mtDNA groups) spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe..." Maca-Meyer
et al; 2001
Which of course is funny, since euronuts claim that the first caucasian traits are recently in Africa.
Eurocentricks theories are shaky like a House of Cards.
Anyway:
quote:—Hervella et al. 2016
Introduction
After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation [Neandertals] to modern human [Homo sapiens] expansion on to the continent1"
[...]
The haplogroup of PM1 falls within the U clade [Fig. 1B and Supplementary Table 3], which derived from the macro-haplogroup N possibly connected to the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 [37–42 ky cal BP] also displays haplogroup N9.
quote:You didn't deny that the Toubou's craniofacial position is influenced by their North African ancestry? Please continue to lie and prove me right about your duplicitousness.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
This is what I said back in 2014 about about Toubou, about Toubou, where at any point did I say at any point that they are fully SSA?
quote:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans? Man come on with that, you're losing credibility, bioanthropology is NOT a nasal science, those things are mostly influenced by climate, not geographic specific ancestry.
quote:Academics get flak for not treating Ethiopians as geographically residing in Sub-Saharan Africa, but Afrocentrics get free reign to call geographically Saharan groups Sub-Saharan African. Somehow one is wrong, but the other is allowed. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. These are exactly the type of duplicitous word games I'm calling out. But when I call it out, the plasticity crew wants no accountability and denies this collective political agenda from which they make these biased statements.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans?
quote:There are NO pure SSAs to begin with,, and there definitely are NOT pure "North African" populations, so this obsession with purity is retarded. You sound like Racial Reality/Racial Myths from 12 years ago when he said Ancient Egyptians and Nubians should not be black because they are not "pure" SSA, its the same kind of ridiculous argument. Regardless of whatever ancestry they have their origins are from SSA, those Fulanis and Somalis, that they absorbed some mixture doesn't change this and in 2014 I was talking about craniometrics
Originally posted by Swenet:
This is the conversation from 2014 Charlie is lying about and trying to spin. Charlie said in reference to Sahelian samples with substantial non-SSA ancestry that they should be used proxies for SSA samples:
quote:My response was that is that they should not be used as proxies for SSA samples, because:
Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
I like for you to tell me that if those samples were used in his 1993 study would AEs really be as distant from SSAs?
quote:Charlie's response, clearly indicating that he thinks Sahelians owe their intermediateness to climate and that it has nothing to do with their non-SSA component:
Originally posted by Swenet:
The Teda, Fulani, Somali, Naqada etc. are either not native SSA populations, or (as in the case of the Fulani and Teda) a sizeable chunk of their ancestry doesn't originate there.
quote:In 2016 a paper came proving my point that Charlie's Sahelians can't be used the way he used them, because they have the ancestry that people are attributing to Egyptians. How can you say Egyptians cluster with SSA groups, when the purported "SSA groups" are unique from other SSA samples in having the same ancestry that is in Egyptians? This is fallacious and stupid. When comparing representatives from two regions you're not supposed to have one representative that is mixed with the other region.
Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans? Man come on with that, you're losing credibility, bioanthropology is NOT a nasal science, those things are mostly influenced by climate, not geographic specific ancestry.
Admit it. You just don't understand this (despite many explanations) because you're not fit to be having these discussions in the first place. You're simply incompetent and incredibly slow, just as your fellow turds. This is why you were duped for 14 years, spreading the lie that your "elongated Africans" are climate adapted groups and that it has nothing to do with "geographic specific" ancestry.
quote:Typical Egyptturd.com comeback. You can keep lying all you want. You know you blundered when you used 20-30% non-SSA Toubou as stand ins for Sub-Saharan Africans and then turned around and said geographic ancestry has nothing to do with how they cluster.
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
There are NO pure SSAs to begin with,, and there definitely are NOT pure "North African" populations, so this obsession with purity is retarded.
quote:Stop lying to yourself. The Somali paternal line is almost entirely non-SSA. Of course this influences their "craniometrics".
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Somalis, that they absorbed some mixture doesn't change this
quote:http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n7/full/5201390a.html
The data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population – closely related to the Oromos in Ethiopia and North Kenya – with predominant E3b1 cluster italic gamma lineages that were introduced into the Somali population 4000–5000 years ago, and that the Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:—Becker 2011
The morphology of some Tubu Crania was fully biologically sub-Saharan. Others displayed
combinations of biologically sub-Saharan and North African expressions of the scored traits. The
Kanembu and Kanuri specimens were characterised by a similar degree of variability. The presence of
individuals with more or less pronounced biologically sub-Saharan or North African morphological
characteristics in these prehistoric and modern comparative samples was assumed to simply reflect
the composition of the populations they were drawn from. The Tubu, for instance, can be described as
a predominantly biologically sub-Saharan population with varying amounts of biologically North African
admixture (see I.D.2.d. and for example: Charpin 1961; Fuchs 1961, 1978; Hassanein Bey 1924;
Nachtigal 1879: 420-464; Peel 1942; Thesiger 1939). Consequently, that the Tubu Crania were
morphologically quite varied was not at all unexpected. The same was true for the inspected
Kanembu, Kanuri and A-Group specimens (see I.D.1.a.3. and I.D.2.d.).
quote:Too bad for you I'm not one of your friends on Zetaboards who buys into your bs.
The same was true for the inspected
Kanembu, Kanuri and A-Group specimens.
quote:Elongated African traits, if they are talking abut those traits, are just as sub-Saharan, but when they say sub-Saharan in most studies they mean stereotypically Broad trend Africans. Rightmire ran into this problem East African crania.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lol. I'm going to let people decide for themselves whether you're lying and simply don't want accountability for your political agenda. No need for me to keep pointing out the sneaky games you play whenever you try to disown your previous comments. Of course you're going to deny, disown, and flip flop; you realize how profoundly stupid your attempts were to use non-representative samples as stand ins. No doubt you will try it again when you think no one is looking.
But make no mistake about it. We know why you insisted on using the Toubou sample as a stand in. You are very calculated and deliberate with your duplicitous games. The North African ancestry Toubou have is influencing their craniofacial position, which you thought made them an excellent pawn in your word games.
quote:—Becker 2011
The morphology of some Tubu Crania was fully biologically sub-Saharan. Others displayed
combinations of biologically sub-Saharan and North African expressions of the scored traits. The
Kanembu and Kanuri specimens were characterised by a similar degree of variability. The presence of
individuals with more or less pronounced biologically sub-Saharan or North African morphological
characteristics in these prehistoric and modern comparative samples was assumed to simply reflect
the composition of the populations they were drawn from. The Tubu, for instance, can be described as
a predominantly biologically sub-Saharan population with varying amounts of biologically North African
admixture (see I.D.2.d. and for example: Charpin 1961; Fuchs 1961, 1978; Hassanein Bey 1924;
Nachtigal 1879: 420-464; Peel 1942; Thesiger 1939). Consequently, that the Tubu Crania were
morphologically quite varied was not at all unexpected. The same was true for the inspected
Kanembu, Kanuri and A-Group specimens (see I.D.1.a.3. and I.D.2.d.).
Too bad for you I'm not one of your friends on Zetaboards who buys into your bs.
quote:1 - That is why i spend 88% of my research time OUTSIDE of ES. This discussion, regarding the maternal diversity and autosomal Affinity of the 90 Mummies is not a phenotype discussion.....its quite obvious the mummy they showed was nearly pitch black. Fools following Cass turned it into one. Peopel posting pictures turned it into one. Right now in my research I am not worried about the way certain Africans LOOK.....those are Minnows...I'm hungry....bigger fish.....frying pan.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
"-" :Originally posted by beyoku:
"@Elmaestro. Phenotypes are crocks of shiit. I am talking about the movements of groups of people across the continent and their genetic associations. I don't really care what they looked like nor how dark they were. All that talk leads to people chasing Cass and skin color plates from 100 years ago when we have bigger fish to fry. Why while I worry about that nonsense when I have 90 mummies?"
-Wym? 88% of the posts in this thread are about phenotype. Elongated Africans and whatever... Folks are Equating variable phenotype (observed by physical Anthropologists) to Genetic components here, where have you been?
"In reference to Cushitic speakers. The main lineages associated with their language come in the form of M78 and 1515. M78 is North African. V1515 derived lineages are found in Egypt but the consensus is that it's probably Eritrean, Sudanese or Egyptian. Cushitic language show a north-south distribution with the oldest ones in North Africa (Egypt)."
-How does this explain the young age of OOA-like or N.African (post bottleneck) recombination in cushitic speakers?
"If it's OOA, it's not Gate or tears OOA.....it's Sinai OOA. backmigrating from North Africa."
-Possibly with the Neolithic expansion southwards explained by Laz 2016 right?
"When you take that quote from Pagani et al about Egyptian and Ethiopian African specific ancestries.........how are people expecting such ancestry to look TODAY if a population was homogenous with it? "
-Ok, we're back to phenotype,
...I'll give a simple answer, but you will know what I mean according to Laz, Kilinc, & R-Florez: ..Bedouins
"Don't know what is True Negro about anything I said but I stand by it."
-And I don't even know what you're TRULY trying to say but as far as THIS discussion in THIS thread is concerned you have been cosigning the narrative that any OOA population that fall in the range of "Elongated" have recent OOA admixture. The thing is, IDK if the Bambara, or Kaba are truly considered elongated African, but most of the Africans that fall into this criteria have 1 thing in common and it isn't the source population for their Admixture, It's the fact that they HAVE admixture. ...so what does that leave us in the absence of post-Bottleneck recombination? "Regular Bantus"? monomorphic YRI like Africans? And it's even more fuckd up once you realize that Most of the Africans, our non-Admixed PN2 folks for example, are not descendant from Mbuti or San. What is truly being said here.
I made a list of things I learned here as a Joke but I was hoping it wouldn't fly over heads like it did.
quote:I'm trying to understand this because I keep reading that the Dinka are the least "admixed" Africans.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Nah they aren't, they look too much like n!ggers to have any admixture ....Uniparentals selectively have meaning, right now we elect that they mean nothing.
quote:Sometimes folks are talking about body types. Sometimes they are talking about cranial features. Sometimes both.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:I'm trying to understand this because I keep reading that the Dinka are the least "admixed" Africans.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Nah they aren't, they look too much like n!ggers to have any admixture ....Uniparentals selectively have meaning, right now we elect that they mean nothing.
quote:Yeps. Many do As do Cushitic languages. ES posters know that These lineages back migrated from Egypt. BUT some ES posters are mad at me when I say certain people carrying these lineages have North African Ancestry. GO figure.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Beyoku
I mean it really shouldn't be a problem to certain people. Now I remember! Don't most of Horners paternal clades come from the area of Egypt??? Especially E-v32???
quote:It is good to see someone who has opened their eyes to reality.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Europeans are consistent. They consistently promote the idea that Eurasia is "special" in terms of human evolution. Originally they did it with physical anthropology and the definition of 'races', now they are doing it with genetics. The key here is they never label any of the genes associated with the first human populations in Eurasia as "African". This is a key point behind everything being discussed here. African populations 60,000 years ago "magically" mutate overnight and all their genes become Eurasian and then these Eurasians go on to populate the rest of the planet. Or the alternate theory is Africans cross the red sea or walk into the Levant and immediately have orgies with neanderthals producing a new species of humans that go on to populate the rest of the planet. Somehow or some way they have to make up some reason why these original populations of Africans who settled Eurasia can't be called African after leaving Africa. Yet the opposite is true in reverse. Eurasians are the reason for the features and diversity in Africans as a result of ancient back migrations thousands of years ago. It is absurd and hypocritical.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:I remember the claim to U6 goes back a long time, early 2000 and perhaps before that time.
Originally posted by Doug M:
So the study has not only made it possible to confirm the Eurasian origin of the U6 lineage but also to support the hypothesis that some populations embarked on a back-migration to Africa from Eurasia at the start of the Upper Palaeolithic, about 40-45,000 years ago. The Pestera Muierii individual represents one branch of this return journey to Africa of which there is no direct evidence owing to the lack of Palaeolithic fossil remains in the north of Africa..
It was "Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch (U6 and M1 mtDNA groups) spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe..." Maca-Meyer
et al; 2001
Which of course is funny, since euronuts claim that the first caucasian traits are recently in Africa.
Eurocentricks theories are shaky like a House of Cards.
Anyway:
quote:—Hervella et al. 2016
Introduction
After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation [Neandertals] to modern human [Homo sapiens] expansion on to the continent1"
[...]
The haplogroup of PM1 falls within the U clade [Fig. 1B and Supplementary Table 3], which derived from the macro-haplogroup N possibly connected to the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 [37–42 ky cal BP] also displays haplogroup N9.
EEF and Basal Eurasian are simply the latest example of the same old game they have been playing for a long time. The difference here is that instead of using MTDNA lineages and haplogroups as markers, they use alleles and very cumbersome algorithms and theorized population constructs to extract out relationships over thousands of years in order remove the key bits of data that would usually indicate African affinity among these populations.
But why are they doing this now? If they have the ability to extract the DNA of ancient remains going back 30,000 or 40,000 years, then why are they making up these convoluted algorithms rather than simply providing the raw MTDNA and Haplogroup Data? So they can hide the African genetic relationships in Eurasia. They are basically trying to maintain this charade that all these genetic lineages arose in Eurasia and hence are not African. And this is why they are selectively sampling certain mummies and certain remains instead of comprehensively sampling ALL ancient remains to get a more accurate picture. Having that data is far better and more accurate than these hypothetical models and formulas. But that runs the risk of exposing their fraudulent methodologies so they wont do it. Hint: they wont find any mixed Neanderthal/human populations and as far as I know none have yet been found.
And as far as North Africa vs SSA goes, unless North Africans originated outside Africa, then they ultimately came from SSA, which makes the argument stupid to begin with and goes back to the point I made earlier. If humans first emerged in Kenya and points South then all African diversity originates in SSA. Which means singling out SSA from the rest of Africa is stupid. But of course the only reason this debate is going on is because some folks see North Africa as being a proxy for Eurasian back flow and therefore not really African. Because if it was simply African there is no point debating SSA vs North Africa.
Still waiting for the "elongated Eurasians" that gave Africans elongated features.
quote:Stupid Euroloon, you don't know what you're talking about.
Originally posted by capra:
They didn't list the Iberian sample as V88 because they hadn't found out it was V88 at that time. The Samara sample isn't V88 at all.
You are just plain full of ****, Clyde.
quote:Haak et al (2015) had only two samples from Samara and Spain, i.e., named R1b1. The R1b1 samples can be the only representation of V88 from Samara and Spain, cited by Kivisild (2017)
Haak et al (2017) Table S4.2: Y-Haplogroup assignments for 34 ancient European males. See : http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf
- I0124 0.96 R1b1 Samara_HG
I0410 3.29 R1b1 Spain_EN
quote:YOU say the issue is not Cass, but that is what I address firstly,
Originally posted by beyoku:
Nope buddy, we have you on RECORD. First and foremost The issue a hand is NOT CASS. The issue at hand is 90 mummies of which only 2 have mtdna L. Mtdna L is at much greater frequency NOW in northern Egypt than it was in these mummies. The issue at hand is figuring out WHY the Sub Saharan autosomal ancestry and maternal ancestry has increased since dynastic times when much of this increase seems unrelated to Slavery. This is directly at odds with a basic Afrocentric narrative That we ALL followed and that many follow today basically theorizing that Equatorial ancestry should only increase the further we go back in time REGARDLESS of region in Egypt.
Everyone of those image spams argues a basic narrative that Egypt became MORE Eurasian over time. [/b]
There is nothing wrong with this chart. There is Nothing wrong with this narrative regarding mtdna.
quote:What terms don't I know what they mean?
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ Doug simply does know what those terms actually mean because he hasn't properly digested the publications in question. (Intellectually Lazy)
Just as you are confused by the ISOGG R1b nomenclature and why it changed at what it means.
You don't know why E3b "Changed" to E1b1b1 which is also goes by the SNP name "E-M35" and is currently called E2a'd.(Intellectual Incompetence)
Nah' It's all one big Eurocentric conspiracy + Beyoku and Swenet are Racist sellouts.
quote:Some of this raises questions based on your own previous narrative.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Plenty of cowards right now throwing dirt on folks names and calling folks TO ES as like its a "battle Ground" challenging some to say HERE something like what I just wrote above a la "You wont go on ES and say that because"...
This is whats going on, this is a taste of the background. Some of these arguments right now are just bordering on being anti-intellectual.
quote:.
Originally posted by capra:
@Clyde
No, O delusional one, Kivisild didn't say Samara was V88. He said V88 has distant relatives in ancient DNA from Europe. Note how in Fig 7 those lineages are shown on the same phylogenetic level as P297 and V88, *not* as part of the V88 branch.
But as with everything else, you'll just keep repeating that it means what you want it to mean, not what it says.
Because you are full of ****. I guess you can fool yourself, but it's pretty hilarious that you think you can fool anyone else.
quote:Haak et al (2015) had only two samples from Samara and Spain, i.e., named R1b1. The R1b1 samples can be the only representation of V88 from Samara and Spain, cited by Kivisild (2017)
Haak et al (2017) Table S4.2: Y-Haplogroup assignments for 34 ancient European males. See : http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf
- I0124 0.96 R1b1 Samara_HG
I0410 3.29 R1b1 Spain_EN
quote:Either they are black folks just sucking up to whites to get a pat on the head or they are simply white folks pretending to be black just like Ausar.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Some of this raises questions based on your own previous narrative.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Plenty of cowards right now throwing dirt on folks names and calling folks TO ES as like its a "battle Ground" challenging some to say HERE something like what I just wrote above a la "You wont go on ES and say that because"...
This is whats going on, this is a taste of the background. Some of these arguments right now are just bordering on being anti-intellectual.
Who is throwing this dirt and where? Anthroscape?
ForBiodiversity? Where? What is strange is why they would be
throwing dirt, since you and others are careful to "disavow" ES in these
other places. This is certainly your prerogative,
but are you saying that ES is "hurting" your own
personal brand or image among the white people in these places?
Kind of those negroes embarrassing you in front of de white folk?
But if you have already disavowed them, and have been posting heavy
levels of content and time on their forums for years that
you would not bother to post on ES, ES should not matter at all to you.
Which is why as I asked before how come you are still here?
And certainly in this business you always have to fend off extreme
types and claims- its par for the course.
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Clyde, you just posted Figure 7, which shows exactly what I said. Do you need help with learning how to read a phylogenetic tree? It's something you should have learned before spouting off about genetics but better late than never.
quote:Haak et al (2015) had only two samples from Samara and Spain, i.e., named R1b1. The R1b1 samples can be the only representation of V88 from Samara and Spain, cited by Kivisild (2017)
Haak et al (2017) Table S4.2: Y-Haplogroup assignments for 34 ancient European males. See : http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf
- I0124 0.96 R1b1 Samara_HG
I0410 3.29 R1b1 Spain_EN
quote:Unlike how they are trying to misrepresent ES and its members,
Originally posted by Doug M:
Either they are black folks just sucking up to whites to get a pat on the head or they are simply white folks pretending to be black just like Ausar.
They have finally fried a circuit trying to keep the charade going and are now barfing stupidity all over the forum.
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
P297 isn't V88, man. Holy crap.
M269 is a subclade of P297. That on the map will be M269. It can be native African M269 originated with magical Khoisan if you like, baby steps now, but P297 is not V88.
quote:.
Haak et al (2017) Table S4.2: Y-Haplogroup assignments for 34 ancient European males. See : http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf
- I0124 0.96 R1b1 Samara_HG
I0410 3.29 R1b1 Spain_EN
quote:The Eurocentrics aren't dumb. They know their game is garbage but they are consistent with the garbage.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Unlike how they are trying to misrepresent ES and its members,
Originally posted by Doug M:
Either they are black folks just sucking up to whites to get a pat on the head or they are simply white folks pretending to be black just like Ausar.
They have finally fried a circuit trying to keep the charade going and are now barfing stupidity all over the forum.
I never denied that they have done some good work in countering
some Eurocentrics and have said that on ES, and even took Amun-Ra to
task for making extreme accusations. But now, one has to wonder.
Maybe like you say, setting up "Afrocentric" monolith and
then "refuting" it, gets a pat on the back from de white folk.
Still this does not require wholesale misrepresentation
of the forum and members, and in some respects, seems to play
into the hands of hostile Eurocentrics, who engage in some of the
same cynical tactics.
quote:http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/09-archaeologists-find-earliest-evidence-of-humans-cooking-with-fire
Archaeologists Find Earliest Evidence of Humans Cooking With Fire
A cave in South Africa may be the site of the world's oldest barbecue — and a clue to early humans' development.
At the base of a brush-covered hill in South Africa’s Northern Cape province, a massive stone outcropping marks the entrance to one of humanity’s oldest known dwelling places. Humans and our apelike ancestors have lived in Wonderwerk Cave for 2 million years — most recently in the early 1900s, when a farm couple and their 14 children called it home. Wonderwerk holds another distinction as well: The cave contains the earliest solid evidence that our ancient human forebears (probably Homo erectus) were using fire.
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
You don't have to repost everything every time you reply, Clyde.
"Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 subclade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7)."
Right. So... in the English language, Clyde, are the "distant relatives" of a group members of the group itself?
For instance, if "the British royal family are distant relatives of the Romanovs", does this mean the British royal family are the czars of Russia? If "snails and slugs are distant relatives of the octopus", are gastropods classified as cephalopods? Are members of R1b-M343 which aren't V88 not distant relatives of V88?
Since Kivisild does not say that any of the samples were V88, nor does the tree show that they are V88, where did you get the information that any of them was V88?
quote:.
Haak et al (2017) Table S4.2: Y-Haplogroup assignments for 34 ancient European males. See : http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf
- I0124 0.96 R1b1 Samara_HG
I0410 3.29 R1b1 Spain_EN
quote:Admittedly this is somehow a bit confusing from a geographical point of view. In terms of sub Sahara vs East Africa. They do not consider Somali sub Sahara African (in this paper), but rather an East African population.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n7/full/5201390a.html .
The data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population – closely related to the Oromos in Ethiopia and North Kenya – with predominant E3b1 cluster italic gamma lineages that were introduced into the Somali population 4000–5000 years ago, and that the Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:
The Y chromosome haplogroup E3a is found at high frequencies in the sub-Saharan, Bantu-speaking populations but at low frequencies in East Africa,
quote:
The network of the E3b1 lineages in the present Somali population sample (Figure 3a) displayed star-like features and we observed a low Y STR haplotype diversity and a very limited spread in the sizes of the STR alleles (Table 3), suggesting a coherent, common, recent ancestry. The network of the E3b1 lineages of previously published data of East African populations and our data (Figure 3b) demonstrate that the E3b1 cluster italic gamma lineages of the present Somali population sample are part of the East African E3b1 lineages.
quote:Also Hg K2 seems to have a relation with Aboriginal Australians., which they suggest has a back migration into Africa. But why do the Cameroonian score the highest ? How did it get back into Africa, while scoring low in surrounding places.
Cruciani et al10 suggested that the E3b1 cluster italic gamma lineages originated in East Africa and estimated that the TMRCA was approximately 9600 years.
We estimated that the E3b1 cluster italic gamma DYS392-12 lineages of the present Somali population sample originated 4000–5000 years ago, and that the expansion of the E3b1 cluster italic gamma DYS392-12 lineages in these Somalis involved a relatively small number of Y chromosomes (around 1000 males).
quote:Lastly, the Somali with admixture will claim to have lineage from Yemeni. As Beyoku mentioned before. "Ethiopians" and and Yemen bidirectional history. This goes for most of the Horn including Southwest Saudi Arabia and Oman.
The haplogroup K2 was found in 10.4% of Somali males. Haplogroup K2 was suggested to have arisen in Eurasia.4, 9 K2 has a patchy distribution in Cameroon (18.0%), Egypt (8.2%), Ethiopia (4.8%), Tanzania (3.8%) and Morocco (3.6%), probably due to back migration.3, 7, 8, 9 Luis et al9 estimated an expansion time of 13.7–17.5 ky for the K2 lineages in Egypt. The BATWING expansion time estimated for K2 in our Somali population (3.3 ky) is consistent with an African southward dissemination of the K2 haplogroup.
quote:I have heard this often how they change the name of the suggested genes. But thanks for explaining.
Originally posted by capra:
That Somali K2 is currently called T1a-M70; the Australian K2 is K2-M526, something completely different. When reading old papers you have to translate the haplogroup names.
The 18% T1a in Cameroon is from a small sample of Fulbe (n=17). It's not typical of either Fulbe or Cameroonians, most samples have little to none of it. There's a smattering in different Sahara-Sahel groups: some Kanuri, some Fulbe, some Chadic people, Baggara; Toubou from recent Chad paper had tons, 30%.
quote:What you are saying is convoluted and makes no sense. First, all humans originated in areas South of the modern day Sahara long before such a thing as the Sahara existed. You keep trying to treat this concept of SSA as a fixed monolithic quantity across time and space that doesn't exist. SSA is irrelevant in Africa 200,000 years ago because no other humans existed in Africa 200,000 years ago. By the time of OOA, there were many other populations all over Africa that had moved around, likely multiple times since then. Therefore, only those populations involved in the OOA migration would be related closely to those downstream populations who left.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
@Beyoku
Ok cool, but It seems as if you underestimate the great bottleneck and it's Effect on SSA affinity, What you said in terms of African geneflow Outside of the continent about migratory direction (via natufian Uniparentals) can be, or might be correct, but whatever the explanation, it doesn't matter, the drop in SSA affinity is a result of post OOA migration African recombination (followed by a possible African selection event etc.). These populations were Isolated from the source populations for 1000's of years, possibly/most likely OOA. To a contemporary Geneticist or observer, that's all the reason to consider a population Eurasian. Almost everyone has North Africans represented as Eurasians who reentered the continent, the only saving grace are the west North African groups who could have probably inhabited Oases and the scrub-like landmass above the Sahara pre-holocene, but the coalescent age of the E1b1b group wide spread in that region suggests possible early Backmigration or geneflow from the east-(levant?)... And don't get me started on the MtDna, thank god for Berber Languages only being found on the continent but linguistics is another story.
Admittedly Basal Eurasian, like Cass says may very well be Arabian, also, according to Anthropological sites and dating, the nile region have been inhabited for over 10Kya. So where is the post OOA-Eurasian Affinity dating before that in Eastern & Saharan Africa, in the time period AFTER the Natufian Exit but BEFORE the Northward Nile valley expansion (into the delta etc.)? We HAVE Eurasian-like geneflow detected in west-central African populations Dating to Around >9Kya, (and maybe even beyond) this shows there has been North African Activity in the west, but, what about the east? (If you find that source with a more Ancient Cushitic Admixture date can you run that by me?)
It seems obvious to me that Natufians branched of from an OOA ancestral population to both them and westward North Africans. but reentered the continent much much later or not at all, along with similar ME groups. There seems to be multiple waves of migration (possibly bidirectional) into the continent, I never argued against that, infact I littered recent threads with these Ideas... but the source population varies. I am pretty sure that the East African source population for Admixture comes from the ME. I'm sorry, but I see no other way around it right now and these 90 mummies lock that **** down for me. They leave no room for a lingering North East African Indigenous component. If they are indicative of the Egyptian population, then Km.t was a levantine-Near East transplant +/- some neighboring NorthWest African Admixture DOCUMENTED IN THAT REGION. All the years of research and Info gathering from YOU GUYS, and those before you goes against that. So I'm holding out.
There's a reason why I was the only one who was able to guess almost to a tee what these Abusir mummies would look like before they dropped, there's a reason why I kept stressing a clarified consensus on a genetic placeholder for "SSAness." -Non Admixed East African are technically more "SSA than Any non HG African group including YRI, its just that East Africans hold a basal position to Eurasian populations.
^So Imagine a world were possibly un-admixed East Africans travel northward to later mix with North Africans from the Western desert, then Eastern Levantine inhabitants even later but be defined as North African or EEF which are subsequently defined as Eurasian, the latter moreso... That's like a slap to the face.
I appreciate the response though, thanks for clearing up your position. People read your post's and make up a position based on what they *think* you are saying. from the little interactions I had w/ you I knew where you are coming from, others kinda don't, even if they appear to agree w/ you on the spot. They'll eventually push a narrative that is either contradictory or straight up wrong/harmful. It's seen when they paraphrase you and "other" posters. I told you before, that the faction like mentality on ES is more harmful then any "Afrolunacy" or Eurocentricity... We came to a point where we have blacks/Africans arguing that variation in Africans comes solely from Eurasian Admixture, you might not have been saying that but that WAS the central theme in this thread.
quote:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160218195657.htm
Characterizing genetic diversity in Africa is a crucial step for most analyses reconstructing the evolutionary history of anatomically modern humans. However, historic migrations from Eurasia into Africa have affected many contemporary populations, confounding inferences. Here, we present a 12.5× coverage ancient genome of an Ethiopian male ("Mota") who lived approximately 4,500 years ago. We use this genome to demonstrate that the Eurasian backflow into Africa came from a population closely related to Early Neolithic farmers, who had colonized Europe 4,000 years earlier.
quote:Is Egypt in "North Africa." If populations carry this ancestry migration below the Sahara would that leave some popualtions as a mix of SSA and NA Ancestry?
West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
quote:The problem is that there are no non-African genes, As a result, if researchers write a program that name African mtDNA genes as solely haplogroups L, and maybe M1, and African Y-Chromosomes as haplogroups A,B and E, there will always appear mtDNA L3(M,N) and Y-Chromosomes R,I,G and J found among the subjects of any study. These so-called Eurasian haplogroups will appear because, they had already existed in Africa before the various OOA events. This would explain why we see the ancient Khoisan who introduced the Aurignacian and Solutrean cultures carrying haplogroups mtDNA M,N, and U and Y-Chrmosome R into Europe between 44-20kya; and the reentry of Y-Chromosome R with the Kushites, who introduced the Bell Beaker via Morocco to Iberia and, the Yamnaya migration from the Levant, into the Steppe and thence across Europe.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Hypocrisy and double standards.
It is odd that they find an ancient Ethiopian and get a full DNA set, but instead of showing how that Ethiopian has genes that are partly ancestral to all other modern humans, they propose the opposite. And doesn't it just seem a bit too convenient to say that out of all the populations in Africa, the one most ancestral to all other humans is the only one most affected by back migration? I mean why didn't these Eurasians back migrate into other parts of Africa and affect them? It just sounds too good to be true that the downstream children of the parent magically come back later and "magically" erase all the parents genes with their own. What on earth are the odds of that happening? But people still believe this garbage. And this is where understanding where certain DNA lineage splits arose come into play.
quote:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160218195657.htm
Characterizing genetic diversity in Africa is a crucial step for most analyses reconstructing the evolutionary history of anatomically modern humans. However, historic migrations from Eurasia into Africa have affected many contemporary populations, confounding inferences. Here, we present a 12.5× coverage ancient genome of an Ethiopian male ("Mota") who lived approximately 4,500 years ago. We use this genome to demonstrate that the Eurasian backflow into Africa came from a population closely related to Early Neolithic farmers, who had colonized Europe 4,000 years earlier.
Like I keep saying, if folks REALLY want to understand the history of population evolution in Africa they need to do like Lazaridis did and filter out all non African DNA and focus on finding the "basal African" gene and all the "basal Splits" that occurred in Africa.
But they wont do that and by now we should know why. Out of all the places on earth, the population history of Africa is the least understood but whenever they claim to want to unravel it, they come up with "ancient Eurasians" as the explanation for everything..... Seriously?
quote:They are calling it Eurasian based on what they assume about geographic populations and NOT based on some Isolated ROOT population on that PCA. IN the Above PCA "Basal Eurasian" would be on the African cline, "Natufian" would be on the African Cline.....and definitely Any Egyptian population that contributed to Natufian. As for a lingering NE African component, we could find it but we likely need Ancient DNA that will split a population multiple ways in the way it did for Europeans removing their genetically "Homogeneous" status.....NO instead they are a combination of 3-4 different groups. BE was conceptualized a long time ago. Who was thinking of something like ANE though that links far spread Native Americans with Old World populations?....Only Ancient DNA brought that out.
an extremely narrow definition based on genetic diversity were "Eurasians" start NOT at a geographical point but instead a figurative genetic cornerstone (All the way at the bottom.)
Yes in this narrow definition the diagonal line from Khoisan all the way to the bottom would represent African diversity with genetic "Eurasians" starting at Sardinians and ancient farmer samples.
While its funny, I am not quite ready to say that, instead i think and old enough sample from Egypt would show something different....somewhat how the Natufian was modeled as part North West Africa in Oracle. Egyptology just doesnt support mass migration in antiquity. We have to account for African substructure. The ancient DNA from Kenya and Sudan may help a lot with it.
They fine with a E1b1a prediction of Ramesess III from an online calculator but have beef with an E-V22 prediction from a different online calculator. ITs really bad on facebook, you will have clowns arguing that the plants and animals that came into Egypt form the East...that whole Neolithic package are not Native to West Asia. quote:Seriously... no they don't. Do you even read frigging papers about African population history? Do you even *care* about it? Because all I see from you is obsessing about labels.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Out of all the places on earth, the population history of Africa is the least understood but whenever they claim to want to unravel it, they come up with "ancient Eurasians" as the explanation for everything..... Seriously?
quote:Doug M has an unhealthy obsession with white people aka "They". If a study comes out he doesn't read it, He just complains about White people and what they have done to erase/reduce African affinities in whatever population is being studied. Look at nearly every one of his posts, they all show an obsession with white people, white racism, white folks interpretation of science etc.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Seriously... no they don't. Do you even read frigging papers about African population history? Do you even *care* about it? Because all I see from you is obsessing about labels.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Out of all the places on earth, the population history of Africa is the least understood but whenever they claim to want to unravel it, they come up with "ancient Eurasians" as the explanation for everything..... Seriously?
Hey man, they can't just waltz in, get permission to destructively test precious ancient remains, then recover DNA that's been sitting in a hot climate for tens of thousands of years just because they want to! They would *love* to be able to do that.
quote:Yet you're in the same boat as him with your OOA dogma. I saw you on Eurogenes blog; some posters there criticize OOA in the comments. You, or Davidski never respond or rebut the criticisms, but just throw ad hominem.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Seriously... no they don't. Do you even read frigging papers about African population history? Do you even *care* about it? Because all I see from you is obsessing about labels.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Out of all the places on earth, the population history of Africa is the least understood but whenever they claim to want to unravel it, they come up with "ancient Eurasians" as the explanation for everything..... Seriously?
Hey man, they can't just waltz in, get permission to destructively test precious ancient remains, then recover DNA that's been sitting in a hot climate for tens of thousands of years just because they want to! They would *love* to be able to do that.
quote:http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/some-strange-stuff-at-biorxiv-lately.html
The Chinese team doesn't share this strange Western fascination with Africa. They like China.
quote:
The professor proceeded to discuss the Black Lives Matter movement and how it had come about before stating that all living being descended from east Africa.
quote:Do you even know anything about genetics, Cass? Do you have the faintest idea of the methodology that Chinese paper used? Or are you the same as Clyde Winters, assuming everything is political, so you can pick and choose your evidence based on how you feel about the conclusions, without any pesky business of learning about the subject matter?
Originally posted by Cass/:
Yet you're in the same boat as him with your OOA dogma. I saw you on Eurogenes blog; some posters there criticize OOA in the comments. You, or Davidski never respond or rebut the criticisms, but just throw ad hominem.
quote:Well Karafet changed K2 to T in 2008, and everyone went along with her, but she didn't explain why. I guess she just figured all the K names were getting confusing and we should use some of the leftover letters.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
So why did they change it into T1a, T1a-M70 and K2-M526? It's a serious question.
quote:No. I work with skulls/fossils. Isn't autosomal ancient DNA extraction limited to a certain time period? I mean where is the autosomal DNA for "AMH" 100,000 years ago? Obviously though ancient DNA will settle things for stuff like ancient Egypt, but this is a far more recent in time. How is ancient DNA going to help the human origins debate when there is none? We have to work with fossils.
Originally posted by capra:
Do you even know anything about genetics, Cass?
quote:My point is these human origins models are heavily politicalized. In Europe and America, Multiregionalism only has a handful of scientists supporting it, but in China - its the consensus and mainstream model.
Do you have the faintest idea of the methodology that Chinese paper used? Or are you the same as Clyde Winters, assuming everything is political, so you can pick and choose your evidence based on how you feel about the conclusions, without any pesky business of learning about the subject matter?
quote:You gave the perfect example of the eurocentrick dogma when it doesn't suite euroloons. Thanks for posting this.
Originally posted by Cass/:
White students walk out of class when teacher tells them we’re all from Africa
http://rollingout.com/2016/10/19/white-students-walk-class-teacher-tells-africa/
One would have to ask what on earth "black lives matter" (a political movement) has to do with science? But precisely. The OOA theory of human origins is heavily rooted in non-scientific thinking; these liberals basically think if you teach kids "we're all from Africa" everyone will be holding hands and anti-racist.
quote:
The professor proceeded to discuss the Black Lives Matter movement and how it had come about before stating that all living being descended from east Africa.
quote:Blah blah blah….
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:No. I work with skulls/fossils. Isn't autosomal ancient DNA extraction limited to a certain time period? I mean where is the autosomal DNA for "AMH" 100,000 years ago? Obviously though ancient DNA will settle things for stuff like ancient Egypt, but this is a far more recent in time. How is ancient DNA going to help the human origins debate when there is none? We have to work with fossils.
Originally posted by capra:
Do you even know anything about genetics, Cass?
quote:My point is these human origins models are heavily politicalized. In Europe and America, Multiregionalism only has a handful of scientists supporting it, but in China - its the consensus and mainstream model.
Do you have the faintest idea of the methodology that Chinese paper used? Or are you the same as Clyde Winters, assuming everything is political, so you can pick and choose your evidence based on how you feel about the conclusions, without any pesky business of learning about the subject matter?
quote:—Author(s): Rachel Sarig ; Ofer Marder ; Omry Barzilai ; Bruce Latimer ; Israel Hershkovitz
The study on the partial calvarium discovered at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel (dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 kyr BP, Hershkovitz et al. 2015), revealed close morphological affinity with recent African skulls as well as with early Upper Paleolithic European skulls, but less so with earlier anatomically modern humans from the Levant (e.g., Skhul). The ongoing fieldwork at the Manot Cave has resulted in the discovery of several new hominin teeth. These include a lower incisor (I1), a right lower first deciduous molar (dm1), a left upper first deciduous molar (dm1) and an upper second molar (M2) all from area C (>32 kyr) and a right upper second molar (M2) from area E (>36 kyr). The current study presents metric and morphological data on the new Manot Cave teeth. These new data combined with our already existing knowledge on the Manot skull may provide an important insight on the Upper Paleolithic population of the Levant, its origin and dietary habits.
quote:Thanks, this explains a lot, "but she didn't explain why". And yeah, I did look up ISOGG.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Well Karafet changed K2 to T in 2008, and everyone went along with her, but she didn't explain why. I guess she just figured all the K names were getting confusing and we should use some of the leftover letters.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
So why did they change it into T1a, T1a-M70 and K2-M526? It's a serious question.
When they found that some men had the M184 and L206 mutations but not the M70 mutation - previously all of these were considered equivalent markers for haplogroup T - that showed that M70 marked a subclade of T, so they renamed it T1-M70, a branch of T-M184. Later they found that some men had M184 but not L206, so they made a new level, T1-L206, and demoted M70 to T1a. (You can look at the ISOGG trees for previous years and see the changes from year to year.)
When they found that L and T were on one branch of K (sharing the mutation P326) and that M, N, O, P, and S were on another (sharing M526), these branches were named K1 and K2.
This is the main reason the nomenclature changes, they keep finding new levels of branching in the tree (this is why R1b1a changed to R1b1a2, they found the L754 level). Sometimes though people just propose changes because they think it's clearer, and it may catch on or it may not. There's no fixed standard that everyone adheres to, usually people go by ISOGG but there is also a different one introduced by Karmin et al that some people are using.
This is why it is always good to include the mutation name, say K2-M70 instead of just K2, because if you say K2 what did you mean? And even using the latest terms when someone comes back and reads it again in five years it'll probably have changed again.
quote:--Brenna Henn Published: January 12, 2012DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002397:
"however, the time and the extent of genetic divergence between populations north and south of the Sahara remain poorly understood"
quote:--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
Human genetic variation particularly in Africa is still poorly understood. This is despite a consensus on the large African effective population size compared to populations from other continents. Based on sequencing of the mitochondrial Cytochrome C Oxidase subunit II (MT-CO2), and genome wide microsatellite data we observe evidence suggesting the effective size (Ne) of humans to be larger than the current estimates, with a foci of increased genetic diversity in east Africa, and a population size of east Africans being at least 2-6 fold larger than other populations. Both phylogenetic and network analysis indicate that east Africans possess more ancestral lineages in comparison to various continental populations placing them at the root of the human evolutionary tree. Our results also affirm east Africa as the likely spot from which migration towards Asia has taken place. The study reflects the spectacular level of sequence variation within east Africans in comparison to the global sample, and appeals for further studies that may contribute towards filling the existing gaps in the database. The implication of these data to current genomic research, as well as the need to carry out defined studies of human genetic variation that includes more African populations; particularly east Africans is paramount.
quote:OK, I don't know much about fossils. So I'm not going to tell you your opinion is unjustified, or quote some unreviewed palaeontogy paper that says what I like. See how easy it is!
Originally posted by Cass/:
No. I work with skulls/fossils. Isn't autosomal ancient DNA extraction limited to a certain time period? I mean where is the autosomal DNA for "AMH" 100,000 years ago? Obviously though ancient DNA will settle things for stuff like ancient Egypt, but this is a far more recent in time. How is ancient DNA going to help the human origins debate when there is none? We have to work with fossils.
quote:Hi hi hi …
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Yet you're in the same boat as him with your OOA dogma. I saw you on Eurogenes blog; some posters there criticize OOA in the comments. You, or Davidski never respond or rebut the criticisms, but just throw ad hominem.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Seriously... no they don't. Do you even read frigging papers about African population history? Do you even *care* about it? Because all I see from you is obsessing about labels.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Out of all the places on earth, the population history of Africa is the least understood but whenever they claim to want to unravel it, they come up with "ancient Eurasians" as the explanation for everything..... Seriously?
Hey man, they can't just waltz in, get permission to destructively test precious ancient remains, then recover DNA that's been sitting in a hot climate for tens of thousands of years just because they want to! They would *love* to be able to do that.
Here's Davidski's responce about a 2017 paper by Chinese scientists who support Multiregionalism-
"ramblings of madmen"
Despite the fact the paper was written by some of the top scientists in China. And who's Davidski again? Not even a scientist and has zero qualifications, yet he's slagging off some of China's top scientists just because they question the Out of Africa religious orthodoxy.
As someone says in the comments-
quote:http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/some-strange-stuff-at-biorxiv-lately.html
The Chinese team doesn't share this strange Western fascination with Africa. They like China.
quote:The hilarious part in that paper was, they used the "Neanderthal" as the Eurasian preset, to provide a distance measurement.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
.
quote:The problem is that there are no non-African genes, As a result, if researchers write a program that name African mtDNA genes as solely haplogroups L, and maybe M1, and African Y-Chromosomes as haplogroups A,B and E, there will always appear mtDNA L3(M,N) and Y-Chromosomes R,I,G and J found among the subjects of any study. These so-called Eurasian haplogroups will appear because, they had already existed in Africa before the various OOA events. This would explain why we see the ancient Khoisan who introduced the Aurignacian and Solutrean cultures carrying haplogroups mtDNA M,N, and U and Y-Chrmosome R into Europe between 44-20kya; and the reentry of Y-Chromosome R with the Kushites, who introduced the Bell Beaker via Morocco to Iberia and, the Yamnaya migration from the Levant, into the Steppe and thence across Europe.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Hypocrisy and double standards.
It is odd that they find an ancient Ethiopian and get a full DNA set, but instead of showing how that Ethiopian has genes that are partly ancestral to all other modern humans, they propose the opposite. And doesn't it just seem a bit too convenient to say that out of all the populations in Africa, the one most ancestral to all other humans is the only one most affected by back migration? I mean why didn't these Eurasians back migrate into other parts of Africa and affect them? It just sounds too good to be true that the downstream children of the parent magically come back later and "magically" erase all the parents genes with their own. What on earth are the odds of that happening? But people still believe this garbage. And this is where understanding where certain DNA lineage splits arose come into play.
quote:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160218195657.htm
Characterizing genetic diversity in Africa is a crucial step for most analyses reconstructing the evolutionary history of anatomically modern humans. However, historic migrations from Eurasia into Africa have affected many contemporary populations, confounding inferences. Here, we present a 12.5× coverage ancient genome of an Ethiopian male ("Mota") who lived approximately 4,500 years ago. We use this genome to demonstrate that the Eurasian backflow into Africa came from a population closely related to Early Neolithic farmers, who had colonized Europe 4,000 years earlier.
Like I keep saying, if folks REALLY want to understand the history of population evolution in Africa they need to do like Lazaridis did and filter out all non African DNA and focus on finding the "basal African" gene and all the "basal Splits" that occurred in Africa.
But they wont do that and by now we should know why. Out of all the places on earth, the population history of Africa is the least understood but whenever they claim to want to unravel it, they come up with "ancient Eurasians" as the explanation for everything..... Seriously?
They had to claim the Mota man article was an error, because the researchers reported that 6-7% of the West and Central Africans were admixed with Eurasians. Reich of Harvard University had to encourage the authors of the article to change this finding because there is no way you can explain this admixture of Eurasians and, Central and West Africans who live 5000-10,000 miles away from Eurasians.
Any thinking researcher would have had to admit that given the Geographical distance between Central and West Africans, and Eurasians the so-called Eurasian genes representing this 6-7%, must in reality be African genes carried by Eurasians. Couple this with the archaeological evidence of a migration of Sub-Saharan Africans into Europe between 44-4kya, a back migration never took place. And therefore the Eurasian genes are really African genes.
Researchers can maintain that Ethio-Semitic and Cushitic speakers are admixed with Eurasians because they live in close proximity
to the Arabs/Turks who today are lighter skinned. But this is really untenable, because as late as the Tihama culture the main centers of civilization in Ethiopia and Arabia were settled by Nubians.
Doug, glad to see your eyes are wide opened.
quote:
The two African genomes, Yoruba and Mbuti, also have slightly positive D values, indicating that they are slightly more similar to Neanderthal than Mota is. This result is likely driven by the West Eurasian component found in modern Africans.
[…]
quote:
Table S8. Neanderthal component D statistics. D(AltaiNea, CAnc; Mota, X), where AltaiNea is the Altai Neanderthal, MezNea is the Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal, CAnc is the reconstructed human-chimpanzee common ancestor, Mota is the reference and X is the tested genome.
The absence of a West Eurasian component in Mota supports the dating of the backflow into Africa, which, at ~3.5kya, is younger than our ancient genome (dated to 4.5 cya).
Given that Mota predates the backflow, it potentially provides a better unadmixed African reference than contemporary Yoruba. Thus, we recomputed the extent of the West Eurasian component in contemporary African populations using Mota, λMota,Druze, instead of Yoruba in our f4 ratio. By using this better reference, we estimated West Eurasian admixture to be significantly larger than previously estimated, with an additional 6-9% of the genome of contemporary African populations being of Eurasian origin (Fig. S6, and Table S5). Importantly, this analysis shows that the West Eurasian component can be found also in West Africa (Fig. S6), albeit at lower levels 13 than in Eastern Africa. Importantly, a sizeable West Eurasian component is also found in the Yoruba and Mbuti, which are often used a representative of an unadmixed African population.
quote:---M. Gallego Llorente
Fig. S8. Phylogeny used in f4 ratio analysis. Phylogeny composed of three populations A, B, and C, and an outgroup O all descending from the same ancestor R. An additional population, X, is a mixture of B and C.
[...]
Table S4. Mutations defining the E1b1 haplogroup of Mota. Mutations are reported with respect to the Reconstructed Sapiens Reference Sequence. Mutations found in our sample, which are present in the reported haplogroup are shown here unless marked in bold or underlined. Underlined mutations are those present in our samples but not associated with the haplogroup determined. Bold mutations are those expected for the assigned haplogroup but absent from the sample.
[...]
Previous page: Table. S5. The proportion of West Eurasian ancestry for all African populations in our global panel. λYoruba,Druze gives estimates using Yoruba as the non-admixed reference and Druze as the source, λMota,Druze using Mota as the non-admixed reference and Druze as the source, and λMota,LBK using Mota as the non-admixed reference and LBK as a source. SE are the standard errors for these quantities.
[...]
Table S6. D statistics determining the possible source of West Eurasian ancestry in Yoruba. D(Yoruba, Mota; X, Han); where X is a range of European populations that represent possible sources of gene flow.
[...]
Table S7. D statistics determining the possible source of West Eurasian ancestry in Mbuti. D(Mbuti, Mota; X, Han); where X is a range of European populations that represent possible sources of gene flow.
[...]
Table S8. Neanderthal component D statistics. D(AltaiNea, CAnc; Mota, X), where AltaiNea is the Altai Neanderthal, MezNea is the Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal, CAnc is the reconstructed human-chimpanzee common ancestor, Mota is the reference and X is the tested genome.
[...]
Table S9. Neanderthal component based on f4 ratio. f4 (AltaiNea, Denisovan; X, Mota) / f4 (AltaiNea, Denisovan; X, MezNea), where Mota is the unadmixed reference and X is the tested population.
[...]
Table S10. Denisovan component D statistics. DYoruba, D(Denisovan, CAnc; Yoruba, X), where Yoruba is the reference and X is the tested genome, and DMota, D(Denisovan, CAnc; Mota, X), where CAnc is the reconstructed human-chimpanzee common ancestor, Mota is the reference and X is the tested genome.
quote:The only game being played here is you pretending to not see the obvious contradictions as pointed out previously. You continuously keep ignoring them yet you refuse to admit you are being a hypocrite. When did OOA Africans stop being Genetically African and become Eurasians? That is the point. When did Eurasia suddenly become cut off from repeated genetic input from Africa. So if the labels used in Eurasia don't reflect the AFRICAN ancestry of those genes, then it is hypocritical to speak of "Eurasian" genes in Africa. You understand this but you are as I said playing games.
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Doug M. You are running the tired old game of ignoring non African human divergence. YES we understand that ALL humans are African and Humanity is an African species. You like others are falling back on the "We are all African...everything is African because it came from Africa" in order to NOT place a genetic descriptor or draw a line on what is "African" and what is NOT. Its cowardice.
quote:Because skin color is a fact of human diversity but somehow you have a problem with that. And it isn't anybody "claiming" anything, especially not me, I am just pointing out the obvious.
Originally posted by beyoku:
The main reason folks do this is to lay claim to worldwide populations of dark skinned folks IE
quote:Skin color is not limited to Africa, mr biologist. People with the same shades of skin color can be found around the world, from black to white and in between.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Clown - "The first native Americans were Black".
Reason - They are not African, they were more related to Siberians.
Clown - All humans come from Africa and the first Eurasians come from Africa.
quote:Nothing to do the with fact that humans have skin color. White skin isn't unique to Europe and black skin isn't unique to Africa. Again, this is a biological fact but somehow you refuse to accept this even as you claim to be so "scientifically accruate".
Originally posted by beyoku:
They dont want to face the fact that those populations they are claiming are all the way on the other end of the genetic spectrum. Too stuck on race.
quote:The part you keep missing is that humans were in North Africa before they settled Arabia. Your incessant focus on trying to equate African biological diversity to Eurasians who didn't even exist for 100,000 years shows you have no grasp of science or facts..... Please miss me with that nonsense. Human features and adaption to various environments in Africa started LONG BEFORE humans left Africa. And humans in Africa didn't stay in one place. Humans have been in Africa for 200,000 years which means they have moved around a lot and many groups probably existed that we don't even know about. This did not start with "Eurasians" and "horners" vs "East Africans". This is absurd and non scientific.
Originally posted by beyoku:
As to your Second half, if you dont think a major back-migration from Arabia happened. That is even MORE Reason for you to understand that such OOA ancestry you are talking about would look more "North African" than it would "Horn African". You are left in the DUST. As for Removing all Eurasian and Isolating African specific OOA type ancestry PAGANI already attempted to do that, hence the quote you keep ignoring.
quote:Man you stretch reality and make absurd conclusions. What on earth does "more OOA" mean? Obviously if Africans are the parent then OF COURSE the children would have a relationship to them. That doesn't make the children into the parent. If half of some group of ancient Africans crossed outside of Africa then of course later descendants of both groups would be related. That doesn't make the descendants of those who never left Africa into OOA. Your logic is flawed. But according to EEF and Basal Eurasian that group those who left weren't African anymore.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Is Egypt in "North Africa." If populations carry this ancestry migration below the Sahara would that leave some popualtions as a mix of SSA and NA Ancestry?
West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
NOW what exactly is your contention? They just did exactly what you are requesting and discovered that Egyptians are "more OOA" than Ethiopians. Also this Egyptian African type ancestry was widespread outside of the continent compared to any other type of African Ancestry. Like I said before, you are not too familiar with the DATA...running your mouth and saying "They" need to do things that they have already DONE.
quote:But SSA is a viable biological construct.
“African populations have the most genetic diversity in the world,” Henn said.“ If you compared people from the Kalahari Desert to people from Mali, they’d be as different from each other [genetically] as Italians and Chinese people.”
quote:So does this mean a West African is as different from an Egyptian as an Italian is from a Chinese person?
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Brenna Henn, in this 2014 interview on population genetics and population structure, considering African populations.
“African populations have the most genetic diversity in the world,” Henn said.“ If you compared people from the Kalahari Desert to people from Mali, they’d be as different from each other [genetically] as Italians and Chinese people.”
quote:Depends on all four subjects.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
So does this mean a West African is as different from an Egyptian as an Italian is from a Chinese person?
quote:The Out-of-Africa (OOA) theory has creationist baggage, its pseudo-science. That's why I call it religious.
Originally posted by capra:
Man, Cass, your trolling here gets such predictable responses it's positively unsporting.
quote:OK, I don't know much about fossils. So I'm not going to tell you your opinion is unjustified, or quote some unreviewed palaeontogy paper that says what I like. See how easy it is!
Originally posted by Cass/:
No. I work with skulls/fossils. Isn't autosomal ancient DNA extraction limited to a certain time period? I mean where is the autosomal DNA for "AMH" 100,000 years ago? Obviously though ancient DNA will settle things for stuff like ancient Egypt, but this is a far more recent in time. How is ancient DNA going to help the human origins debate when there is none? We have to work with fossils.
Actually we do have some relevant ancient DNA from northern Eurasia. It's Neanderthal and Denisovan. Hopefully we will get some aDNA from some of those interesting fossils in China.
It's not really political in the West, from what I can see. The evidence is straightforward. There's no political implications to these human origins theories in reality, people just use them for rhetorical purposes. If Multiregionalism had won out, people would be talking about how everyone is united by a million years of race-mixing. If you want to demonize Out-of-Africa, describe it as superior people from one continent conquering the world. No one's deciding whether the Negro is a man and a brother based on their common ancestry being 80 000 years ago with minimal gene flow and not a million years ago with lots of gene flow.
Anyway, we went over this before, so back to the topic. Whatever the topic was supposed to be.
quote:Yes. That's the only way to ascertain the
Originally posted by capra:
This is why it is always good to include the mutation name, say K2-M70 instead of just K2, because if you say K2 what did you mean? And even using the latest terms when someone comes back and reads it again in five years it'll probably have changed again.
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Elmaestro.
quote:They are calling it Eurasian based on what they assume about geographic populations and NOT based on some Isolated ROOT population on that PCA. IN the Above PCA "Basal Eurasian" would be on the African cline, "Natufian" would be on the African Cline.....and definitely Any Egyptian population that contributed to Natufian. As for a lingering NE African component, we could find it but we likely need Ancient DNA that will split a population multiple ways in the way it did for Europeans removing their genetically "Homogeneous" status.....NO instead they are a combination of 3-4 different groups. BE was conceptualized a long time ago.
an extremely narrow definition based on genetic diversity were "Eurasians" start NOT at a geographical point but instead a figurative genetic cornerstone (All the way at the bottom.)
Yes in this narrow definition the diagonal line from Khoisan all the way to the bottom would represent African diversity with genetic "Eurasians" starting at Sardinians and ancient farmer samples.
While its funny, I am not quite ready to say that, instead i think and old enough sample from Egypt would show something different....somewhat how the Natufian was modeled as part North West Africa in Oracle. Egyptology just doesnt support mass migration in antiquity. We have to account for African substructure. The ancient DNA from Kenya and Sudan may help a lot with it.
quote:The information about V88 is illustrated on the Figure 7 tree under V88 stupid.
Originally posted by capra:
You don't have to repost everything every time you reply, Clyde.
"Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 subclade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7)."
Right. So... in the English language, Clyde, are the "distant relatives" of a group members of the group itself?
For instance, if "the British royal family are distant relatives of the Romanovs", does this mean the British royal family are the czars of Russia? If "snails and slugs are distant relatives of the octopus", are gastropods classified as cephalopods? Are members of R1b-M343 which aren't V88 not distant relatives of V88?
Since Kivisild does not say that any of the samples were V88, nor does the tree show that they are V88, where did you get the information that any of them was V88?
quote:.
Haak et al (2017) Table S4.2: Y-Haplogroup assignments for 34 ancient European males. See : http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf
- I0124 0.96 R1b1 Samara_HG
I0410 3.29 R1b1 Spain_EN
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Again, careful with Gallego-Llorente.
The throughout Africa report was rehauled
after Skoglund & Reich pointed out compatibility
error between input data and the program run.
The corrected report in Eastern Africa I states
"there is no detectable Western Eurasian component in Yoruba and Mbuti."
quote:What's the title of this paper?
Originally posted by xyyman:
In case you have NOT connected the dots. The authors either don't understand what they are seeing relative to West Africans with "Eurasian" haplotypes or are deliberately misleading the readers. Keep in mind Islands off Africa and Coastal West Africans carry a high frequency of R1b* which is assumed to be Eurasians. Cape Verde, Soa Tome Principe etc carry a higher frequency of blacks with blue eyes along with R1b*. Do you understand what I am getting at? This "Eurasian" admixture they are seeing in coastal West Africans are are remnant genes from Paleolithic Europeans like La Brana who had blue eyes and black skin. More blacks of paleolithic Europe was recently released in the new paper yesterday. Coastal and island West Africans carry a much higher frequency of La Brana genes than inland African. It is called isolation.
They got the dating screwed up ...that is all.
-----
Quote:
Many West African groups show evidence of admixture within the last 4 ky involving African and
Eurasian sources. The Mossi from Burkina Faso have the oldest inferred date of admixture, at roughly 5000BCE. Across East Africa Niger-Congo speakers (orange) we infer admixture within the
last 4 ky (and often within the last 1 ky) involving Eurasian sources on the one hand, and African sour-
ces containing ancestry from other Niger-Congo speaking African groups from the west, on the
other. Despite events between African and Eurasian sources appearing older in the Nilo-Saharan
and Afroasiatic speakers from East Africa, we see a similar signal of very recent Central West African
ancestry in a number of Khoesan groups from Southern Africa, such as the Khwe and /Gui //Gana,
together with Malawi-like (brown) sources of ancestry in recent admixture events in East African
Niger-Congo speakers.
Most events involved sources where Eurasian (dark yellow in Figure 3A) groups gave the largest
amplitudes. In considering this observation, it is important to note that the amplitude of LD curves
will partly be determined by the extent to which a reference population has differentiated from the
targe
quote:Up to 2010, R1b1 was recognized as an African R1 subclade . Africans carried R1b1, the name for this haplogroup was changed to R-L278.Although it was called R-L278 after 2010, Haak et al (2015), continued to refer to this haplogroup as R1b1. As a result, the change in name had nothing to do with discovery of a new mutation.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Please understand the diff
• nomenclature
• defining mutation
The treeing conventional names reorder
most everytime a mutation is discovered.
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people were Kushites
quote:.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people were Kushites
quote:Jones et al,Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians web page, believed that there was continuity between the ancient and modern Europeans populations---this phenomena is exactly what the researchers found.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people were Kushites
quote:Next they noted:
EF share greater genetic affinity to populations from southern Europe than to those from northern Europe with an inverted pattern for WHG1,2,3,4,5. Surprisingly, we find that CHG influence is stronger in northern than Southern Europe (Fig. 4a and Supplementary Fig. 3A) despite the closer relationship between CHG and EF compared with WHG, suggesting an increase of CHG ancestry in Western Europeans subsequent to the early Neolithic period. We investigated this further using D-statistics of the form D(Yoruba, Kotias; EF, modern Western European population), which confirmed a significant introgression from CHG into modern northern European genomes after the early Neolithic period (Supplementary Fig. 4).
quote:The culture traits of the CHG : horseback riding , meyallurgy and etc., are of Kushite, not Indo-European in origin. The only problem with the theory Jones et al, is that the earliest rulers of the land where these culkture traits originated were Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke a non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).
We investigated the temporal stratigraphy of CHG influence by comparing these data to previously published ancient genomes. We find that CHG, or a population close to them, contributed to the genetic makeup of individuals from the Yamnaya culture, which have been implicated as vectors for the profound influx of Pontic steppe ancestry that spread westwards into Europe and east into central Asia with metallurgy, horseriding and probably Indo-European languages in the third millenium BC5,7. CHG ancestry in these groups is supported by ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 1b) and admixture f3-statistics14,25 (Fig. 5), which best describe the Yamnaya as a mix of CHG and Eastern European hunter-gatherers. The Yamnaya were semi-nomadic pastoralists, mainly dependent on stock-keeping but with some evidence for agriculture, including incorporation of a plow into one burial26
quote:Jones et al, make it clear that ”Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia”. the African origin of these Levantines is supported by Holliday. Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area. (See: Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1)) .
Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe. The separation of these populations is one that stretches back before the Holocene, as indicated by local continuity through the Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic boundary and deep coalescence estimates, which date to around the LGM and earlier. Several analyses show that CHG are distinct from another inferred minor ancestral population, ANE, making them a divergent fourth strand of European ancestry that expands the model of the human colonization of that continent.
The separation between CHG and both EF and WHG ended during the Early Bronze Age when a major ancestral component linked to CHG was carried west by migrating herders from the Eurasian Steppe. The foundation group for this seismic change was the Yamnaya, who we estimate to owe half of their ancestry to CHG-linked sources. These sources may be linked to the Maikop culture, which predated the Yamnaya and was located further south, closer to the Southern Caucasus. Through the Yamanya, the CHG ancestral strand contributed to most modern European populations, especially in the northern part of the continent.
quote:.
Originally posted by xyyman:
@ Dr Winters.
Admixture into and within sub-Saharan Africa - Busby et al ...
quote:
This paper is nonsense. It is found on hypotheses which do not reflect the African reality. Firstly,there is no Afro-Asiatic language family and the Bantu speakers did not originate in West-Central Africa. In addition, there is no discussion of archaeological evidence in support of any of the authors propositions, and as I pointed out in my article A PROTOCOL TO EVALUATE POPULATION GENETICS PAPERS web page the absence of archaeological data is the major indication that the paper lacks credibility.
Reading this paper is like reading any other racist Eurocentric article written at the turn of the 20th Century perpetuating the Hamitic myth.THE Hamitic myth states that everything of value ever found in Africa was brought there by the Hamites, allegedly a branch of the Caucasian race. Seligman formulated this hypothesis which led researchers to declare that the Fulani and Afro-Asiatic speakers were Hamites. As a result, when this study declares that the Fulani, who are not of Eurasian origin, and the Afro-Asiatic speakers have a high frequency of Eurasian (white) admixture, this paper is just reinforcing a hypothesis that lacks credibility. The results of this paper only perpetuates the Hamitic myth, many researchers had thought was abandoned--but has remained constant by geneticist who dress the hypothesis up in new clothes based on statistics, instead of actual archeaogenetics evidence.
The authors assume that the Bantu migrated out of Cameroon 2,5kya. This is ludicrous because the Bantu had been living in the Nile Valley long before 500BC.
In summary this paper is maintaining the status quo dogma that the Bantu and the rest of the Niger-Congo speakers are true Negroes, and the Afro-Asiatic speakers and Fulani are Hamites, i.e., dark skinned Caucasians. This paper offers nothing new in relation to African genetics, it is a throwback back to the 1930's racist anthropological studies.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people were Kushites
quote:Jones et al,Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians web page, believed that there was continuity between the ancient and modern Europeans populations---this phenomena is exactly what the researchers found.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people were Kushites
quote:Next they noted:
EF share greater genetic affinity to populations from southern Europe than to those from northern Europe with an inverted pattern for WHG1,2,3,4,5. Surprisingly, we find that CHG influence is stronger in northern than Southern Europe (Fig. 4a and Supplementary Fig. 3A) despite the closer relationship between CHG and EF compared with WHG, suggesting an increase of CHG ancestry in Western Europeans subsequent to the early Neolithic period. We investigated this further using D-statistics of the form D(Yoruba, Kotias; EF, modern Western European population), which confirmed a significant introgression from CHG into modern northern European genomes after the early Neolithic period (Supplementary Fig. 4).
quote:The culture traits of the CHG : horseback riding , meyallurgy and etc., are of Kushite, not Indo-European in origin. The only problem with the theory Jones et al, is that the earliest rulers of the land where these culkture traits originated were Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke a non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).
We investigated the temporal stratigraphy of CHG influence by comparing these data to previously published ancient genomes. We find that CHG, or a population close to them, contributed to the genetic makeup of individuals from the Yamnaya culture, which have been implicated as vectors for the profound influx of Pontic steppe ancestry that spread westwards into Europe and east into central Asia with metallurgy, horseriding and probably Indo-European languages in the third millenium BC5,7. CHG ancestry in these groups is supported by ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 1b) and admixture f3-statistics14,25 (Fig. 5), which best describe the Yamnaya as a mix of CHG and Eastern European hunter-gatherers. The Yamnaya were semi-nomadic pastoralists, mainly dependent on stock-keeping but with some evidence for agriculture, including incorporation of a plow into one burial26
quote:Jones et al, make it clear that ”Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia”. the African origin of these Levantines is supported by Holliday. Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area. (See: Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1)) .
Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe. The separation of these populations is one that stretches back before the Holocene, as indicated by local continuity through the Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic boundary and deep coalescence estimates, which date to around the LGM and earlier. Several analyses show that CHG are distinct from another inferred minor ancestral population, ANE, making them a divergent fourth strand of European ancestry that expands the model of the human colonization of that continent.
The separation between CHG and both EF and WHG ended during the Early Bronze Age when a major ancestral component linked to CHG was carried west by migrating herders from the Eurasian Steppe. The foundation group for this seismic change was the Yamnaya, who we estimate to owe half of their ancestry to CHG-linked sources. These sources may be linked to the Maikop culture, which predated the Yamnaya and was located further south, closer to the Southern Caucasus. Through the Yamanya, the CHG ancestral strand contributed to most modern European populations, especially in the northern part of the continent.
quote:You post something interesting or informative like 1/10 times, but 9/10 you ruin it with this "we r all African" nonsense.
Originally posted by xyyman:
As I posted in Davidski and it was deleted. Pygmies carry yDNA P*. Significance? You cannot depend on one author. Know their polictics!!!! 4Ws.
Supposed "Eurasian" ancestry is indigenous to Africa. Don't you guys understand that as yet. It was NEVER "corrected". Because other independent studies confirms "Eurasian" ancestry is found in Africa and it is indigenous. That is the problem these racialist European scientist face. Other authors are doing research and their results contradict racialist assertions? Not everyone is on the same page ......or reading the same book. When Africans start doing their own research that will change things even more.
Get with the program Sage.
Stop mis leading the readers!!!!!!!!
------
Admixture into and within sub-Saharan Africa - Busby et al ...and many more
Abstract:
Similarity between two individuals in the combination of genetic markers along their
chromosomes indicates shared ancestry and can be used to identify historical connections between
different population groups due to admixture. We use a genome-wide, haplotype-based, analysis
to characterise the structure of genetic diversity and gene-flow in a collection of 48 sub-Saharan
African groups. We show that coastal populations experienced an influx of Eurasian haplotypes
over the last 7000 years, and that Eastern and Southern Niger-Congo speaking groups share
ancestry with Central West Africans as a result of recent population expansions. In fact, most sub-
Saharan populations share ancestry with groups from outside of their current geographic region as
a result of gene-flow within the last 4000 years.
---
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Again, careful with Gallego-Llorente.
The throughout Africa report was rehauled
after Skoglund & Reich pointed out compatibility
error between input data and the program run.
The corrected report in Eastern Africa I states
"there is no detectable Western Eurasian component in Yoruba and Mbuti."
quote:I do not know what sources you mean. We're dealing with polar opposite world view/politics etc. I'm a 'white' person who doesn't believe in OOA; everyone else (white folks) I know personally and from other forums don't also believe in OOA. For 'black' people its the reverse, they all believe in OOA.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
^If you learn how to distinguish interperation from fact, most of what Xyyman posts is interesting.... I could say the same about you ...but of course, you keep reverting back to the same sources to perpetuate the same trollish arguments.
quote:Significance is that xyyman posts everything out of context. Source, which Pygmies, what SNPs did they test for?
Originally posted by xyyman:
As I posted in Davidski and it was deleted. Pygmies carry yDNA P*. Significance?
quote:In 2010 L278 was added to define the R1b1 level as an alternative to P25, because the latter is prone to back-mutate. R-L278 and R1b1 are both abbreviations of R1b1-L278 and meant exactly the same thing; there is no change of name, you're just being willfully stupid.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Up to 2010, R1b1 was recognized as an African R1 subclade . Africans carried R1b1, the name for this haplogroup was changed to R-L278. Although it was called R-L278 after 2010, Haak et al (2015), continued to refer to this haplogroup as R1b1. As a result, the change in name had nothing to do with discovery of a new mutation.
quote:lol. They're on the blog comments you sometimes visit. A month ago Davidiski decided to label Chinese Multiregionalists "madmen", but people showed up to defend their 2017 study and criticize OOA. I'm on ResearchGate and although my background isn't science- I see many palaeoanthropology discussions and people who are constantly criticizing OOA. The problem is Milford Wolpoff hasn't yet put out a research article on the recent ancient DNA finds, but he completed a major study on Neandertals this year.
Originally posted by capra:
[QB] ^^^ Cass hangs out in special circles it seems
quote:when did they acquire ownership of the property?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Africans do not own "blackness" same as Europeans has no ownership of "whiteness".
quote:Really depends how you define "race". There's multiple definitions and it usually gets into a semantic dispute. I gave up on one of the faulty race concepts year ago - that was the subspecies definition because its falsified by clines and lack of reproductive isolation between human populations because of gene flow. The fact though there is a generally smooth biological gradient across space (genetic distance is strongly correlated with geographical distance ~isolation-by-distance) doesn't prevent scientists dividing this continua for utility/operationalization ("operational taxonomic units" or "phylotypes"). So for example, one can clearly see two extremes in genetic/morphometric plots, so-called "Caucasoids" vs. "Negroids" even though they're not discontinuous. The focus of population geneticists however is local populations like ethnic groups, not "Caucasoids" or "Negroids" as larger clusters; the only reason I use these broad terms (but note for the past 4 years- I highlight them) is because this forum is obsessed with racial politics.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Cass. You are missing the fundamental point of my post(s). There is no race and there never was. When I started on this site I believe there were races. About mid-way I realize there is no race. The facts to that is overwhelming. What you call "Caucasoid" is a myth. There is no sharp demarcation between human populations . It is a continuum with the epicenter I believe being in the Sahara and NOT sub-Saharan Africa. Caucasoid features are found both North And South of the equator. "Negroid" features are found all over the planet including outside Africa. Africans do not own "blackness" same as Europeans has no ownership of "whiteness". Paleolithic Europeans were "negroid". Neolithic Europeans entered Europe as long headed tropically adapted humans. And the latest genetic and continuing evidence emerging shows these were black people. There is no race. Ancient Europeans up to about 5000BC were black people. The white genes came from new African migrants entering Europe. Isn't that ironic. Read the genetic papers. NOTHING CAME FROM THE NORTH. NADA! NOTHING! Don't you get that yet?
quote:'Course there's people who don't believe in it, that's fine and dandy. It's good to have people not believing in things. It's your "all the white people I know don't believe in it" which is odd. But whatever, you don't know **** about genetics, I don't know **** about fossils, I don't care about your political bullshit, so I'm not going to discuss this topic any further.
Originally posted by Cass/:
lol. They're on the blog comments you sometimes visit.... I'm on ResearchGate and although my background isn't science- I see many palaeoanthropology discussions and people who are constantly criticizing OOA.
quote:well you already know more about genetics than most posters here, why not brush up on you pigmentation alleles?
Originally posted by capra:
[QB] Sorry Lioness don't know anything about pigmentation alleles.
quote:that's more of an Ish Gegor/Clyde thing. If a Chinese person moves to Africa, bingo, all their DNA originated there
Originally posted by capra:
Xyyman's interpretation of everything is of course that if it's found in Africa, that means it necessarily came from Africa, and therefore all evidence of back-migration from Eurasia is evidence against back-migration from Eurasia. Truly, he has a dizzying intellect.
quote:Greeks. You can look up genetic distance measured by Fst. Egyptians are closer in their autosomal DNA to Greeks than Ethiopians. I don't though have the values, but they're probably in Cavilla-Sforza's studies.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Cass who is more genetically related to a Southern Egyptian an Ethiopian or a Greek?
quote:But it doesn't really matter where they originated. For example SLC24A5's derived allele (rs1426654) is an extremely high frequency in Europeans (99%), but low to negligible in Sub-Saharan African populations, e.g. less than 1% of Yoruba. So if rs1426654 first appeared in a Sub-Saharan African population- it was carried by very few individuals. I couldn't really care where genotypic/phenotypic traits originated, what counts is their frequency.
Originally posted by capra:
Sorry Lioness don't know anything about pigmentation alleles.
Xyyman's interpretation of everything is of course that if it's found in Africa, that means it necessarily came from Africa, and therefore all evidence of back-migration from Eurasia is evidence against back-migration from Eurasia. Truly, he has a dizzying intellect.
quote:Jones et al,Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians web page, believed that there was continuity between the ancient and modern Europeans populations---this phenomena is exactly what the researchers found.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people were Kushites
quote:Next they noted:
EF share greater genetic affinity to populations from southern Europe than to those from northern Europe with an inverted pattern for WHG1,2,3,4,5. Surprisingly, we find that CHG influence is stronger in northern than Southern Europe (Fig. 4a and Supplementary Fig. 3A) despite the closer relationship between CHG and EF compared with WHG, suggesting an increase of CHG ancestry in Western Europeans subsequent to the early Neolithic period. We investigated this further using D-statistics of the form D(Yoruba, Kotias; EF, modern Western European population), which confirmed a significant introgression from CHG into modern northern European genomes after the early Neolithic period (Supplementary Fig. 4).
quote:The culture traits of the CHG : horseback riding , meyallurgy and etc., are of Kushite, not Indo-European in origin. The only problem with the theory Jones et al, is that the earliest rulers of the land where these culkture traits originated were Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke a non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).
We investigated the temporal stratigraphy of CHG influence by comparing these data to previously published ancient genomes. We find that CHG, or a population close to them, contributed to the genetic makeup of individuals from the Yamnaya culture, which have been implicated as vectors for the profound influx of Pontic steppe ancestry that spread westwards into Europe and east into central Asia with metallurgy, horseriding and probably Indo-European languages in the third millenium BC5,7. CHG ancestry in these groups is supported by ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 1b) and admixture f3-statistics14,25 (Fig. 5), which best describe the Yamnaya as a mix of CHG and Eastern European hunter-gatherers. The Yamnaya were semi-nomadic pastoralists, mainly dependent on stock-keeping but with some evidence for agriculture, including incorporation of a plow into one burial26
quote:Jones et al, make it clear that ”Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia”. the African origin of these Levantines is supported by Holliday. Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area. (See: Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1)) .
Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe. The separation of these populations is one that stretches back before the Holocene, as indicated by local continuity through the Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic boundary and deep coalescence estimates, which date to around the LGM and earlier. Several analyses show that CHG are distinct from another inferred minor ancestral population, ANE, making them a divergent fourth strand of European ancestry that expands the model of the human colonization of that continent.
The separation between CHG and both EF and WHG ended during the Early Bronze Age when a major ancestral component linked to CHG was carried west by migrating herders from the Eurasian Steppe. The foundation group for this seismic change was the Yamnaya, who we estimate to owe half of their ancestry to CHG-linked sources. These sources may be linked to the Maikop culture, which predated the Yamnaya and was located further south, closer to the Southern Caucasus. Through the Yamanya, the CHG ancestral strand contributed to most modern European populations, especially in the northern part of the continent.
quote:lol smh It does matter to you. Especially when it crushes your multi-regional theory.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:But it doesn't really matter where they originated. For example SLC24A5's derived allele (rs1426654) is an extremely high frequency in Europeans (99%), but low to negligible in Sub-Saharan African populations, e.g. less than 1% of Yoruba. So if rs1426654 first appeared in a Sub-Saharan African population- it was carried by very few individuals. I couldn't really care where genotypic/phenotypic traits originated, what counts is their frequency.
Originally posted by capra:
Sorry Lioness don't know anything about pigmentation alleles.
Xyyman's interpretation of everything is of course that if it's found in Africa, that means it necessarily came from Africa, and therefore all evidence of back-migration from Eurasia is evidence against back-migration from Eurasia. Truly, he has a dizzying intellect.
quote:--Victor A. Canfield et al.
Frequencies display strong population differentiation, with the derived light skin pigmentation allele (A111T) fixed or nearly so in all European populations and the ancestral allele predominant in sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia (Lamason et al. 2005; Norton et al. 2007).
quote:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140126134643.htm
Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."
quote:--Carles Lalueza-Fox
This suggests a remarkable genetic uniformity and little phylogeographic structure over a large geographic area of the pre-Neolithic populations. Using Approximate Bayesian Computation, a model of genetic continuity from Mesolithic to Neolithic populations is poorly supported. Furthermore, analyses of 1.34% and 0.53% of their nuclear genomes, containing about 50,000 and 20,000 ancestry informative SNPs, respectively, show that these two Mesolithic individuals are not related to current populations from either the Iberian Peninsula or Southern Europe.
[...]
Figure 2 | Ancestral variants around the SLC45A2 (rs16891982, above) and SLC24A5 (rs1426654, below) pigmentation genes in the Mesolithic genome.
The SNPs around the two diagnostic variants (red arrows) in these two genes were analysed. The resulting haplotype comprises neighbouring SNPs that are also absent in modern Europeans (CEU) (n = 112) but present in Yorubans (YRI) (n = 113). This pattern confirms that the La Braña 1 sample is older than the positive-selection event in these regions. Blue, ancestral; red, derived.
[…]
The genotypic combination leading to a predicted phenotype of dark skin and non-brown eyes is unique and no longer present in contemporary European populations.
quote:This depends on the West African. Why do I have to repost everything time and time again, as if I am dealing with a retarded one?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:So does this mean a West African is as different from an Egyptian as an Italian is from a Chinese person?
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Brenna Henn, in this 2014 interview on population genetics and population structure, considering African populations.
“African populations have the most genetic diversity in the world,” Henn said.“ If you compared people from the Kalahari Desert to people from Mali, they’d be as different from each other [genetically] as Italians and Chinese people.”
quote:Precisely.
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Depends on all four subjects.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
So does this mean a West African is as different from an Egyptian as an Italian is from a Chinese person?
quote:Repost:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:The Out-of-Africa (OOA) theory has creationist baggage, its pseudo-science. That's why I call it religious.
Originally posted by capra:
Man, Cass, your trolling here gets such predictable responses it's positively unsporting.
quote:OK, I don't know much about fossils. So I'm not going to tell you your opinion is unjustified, or quote some unreviewed palaeontogy paper that says what I like. See how easy it is!
Originally posted by Cass/:
No. I work with skulls/fossils. Isn't autosomal ancient DNA extraction limited to a certain time period? I mean where is the autosomal DNA for "AMH" 100,000 years ago? Obviously though ancient DNA will settle things for stuff like ancient Egypt, but this is a far more recent in time. How is ancient DNA going to help the human origins debate when there is none? We have to work with fossils.
Actually we do have some relevant ancient DNA from northern Eurasia. It's Neanderthal and Denisovan. Hopefully we will get some aDNA from some of those interesting fossils in China.
It's not really political in the West, from what I can see. The evidence is straightforward. There's no political implications to these human origins theories in reality, people just use them for rhetorical purposes. If Multiregionalism had won out, people would be talking about how everyone is united by a million years of race-mixing. If you want to demonize Out-of-Africa, describe it as superior people from one continent conquering the world. No one's deciding whether the Negro is a man and a brother based on their common ancestry being 80 000 years ago with minimal gene flow and not a million years ago with lots of gene flow.
Anyway, we went over this before, so back to the topic. Whatever the topic was supposed to be.
blah blah blah …
quote:You and your very little understanding of things. lol smh "Mr. PHd."
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:well you already know more about genetics than most posters here, why not brush up on you pigmentation alleles?
Originally posted by capra:
[QB] Sorry Lioness don't know anything about pigmentation alleles.
quote:that's more of an Ish Gegor/Clyde thing. If a Chinese person moves to Africa, bingo, all their DNA originated there
Originally posted by capra:
Xyyman's interpretation of everything is of course that if it's found in Africa, that means it necessarily came from Africa, and therefore all evidence of back-migration from Eurasia is evidence against back-migration from Eurasia. Truly, he has a dizzying intellect.
xyyman's thing is that if DNA is found in Africa it's evidence that Europeans are depigmented Africans whose ancestors live in Africa under 10,000 years ago, that's his thing
His second favorite theory is that the bantu migration never happened. He also says straight hair probably came before afro hair
quote:https://hms.harvard.edu/news/new-branch-added-european-family-tree
The most surprising part of the project for Reich, however, was the discovery of the Basal Eurasians.
“This deep lineage of non-African ancestry branched off before all the other non-Africans branched off from one another,” he said. “Before Australian Aborigines and New Guineans and South Indians and Native Americans and other indigenous hunter-gatherers split, they split from Basal Eurasians. This reconciled some contradictory pieces of information for us.”
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=011401;p=1
We have identified the PM1 mitogenome as a basal haplogroup U6*, not previously found in any ancient or present-day humans. The derived U6 haplotypes are predominantly found in present-day North-Western African populations. Concomitantly, those found in Europe have been attributed to recent gene-flow from North Africa. The presence of the basal haplogroup U6* in South East Europe (Romania) at 35 ky BP confirms a Eurasian origin of the U6 mitochondrial lineage
quote:https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25501
Given the presence of a basal U6 mitogenome in Romania 35 ky BP, the distance between Western Asia and Romania, and the estimated diffusion pace of hunter-gatherer populations30 suggest that the early populations carrying haplogroup U6 most likely started their spread to Eastern Europe before 40 ky BP.
quote:
This is the new game being played. The assignment of geographic labels to DNA lineages. So if all humans came from Africa then by all logic all the founding lineages in Europe and Asia would have been African. Meaning if two Africans migrate out of Europe and have a child that child is still African even if born outside of Europe. But the way they created that nonsensical tree of "non African" vs "African" related to the spread of agriculture in Europe shows that agenda is at the root of almost everything they do. This is why you have so many ghost populations all over the place because the models they use for the genetic history of populations coming out of Africa and the labels associated with them are totally flawed.
quote:So offer us a prediction. Once there is a more thorough sampling of Africa, with more ancient DNA, ancient Saharans, lots of present day Saharans, what do you expect the DNA picture to look like? How will it differ from the mainstream views now?
Originally posted by Doug M:
long-winded rant
quote:I believe that having that data going back 100,000 years would show that many lineages currently assigned to "Eurasia" arose in Africa and migrated out of Africa and subsequently moved into Europe and Asia. Not all of them but I have no doubt that more than a few would possibly be shown to have arisen in Africa. These were likely small populations to begin with making it easy for their traces in Africa to be lost over time. If we believe the Saharan pump theory, then as populations "pulsed" in waves through the Sahara during various wet phases they may have had unique lineages that were spawned and then left Africa as a result of later dry phases. Hence the downstream descendants of these waves would be seen in DNA lineages found in Europe and Asia but not Africa. And models of human genetics history cant be seen as a single linear event. Various waves of migration have occurred and some waves died out in certain areas and/or were replaced/mixed with later waves.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:So offer us a prediction. Once there is a more thorough sampling of Africa, with more ancient DNA, ancient Saharans, lots of present day Saharans, what do you expect the DNA picture to look like? How will it differ from the mainstream views now?
Originally posted by Doug M:
long-winded rant
quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup
According to SNPS haplogroups which are the age of the first extinction event tend to be around 45–50 kya. Haplogroups of the second extinction event seemed to diverge 32–35 kya according to Mal'ta. The ground zero extinction event appears to be Toba during which haplogroup CDEF* appeared to diverge into C, DE and F. C and F have almost nothing in common while D and E have plenty in common. Extinction event #1 according to current estimates occurred after Toba, although older ancient DNA could push the ground zero extinction event to long before Toba, and push the first extinction event here back to Toba. Haplogroups with extinction event notes by them have a dubious origin and this is because extinction events lead to severe bottlenecks, so all notes by these groups are just guesses. Note that the SNP counting of ancient DNA can be highly variable meaning that even though all these groups diverged around the same time no one knows when
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576335/
North Africa is considered a distinct geographic and ethnic entity within Africa. Although modern humans originated in this Continent, studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y-chromosome genealogical markers provide evidence that the North African gene pool has been shaped by the back-migration of several Eurasian lineages in Paleolithic and Neolithic times. More recent influences from sub-Saharan Africa and Mediterranean Europe are also evident. The presence of East-West and North-South haplogroup frequency gradients strongly reinforces the genetic complexity of this region. However, this genetic scenario is beset with a notable gap, which is the lack of consistent information for Algeria, the largest country in the Maghreb. To fill this gap, we analyzed a sample of 240 unrelated subjects from a northwest Algeria cosmopolitan population using mtDNA sequences and Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms, focusing on the fine dissection of haplogroups E and R, which are the most prevalent in North Africa and Europe respectively. The Eurasian component in Algeria reached 80% for mtDNA and 90% for Y-chromosome. However, within them, the North African genetic component for mtDNA (U6 and M1; 20%) is significantly smaller than the paternal (E-M81 and E-V65; 70%). The unexpected presence of the European-derived Y-chromosome lineages R-M412, R-S116, R-U152 and R-M529 in Algeria and the rest of the Maghreb could be the counterparts of the mtDNA H1, H3 and V subgroups, pointing to direct maritime contacts between the European and North African sides of the western Mediterranean. Female influx of sub-Saharan Africans into Algeria (20%) is also significantly greater than the male (10%). In spite of these sexual asymmetries, the Algerian uniparental profiles faithfully correlate between each other and with the geography.
The impressive genetic information gathered from North Africa is beset with a notable gap, the lack of consistent information for the Algerian populations. Algeria is the largest country of the Maghreb and, in fact, the largest country of the whole continent. Although at mtDNA sequencing level the first North African sample studied was from an Algerian Berber-speaking Mozabite population [43], it resulted to be a very isolated group not representative of the whole Algerian population. After that, only a small sample of miscellaneous Algerians has been analyzed [13]. Similarly, only small samples of Algerian Arabs and Berbers have been studied with Y-chromosome binary polymorphisms [26]. To fill in this gap we analyzed a representative cosmopolitan sample from the Oran area of northwestern Algeria. We chose an urban area because urban populations give more representative information than rural, often isolated, localities [15]. In addition, Oran is considered the second largest city in Algeria and lies near Siga, one of the main cities of the largest Algerian Berber kingdoms in classical times [3]. In this study we characterized 240 maternally unrelated Algerians from this area by mtDNA HVS-1 region sequencing and haplogroup diagnostic coding positions by RFLP and SNaPshot multiplexing in order to obtain their maternal profiles. The male sub-set of this sample (102 paternally unrelated males) was previously analyzed for Y-chromosomal binary markers and short tandem repeat haplotypes [44]. However, in the present study, this male sample was further genotyped for the recently described informative Y-chromosome polymorphisms within haplogroups E [41] and R [45] whose subdivision has increased the phylogeographic differentiation between Europe and North Africa. Furthermore, in order to obtain more accurate comparisons, we extended these Y-chromosome fine resolution analyses of haplogroups E1b (M78) and R1b (M343) to published samples of Iberians and Moroccans [46], Saharawi and Mauritanians [47] and Tunisians [15]. This uniparental genetic information has been used to integrate Algeria into the overall North African genetic landscape.
quote:Which waves of what are tied to which specific, actual wet phases, though?
Originally posted by Doug M:
If we believe the Saharan pump theory, then as populations "pulsed" in waves through the Sahara during various wet phases they may have had unique lineages that were spawned and then left Africa as a result of later dry phases.
quote:It could, is there any archaeological evidence that indicates such a wave? Modern human populations were already well established outside Africa by then, and of course were still doing fine in Africa, so there is no reason to favour Africa -> Eurasia or Eurasia -> Africa a priori.
From the way it looks in the current distribution TO ME, U6 was much more wide spread at a very early point of time between Africa, the Near East and Europe. It could be that the populations carrying these lineages were part of a wave of Africans pushing out across North Africa into the Levant in Europe over 40,000 years ago.
quote:There is no 'only L', all those Eurasian lineages are sub-branches of L3 and no more or less 'downstream' than lineages in Africa which are labelled 'L'. There is no such thing as haplogroup L apart from all the others. The terminology originated when the phylogeny as still poorly understood. I suppose you will interpret this as a conspiracy, but in any case understand that, say, L4b2 is equivalent in age and phylogenetic position to R, and L3a to M.
That said the more confusing part to me is why there aren't more 'downstream' lineages of L found in "sub saharan" Africa given that they are the oldest human lineages. Somehow it makes no sense that humans outside of Africa who are less than 100,000 years old have all the downstream lineages J,M,N, U R and so forth while populations in Africa are still carrying only L lineages.
quote:Yes, certainly.
Dead end referring to populations who carried genetic branches or lineages that died out because the populations carrying them died out. And those dead end branches go back 300,000 years or more to include even older hominid types that we don't know about.
quote:I'm not sure what you have in mind by the second extinction event, but I agree with you that the timing of Toba does match suspiciously well with the break-up of CDEF. This was followed by the severe cold and aridity of MIS 4/the Early Pleniglacial, so whatever population growth began after Toba (if that's really what we are seeing in the phylogeny) could have been arrested by the climate for some time, depending where they were actually located of course. I don't know why you say D and E have a lot in common and C and F don't? Seems like the opposite to me.
According to SNPS haplogroups which are the age of the first extinction event tend to be around 45–50 kya. Haplogroups of the second extinction event seemed to diverge 32–35 kya according to Mal'ta. The ground zero extinction event appears to be Toba during which haplogroup CDEF* appeared to diverge into C, DE and F. C and F have almost nothing in common while D and E have plenty in common.
quote:The very rapid growth of M and N (and R), as well as C, D, and F (and K), ending with a great many basal branches spread out across most of the globe, can hardly be the result of anything but the population boom of modern humans expanding rapidly outside of Africa, so it makes perfect sense that they would all date to about the same time at the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic. That E, and several basal branches of L3, are about the same age, likely means they were linked to the same cause, whatever exactly that was. Could be tied to the climate getting milder and wetter beginning about 60 000 years ago, though obviously that can't be the whole story.
Note that my theory surrounding the process of the spread of the U lineages also applies to M and N as well and many other lineages. All of these lineages arose in the same time frame: 40 - 50 KYA. Which is odd.
quote:They were genetically more related to modern Eurasians than to modern Africans, naturally, and physically there is no reason why they would be closer to modern Africans than to other tropical populations such as Papuans. They were the ancestors of Eurasians, they had undergone a bottleneck that made them genetically distinctive, they lived in Eurasia, and the whole point of names is to distinguish things - so we can call them ancestral Eurasians. Your complaining about it makes no sense to anyone else.
But calling these wandering populations of Africans in Eurasia "Eurasians" is misleading. These were Africans genetically and physically.
quote:Huh? Do you mean in Africa? Ust' Ishim man from Siberia is ~45 000 years old.
The problem is nobody has been able to find any remains from the populations in the time frame of 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. And certainly no DNA has been extracted from such remains.
quote:The only way to find out is more data from the Sahara, not just using the same reference populations along the coasts of North Africa. I guess what I am saying is ultimately a lot of the problem right now is the limited sample sets they use to model "North Africa" DNA. If most samples are from sites close to the coast then of course you are likely to see "mixture" with populations from outside Africa. But all populations in North Africa don't live close to the coasts. And during the various wet/dry phases it is not only likely that there are 'extinct' lineages representing populations that died out in the area, but also other "connector" lineages that are not represented in the DNA of modern "reference" populations along the coasts.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Which waves of what are tied to which specific, actual wet phases, though?
Originally posted by Doug M:
If we believe the Saharan pump theory, then as populations "pulsed" in waves through the Sahara during various wet phases they may have had unique lineages that were spawned and then left Africa as a result of later dry phases.
quote:This isn't about what is greater or lesser in terms of geography. Firstly this is more an issue of semantics. Populations moving out of Africa 50 to 60 thousand years ago or even 40,000 years ago in Eurasia, were not closely similar in appearance to modern populations in the same areas. This is why calling them "Eurasian" is misleading. It would take a long time for "Eurasians" to diverge from Africans in terms of phenotype. But ultimately the point I am making is that they are guessing where these lineages arose because there are so many gaps. And that is what I mean by "waves". So if you set the clock back to 50,000 years ago, what I am saying is there would be a solid chunk of North Africa, the Near East and Europe with populations carrying U lineages, as part of an expansion or "wave" of populations carrying said lineage. Over time many of those populations moved or died out and other lineages became dominant in those areas. So what you see today is only a remnant of that ancient genetic expansion. It is hard to tell clearly where exactly a lineage like U arose in that scenario. The only thing they are doing is just assuming that any remains they find going back in time carrying a specific lineage represents the "origin point" of that lineage which does not have to be true. For example the example of U6 in Romania from the 35,000 year old remains there.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:It could, is there any archaeological evidence that indicates such a wave? Modern human populations were already well established outside Africa by then, and of course were still doing fine in Africa, so there is no reason to favour Africa -> Eurasia or Eurasia -> Africa a priori.
From the way it looks in the current distribution TO ME, U6 was much more wide spread at a very early point of time between Africa, the Near East and Europe. It could be that the populations carrying these lineages were part of a wave of Africans pushing out across North Africa into the Levant in Europe over 40,000 years ago.
quote:I am just saying the terminology as currently used to distiguish "African" (meaning L lineages) from (Non-African) (NON L or M and N derived lineages)is a bit misleading. Again note the topic of the thread and the way "African" DNA is seen as synonymous with "Sub Saharan" DNA as if the rest of Africa is "Non African" in terms of DNA. Such semantics only reinforces this idea of a "split" in the DNA tree going back to the tree found in the Laziridis papers which put OOA populations on a Non African branch. And to be clear, there is no "conspiracy" here. Many papers openly and bluntly suggest that the "Neanderthal interlude" is the reason for modeling the human DNA tree this way. Implying that "Eurasians" are separated from "Africans" by Neanderthal or Denisovan or whatever mixture. And the idea of North African DNA being "Eurasian" and not "African" is the subject of many other papers as well. Meaning it is hard to show the true genetic relationship and where various major branches arose with a model that claims a 'hard split' between African and Eurasian DNA and back migration into North Africa, which would effectively erase most direct evidence of any OOA lineages moving out of Africa. But again, they are using a limited set of "reference" samples for North Africa which produces this flawed model. They don't even have or use reference populations from Northern Sudan and Upper Egypt as reference populations in the "North African" data set.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:There is no 'only L', all those Eurasian lineages are sub-branches of L3 and no more or less 'downstream' than lineages in Africa which are labelled 'L'. There is no such thing as haplogroup L apart from all the others. The terminology originated when the phylogeny as still poorly understood. I suppose you will interpret this as a conspiracy, but in any case understand that, say, L4b2 is equivalent in age and phylogenetic position to R, and L3a to M.
That said the more confusing part to me is why there aren't more 'downstream' lineages of L found in "sub saharan" Africa given that they are the oldest human lineages. Somehow it makes no sense that humans outside of Africa who are less than 100,000 years old have all the downstream lineages J,M,N, U R and so forth while populations in Africa are still carrying only L lineages.
quote:The question is where did this massive bottleneck occur? Did it occur in Syria? Iraq? Arabia? Central Asia? That is my point. If all these lineages spread from the same point and it was NOT in Africa then where was it? Because I assume it represents a bottlenecked population holed up in some refuge as a result of climate or other natural factors. Finding this site would be key to understanding what happened. But again all of these paths lead back to some major bottleneck population from which all these branches split. So they couldn't have been going in all directions if they were part of a large bottleneck after OOA. But it could be that this bottleneck was closer to Africa as well. We see evidence of it but nobody knows where it occurred. Hence the recent papers on "Basal Eurasian" which attempts to identify that bottlenecked population but in a very clumsy way IMO:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Yes, certainly.
Dead end referring to populations who carried genetic branches or lineages that died out because the populations carrying them died out. And those dead end branches go back 300,000 years or more to include even older hominid types that we don't know about.
quote:I'm not sure what you have in mind by the second extinction event, but I agree with you that the timing of Toba does match suspiciously well with the break-up of CDEF. This was followed by the severe cold and aridity of MIS 4/the Early Pleniglacial, so whatever population growth began after Toba (if that's really what we are seeing in the phylogeny) could have been arrested by the climate for some time, depending where they were actually located of course. I don't know why you say D and E have a lot in common and C and F don't? Seems like the opposite to me.
According to SNPS haplogroups which are the age of the first extinction event tend to be around 45–50 kya. Haplogroups of the second extinction event seemed to diverge 32–35 kya according to Mal'ta. The ground zero extinction event appears to be Toba during which haplogroup CDEF* appeared to diverge into C, DE and F. C and F have almost nothing in common while D and E have plenty in common.
quote:The very rapid growth of M and N (and R), as well as C, D, and F (and K), ending with a great many basal branches spread out across most of the globe, can hardly be the result of anything but the population boom of modern humans expanding rapidly outside of Africa, so it makes perfect sense that they would all date to about the same time at the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic. That E, and several basal branches of L3, are about the same age, likely means they were linked to the same cause, whatever exactly that was. Could be tied to the climate getting milder and wetter beginning about 60 000 years ago, though obviously that can't be the whole story.
Note that my theory surrounding the process of the spread of the U lineages also applies to M and N as well and many other lineages. All of these lineages arose in the same time frame: 40 - 50 KYA. Which is odd.
quote:https://hms.harvard.edu/news/new-branch-added-european-family-tree
“This deep lineage of non-African ancestry branched off before all the other non-Africans branched off from one another,” he said. “Before Australian Aborigines and New Guineans and South Indians and Native Americans and other indigenous hunter-gatherers split, they split from Basal Eurasians. This reconciled some contradictory pieces of information for us.”
quote:This isn't about their relationship to modern populations. The point is that semantically the label makes no sense. Those populations and all their genes originated in Africa. We label populations and genetic lineages based on where they came from not where they wind up later. And obviously all these populations originated in Africa. That is why I am saying it is misleading. None of these populations would resemble "modern" Eurasians in most cases. And all "Eurasians" don't look the same today either. But ultimately my reading of the relevant papers says that the mixture with Neanderthals and other hominid species is the reason for this hard distinction between "Eurasian" and "African". So we have a bottleneck and during that major bottleneck a lot of mixture occurred with other hominids meaning the populations leaving from that point weren't "African" anymore, as they would have been before that which would have been the initial OOA population.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:They were genetically more related to modern Eurasians than to modern Africans, naturally, and physically there is no reason why they would be closer to modern Africans than to other tropical populations such as Papuans. They were the ancestors of Eurasians, they had undergone a bottleneck that made them genetically distinctive, they lived in Eurasia, and the whole point of names is to distinguish things - so we can call them ancestral Eurasians. Your complaining about it makes no sense to anyone else.
But calling these wandering populations of Africans in Eurasia "Eurasians" is misleading. These were Africans genetically and physically.
quote:Of course, that is true but we can't depend on one man from Siberia to fully flesh out the DNA tree unfortunately. Not only that but the significance of this man was the amount of Neanderthal DNA found in him. Yes that is important for our knowledge of the past, but again modern science is trying to do a lot in terms of theoretical models of ancient DNA history with limited hard data. But ultimately at this point this DNA only reinforces the idea of OOA populations being bottle necked and then having a lot of admixture with other hominids as the distinguishing marker for "Eurasians" versus "Africans"...... "Basal Eurasian" only comes up much later as a result of less than expected Neanderthal mixture in Neolithic populations related to the spread of farming, which begs the question is this a result of later African gene flow or something else.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Huh? Do you mean in Africa? Ust' Ishim man from Siberia is ~45 000 years old.
The problem is nobody has been able to find any remains from the populations in the time frame of 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. And certainly no DNA has been extracted from such remains.
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844272/
A key issue in the estimation of OoA dates using autosomal data is that the Yoruba of West Africa are commonly used as the reference point for AMH departure from East Africa, despite mtDNA and autosomal studies indicating a deep time separation of West and East African populations.98 Furthermore, many approaches assume that modern human groups are related via a simple bifurcating tree, which is likely an over simplistic view of human history. Another fundamental problem with many of the estimates used to date divergence times is that they are highly dependent on the choice of mutation rate, which can be estimated using a wide number of different approaches that often yield disparate values. The accumulation of heritable changes in the genome has traditionally been calculated from the divergence between humans and chimpanzees at pseudogenes, assuming a divergence time of around 6–7 million years ago (phylogenetic mutation rate 2.5 × 10−8/base/generation). With the advent of deep sequencing, it is now possible to directly calculate the mutation rate among present-day humans from parent-offspring trios. Using this method, the mutation rate has been estimated at 1.2 × 10−8/base/generation, half of the phylogenetic mutation rate, thus doubling the estimated divergence dates of Africans and suggesting that events in human evolution have occurred earlier than suggested previously.98–104 More recently, Harris reported that the rate of mutation has likely not been stable since the origin of modern humans, revealing higher mutation rates (particularly in the transition 5′-TCC-3′ to 5′-TTC-3′) in Europeans relative to African or Asian populations thus suggesting it may be too simplistic to assume the mutation rate is consistent across different populations.105 In addition to this, there is also considerable uncertainty in terms of the effect of paternal age at time of conception in the mutation rate with respect to ancestral populations.102 Recent work has attempted to mitigate some of these difficulties by instead calibrating estimates against fine-scale meiotic recombination maps. Using eight diploid genomes from modern non-Africans, Lipson et al calculated a mutation rate of 1.61 ± 0.13 × 10−8, which falls between phylogenetic and pedigree-based approaches.106
aDNA is becoming another major tool in appropriate calibration of mutation rate estimates and is likely to greatly refine our understanding of population divergence times, as it allows direct comparison of present-day and accurately dated ancient human DNA. For example, Fu et al used 10 whole mtDNA sequences from ancient AMHs spanning Europe and East Asia from 40 kya to directly estimate the mtDNA substitution rates based on a tip calibration approach. Using an amended mitochondrial substitution rate of 1.57 × 10−8, they dated the last major gene flow between Africans and non-Africans to 95 kya.107 Later work utilized high coverage aDNA from a 45,000-year-old western Siberian individual called Ust’-Ishim and a technique based on modeling the number of substitutions in relation to the PSMC inferred history, which led to slightly higher estimates of 1.3–1.8 × 10−8 per base per generation.108 It is likely that an increasing availability of ancient samples from different time periods will assist in further refining these estimates.
quote:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/deadthings/2017/09/21/oldest-african-dna-offers-rare-window-into-past/
The Way, Way Back Gene Machine
There is more genetic diversity among humans in Africa than in any other population, but until now, attempts to understand the different threads woven into that fabric have been limited almost entirely to studying modern African DNA.
“We have almost no human fossils from about 30,000 to 300,000 years ago,” says Thompson, acknowledging that despite advances in aDNA extraction, the chances of finding the same amount of it in Africa compared with cooler climes are slim. “We’re not going to have a 300,000 year old Homo heidelbergensis with preserved DNA like they had in Spain. I get that. But if we only look at modern genomics, what are we missing?”
Some researchers look to modern hunter-gatherers, such as the Hadza of Tanzania, and view them almost as frozen in time, representative of ancient populations. But Thompson points out that, despite their traditional lifestyles, the Hadza and other groups have had considerable interaction with populations around them over time.
Says Thompson: “To treat them as relics is tempting but not helpful. We’re able to step back to before them and see how people were actually interacting.”
By sequencing aDNA from the 15 prehistoric individuals and integrating the results with other African DNA and aDNA studies, the team was able to determine that people ancestral to the indigenous people of southern Africa were once distributed much more broadly, but that several of these populations were replaced over time by farmers moving in from western Africa.
The study also uncovered that herders who lived more than 3,000 years ago in what’s now Tanzania were partly ancestral to later individuals spread from Africa’s northeast to its southern edge.
A surprise find included relationships between some of the ancient African DNA with that of ancient DNA from early farmers of the Levant, or eastern Mediterranean, who lived roughly 10,000 years ago — but don’t assume that means there was a long-distance love connection. While it’s possible individuals from the two populations met, it’s also possible that the shared genetic material was inherited from an even older population ancestral to both.
The genetic makeup of the seven Malawi aDNA samples was particularly interesting: They indicate a long-standing population, distinctive to all others, that lasted for about 5,000 years but no longer exists.
What happened to the ancient Malawi people remains a mystery for now, but it’s a question that archaeologists and paleogeneticists may one day answer through further collaboration.
quote:Someday you should try a new thought. And actually reading the paper. But why would you start now?
Originally posted by Doug M:
Continuing the thought.
quote:Teach
Originally posted by Doug M:
Continuing the thought. They have found 45,000 year old remains in Siberia and sequenced the DNA. They have found 35,000 year old remains in Romania and sequenced the DNA. But the "oldest" DNA they have sequenced in Africa is 8,000 years old and to hear them tell it, is the result of wandering Eurasians as if African DNA stems from Eurasians and not Africa. As if Africa is the child and Europe the parent. And people think this is logical.
quote:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/deadthings/2017/09/21/oldest-african-dna-offers-rare-window-into-past/
The Way, Way Back Gene Machine
There is more genetic diversity among humans in Africa than in any other population, but until now, attempts to understand the different threads woven into that fabric have been limited almost entirely to studying modern African DNA.
“We have almost no human fossils from about 30,000 to 300,000 years ago,” says Thompson, acknowledging that despite advances in aDNA extraction, the chances of finding the same amount of it in Africa compared with cooler climes are slim. “We’re not going to have a 300,000 year old Homo heidelbergensis with preserved DNA like they had in Spain. I get that. But if we only look at modern genomics, what are we missing?”
Some researchers look to modern hunter-gatherers, such as the Hadza of Tanzania, and view them almost as frozen in time, representative of ancient populations. But Thompson points out that, despite their traditional lifestyles, the Hadza and other groups have had considerable interaction with populations around them over time.
Says Thompson: “To treat them as relics is tempting but not helpful. We’re able to step back to before them and see how people were actually interacting.”
By sequencing aDNA from the 15 prehistoric individuals and integrating the results with other African DNA and aDNA studies, the team was able to determine that people ancestral to the indigenous people of southern Africa were once distributed much more broadly, but that several of these populations were replaced over time by farmers moving in from western Africa.
The study also uncovered that herders who lived more than 3,000 years ago in what’s now Tanzania were partly ancestral to later individuals spread from Africa’s northeast to its southern edge.
A surprise find included relationships between some of the ancient African DNA with that of ancient DNA from early farmers of the Levant, or eastern Mediterranean, who lived roughly 10,000 years ago — but don’t assume that means there was a long-distance love connection. While it’s possible individuals from the two populations met, it’s also possible that the shared genetic material was inherited from an even older population ancestral to both.
The genetic makeup of the seven Malawi aDNA samples was particularly interesting: They indicate a long-standing population, distinctive to all others, that lasted for about 5,000 years but no longer exists.
What happened to the ancient Malawi people remains a mystery for now, but it’s a question that archaeologists and paleogeneticists may one day answer through further collaboration.
But obviously you are missing a whole lot if you are modeling African DNA based on Eurasians that are only 50kya old whereas Africans have been around at least 3 to 4 times that long. How many times have Africans moved between East and West Africa over the last 250,000 years? How many times have Africans moved between Northern and Southern Africa over the same time period? Obviously there are many dead ends and branches that you won't find if you only look at modern DNA. Which means using modern DNA to model the past, especially modern DNA which is based on remains that are more recent than remains outside of Africa are going to produce misleading results.
So what they do is they use these populations like the Yoruba and other so-called "sub Saharan" populations as "proxies" for what African DNA was present 50,000 years ago, which is highly problematic. Which is why it seems like all these Africans are Eurasians as opposed to Eurasians being downstream descendants of Africans as they should be.
quote:The Yoruba came from the Levant before they settled in Nigeria. I am sure that researchers maskout much of the Yoruba genome to get the results they are looking for. Sadly, we will never know the truth until someone reveals the actual genetic makeup of the Yoruba.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:The only way to find out is more data from the Sahara, not just using the same reference populations along the coasts of North Africa. I guess what I am saying is ultimately a lot of the problem right now is the limited sample sets they use to model "North Africa" DNA. If most samples are from sites close to the coast then of course you are likely to see "mixture" with populations from outside Africa. But all populations in North Africa don't live close to the coasts. And during the various wet/dry phases it is not only likely that there are 'extinct' lineages representing populations that died out in the area, but also other "connector" lineages that are not represented in the DNA of modern "reference" populations along the coasts.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Which waves of what are tied to which specific, actual wet phases, though?
Originally posted by Doug M:
If we believe the Saharan pump theory, then as populations "pulsed" in waves through the Sahara during various wet phases they may have had unique lineages that were spawned and then left Africa as a result of later dry phases.
quote:This isn't about what is greater or lesser in terms of geography. Firstly this is more an issue of semantics. Populations moving out of Africa 50 to 60 thousand years ago or even 40,000 years ago in Eurasia, were not closely similar in appearance to modern populations in the same areas. This is why calling them "Eurasian" is misleading. It would take a long time for "Eurasians" to diverge from Africans in terms of phenotype. But ultimately the point I am making is that they are guessing where these lineages arose because there are so many gaps. And that is what I mean by "waves". So if you set the clock back to 50,000 years ago, what I am saying is there would be a solid chunk of North Africa, the Near East and Europe with populations carrying U lineages, as part of an expansion or "wave" of populations carrying said lineage. Over time many of those populations moved or died out and other lineages became dominant in those areas. So what you see today is only a remnant of that ancient genetic expansion. It is hard to tell clearly where exactly a lineage like U arose in that scenario. The only thing they are doing is just assuming that any remains they find going back in time carrying a specific lineage represents the "origin point" of that lineage which does not have to be true. For example the example of U6 in Romania from the 35,000 year old remains there.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:It could, is there any archaeological evidence that indicates such a wave? Modern human populations were already well established outside Africa by then, and of course were still doing fine in Africa, so there is no reason to favour Africa -> Eurasia or Eurasia -> Africa a priori.
From the way it looks in the current distribution TO ME, U6 was much more wide spread at a very early point of time between Africa, the Near East and Europe. It could be that the populations carrying these lineages were part of a wave of Africans pushing out across North Africa into the Levant in Europe over 40,000 years ago.
quote:I am just saying the terminology as currently used to distiguish "African" (meaning L lineages) from (Non-African) (NON L or M and N derived lineages)is a bit misleading. Again note the topic of the thread and the way "African" DNA is seen as synonymous with "Sub Saharan" DNA as if the rest of Africa is "Non African" in terms of DNA. Such semantics only reinforces this idea of a "split" in the DNA tree going back to the tree found in the Laziridis papers which put OOA populations on a Non African branch. And to be clear, there is no "conspiracy" here. Many papers openly and bluntly suggest that the "Neanderthal interlude" is the reason for modeling the human DNA tree this way. Implying that "Eurasians" are separated from "Africans" by Neanderthal or Denisovan or whatever mixture. And the idea of North African DNA being "Eurasian" and not "African" is the subject of many other papers as well. Meaning it is hard to show the true genetic relationship and where various major branches arose with a model that claims a 'hard split' between African and Eurasian DNA and back migration into North Africa, which would effectively erase most direct evidence of any OOA lineages moving out of Africa. But again, they are using a limited set of "reference" samples for North Africa which produces this flawed model. They don't even have or use reference populations from Northern Sudan and Upper Egypt as reference populations in the "North African" data set.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:There is no 'only L', all those Eurasian lineages are sub-branches of L3 and no more or less 'downstream' than lineages in Africa which are labelled 'L'. There is no such thing as haplogroup L apart from all the others. The terminology originated when the phylogeny as still poorly understood. I suppose you will interpret this as a conspiracy, but in any case understand that, say, L4b2 is equivalent in age and phylogenetic position to R, and L3a to M.
That said the more confusing part to me is why there aren't more 'downstream' lineages of L found in "sub saharan" Africa given that they are the oldest human lineages. Somehow it makes no sense that humans outside of Africa who are less than 100,000 years old have all the downstream lineages J,M,N, U R and so forth while populations in Africa are still carrying only L lineages.
quote:The question is where did this massive bottleneck occur? Did it occur in Syria? Iraq? Arabia? Central Asia? That is my point. If all these lineages spread from the same point and it was NOT in Africa then where was it? Because I assume it represents a bottlenecked population holed up in some refuge as a result of climate or other natural factors. Finding this site would be key to understanding what happened. But again all of these paths lead back to some major bottleneck population from which all these branches split. So they couldn't have been going in all directions if they were part of a large bottleneck after OOA. But it could be that this bottleneck was closer to Africa as well. We see evidence of it but nobody knows where it occurred. Hence the recent papers on "Basal Eurasian" which attempts to identify that bottlenecked population but in a very clumsy way IMO:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Yes, certainly.
Dead end referring to populations who carried genetic branches or lineages that died out because the populations carrying them died out. And those dead end branches go back 300,000 years or more to include even older hominid types that we don't know about.
quote:I'm not sure what you have in mind by the second extinction event, but I agree with you that the timing of Toba does match suspiciously well with the break-up of CDEF. This was followed by the severe cold and aridity of MIS 4/the Early Pleniglacial, so whatever population growth began after Toba (if that's really what we are seeing in the phylogeny) could have been arrested by the climate for some time, depending where they were actually located of course. I don't know why you say D and E have a lot in common and C and F don't? Seems like the opposite to me.
According to SNPS haplogroups which are the age of the first extinction event tend to be around 45–50 kya. Haplogroups of the second extinction event seemed to diverge 32–35 kya according to Mal'ta. The ground zero extinction event appears to be Toba during which haplogroup CDEF* appeared to diverge into C, DE and F. C and F have almost nothing in common while D and E have plenty in common.
quote:The very rapid growth of M and N (and R), as well as C, D, and F (and K), ending with a great many basal branches spread out across most of the globe, can hardly be the result of anything but the population boom of modern humans expanding rapidly outside of Africa, so it makes perfect sense that they would all date to about the same time at the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic. That E, and several basal branches of L3, are about the same age, likely means they were linked to the same cause, whatever exactly that was. Could be tied to the climate getting milder and wetter beginning about 60 000 years ago, though obviously that can't be the whole story.
Note that my theory surrounding the process of the spread of the U lineages also applies to M and N as well and many other lineages. All of these lineages arose in the same time frame: 40 - 50 KYA. Which is odd.
quote:https://hms.harvard.edu/news/new-branch-added-european-family-tree
“This deep lineage of non-African ancestry branched off before all the other non-Africans branched off from one another,” he said. “Before Australian Aborigines and New Guineans and South Indians and Native Americans and other indigenous hunter-gatherers split, they split from Basal Eurasians. This reconciled some contradictory pieces of information for us.”
quote:This isn't about their relationship to modern populations. The point is that semantically the label makes no sense. Those populations and all their genes originated in Africa. We label populations and genetic lineages based on where they came from not where they wind up later. And obviously all these populations originated in Africa. That is why I am saying it is misleading. None of these populations would resemble "modern" Eurasians in most cases. And all "Eurasians" don't look the same today either. But ultimately my reading of the relevant papers says that the mixture with Neanderthals and other hominid species is the reason for this hard distinction between "Eurasian" and "African". So we have a bottleneck and during that major bottleneck a lot of mixture occurred with other hominids meaning the populations leaving from that point weren't "African" anymore, as they would have been before that which would have been the initial OOA population.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:They were genetically more related to modern Eurasians than to modern Africans, naturally, and physically there is no reason why they would be closer to modern Africans than to other tropical populations such as Papuans. They were the ancestors of Eurasians, they had undergone a bottleneck that made them genetically distinctive, they lived in Eurasia, and the whole point of names is to distinguish things - so we can call them ancestral Eurasians. Your complaining about it makes no sense to anyone else.
But calling these wandering populations of Africans in Eurasia "Eurasians" is misleading. These were Africans genetically and physically.
quote:Of course, that is true but we can't depend on one man from Siberia to fully flesh out the DNA tree unfortunately. Not only that but the significance of this man was the amount of Neanderthal DNA found in him. Yes that is important for our knowledge of the past, but again modern science is trying to do a lot in terms of theoretical models of ancient DNA history with limited hard data. But ultimately at this point this DNA only reinforces the idea of OOA populations being bottle necked and then having a lot of admixture with other hominids as the distinguishing marker for "Eurasians" versus "Africans"...... "Basal Eurasian" only comes up much later as a result of less than expected Neanderthal mixture in Neolithic populations related to the spread of farming, which begs the question is this a result of later African gene flow or something else.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Huh? Do you mean in Africa? Ust' Ishim man from Siberia is ~45 000 years old.
The problem is nobody has been able to find any remains from the populations in the time frame of 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. And certainly no DNA has been extracted from such remains.
Also this bottleneck plus neanderthal mixture model kind of contradicts the Southern vs Northern migration route into Asia. Meaning if the Northern and Southern routes were separated by thousands of miles and involved different populations at different times, how could they all be related to a single "bottle necked" population outside of Africa somewhere? Sure it could have happened but depending on where this theoretical "bottle necked" refuge was it would be hard for the Southern route to have started in Africa or Arabia.
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844272/
A key issue in the estimation of OoA dates using autosomal data is that the Yoruba of West Africa are commonly used as the reference point for AMH departure from East Africa, despite mtDNA and autosomal studies indicating a deep time separation of West and East African populations.98 Furthermore, many approaches assume that modern human groups are related via a simple bifurcating tree, which is likely an over simplistic view of human history. Another fundamental problem with many of the estimates used to date divergence times is that they are highly dependent on the choice of mutation rate, which can be estimated using a wide number of different approaches that often yield disparate values. The accumulation of heritable changes in the genome has traditionally been calculated from the divergence between humans and chimpanzees at pseudogenes, assuming a divergence time of around 6–7 million years ago (phylogenetic mutation rate 2.5 × 10−8/base/generation). With the advent of deep sequencing, it is now possible to directly calculate the mutation rate among present-day humans from parent-offspring trios. Using this method, the mutation rate has been estimated at 1.2 × 10−8/base/generation, half of the phylogenetic mutation rate, thus doubling the estimated divergence dates of Africans and suggesting that events in human evolution have occurred earlier than suggested previously.98–104 More recently, Harris reported that the rate of mutation has likely not been stable since the origin of modern humans, revealing higher mutation rates (particularly in the transition 5′-TCC-3′ to 5′-TTC-3′) in Europeans relative to African or Asian populations thus suggesting it may be too simplistic to assume the mutation rate is consistent across different populations.105 In addition to this, there is also considerable uncertainty in terms of the effect of paternal age at time of conception in the mutation rate with respect to ancestral populations.102 Recent work has attempted to mitigate some of these difficulties by instead calibrating estimates against fine-scale meiotic recombination maps. Using eight diploid genomes from modern non-Africans, Lipson et al calculated a mutation rate of 1.61 ± 0.13 × 10−8, which falls between phylogenetic and pedigree-based approaches.106
aDNA is becoming another major tool in appropriate calibration of mutation rate estimates and is likely to greatly refine our understanding of population divergence times, as it allows direct comparison of present-day and accurately dated ancient human DNA. For example, Fu et al used 10 whole mtDNA sequences from ancient AMHs spanning Europe and East Asia from 40 kya to directly estimate the mtDNA substitution rates based on a tip calibration approach. Using an amended mitochondrial substitution rate of 1.57 × 10−8, they dated the last major gene flow between Africans and non-Africans to 95 kya.107 Later work utilized high coverage aDNA from a 45,000-year-old western Siberian individual called Ust’-Ishim and a technique based on modeling the number of substitutions in relation to the PSMC inferred history, which led to slightly higher estimates of 1.3–1.8 × 10−8 per base per generation.108 It is likely that an increasing availability of ancient samples from different time periods will assist in further refining these estimates.
quote:What paper are you talking about and what is your criticism?
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Someday you should try a new thought. And actually reading the paper. But why would you start now?
Originally posted by Doug M:
Continuing the thought.
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844272/
Genetic studies have as yet been unable to settle the conflicting archeological evidence for these different dates, which can also be classified as pre-Toba (100–130 kya) or post-Toba (around 50–60 kya). Given the lack of ancient DNA (aDNA) data temporally and spatially, such genetic-based approaches have focused on inference using modern DNA. Studies based on reconstructing mtDNA phylogenies have suggested a date for modern humans leaving Africa between 60 and 40 kya,80 while dates inferred from STR analysis also fall within these estimates, positing an expansion date of around 50 kya for central African, European, and East Asian populations.82,93 Time estimates from whole-genome sequencing data have been more variable and depend largely on the choice of model used. For example, studies using the allele frequency spectrum, identity-by-state, or coalescent-based models suggest a divergence time of 60–50 kya,94–96 while analyses based on the pairwise sequencing Markovian coalescent (PSMC) model suggest that the divergence began 100–80 kya, with gene flow occurring until 20 kya.97
A key issue in the estimation of OoA dates using autosomal data is that the Yoruba of West Africa are commonly used as the reference point for AMH departure from East Africa, despite mtDNA and autosomal studies indicating a deep time separation of West and East African populations.98 Furthermore, many approaches assume that modern human groups are related via a simple bifurcating tree, which is likely an over simplistic view of human history. Another fundamental problem with many of the estimates used to date divergence times is that they are highly dependent on the choice of mutation rate, which can be estimated using a wide number of different approaches that often yield disparate values. The accumulation of heritable changes in the genome has traditionally been calculated from the divergence between humans and chimpanzees at pseudogenes, assuming a divergence time of around 6–7 million years ago (phylogenetic mutation rate 2.5 × 10-8/base/generation). With the advent of deep sequencing, it is now possible to directly calculate the mutation rate among present-day humans from parent-offspring trios. Using this method, the mutation rate has been estimated at 1.2 × 10-8/base/generation, half of the phylogenetic mutation rate, thus doubling the estimated divergence dates of Africans and suggesting that events in human evolution have occurred earlier than suggested previously.98–104 More recently, Harris reported that the rate of mutation has likely not been stable since the origin of modern humans, revealing higher mutation rates (particularly in the transition 5'-TCC-3' to 5'-TTC-3') in Europeans relative to African or Asian populations thus suggesting it may be too simplistic to assume the mutation rate is consistent across different populations.105 In addition to this, there is also considerable uncertainty in terms of the effect of paternal age at time of conception in the mutation rate with respect to ancestral populations.102 Recent work has attempted to mitigate some of these difficulties by instead calibrating estimates against fine-scale meiotic recombination maps. Using eight diploid genomes from modern non-Africans, Lipson et al calculated a mutation rate of 1.61 ± 0.13 × 10-8, which falls between phylogenetic and pedigree-based approaches.106
quote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/science/human-fossils-morocco.html
Fossils discovered in Morocco are the oldest known remains of Homo sapiens, scientists reported on Wednesday, a finding that rewrites the story of mankind’s origins and suggests that our species evolved in multiple locations across the African continent.
quote:I'm not sure your line of argument makes sense.
Originally posted by Doug M:
It says nothing about an African origin of EEF. It says nothing about an African origin of Eurasian DNA. It says the opposite.
quote:I tried telling him in the main thread that Eurasians have little to do with the study or European racism...
Originally posted by capra:
Only Luxmanda_3100BP and South_Africa_1200BP were modelled with PPNB ancestry. None of the ancient Malawians had anything of the kind.
Can't you ever discuss AFRICA without continually making it all about Eurasians? In this case the study used the Tanzanian Luxmanda_3100BP as their reference whenever possible and explicitly note that the ancestry they model as PPNB could be shared ancestry of African origin. So there is nothing in this paper that requires actual Eurasian ancestry in the ancient samples.
Now are you even capable of discussing Africa, do you know anything about it at all? All I ever see from you is vague wishful thinking full of errors.
quote:The paper was titled "Prehistoric African DNA structure". It was not titled "African DNA history since the Neolithic" yet that is precisely main content of the paper. And it was to reinforce the idea that there was substantial "Eurasian" backflow into Africa as a result of the spread of farming during the neolithic. So the "prehistoric" African DNA they are referring to is being modeled based on the spread of farming SINCE the neolithic. So the title of the paper is false. They are not talking about "AFRICAN DNA HISTORY" in a true sense, they are only talking about a PORTION of African DNA history STARTING with the Neolithic spread of "Bantu" DNA towards South Africa. That is NOT the same as the complete DNA history of Africa. Those are two completely and fundamentally different things. And as I have said before Europeans like the Bantustan model because it makes Africans into an artificially young population compared to Europeans and implies a lot of Eurasian migration into Africa (which historically meant "intelligence" and the basis for African civilizations). This is not new stuff and has been written about in many places. So to me this is nothing but a rehash of the old models of African history and nothing more.
Originally posted by capra:
Only Luxmanda_3100BP and South_Africa_1200BP were modelled with PPNB ancestry. None of the ancient Malawians had anything of the kind.
Indeed we don't have super-ancient DNA that would allows to draw any firm conclusions about the deep prehistory of Africa. Well, feel free to ignore everything that is said about it. But now we have recent DNA from Africa, so maybe now we can talk about the Bantu expansion, East-South Africa cline, Northeast African pastoralist migrations, which we now have data for?
Can't you ever discuss AFRICA without continually making it all about Eurasians? In this case the study used the Tanzanian Luxmanda_3100BP as their reference whenever possible and explicitly note that the ancestry they model as PPNB could be shared ancestry of African origin. So there is nothing in this paper that requires actual Eurasian ancestry in the ancient samples.
Now are you even capable of discussing Africa, do you know anything about it at all? All I ever see from you is vague wishful thinking full of errors.
quote:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/deadthings/2017/09/21/oldest-african-dna-offers-rare-window-into-past/
A great irony about Africa is that, even though it’s the birthplace of our species, we know almost nothing about the prehistoric populations who lived there: the bands of hunter gatherers who moved across the massive continent, interacting with and sometimes replacing other groups.
Today that changes.
Thanks to new research that includes the oldest African DNA ever successfully read, we’re seeing Africa’s prehistory like never before. Archaeologists and paleogeneticists are finally starting to fill in some crucial gaps about the human story.
Imagine you’re an archaeologist, specifically a paleolithic archaeologist who studies the earliest chapters of our story, before cities or iron or agriculture, and you’re focused on Africa, which is, after all, where all of us can trace back our ancestry. (Yes, all of us.)
Imagine what it’s like to sit through one conference after another as colleagues who work in Eurasia share one thrilling discovery after the next, all unearthed thanks to paleogenomic research, or the study of ancient DNA (aDNA). An entirely new ancient hominin, the Denisovans of Siberia, known only from fossil fragments that yielded aDNA! Awesome! Successful sequencing of a 430,000-year-old genome from Spain! Super cool!
Emory University’s Jessica Thompson doesn’t have to imagine. She is that paleolithic archaeologist, and she felt a mixture of awe and envy as colleagues working at Eurasian sites were able to extract and study aDNA, which needs cold, dry conditions to survive for any length of time.
The dearth of aDNA from Africa made it hard to understand the continent’s rich past, and it also fueled a centuries-old myth that Africa was less significant.
“The success of paleogenomic research in Eurasia feeds that narrative that Eurasia is somehow more important than Africa [and] that’s frustrating to me. We’re hungry to have more information,” says Thompson, echoing the feelings of other archaeologists working in Africa. “I know it’s because we don’t have these nice, cold environments.”
A lightbulb went off at one of those conferences for Thompson, however. She remembered a cave she’d visited as a tourist: it was in Malawi, on a high-plateau mountain called Hora where human skeletons had been excavated in the mid-20th century. And it was cold.
quote:http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-complete-first-major-study-ancient-human-dna-africa-180964973/
Thompson found two ancient human samples in another lab, but analyzing them produced inconsistent results. So she decided to return to the Malawi sites where they were dug up to look for more clues. She ended up uncovering three more sets of human remains, which contained DNA dating back as far as 8,000 years ago; she collected other samples from scientific archives in Malawi.
Other researchers also sqeuenced eight more ancient samples from southern, which Thompson’s group included in a study published today in the journal Cell. Time had degraded the samples, says Pontus Skoglund, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School who led the study. However, with persistence and advancing genetic technology, researchers were able to obtain at least 30,000 DNA base pairs from each sample—“more than enough to do powerful statistical analyses,” Skoglund says.
The team compared these ancient sequences to hundreds of modern day genomes from Africa and around the world to place the ancestries of modern humans, and see who had moved around and who hadn’t. "What is most immediately obvious is this landscape of hunter-gatherer populations has now been changed quite radically," Skoglund says.
Before the widespread use of agriculture and livestock, humans survived through hunting and gathering. The adoption of agriculture by some groups of people is known to have driven great migrations among humans throughout ancient history, Thompson says, but this study made clear the scale of how much this disrupted the distribution of humans in southern Africa.
Modern-day people native to Malawi appear to be completely unrelated to the ancient humans who lived in their country a few thousand years ago—reflecting a much more dramatic migration than Thompson and others would have expected. Other samples confirmed how much movement within Africa has occurred in the last few thousand years, and included a Tanzanian herder who was found to have descendants spread from north to south on the continent.
These movements mean that the lineage of modern humans in Africa appears to have mixed much more than previously thought, according to Thompson. "It appears to be one of the most complete population replacements ever documented," she says.
"Human genetic history was complex, and ancient DNA studies from Africa are needed to understand the history there, and are eagerly awaited," said Chris Tyler-Smith, a geneticist at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, via email. "This is the first substantial study of ancient African DNA."
Tyler-Smith, who wasn't involved in the research, said some of the conclusions were expected, such as the fact that populations of hunter-gatherers were replaced by agricultural populations. But other insights, such as how branched the tree of ancestry for modern-day west Africans is, surprised him.
The completion of this sequencing, he says, opens the door to more and better sequencing down the road, and raises more questions about our ancestors.
quote:As I said, the article is not about the prehistory of Africa which is 200,000 years old. It is about the history of Africa since the Neolithic, specifically associated with the Bantu migrations....
Originally posted by capra:
OK, if you are done complaining about the title, why not discuss what the new findings suggest to you about the recent prehistory of Africa?
quote:This is not a complete reconstruction of African DNA going back 200,000 years. And that is what I meant and the paper does not suggest that is what it is saying. So really, there is nothing useful to be gained from it in terms of MOST of Africa's DNA history. Now if you only care about "recent" African DNA history then fine, but I care about MOST of Africa's DNA history which is far older than 10,000 years.
Summary
We assembled genome-wide data from 16 prehistoric Africans. We show that the anciently divergent lineage that comprises the primary ancestry of the southern African San had a wider distribution in the past, contributing approximately two-thirds of the ancestry of Malawi hunter-gatherers ∼8,100–2,500 years ago and approximately one-third of the ancestry of Tanzanian hunter-gatherers ∼1,400 years ago. We document how the spread of farmers from western Africa involved complete replacement of local hunter-gatherers in some regions, and we track the spread of herders by showing that the population of a ∼3,100-year-old pastoralist from Tanzania contributed ancestry to people from northeastern to southern Africa, including a ∼1,200-year-old southern African pastoralist. The deepest diversifications of African lineages were complex, involving either repeated gene flow among geographically disparate groups or a lineage more deeply diverging than that of the San contributing more to some western African populations than to others. We finally leverage ancient genomes to document episodes of natural selection in southern African populations.
quote:You are correct. It is a waste of time trying to pretend that this limited window of African DNA history actually is such a great breakthrough. Heck they don't even describe the actual lineages that existed before the Bantus came but folks want to act like this even helps anything.
Originally posted by capra:
ah fuck it waste of time
quote:Because I can read and it doesn't. There is a differenc between what the paper actually says and what you think it SHOULD say based on what your own "personal analysis". And if your "personal analysis" is saying something different, what is your complaint then about what I am saying?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
What if the same studies you are criticizing provides evidence that what people considered OOA, Eurasian or Back-migration is actually African and you just haven't realized yet cuz your head's so far up your ass?
quote:You mean the Laziridis paper that specifically looked at far more ancient and extensive aDNA from Eurasia and filtered out most African DNA with one sample (Mota) of younger age than those from Europe? Seriously? You mean the one that reinforces the model of Eurasian backflow into Africa like this paper by omission? You mean the one that used the 4,500 year old remains of Mota that were part of a previous paper on "Eurasian Backmigration" to Africa that was found to be flawed? You know the one titled
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
..yeah, tell us who actually read and keep up with where the data leads us, that we're wasting our time when you still show signs of a lack of comprehension of the African genetic landscape mapped out by aDNA since Lazaradis 2016.
quote:And somehow you claim they are saying this aDNA from Africa shows the opposite? Come on now you are kidding.
First ancient African genome reveals vast Eurasian migration
DNA from Ethiopian man pre-dates the movement of Eurasian farmers 'back to Africa'.
quote:I already made the simple point that you aren't going to get answers on actual ancient DNA history in Africa of upwards of 20KYA ago without actual DNA from that time period. Otherwise you are wasting your time trying to explain or unravel the DNA history of any part of Africa no matter how much you claim you can do so with "personal analysis".
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
you need to keep it simple.
What story does the aDNA we have sample tells you?
Who do you want sampled or sequenced?
^What do you expect to see when they are researched?
quote:I am not trying to prove anything to you in the first place. These papers aren't written by you and aren't summarizing YOUR point of view yet when I criticize them some people actually jump out and act as if these papers are "their work" somehow... Come on dude....
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Prove that you aren't a waste of time and answer those questions... otherwise just admit that you have nothing meaningful to contribute, and that your rants are just dmg control for your lack of understanding and previous failures for predicting the outcome what aDNA revealed.
quote:So what is your reason for responding to me as if there is something INVALID behind what I am saying then? I made my point clear numerous times on this thread? Otherwise if the papers are flawed then why on earth are you responding to me as if there is something "not right" about HOW I say the papers are flawed? Or do you not see that?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
The problem isn't that you're criticizing the paper... almost Everyone one here criticize these papers lmao, the problem is that you're posts are a waste of time.
quote:As I said earlier it tells us nothing about what most of us really want to know which is key splits in human DNA related to OOA and whether they happened IN Africa or outside Africa. This is the issue and has been the underlying issue for quite a while now.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I asked you 3 questions,
What story does the aDNA we have sample tells you?
quote:You need far more ancient DNA from Africa across multiple parts of Africa, but most especially North Africa, including the Sahara, Nile Valley and East Africa. Modern DNA alone is not going to help for the reasons stated. Too many bottlenecks, environmental or social have occurred for modern populations to represent a clear direct lineage back to the populations involved in OOA. The Sahara itself being an example of an environmental bottleneck. Bantu Migrations and Eurasian back migration being examples of population replacement and mixture. And this is the problem with the aDNA currently being used in these papers. And again, I have already posted other scholars saying the same thing, so I don't understand why that wasn't clear by now.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Who do you want sampled or sequenced?
^What do you expect to see when they are researched?
Can you finish answering them?
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707776/
The human past on many timescales is of broad intrinsic interest, and genetics contributes to our understanding of it, as do paleontology, archaeology, linguistics and other disciplines. Geneticists have long studied present-day populations to glean information about their past, using models to infer past population events such as migrations or replacements, generally invoking Occam’s razor to favor the simplest model consistent with the data. But this is not the most straightforward approach to understanding such events: the obvious way to study any aspect of human genetic history is to analyze population samples from before, during and after the period of interest, and to simply catalogue the changes. Advances in ancient DNA (aDNA) technology are now beginning to make this more direct approach possible, facilitated by new sequencing technologies that are now capable of generating gigabases of data at moderate cost (Box 1). This abundance of data, combined with an understanding of the damage patterns indicative of authentic aDNA, greatly simplify the recognition and avoidance of the bugbear of the field: contamination.
...
Neanderthal ancestry in all present-day non-Africans is estimated to be 1.5–2.1 % [14]. The broad geographical distribution, together with the size of the DNA segments contributed by Neanderthals, suggests that the gene flow most likely occurred at an early stage of the out-of-Africa expansion: around 47,000–65,000 ya [12], before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other. Sequences from the genomes of ancient Eurasians show that they carried longer archaic segments that have been affected by less recombination than those in present-day humans, consistent with the ancient individuals being closer to the time of the admixture event with Neanderthals. For example, a genome sequence from Kostenki 14 who lived in Russia 38,700–36,200 ya had a segment of Neanderthal ancestry of ~3 Mb on chromosome 6 [15], whereas present-day humans carry, on average, introgressed haplotypes of ~57 kb in length [16]. The genome sequence of a 45,000-year-old modern human male named Ust’-Ishim (after the region in Siberia where he was discovered), shows genomic segments of Neanderthal ancestry that are ~1.8–4.2 times longer than those observed in present-day individuals, suggesting that the Neanderthal gene flow occurred 232–430 generations before Ust’-Ishim lived, or approximately 50,000–60,000 ya [17], narrowing the previous range.[ Moreover, the Neanderthal-derived DNA in all non-Africans is more closely related to a Neanderthal from the Caucasus than it is to either the Neanderthal from Siberia or the Neanderthal from Croatia [14], providing more evidence that archaic admixture occurred in West Asia early during modern humans’ exit from Africa.
...
aDNA evidence has thus supported the replacement model as an explanation for most human variation, but has transformed and enriched this model in ways not anticipated in the earlier debate: first by discovering Denisovans, whose fossil record currently remains unrecognized, and second by revealing the multiplicity of admixture events, which include at least one that cannot be detected in present-day DNA.
...
Recent aDNA studies reveal, however, that populating Europe has been a much more complex process, and that the Neolithic transition (Box 3) was not even the event that most influenced the present-day genetic landscape.
The first aDNA complete genome sequence from Europe came from the Tyrolean Iceman; a 5300-year-old (Late Neolithic or ‘Copper Age’) natural mummy discovered in 1991 in the Ötztal Alps. Surprisingly, the Iceman had more genetic affinity to present-day Sardinians than to the present-day populations inhabiting the region where he probably lived [28], showing that major demographic changes have occurred in Europe after the Neolithic era. A more substantial revision of the demic diffusion model was introduced when several 7000–8000-year-old individuals from Western Europe [29] and a 24,000-year-old individual from Siberia [30] were sequenced. Analysis showed that at least three different ancient populations contributed to the genetics of present-day Europeans: (1) West European hunter-gatherers, (2) ancient north Eurasians related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians, and (3) early European farmers, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin [29]. The contributions of these three populations to modern European ancestry were not necessarily direct, and the demic diffusion model was further refined by analyzing 69 additional Europeans who lived between 3000 and 8000 ya (Fig. 1).
...
Adaptation to non-African environments was also believed to be the cause of human variation in skin color. It was thought that the light skin of Europeans was a Paleolithic adaptation to facilitate vitamin D production in reduced sunlight regions [43]. Consistent with this hypothesis, aDNA analyses show that Scandinavian hunter-gatherers and Early European farmers indeed carried derived alleles contributing to light skin [44]. However, western hunter-gatherers of central and southern European populations survived in Palaeolithic Europe with dark skin pigmentation [44, 45]; thus, light skin has not been an essential adaptation for survival in this environment, and perhaps has resulted instead from sexual selection.
...
Findings from aDNA research are currently transforming our understanding of human history at an ever-increasing pace. When evolution was parsimonious, aDNA may support the prevailing model, as with the initial peopling of the Americas; but more often, evolution was not parsimonious, and aDNA reveals a much richer history, as in the other examples considered here. In either situation, human evolutionary genetics is moving to a paradigm where we first look for evidence from aDNA and interpret present-day genetic variation in its light.
What are the limits to how far this can go? Very ancient samples more than 100,000 years old and some geographical regions of great interest, such as the Near East and Africa, remain challenging for aDNA research. Both time and poor DNA preservation in hot wet climates may impose insurmountable limits to resolving many questions related to the origin and genetic diversity of our species. Identifying favorable locations within these regions [46], or relevant relict populations and migrant individuals, offers some ways around such limitations. Improvements in aDNA extraction and library construction will push the limits, but sequences below 25 base pairs in length often do not map uniquely to the human genome, and so provide little useful information. There is room for methodological improvements in repair and perhaps reconstruction of ancient molecules within the fossils.
quote:Of course Africa is of no interest beyond its relationship to Eurasia.
Originally posted by Doug M:
As I said earlier it tells us nothing about what most of us really want to know which is key splits in human DNA related to OOA and whether they happened IN Africa or outside Africa. This is the issue and has been the underlying issue for quite a while now.
quote:Here's some ancient North African DNA, two different areas
Originally posted by Doug M:
You need far more ancient DNA from Africa across multiple parts of Africa, but most especially North Africa
quote:..wanna know my reason?
Originally posted by Doug M:
So what is your reason for responding to me as if there is something INVALID behind what I am saying then? I made my point clear numerous times on this thread? Otherwise if the papers are flawed then why on earth are you responding to me as if there is something "not right" about HOW I say the papers are flawed? Or do you not see that?
quote:I am specifically talking about what DNA was present during OOA. This was made abundantly clear. The Nile Valley, Sahara and East Africa are the most relevant to OOA. So as I posted from a scholarly PAPER already, you need aDNA from before, during and after OOA to give a proper picture of what DNA splits occurred where involving OOA. Having data from other parts of Africa would be nice but if we are talking OOA we need data from the areas directly involved in OOA. West Africa is not where OOA occurred.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:..wanna know my reason?
Originally posted by Doug M:
So what is your reason for responding to me as if there is something INVALID behind what I am saying then? I made my point clear numerous times on this thread? Otherwise if the papers are flawed then why on earth are you responding to me as if there is something "not right" about HOW I say the papers are flawed? Or do you not see that?
Read your answers to my simple questions... You haven't even gotten to the point to where your criticisms can be "Invalid."
1.You basically say the data we do have paints no picture for Africans...OK
2.You want ADNA from north Africa (which we now have), the Sahel and an upper Egypt, east Africa... which is fine I guess, but don't you think I'd be extremely important to get some west African aDNA over 6kya? at least explain why not
3.What do you think these genomes will tell you when you get them!! Stop dancing around the question..
For example... Which Uniparental haplogroups will you expect from Ancient Sahelians? Which modern populations will they draw affinity towards? Will their DNA correspond to archeological findings and patterns mapped out from (...guess who), aDNA and modern samples that we CURRENTLY HAVE?
quote:So if that is the case, why are most of the papers we are referencing talking about Eurasian DNA in Africa as a result of back migration? If they really cared about ONLY African DNA in Africa and ONLY about movements of populations within Africa then they would not include "Eurasian" back migration in almost every paper about "African" DNA. Again, see the paper on "Mota" DNA being about "massive" Eurasian back migration into Africa. So stop trying to pretend as if this is something I am pushing. The papers all say this clearly. Yet when they do DNA studies in EURASIA, you hardly see any mention of African DNA except in anecdotes. Laziridis et al certainly don't. Which is why you got "Basal Eurasian" in the first place, which is the result of filtering out African DNA on one hand and not having appropriate aDNA from Africa on the other hand. Because according to ALL of these papers, North African DNA isn't African it is Eurasian. Therefore the only truly "African" DNA is DNA from so-called "Sub Saharan" Africa..... Which is why some folks have been accused as wanting to promote SSA in Egypt, when in reality they are trying to avoid the possibility of African specific DNA being misinterpreted as "Eurasian". But as it stands given that most downstream lineages of basal African genes are labeled as Eurasian, the only ones unmistakeably and undeniably labeled as "African" are not cooincidentally those labeled as "Sub Saharan", which means "Sub Saharan" in almost all DNA studies in Africa becomes a proxy for "true or pure" African with no Eurasian mixture. Anything else is held up as Eurasian or Eurasian mixed. And the more recent papers that have aDNA from Africa also push the same model of DNA in Africa, where North African DNA is "Eurasian" and only "Sub Saharan" DNA is "African".... Oh but sure I am the one introducing Eurasia into the study of African DNA?
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Of course Africa is of no interest beyond its relationship to Eurasia.
Originally posted by Doug M:
As I said earlier it tells us nothing about what most of us really want to know which is key splits in human DNA related to OOA and whether they happened IN Africa or outside Africa. This is the issue and has been the underlying issue for quite a while now.
quote:So what about Saharan populations at the same time? What about Nile Valley populations? What about Southern Libyan populations? What about Southern Algerian populations? Surely you can't sit here and pretend that this one tiny part of coastal North Africa represents the entire expanse of North Africa..... Yet this paper and the aDNA in it will be used to represent the entire population of North Africa in antiquity.
On the origin of Iberomaurusians: new data based on ancient mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic
analysis of Afalou and Taforalt populations.
Abstract
The Western North African population was characterized by the presence of Iberomaurusian civilization at the Epiplaeolithic period (around 20,000 years before present (YBP) to 10,000 YBP). The origin of this population is still not clear: they may come from Europe, Near East, sub-Saharan Africa or they could have evolved in situ in North Africa. With the aim to contribute to a better knowledge of the settlement of North Africa we analysed the mitochondrial DNA extracted from Iberomaurusian skeletons exhumed from the archaeological site of Afalou (AFA) (15,000-11,000 YBP) in Algeria and from the archaeological site of Taforalt (TAF) (23,000-10,800 YBP) in Morocco. Then, we carried out a phylogenetic analysis relating these Iberomaurusians to 61 current Mediterranean populations. The genetic structure of TAF and AFA specimens contains only North African and Eurasian maternal lineages. These finding demonstrate the presence of these haplotypes in North Africa from at least 20,000 YBP. The very low contribution of a Sub-Saharan African haplotype in the Iberomaurusian samples is confirmed. We also highlighted the existence of genetic flows between Southern and Northern coast of the Mediterranean.
quote:I am going to say this as plain as I can say it.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
holy fuck, just answer the questions ...what do you believe you will see when you get your desired samples? There is absolutely nothing complex about that.
quote:http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-complete-first-major-study-ancient-human-dna-africa-180964973/
Modern-day people native to Malawi appear to be completely unrelated to the ancient humans who lived in their country a few thousand years ago—reflecting a much more dramatic migration than Thompson and others would have expected. Other samples confirmed how much movement within Africa has occurred in the last few thousand years, and included a Tanzanian herder who was found to have descendants spread from north to south on the continent.
These movements mean that the lineage of modern humans in Africa appears to have mixed much more than previously thought, according to Thompson. "It appears to be one of the most complete population replacements ever documented," she says.
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4163019/
In archaeology, this debate has played out around the issue of whether sudden changes in material culture apparent in the archaeological record can be attributed to the spread of culture or to population movements: “pots versus people” [1]. In physical anthropology, the debate has played out around the issue of whether changes in morphological characters over time are due to in situ evolution or to the arrival of new populations (e.g., [2]).
The same debate has also played out in genetics. On the side of population replacements, there are the “wave of advance” and “demic diffusion” models, first proposed to describe the spread of agriculture through Europe. In these models, the Neolithic transition was accompanied by the spread of farmers from the Near East across Europe, who partially or completely replaced resident hunter-gatherers [3–6]. On the side of stasis, there are the “serial founder effect” models [7,8], which proposed that populations have remained in the locations they first colonized after the out-of-Africa expansion, exchanging migrants only at a low rate with their immediate neighbors until the long-range migrations of the last 500 years [9–12].
These genetic models – the wave-of-advance models on the one hand, and the serial founder effect models on the other – were proposed prior to the availability of large-scale genomic data. The great synthesis of genetic data with historical, archaeological and linguistic information, “The History and Geography of Human Genes” [13], was written based on data from around one hundred protein polymorphisms, and the papers that popularized the notion of a serial founder effect model were written based on data from around 1,000 microsatellites. However, it is now possible to genotype millions of polymorphisms in thousands of individuals using high-throughput sequencing. Because of these technological advances, the last few years have seen a dramatic increase in the quantity of data available for learning about human history. Equally important has been rapid innovation in methods for making inferences from these data. Here, we argue that the technological breakthroughs of the past few years motivate a systematic re-evaluation of human history using modern genomic tools—a new “History and Geography of Human Genes” that exploits many orders of magnitude more data than the original synthesis.
In the first section of the paper, we summarize what we see as major lessons from the recent literature. In particular, it is now clear that the data contradict any model in which the genetic structure of the world today is approximately the same as it was immediately following the out-of-Africa expansion. Instead, the last 50,000 years of human history have witnessed major upheavals, such that much of the geographic information about the first human migrations has been overwritten by subsequent population movements. However, the data also often contradict models of population replacement: when two distinct population groups come together during demographic expansions, the result is often genetic admixture rather than complete replacement. This suggests that new types of models—with admixture at their center—are necessary for describing key aspects of human history (for early examples of admixture models, see [14–16]).
In the second section of the paper, we sketch out a way forward for data-driven construction of these models. We specifically highlight the potential of ancient DNA studies of individuals from archaeologically-important cultures. Such studies in principle provide a source of information about history that bypasses some fundamental ambiguities in the interpretation of genetic, archaeological, or anthropological evidence alone. We discuss a number of potential applications of this technology to outstanding questions in human history.
....
These simulations show that the main observation that has been marshaled in support of the serial founder effect model is also consistent with very different histories (see also [29,38,39,41]). Specifically, in the absence of additional data, the smooth linear decline in heterozygosity away from Africa could represent a signal of many population bottlenecks during the initial out-of-Africa expansion tens of thousands of years ago, or it could represent a signal of extensive population mixture within the last few thousand years (or, of course, a combination of these or many other models that we have not considered). Because the data are compatible with both, arguing for one over the other involves a subjective determination of which class of model is more likely a priori. Perhaps the most important issue affecting this determination is how important migration has been over the last 50,000 years of human history. How representative are populations today of the populations that lived in the same locations after the out-of-Africa expansion?
The answer to the question posed above has been the subject of considerable research over the past several years. In our opinion one finding is already clear: long-range migration and concomitant population replacement or admixture have occurred often enough in recent human history that the present-day inhabitants of many places in the world are rarely related in a simple manner to the more ancient peoples of the same region
....
Figure 3 shows the geographic locations of all the populations, along with the locations of the best present-day proxies of their ancestral populations. Admixture between populations related to ones that are now geographically distant is evident in most populations of the world. For example, Native American-related ancestry is present throughout Europe [54], likely reflecting the genetic input from the Ancient Northern Eurasian population related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians [53,54] both into the Americas (most likely prior to 15,000 years ago) and into Europe [52,53]. Also, ancestry from a population related to those living in the Near East is found in Cambodia [30], likely due to mixture from an ancestral South Asian population that was itself an admixed population containing ancestry related to present-day Near Easterners [65]. The test we use as the basis for Figure 3 detects only one signal of admixture per population, and cannot detect complete population replacement. The true population history is thus likely to have been even more complex.
These examples show that the populations in a given region today are rarely descended in a simple manner from the inhabitants in the distant past. This provides further evidence that the serial founder effect model is no longer a reasonable null model for the relationship between present-day populations and their ancestors. Instead, clines in genetic diversity observed in data may often be better modeled as outcomes of admixture (as in Figures 1B and 1C) rather than a series of bottlenecks.
quote:Why are you asking the same question over and over again? Seriously?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
If the data wasn't skewed what would it look like?
quote:Since you don't understand what I said and its implication.
In the first section of the paper, we summarize what we see as major lessons from the recent literature. In particular, it is now clear that the data contradict any model in which the genetic structure of the world today is approximately the same as it was immediately following the out-of-Africa expansion. Instead, the last 50,000 years of human history have witnessed major upheavals, such that much of the geographic information about the first human migrations has been overwritten by subsequent population movements.
