...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
OT: R*-M173 back migration
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: But didn't the transitions M9, M45, M207 prior to M173 take place outside of Africa, so that a back migration was involved? [/QUOTE]Do you assume this or have you identified actual population sources for underived M9,M45, and M207? I also notice you use the word 'involved' which is non specific as opposed to originated. How do you qualify involvement? For example we know that all of these lineages derive from African M168 - which precedes out of africa migrations....can we say that there was no further AFrican involvement in the downstream lineages. What if and M168 population migrated from Africa to South Asia, derived to M89, migrated from South Asia to Africa, and thence derived to M45 and then back migrated [b]TO[/b] Asia? I submit that back migrations from Africa to Asia is no less logical a hypothesis for many of these early derived non African lineages, however it is seldom conceptualised that way, even for the sake of 'hypothesis' because it yet again re-emphasisew Africa at the expense of Eurasia. This is also I think, what Keita is getting at. Further consider: What if M207 populations migrated to Africa, derived to R1*, and then R1* populations migrated to Eurasia and derived to R1b, making Europeans descendant from R1* bearing Africans best represented by Cameroonians? Be wary of the way in which the wounded Eurocentrist ego - now desparate in the face of the sheer onslaught of *Recent African Origin* genetic data - including of the PN2 clade which provides evidence of the African basis of Nile Valley civilisation, as well as the African foundation of the "european" Neolithic, seeks to base on argument on special pleading on behalf of 'Eurasia'. Possibly vague claims like involved, and buzz words like 'back migration' mean to substitute for lack of evidence of actual specifics involving European *origin*? After all this thread is devoted to discussing the involvement of Eurasia in Nilo Saharan and Afrisan via R1*, not any of which can actually be proven to *originate* outside of Africa. This is why the use of the harsh term - desparate - is I think, fair. [IMG]http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n3/40703/fg1.jpg[/IMG] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3