posted 28 February 2005 08:06 AM            

• Europeans:

  The genetic distances between the English and other European populations are small. The two greatest are 404 for the Lapps, and 340 for the Sardinians, two populations that contributed few immigrants to the United States. With major European populations, 22 with the Germans, the distances are 24 with the French, 51 with the Italians, and on up to 204 with the Greeks. In comparison with the much larger genetic distances from the Bantu and West Africans, or the Japanese, South Chinese, or American Indians, the European populations do indeed seem similar to each other.

• Sub-Saharan Africans:

  Likewise, the various West African populations are similar to one another. The average distance between the various West African tribes is 157, and 211 among the Bantu groups (p. 184). A representative Bantu to West African distance is 188 (p. 175).

• Italians:

  Torroni, Semino, Scozzari, Sirugo, Spedini, Abbas, Fellous, & Santachiara Benerecetti (1990) reported a sharp distinction between Africans and Italians using markers on the Y chromosome.

• North Africans:

  The map of the first principal component in Africa shows a sharp north to south gradient (p. 191). The contour lines are closer together in the Sahara. A quick glance shows that Africa can be divided into a North African area where live peoples traditionally called Caucasoids, and sub-Saharan Africa where live peoples traditionally called Negroids (the 2 southernmost zones pick up most of sub-Saharan Africa). The map shows a zone in the Sahara where the gene frequencies are intermediate.

• European Outliers:

  For instance, in inspecting the tree for Europe (p. 268), the Lapps will be found to be the population that is furthest separated from other populations. Next come the Sardinians, which are sufficiently different from other Europeans that their inclusion in the principal components analysis would have required that they be given a component to themselves (p. 291). Their unique gene mix is attributed primely to genetic drift in a small population. The Basques are found to be another distinct group, who are argued to be a remnant of the original Europeans. Iceland is found to be quite distinct from the rest of Europe, which is attributed to genetic drift in a small population.

• Bantu Expansions:

  However, the bulk of the population of sub-Saharan Africa is composed of either Bantu speakers, or West Africans. The populations within both of these large groups are found to differ little genetically from each other. In the case of the Bantu speakers this is believed to be because they spread from a much smaller population originating from near Cameroon. The linguistic, archaeological, and historical evidence for this movement is expounded on. The historical evidence is mainly relevant to South Africa where history shows that the Bantu moved into the area, displacing the Khoisans at about the same time as the Europeans came in. Similarity in languages and archaeological evidence traces the earlier stages of the movement. The genetic similarities between different groups is consistent with the hypothesized movements, and suggests that there were two streams, one moving south first, and the other east into East Africa, and then South (p. 183-185). Because of this relatively recent Bantu expansion, the various Bantu populations do not differ much from each other genetically.

• Intermediate Africans:

  It was pointed out earlier that the major European populations do not differ much from each other either. Most of the United States is composed of descendants of either the major European populations, or the descendants of slaves from either West Africa or Bantu territory. The two groups are quite distinct in gene frequencies and appearance. On the world principal component diagrams, they are at opposite poles for the second principal component (p. 82). [...] As the book shows, there are numerous populations that are intermediate to these populations in gene frequencies, such as East Africans, Nilo-Saharan Ethiopians, inhabitants of the Sahara, and North Africans.

• North vs. West Africans:

  Yet, as the authors document very well, the genetic difference between the Caucasoid inhabitants of North Africa and the Negroid inhabitants directly south in West Africa is quite large (not to mention the obvious differences in skin color and other aspects of appearance). This makes it very likely that the current North African populations did not evolve in place, since if they had they would not be as different from other Africans as they are.

• Ethiopians:

  There is one large area of Africa whose racial affinity has been unclear. This is Ethiopia and adjacent areas. The people tend to have somewhat Caucasoid facial features but dark skins. The gene frequency data suggests that the Amhara (The dominant Ethiopian group) have gene frequencies that could be achieved by a mixture of 57% Nilotic African genes with 43% of genes from North Africans (p. 174). Other Ethiopian populations are similar. Thus, if one must classify these people into one major race, they should be called Negroid. The recorded history of the region and its location makes it very likely that there was an actual admixture of Caucasoid and Negroid peoples here.

• Khoisans:

  Another group that has been the subject of much discussion is the Khoisanid peoples (including the Hottentots, San, !Kung). The San (Bushmen) in southern Africa are a group that physically looks quite different from other Negroids. Baker (1974), and Coon (1965) among others, have argued they are as different from Negroids as Caucasoids are, and should be treated as a separate race from other Negroids. The genetic data reported here shows them to differ more from other sub-Saharan Africans than any of the sub-Saharan groups differ from each other (p. 175).
  

posted 28 February 2005 09:43 AM            

And you said they were not Negroids.

Anyways, Cavalli-Sforza has given two different figures, one that says 60% and now 57% Negroid. Much of this is dated for RECENT studies do not lend support to the admixture model. Despite his hypothesis on mixture, Cavalli-Sforza still considered the Ethiopian genetic profile to be African..

posted 28 February 2005 10:13 AM            

quote:

---

Despite his hypothesis on mixture, Cavalli-Sforza still considered the Ethiopian genetic profile to be African.

---

Well, this thread is boring, but there is some wrong information in it, as well, so might as well correct it...
the gene frequency data suggests that the Amhara (The dominant Ethiopian group)....

....is misleading since the Oromo and not the Amhara are the largest ethnic group making up over 40% of the population.

They have much less mideast admixture than the Amhara making this thread somewhat moot, even though the conclusions once again contradict EuroDisney.

What he is really after, for those who haven't caught on yet, is this....
Although not homogeneous, the European landscape has been characterized by relatively short genetic distances between individual populations. Classic genetic markers have revealed a few clearly pronounced genetic outliers, such as the Greeks, the Basques, Sardinians, and the Saami (Cavalli-Sforza, Piazza, et .al 1993, 1994)

The Greeks have 24% Y chromsome from East Africa, and Benin Hbs from West Africa.
Less than 1/2 of Greek Y chromosome is actually European.

He hopes to make East Africa un-Black ( ), in order to explain away the Black African ancestry of southern Europeans....of which he has a snowball's chance in hades of accomplishing.

posted 28 February 2005 10:50 AM            

Although Sfoza is biased, he does admit that negriods were present in the Sahara.

See the following:

"In the Neolithic period, the northern and central part of the
Sahara was...populated by Caucasoids and the central and southern part by
Negroid peoples." (p.193) *The History and Geography of Human Genes"
Cavalli-Sforza, et al, 1994.

+++ These caucasoids that Sfoza mentions might simply be Khoisans. The Metcha-Aflou match the modern Khoisan. Even Coon admitted that the early population of Northern Africa was Khoisan++++

posted 28 February 2005 11:18 AM            

"An extensive bibliographic search was conducted to compile all available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations. The data were then synthesized to reconstruct the population's demographic history using principal components analysis and genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. Both analyses identified an east-west pattern of genetic variation in northern Africa pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Libya and Egypt are also the smallest genetic distances away from European populations. Demic diffusion during the Neolithic period could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe through a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East, but a Mesolithic or older differentiation of the populations into the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand this genetic picture. Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers, the most isolated groups, were the most differentiated, while Arab speakers overall are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. The genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small."

(Bosch et al., Hum Biol, 1997

***Poor Afro-Nuts Just Can't Seem to Win***

posted 28 February 2005 11:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
Here is the bottom line:

"An extensive bibliographic search was conducted to compile all available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations. The data were then synthesized to reconstruct the population's demographic history using principal components analysis and genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. Both analyses identified an east-west pattern of genetic variation in northern Africa pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt.[b] Libya and Egypt are also the smallest genetic distances away from European populations. Demic diffusion during the Neolithic period could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe through a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East, but a Mesolithic or older differentiation of the populations into the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand this genetic picture. Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers, the most isolated groups, were the most differentiated, while Arab speakers overall are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. The genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small."

(Bosch et al., Hum Biol, 1997

***Poor Afro-Nuts Just Can't Seem to Win***

[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 28 February 2005).][/B]

---

Abaza, did you actually read that study and the samples used or do you just troll about in this forum? From what I've seen of your posts they're pretty much redding attacks and poisoning well tactics against Afrocentrism, but without serious argument or thought.

posted 28 February 2005 12:17 PM            

A second review of Bernal's work:
=============================================
source: amazon.com

The Repetition of Nonsense is nonetheless nonsense, December 26, 2001
Reviewer: J. Dickson "tolive" (Los Angeles, CA) - See all my reviews

I came across this whole controversy while in college and have kept up with the "debate" to some extent since. To make a long story short, Bernal's contentions of "history" have been dealt a fatal blow by Lefkowitz, Rogers, et all.

Apparently Bernal believes that repeating the same old distortions, and yes unfortunately, out right lies, somehow qualifies as history.

I italicized "debate" because on the one hand there are responsible historians using the tools and evidence of historians, and on the other there are name calling ad hominem attacks that provide little light but much heat on the matter.

Don't waste your time with this rehash if you are already familiar with the controversy. Certainly nothing new, and frankly, one has to be a bit embarassed for Bernal et al.

IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Abaza, did you actually read that study and the samples used or do you just troll about in this forum? From what I've seen of your posts they're pretty much redding attacks and poisoning well tactics against Afrocentrism, but without serious argument or thought.

---

posted 28 February 2005 06:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
How does Sfarza get away with intellectually bankrupt terms as "caucasoid" or "negroid" in this day and age?

---

Disney is distorting as usual of course. What else would you expect?

Mankind quarterly published A REVIEW of this study replete with the reviewers own racialist spin:

Incidentally, although Cavalli-Sforza et al. here use the terminology of Africans, Europeans, and Asians......
Accuracy and clarity would be improved if the racial terms, Caucasoids, Negroids, and Mongoloids, were used..... Incidentally, later the book uses Caucasian (Fig. 4.10.1 on p. 225) to mean someone from the Caucasus mountains http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_gene.html

Disney also does not want you to read this, from the article, for obvious reasons:

The evidence that Europeans gene frequencies tend to be intermediate between Africans and Chinese is interesting to those (including the author of this article) interested in behavioral differences between races

Quoting Sforza distortion free:

"The idea of race is not tenable" Cavalli-Sforza.

From: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/02/23/MN94 378.DTL&type

``The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically,'' according to a policy statement by the American Anthropological Association. ``It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of `race' has no validity . . . in the human species.''

ps - Ausar is correct that Sforza has shown considerable bias, but this is also greatly exacerbated by distorted and altered citations from him, by ethnocentric racists. Be wary of Sforza and even more wary of those who cite him and their penchant for deceit.

posted 01 March 2005 05:35 AM            

I take it that Evil Euro and ABAZA believes this quote means that Libyans and Egyptians are racially closer to Europeans, correct? Lets read a little closer

“Demic diffusion during the Neolithic period could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe through a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East”

What this passage is saying is due to the fact that both Europeans and Northeast Africans(Egyptians, obviously from the north) received geneflow from the Middle East during the Neolithic, genetically they would be close, but Neolithic geneflow from the Middle East accounts for only 20% of the European genepool on average. It doesn’t imply that Europeans and northern Egyptians are genetically the same. Sub-Saharans received no Neolithic geneflow from the Middle East thus Egyptians in the north would be closer while those in the south are closer to sub-Saharans(East Africans).

posted 01 March 2005 07:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
And you said they were not Negroids.

---

posted 01 March 2005 07:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Although not homogeneous, the European landscape has been characterized by relatively short genetic distances between individual populations. Classic genetic markers have revealed a few clearly pronounced genetic outliers, such as the Greeks, the Basques, Sardinians, and the Saami (Cavalli-Sforza, Piazza, et .al 1993, 1994)

---

posted 01 March 2005 08:10 AM            

quote:

---

What this passage is saying is due to the fact that both Europeans and Northeast Africans(Egyptians, obviously from the north) received geneflow from the Middle East during the Neolithic, genetically they would be close

---

It doesn't prove that either. Such generalisations [mideast, northeast] prove absolutely nothing without detailed data on specific populations sampled and methods used.

None of Keita's work suggests the penetration of West Asian or European types being a factor in the creation of Dynastic Egypt. Both Keita (1993) and Hassan (1988) have suggested that Saharan elements played a role in the modification of Badari and early Nakada types during the late Nakada period. http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/anthro.htm

Who are these Saharan types?

According to Keita (1990) and Livingstone (1967), the Haratin are among the major descendants of the original Saharans. Close similarity in ABO serology between modern Haratin populations and those of ancient Egyptian

Ironically they are referenced in the Mankind Quarterly "review" in spite of its obvious racialist bias:

The authors (p. 173) show a surprizing degree of genetic similarity between the Tuareg and the Beja (whose genetic distance from the Tuareg is only 135), a people in the Eastern Sahara whose territory adjoins the Red Sea. The Tuareg, who have always been a very mobile people (p. 173) extend over an area stretching from the northern boundary of the dry Sahara (Algeria and Libya) into the Sahel The genetic similarity is surprizing given a relatively large geographic distance. They hypothesize a common origin, perhaps 5000 years ago.

Tuareg

Haratin

Look to the present Upper Egpytian and Nubians, the Beja, Oromo, Borano, Harratin, Somali, Tuareg, Fulani and other Sahelien types and you will find your closest genetic, physical and cultural matches to the ancient Kemetians.

The most current genetic data confirms the fact that Asiatic-Arab types became preponderant in North Africa in historic times, and have little to no bearing on Ancient Kemet.

posted 01 March 2005 08:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
That's just the reviewer's opinion, dopey. The data from the book says Ethiopians are ~40% Eurasian. Deal with it.

---

The most recent published state that “40 Eurasian” figure is due to a recent common shared ancestry not mixture, dopey, which makes Sforza’s data outdated. His was published in 1994, its 2005 today.

posted 02 March 2005 08:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The most current genetic data confirms the fact that Asiatic-Arab types became preponderant in North Africa in historic times, and have little to no bearing on Ancient Kemet.

---

Incorrect.

A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa

Arredi et al. (2004)
Am J Hum Genet

posted 02 March 2005 08:47 AM            

quote:

---

The delta region of Egypt has been impacted by European (Graeco-Roman) and Near Eastern peoples, the latter apparently primarily during the Islamic and not Neolithic period (Nebel et al)

---

posted 02 March 2005 08:21 PM            

"In fact, there is little to quibble with in MacEachern's effort. However, he is perhaps somewhat overconfident in the belief that genetic research has led to the “dismemberment” of racial taxonomies and racio-typological thinking. While few write today in terms of Nordic or Jewish races, and this is a result of research and the World War II experience, there is still plenty of work on Africa which constructs its interpretations of diversity explicitly or implicitly in terms of conceptually idealized “Caucasoid” and “Negroid” “taxa“, implying a causal or foundational linkage between morphological complexes and a variety of genes.
Cavalli-Sforza et al.’s book is one example of this kind of work at some level. For some reason MacEachern does not directly engage its underlying no evolutionary racio-typological model of interpretation or its use of racial terms, which are ontologically misleading in that they imply supra-Saharan Africans were originally European-derived. These people supposedly interacted with “Negroids” and others, receiving some genes but contributing a lot more and thus becoming the primary explanation of African diversity. MacEachern's critique would be even more useful if he had pointed out that (1) fosils indicate the presence of anatomical modern people in supra-Saharan and Nile Valley Africa at a time when hominids in Europe had Neanderthal morphology; (2) coalescence (and therefore differentiation) times for numerous genes sampled globally from living humans date to a period when modern morphology had not yet emerged or was to be found only in Africa; and (3) global genetic diversity seems largely to be a subset of that found in Africa. (Whether this dates back to the time of Homo Erectus or modern H. sapiens matters little; the diversity denoting the mythical “racial divergence” exists in Africa, as should be expected, and antedates the existence of the morphologies used to define races.) MacEachern fails to make these points, which together indicate that the African genetic profiles and morphologies being interpreted as solely resulting from European (or SouthWest Asian) colonization and/or admixture (with “Negroids”) are largely the product of various authentic intra-African biohistorical processes which perhaps date to a time before there were any anatomical Europeans. However, the Holocene climatic fluctuations of the sahara (Hassan 1988), probable Late Pleistocene (and Holocene) population increase in response to changing subsistence regimes (Wetterstrom 1993), and the spread of early Afro-Asiatic-speakers from the Horn surely also had some effects. Supra-Saharan Africa is not primarily a product of extra-African colonization.”

posted 03 March 2005 07:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The delta region of Egypt has been impacted by European (Graeco-Roman) and Near Eastern peoples, the latter apparently primarily during the Islamic and not Neolithic period (Nebel et al)

---

posted 03 March 2005 12:50 PM            

quote:

---

the Holocene climatic fluctuations of the sahara (Hassan 1988), probable Late Pleistocene (and Holocene) population increase in response to changing subsistence regimes (Wetterstrom 1993), and the spread of early Afro-Asiatic-speakers from the Horn surely also had some effects. Supra-Saharan Africa is not primarily a product of extra-African colonization.” - Keita

---

in the context of...

The authors show that that is a surprizing degree of genetic similarity between the Tuareg and the Beja (whose genetic distance from the Tuareg is only 135), a people in the Eastern Sahara whose territory adjoins the Red Sea. - Mankind quarterly

Super-Saharan Africans or Sahelians:

The East AFrican Beja live in Egypt and Sudan:

The West African Taureg live mostly in Mali and Niger:

Notice one cheap statistical 'trick' applied is to simply move a population to where they 'cluster' best - hence move the Taureg to the East African cluster.

The rationale is illogical, since we know by defintion of PN2 clade that most any two African ethnicities have a common point of geographic origin, albiet not as recent as Taureg and Beja, which would most typically be central saharan or east african or west african. Moving the populations around for cluster-mapping purposes is faulity methodology.

That's Keita's insightful point. These people are related - Culturally, biologically, linguistically and physically.

Good stuff.