posted 07 March 2005 08:21 AM            

"The M2 transition (Seielstad et al. 1994) and its analogues, PN1 (Hammer et al. 1997) and M180, are linked to the RFLP 49f Ht4, found in high frequency throughout Africa. The wide distribution of this sub-clade in sub-Saharan Africa probably reflects the Bantu agricultural expansion in the last three thousand years (Passarino et al. 1998; Scozzari et al. 1999). The expansion of Bantu farmers would have been largely accompanied by the replacement of other Y-chromosomes. The extent of founder effects associated with the recent expansion of Group III lineages is illustrated by the M191 mutation, which occurs in ~40% of the M2/M180/PN1 clade members. Furthermore, the low frequency of lineages within Groups I and II and of the 20% minority of the haplotypes within Group III that lack the PN2 mutation, distinguished by either the M33 or M75 mutations and confined to Africa, is evidence of the impact of the Bantu expansion which overwhelmed the pre-existing African NRY chromosome diversity. This is not revealed by the pattern of mtDNA diversity, which indicates a persistence of mtDNA haplotypes, suggesting a larger effective population size of African women versus African men. However, it finds reflection in the sub-Saharan African fossil record, which shows greater early Holocene/late Pleistocene morphological diversity than at present (Lahr, unpublished results)."

Now, let's recap exactly what this information confirms:

Racial Affinities of Pre-historic East Africans

Hiernaux Exposed

Tishkoff et al. 2000

Africa Wasn't Negroid Until Historic Times

posted 07 March 2005 03:46 PM            

{However, it finds reflection in the sub-Saharan African fossil record, which shows greater early Holocene/late Pleistocene morphological diversity than at present (Lahr, unpublished results).}

Thought Writes:

None of this has ANY bearing on the point you have failed to make. There is NO evidence of Bantu migrations into the Horn of Africa. Earlier I stated that there was greater morphological diversity in early Holocene Africa, so what? You have not defined what YOU mean when you use the term “Negroid” or “Caucasoid”, nor have you laid out a chronology for the evolution of these morphologies (?) in Africa or Eurasia. All that the above comments demonstrate is that humans have lived in Africa longer than anywhere else and that Africans are more diverse than other populations. The original people that carried E3b in early Holocene East Africa were indigenous Black Africans. The original people that carried the Benin variant Sickle Cell Haplotype in Central Africa were indigenous Black African as well. These genes were spread to Greece and now Greeks have genes that originate in Sub-Saharan Africa. Spend less time on non-issues and more time addressing the issues on the table and you will get somewhere. By the way, both Peter Underhill and Marta Lahr worked with Dr. Shomarka Keita on his breakthrough research into the African roots of Mediterranean Europeans.

posted 07 March 2005 04:27 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:
None of this has ANY bearing on the point you have failed to make.

---

Correct. This thread is null and void.

EuroDisney drowns....

....in his own mess no less.

posted 07 March 2005 11:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

{The wide distribution of this sub-clade in sub-Saharan Africa probably reflects the Bantu agricultural expansion in the last three thousand years (Passarino et al. 1998; Scozzari et al. 1999). The expansion of Bantu farmers would have been largely accompanied by the replacement of other Y-chromosomes.}

{However, it finds reflection in the sub-Saharan African fossil record, which shows greater early Holocene/late Pleistocene morphological diversity than at present (Lahr, unpublished results).}

Thought Writes:

None of this has ANY bearing on the point you have failed to make. There is NO evidence of Bantu migrations into the Horn of Africa. Earlier I stated that there was greater morphological diversity in early Holocene Africa, so what? You have not defined what YOU mean when you use the term “Negroid” or “Caucasoid”, nor have you laid out a chronology for the evolution of these morphologies (?) in Africa or Eurasia. All that the above comments demonstrate is that humans have lived in Africa longer than anywhere else and that Africans are more diverse than other populations. The original people that carried E3b in early Holocene East Africa were indigenous Black Africans. The original people that carried the Benin variant Sickle Cell Haplotype in Central Africa were indigenous Black African as well. These genes were spread to Greece and now Greeks have genes that originate in Sub-Saharan Africa. Spend less time on non-issues and more time addressing the issues on the table and you will get somewhere. By the way, both Peter Underhill and Marta Lahr worked with Dr. Shomarka Keita on his breakthrough research into the African roots of Mediterranean Europeans.

---

posted 08 March 2005 08:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
There is NO evidence of Bantu migrations into the Horn of Africa.

---

Ethiopians have ~12% E3a, as well as Niger-Congo maternal ancestry. Thus, west-east movements into the Horn of Africa took place.

quote:

---

You have not defined what YOU mean when you use the term “Negroid” or “Caucasoid”

---

I mean the same thing that anthropologists mean.

quote:

---

nor have you laid out a chronology for the evolution of these morphologies (?) in Africa or Eurasia.

---

Not my field, not my job. We know that Negroids originated in West Africa and dispersed recently. That's enough.

quote:

---

The original people that carried E3b in early Holocene East Africa were indigenous Black Africans.

---

The Afronut usage of "Black African" has no scientific validity. In anthropology, black is synonymous with Negroid, and the carriers of E3b were not Negroid.

quote:

---

The original people that carried the Benin variant Sickle Cell Haplotype in Central Africa were indigenous Black African as well.

---

Ditto.

posted 08 March 2005 09:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Ditto.

[b]Drowning Afronuts . . .
[/B]

---

I already posted a reply to this nonsense
http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.cfm?id=645026&CategoryID=417996&startcat=1&ThreadID=1952514

posted 08 March 2005 11:37 AM            

quote:

---

Evil

I mean the same thing that anthropologists mean.

---

Does this follow that your terminology is also scientifically baseless, because according to "modern" bio-anthropology, such terms are baseless and defunct?

Thought2 writes:

quote:

---

There is NO evidence of Bantu migrations into the Horn of Africa.

---

And Evil replies:

quote:

---

Ethiopians have ~12% E3a, as well as Niger-Congo maternal ancestry. Thus, west-east movements into the Horn of Africa took place.

---

How does this prove "Bantu" migrations into Ethiopia, or even the Horn of Africa?

Opening redundant threads doesn't address the fact that you haven't addressed any of the issues on the table, particularly since you made your wild claims here

posted 08 March 2005 01:02 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Posts:

S.O.Y. Keita
American Journal of Human Biology
16:679-689 (2004)

"The M2 lineage is mainly found primarily in "eastern", "sub-saharan", and sub-equatorial African groups, those with the highest frequency of the "Broad" trend physiognomy, but found also in notable frequencies in Nubia and Upper Egypt, as indicated by the RFLP TaqI 49a, f variant IV (see Lucotte and Mercier, 2003; Al-Zahery et al. 2003 for equivalecies of markers), which is affiliated with it. The distribution of these markers in other parts of Africa has usually been explained by the "Bantu migrations", but their presence in the Nile Valley in non-Bantu speakers cannot be explained in this way. Their existence is better explained by their being present in populations of the early Holocene Sahara, who in part went on to people the Nile Valley in the mid-Holocene, according to Hassan (1988); this occured long before the "Bantu migrations", which also do not exlain the high frequency of M2 in Senegal, since there are no Bantu speakers there either".

---

And void....

quote:

---

Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived by hunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire. The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among Europeans who once shared a common ancestor (Haplogroup R1b) and then were isolated for many generations When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. - Peter Underhill

---

Which is why....

quote:

---

About 8,000 years ago, a more advanced people, migrated TO Europe FROM the Middle East bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life: agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern [African Pn2/West Asia J] FROM THIS MIGRATION. - Peter Underhill

---

Hence...

quote:

---

"One can identify NEGROID traits of nose and prognathism appearing in natufian hunters and in Anatolian and in Macedonian first farmers, probably FROM NUBIA (Late Palaeolithic skeletal remains from Nubia. Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians" - Anderson, Angel, McCown.

---

quote:

---

Where are your Prehistoric East African whites?

---

quote:

---

NO ANSWERS

---

And so...

Disney continues to wallow in his own filth.

posted 09 March 2005 07:09 AM            

"Ethiopians have ~12% E3a, as well as Niger-Congo maternal ancestry. Thus, west-east movements into the Horn of Africa took place."

Evil Euro is mismatching studies. That figure came from the old Passarino study, more recent published data say this:

Kenya displays an E3a-M2 frequency of 52%, whereas the more northern populations, such as Ethiopia (Underhill et al. 2000; Semino et al. 2002), the Ethiopian Jews (Cruciani et al. 2002), and Sudan (Underhill et al. 2000), are characterized by frequencies close to or at zero.

Source:

The Levant versus the Horn of Africa:
Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations

posted 09 March 2005 08:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
"One can identify NEGROID traits of nose and prognathism appearing in natufian hunters and in Anatolian and in Macedonian first farmers, probably FROM NUBIA (Late Palaeolithic skeletal remains from Nubia. Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians" - Anderson, Angel, McCown.

---

If you weren't a drowning and dishonest Afronut, you would transcribe the quote properly. It actually says "negroid traits", which obviously doesn't equate to Negroid racial types because...

"Although the first agricultural inhabitants of the belt from Syria-Israel-Jordan to North Africa were mainly rugged Mediterranean (A3 and some B, in varying preponderance) the eastern end of this belt (McGown, 1939; Vallois, 1936), shows some almost Bushmen-like Basic White (A4b) as well as lateral traits (E1 and C4 [Mixed Alpine and Alpine]) as at Jericho."

-- J. Lawrence Angel, The People of Lerna: Analysis of a Prehistoric Aegean Population. American School of Classical Studies, Athens, 1971

quote:

---

Where are your Prehistoric East African whites?

---

posted 09 March 2005 08:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Evil Euro is mismatching studies. That figure came from the old Passarino study

---

No, it comes from Cruciani et al. 2004. That doesn't make any difference though, because there's nothing wrong with the Passarino study. You just don't like it, or any of the other studies that confirm it.

posted 09 March 2005 08:37 AM            

NULL........

quote:

---

The polygenic aspects of Coon's theory were racist and widely recognized to be wrong (Dobzhansky 1963, 1968; Hulse 1963; Montagu 1963; Oschinsky 1963; Washburn 1963 [based on the presidential address at the AAA]).

---

And VOID.....

New studies of post-Pleistocene human skeletal remains from the Rift Valley, Kenya.

Rightmire GP.
Prehistoric human crania from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, Makalia Burial Site, Nakuru, and other localities in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya are reassessed using measurements and a multivariate statistical approach. Materials available for comparison include series of Bushman and Hottentot crania. South and East African Negroes, and Egyptians. Up to 34 cranial measurements taken on these series are utilized to construct three multiple discriminant frameworks, each of which can assign modern individuals to a correct group with considerable accuracy. When the prehistoric crania are classified with the help of these discriminants, results indicate that several of the skulls are best grouped with modern Negroes. This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean" Caucasoids, as has been claimed. Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations.

posted 09 March 2005 08:44 AM            

quote:

---

Evil Euro is mismatching studies. That figure came from the old Passarino study, more recent published data say this:

Kenya displays an E3a-M2 frequency of 52%, whereas the more northern populations, such as Ethiopia (Underhill et al. 2000; Semino et al. 2002), the Ethiopian Jews (Cruciani et al. 2002), and Sudan (Underhill et al. 2000), are characterized by frequencies close to or at zero.

The Levant versus the Horn of Africa:
Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations

---

Of course, there are NO WHITES in ancient tropical Africa, so chasing PN2 daughter haplotypes E3A and E3B around is of no use to EuroDisney whatsoever.

posted 09 March 2005 08:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
No, it comes from Cruciani et al. 2004. That doesn't make any difference though, because there's nothing wrong with the Passarino study. You just don't like it, or any of the other studies that confirm it.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001510.html

---

None of those studies confirm anything.

posted 09 March 2005 08:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Right here.

---

Basic-White doesn't mean Caucasoid. That term was used by early 20th century anthropologists to describe any population that they considered as ancestral to white people, regardless of their morphology.

Aurignican Man in East Africa was white? LOL!!! Aurignacian refers to a tool industry in Europe, not Africa and white men didn't even live that long ago and they represent the first appearance of modern man in Europe, not Caucasoids. That whole extract from Coon's book is outdated because he based that on the concept of polygenism, which postulates that human races evolved on each continent separately from homo erectus, a theory that has been debunked by genetics.

[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 09 March 2005).]

posted 09 March 2005 09:13 AM            

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Carleton-Coon

posted 09 March 2005 02:27 PM            

But I guess he failed to add this of

Angel's comment:

Lawrence Angel
Journal of Human Evolutiom
1972
1, Pg 307

"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....".

Corroborated by this:

The Levant versus the Horn of Africa:
Evidence for Bi-directional Corridors of

Human Migrations

American Journal of Human Genetics
74:2004

"A more recent dispersal out of Africa, represented by the E3b-M35 chromosomes, expanded northward during the Mesolithic (Underhill et al. 2001b). The East African origin of this lineage is supported by the much larger variance of the E3b-M35 males in Egypt versus Oman (0.5 versus 0.14; table 3)."

"Since E3b-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages."

And Angel's student, none other than S.O.Y. Keita says this about Angel:

Response to bernal and Snowden
SOY Keita
Arethusa
26 (1993) pg 329

"I was a student of Larry Angel and am in some postion to comment on his views, which I know from conversation, the literature and personal correspondnce."

"Angel also found evidence for a "black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."

Want more?

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1975 May;42(3):351-69. Related Articles, Links

New studies of post-Pleistocene human skeletal remains from the Rift Valley, Kenya.

Rightmire GP.

Prehistoric human crania from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, Makalia Burial Site, Nakuru, and other localities in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya are reassessed using measurements and a multivariate statistical approach. Materials available for comparison include series of Bushman and Hottentot crania. South and East African Negroes, and Egyptians. Up to 34 cranial measurements taken on these series are utilized to construct three multiple discriminant frameworks, each of which can assign modern individuals to a correct group with considerable accuracy. When the prehistoric crania are classified with the help of these discriminants, results indicate that several of the skulls are best grouped with modern Negroes. This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean" Caucasoids, as has been claimed. Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations.

Now of course, many of these are all old studies, but careful analysis reveals that (as Topdog appropriately pointed out), any feature that 19th & early 20th century anthropologists deemed as a precursor to that of the much later cold-adapted Europeans, they labeled as the rightfully defunct and fraudulent term "caucasoid".

Side note: If these studies are to go by anything, none of them are suggesting that these features originate in the Caucasus region, so why the application of the terminology? > underlines one thing: intellectual bankruptcy!

posted 09 March 2005 06:45 PM            

By the way, here is some info from Britannica, it's kind of old too but at least it is still accurate.

posted 10 March 2005 07:55 AM            

quote:

---

New studies of post-Pleistocene human skeletal remains from the Rift Valley, Kenya.

---

Key word: post. We're talking about the Pleistocene here, not the Holocene. Try to keep up.

quote:

---

The polygenic aspects of Coon's theory were racist and widely recognized to be wrong (Dobzhansky 1963, 1968; Hulse 1963; Montagu 1963; Oschinsky 1963; Washburn 1963 [based on the presidential address at the AAA]).

---

quote:

---

Coon's hypothesis that modern humans, Homo sapiens, arose five separate times from Homo erectus in five separate places, "as each subspecies, living in its own territory, passed a critical threshold from a more brutal to a more sapient state", thus providing origins in deep time for his five races of mankind, no longer has wide currency among scholars.

---

Coon's erroneous hypotheses have no bearing on the tangible presence of Caucasoid skeletal remains from Pleistocene East Africa.

quote:

---

Basic-White doesn't mean Caucasoid. That term was used by early 20th century anthropologists to describe any population that they considered as ancestral to white people, regardless of their morphology.

---

posted 10 March 2005 08:09 AM            

quote:

---

Coon's erroneous hypotheses have no bearing on the tangible presence of Caucasoid skeletal remains from Pleistocene East Africa.

---

posted 10 March 2005 09:14 AM            

quote:

---

Coon's conclusion that Caucasoid skeletal remains existed in East Africa is based upon his erroneous hypothesis.

---

posted 11 March 2005 07:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Coon's conclusion that Caucasoid skeletal remains existed in East Africa is based upon his erroneous hypothesis.

---

Um, no. It's based on the Caucasoid skeletal remains:

"The type to which this Somali belongs is ancient in East Africa, as shown by the excavations of Leakey in Kenya. It is a specialized, locally differentiated Mediterranean racial form." (Coon, TRoE)

posted 12 March 2005 08:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Um, no. It's based on the Caucasoid skeletal remains:

[b]"The type to which this Somali belongs is ancient in East Africa, as shown by the excavations of Leakey in Kenya. It is a specialized, locally differentiated Mediterranean racial form." (Coon, TRoE)

And said conclusion has since been confirmed by genetic evidence.[/B]

---

Thought Writes:

Evil E, in Coon's studies on Late Pleistocene East Africans please tell me:

1) What SPECIFIC regions were sampled?

2) Where did the sample series come from?

3) What was the sample size?

4) Was this study peer-reviewed?

posted 18 July 2005 06:33 AM            

Ann. Hum. Genet. (2001), 65, 43±62

The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations

"Most notably, the PN2 transition (Hammer et al. 1997) unites two high frequency sub-clades, defined by M2}PN1} M180 mutations in sub-Saharan Africa, and M35}M215 in north and east Africa, the Mediterranean basin and Europe. The widespread distribution of these two sub-clades, which together account for 80% of Group III lineages, is considered to be the result of recent events."

posted 18 July 2005 07:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Ethiopians have ~12% E3a, as well as Niger-Congo maternal ancestry. Thus, west-east movements into the Horn of Africa took place....No, it comes from Cruciani et al. 2004.

---

posted 18 July 2005 08:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
What a blatant liar and distorter, please point out where in Cruciani et tal's study does he say Ethiopians have E3a at ~12%. I've searched his entire 2004 study and found no evidence of this.

---

Stop resurrecting old threads, you desperate ape. We've since established that it's actually E(xE3b), so we don't know what specific lineages.

But it doesn't matter because we do know this:

posted 18 July 2005 01:45 PM            

After the period of colonization, or just at its apex, many Europeans in the mode of Linnaeus wnated to justify their control of native people and therfore assigned groups as to how to maximize their influence over peoples usually (non-European).

It makes sense to name Asians by their geographical origin while saying China and the rest of SE Asia may have the same gene pool while India (while in Asia) will possess 3 gene pools and more based on their location and we know there is much group and individual inter and intra-ethnic variability.

The Japanese (through the Ainu) and genetic drift (location and isolation) sharing with other Asians (say China) a common thread though their phenotype may be less "Asian' when compared to China. All my words here are relative since the modern and ancient comparison may not always match.

Africa is harder to categorize (while beign easier due to colour consciousness and the social colonialistic conditions of the time) due to the GREATER ethnic variability when compared to Asia.

Europe proper knew and knows it is a minority (comparison to Africa and Asia) realizing that state began to incorporate non-Europeans (location) into a Eurosphere to consolidate their position and transfer power to that intermediate group that they know with exposure to 'class consciousness' will surely help to make that group seem larger than it is. My reality is that it is working well enough, don't you fellows think so? Here's why? If you can get a 'African' man to think he is European, that is a great battle. African is a generic term here and only refers to location!!

Not far from my theory is that why didn't Europeans use their own land mass and pride in it to denote themselves as European. Are you with me yet? You refer to African as African, Asians as Asians but Europeans as Caucasians???

Europeans saw the Caucausus as an homogenous group of subjects without any admixture of foreign 'elements' and perhaps (I was not there so!) decided to use the naming convention to include these groups as part of the ideal!!!
The evidence does point to groups of what was the Fertile Crescent to drive north to 'better' conditions and with the concept of genetic drift to create their own gene pool after generations in theory new homeland.

Some anthropologists have stated this concept but have stopped short of reasoning of what I stated above!! Any thoughts?

posted 18 July 2005 02:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Stop resurrecting old threads, you desperate ape. We've since established that it's actually E(xE3b), so we don't know what specific lineages.

---

They certainly are *NOT* E3a and if you look at Semino et tal's 2004 study you would see that the E(xE3b) lineages in Ethiopians have no E3a.

quote:

---

But it doesn't matter because we do know this:

"...the [b]Ethiopian population...contains African components ascribable to Bantu migrations...." (Passarino)[/B]

---

Too bad I read the entire full text and no where does he state that bantu people migrated into Ethiopia. most likely he's talking about L2a, the most shared African mtDNA haplogroup and it isn't a signature 'Bantu' marker.

posted 18 July 2005 10:20 PM            

quote:

---

Evil agenda wrote:
Stop resurrecting old threads,
We've since established that it's actually E(xE3b), so we don't know what specific lineages

---

Why? So that you can continue use these threads as links or rehash the same tired old lies, even though they have and continue to catch you with your pants down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
They certainly are *NOT* E3a and if you look at Semino et tal's 2004 study you would see that the E(xE3b) lineages in Ethiopians have no E3a...

Too bad I read the entire full text and no where does he state that bantu people migrated into Ethiopia. most likely he's talking about L2a, the most shared African mtDNA haplogroup and it isn't a signature 'Bantu' marker.

---

posted 19 July 2005 04:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Indeed; the evil bedraggled mouse continues to be caught red handed...as usual.

---

posted 19 July 2005 08:00 AM            

Salas et al. 2002:

quote:

---

80 Nubians
76 Sudanese
74 Ethiopians
27 Somalis
61 Kenyans (37 of which are from the extreme north on the Ethiopian border)
12 Tanzanians

"Several mtDNA markers have been proposed as signals of Bantu dispersals, although often in the absence of any southern Bantu data. Bandelt et al. (1995) and Chen et al. (1995) suggested haplogroup L1a, part of which (defined by a 9-bp intergenic deletion) was confirmed as an important eastern Bantu marker by Soodyall et al. (1996). Watson et al. (1997) similarly proposed a subset of haplogroup L3b. Subsequently, Alves-Silva et al. (2000) and Bandelt et al. (2001) have proposed (on the basis of analyses of Brazilian mtDNA data) that fragments of haplogroups L2, L3e, and L1e may also be important Bantu mtDNA markers."

---

Passarino et al. 1998:

quote:

---

"...the Ethiopian population...contains African components ascribable to Bantu migrations...."

---

posted 19 July 2005 02:07 PM            

So that you can continue use these threads as links or rehash the same tired old lies...

posted 19 July 2005 05:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
You in-denial Afronuts are tiresome.

Salas et al. 2002:

Passarino et al. 1998:

[QUOTE]"...the [b]Ethiopian population...contains African components ascribable to Bantu migrations...."

---

Erroneous, when are you going to quit spamming and prove conclusively that any of those markers mentioned in the introduction of Salas et tal's study have any correlation with the East African sample populations? Where oes Salas et tal specifically state that those lineages were spread into East Africa by Bantu speakers? Salas et tal breaks down each lineage and where they're phylogeographically positioned. in the citation you keep spamming, Salas et tal talks about the suggestions of other authors citing previous studies. Moreover, read that passage *CAREFULLY*:

Bandelt et al. (1995) and Chen et al. (1995) suggested haplogroup L1a, part of which (defined by a 9-bp intergenic deletion) was confirmed as an important eastern Bantu marker by Soodyall et al. (1996).

But Salas et tal states:

"An East African origin of L1a seems likely, given that Central African types tend to be more derived in the tree.......L1a seems likely to have been brought to southeastern Africa by the eastern stream of the Bantu expansion, having been picked up in East Africa. This is supported by its presence in the Bantu-speaking East African Kikuyu, and, in particular, by a match between a Kikuyu lineage and one of the commonest southeastern African types (within L1a1a)."

When L1a is stated to be an Eastern Bantu marker, it marks an expansion of a lineages picked up in East Africa and spread south into Southeastern Bantu populations. Salas et tal never stated this lineage was spread north into Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia by Bantu speakers. You seem to have a bad habit of selectively taking citations and words out of context. Thats just one example that proves you never read fully through the studies you reference; you select what you like and ignore what you do not like.

posted 19 July 2005 07:24 PM            

quote:

---

When L1a is stated to be an Eastern Bantu marker, it marks an expansion of a lineages picked up in East Africa and spread south into Southeastern Bantu populations. Salas et tal never stated this lineage was spread north into Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia by Bantu speakers. You seem to have a bad habit of selectively taking citations and words out of context. Thats just one example that proves you never read fully through the studies you reference; you select what you like and ignore what you do not like.

---

posted 20 July 2005 08:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
prove conclusively that any of those markers mentioned in the introduction of Salas et tal's study have any correlation with the East African sample populations

---

All of the markers mentioned in that passage were observed in the East African sample. That's why I quoted it.

quote:

---

When L1a is stated to be an Eastern Bantu marker, it marks an expansion of a lineages picked up in East Africa and spread south into Southeastern Bantu populations. Salas et tal never stated this lineage was spread north into Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia by Bantu speakers. You seem to have a bad habit of selectively taking citations and words out of context.

---

Speaking of selectively taking citations out of context, you left out the very next sentence in that passage:

"A second possibility would be that the L1a lineages in southeastern Africa were brought directly from a region close to the source of the Bantu languages in western Central Africa or from some intermediate position on the western stream route through Central Africa."

But either way, L1a in East Africa post-dates all OOA migrations:

posted 20 July 2005 11:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
All of the markers mentioned in that passage were observed in the East African sample. That's why I quoted it.

---

Which part of East Africa?! Bantus predominate in the southern East Africa not the Sudan or the Horn!!

Stupid-Euro..

posted 20 July 2005 02:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Which part of East Africa?! Bantus predominate in the southern East Africa not the Sudan or the Horn!!

Stupid-Euro..

---

Correct:

quote:

---

Thought Posts:
E3A in the horn: the more northern populations, such as Ethiopia (Underhill et al. 2000; Semino et al. 2002), the Ethiopian Jews (Cruciani et al. 2002), and Sudan (Underhill et al. 2000), are characterized by frequencies close to or at zero.

The Levant versus the Horn of Africa:
Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations

S.O.Y. Keita
American Journal of Human Biology
16:679-689 (2004)

"The M2 lineage is mainly found primarily in "eastern", "sub-saharan", and sub-equatorial African groups, those with the highest frequency of the "Broad" trend physiognomy, but found also in notable frequencies in Nubia and Upper Egypt, as indicated by the RFLP TaqI 49a, f variant IV (see Lucotte and Mercier, 2003; Al-Zahery et al. 2003 for equivalecies of markers), which is affiliated with it. The distribution of these markers in other parts of Africa has usually been explained by the "Bantu migrations", but their presence in the Nile Valley in non-Bantu speakers cannot be explained in this way. Their existence is better explained by their being present in populations of the early Holocene Sahara, who in part went on to people the Nile Valley in the mid-Holocene, according to Hassan (1988); this occured long before the "Bantu migrations", which also do not exlain the high frequency of M2 in Senegal, since there are no Bantu speakers there either".

---

posted 20 July 2005 02:35 PM            

quote:

---

All of the markers mentioned in that passage were observed in the East African sample. That's why I quoted it.

---

Wrong where does Salas et tal mention this in his study? He says L1a is East African in origin, he never says that L1a was brought into East Africa via Bantu migrations. That passage mentions nothing about the East African sample btw.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Speaking of selectively taking citations out of context, you left out the very next sentence in that passage:

"A [b]second possibility would be that the L1a lineages in southeastern Africa were brought directly from a region close to the source of the Bantu languages in western Central Africa or from some intermediate position on the western stream route through Central Africa."

---

I left out nothing you idiot and this point is irrelevant because they're talking when L1a entered southeast African populations, not Kenyans, Somalis, Nubians, nor Ethiopians, read it again in its proper context:

"A second possibility would be that the L1a lineages in southeastern Africa were brought directly [b]from a region close to the source of the Bantu languages in western Central Africa"

Thus when we read the passage in its proper context we can see that Salas et tal is talking about two possible explanations for the introduction of L1a into southeastern African populations. The point of my original post was the origin of L1a.

Everyone who has ever studied the Bantu migrations knows for sure that Bantu migrations never came into Sudan, Ethiopia, nor Somalia, only Kenya and all points south.

Bantu Migration

Today, close to 100 million people across the southern half of Africa speak related languages, collectively known as Bantu languages. Linguistic evidence shows that the root Bantu language emerged in what is now Nigeria and Cameroon by 2000 bc. By 1000 bc, in a series of migrations, Bantu speakers had spread south to the savanna lands of Angola and east to the Lake Victoria region. Over the next 1500 years they scattered throughout central and southern Africa, interacting with and absorbing indigenous populations as they spread.

© Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
http://encarta.msn.com/media_701611637/Bantu_Migration.html

posted 20 July 2005 07:14 PM            

Lets get one thing straight, all of these silly arguments about genetic lineages, racial categorization and migration patterns have nothing to do with the fundamental point that is being argued--- SKIN COLOR.

Look at the images from ancient Egypt. They did not need the help of genetic markers or modern concepts of racial categorizations to depict themselves accurately the way they looked.... dark brown. Therefore, we dont need such things either to take our focus from the central issue of what skin color were the ancient Egyptians. Using genetics and outdated racial categories can do nothing to prove that fact.

Saying that Somalis and other North Africans are part of a caucasian race is absolutely meaningless. Why? Because most of these claims are based on EVERY THING BUT SKIN COLOR. Therefore, why argue over using the term when it has nothing to do with WHAT IS BEING ARGUED? How can you say that putting certain Africans into the category of Caucasians ACTUALLY PROVES Ancient Egyptians did not have dark brown skin? That is especially ludicrous when the same people are trying so hard to include dark brown skinned people as part of this group (Somalis, etc). So how does that make any sense at all?

It does not take rocket science or genetics or racial "word" to prove skin color. All it takes is two EYES ON YOUR HEAD. That is why the Ancient Egyptian record that they left for us shoult be PRIMA FACIE evidence on the matter. Not the latest genetic discoveries on genetics and race. What does that have to do with it?

The Ancient Egyptians themselves used fairly simple language in the form of pictographs everyone could understand, to show themselves and the other ethnic (races some say) groups they encountered. Really simple: 1)Libyans light, US (Egyptian) Brown, Nubians Darker Brown, Europeans very light.

Really quite simple.

posted 20 July 2005 07:35 PM            

quote:

---

ABSOLUTELY BASELESS AND SUBJECTIVE with no REAL RELATION TO HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY LOOK.

---

You think that looks are not subjective?

quote:

---

And that is the same reason why such attempts to use genetic markers and so-called racial categories

---

Actually, typological races are based on looks, which is one reason why the catagories are subjective.

Genetic markers can actually assess lineage or ancestry, looks cannot.

posted 20 July 2005 07:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
I left out nothing you idiot and this point is irrelevant because they're talking when L1a entered [b]southeast African populations, not Kenyans, Somalis, Nubians, nor Ethiopians, read it again in its proper context:

"A second possibility would be that the L1a lineages in southeastern Africa were brought directly from a region close to the source of the Bantu languages in western Central Africa"

Thus when we read the passage in its proper context we can see that Salas et tal is talking about two possible explanations for the introduction of L1a into southeastern African populations. The point of my original post was the origin of L1a.

Everyone who has ever studied the Bantu migrations knows for sure that Bantu migrations never came into Sudan, Ethiopia, nor Somalia, only Kenya and all points south.

Bantu Migration

Today, close to 100 million people across the southern half of Africa speak related languages, collectively known as Bantu languages. Linguistic evidence shows that the root Bantu language emerged in what is now Nigeria and Cameroon by 2000 bc. By 1000 bc, in a series of migrations, Bantu speakers had spread south to the savanna lands of Angola and east to the Lake Victoria region. Over the next 1500 years they scattered throughout central and southern Africa, interacting with and absorbing indigenous populations as they spread.

© Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
http://encarta.msn.com/media_701611637/Bantu_Migration.html

---

Excellent. Bantu migrations into Ethiopia are a non starter, and do not deflect attention from the fact of Black African migrations into West Asia and Southern Europe, or that southern Europeans continue to carry their lineages to this day.

posted 20 July 2005 08:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Actually, typological races are based on looks, which is one reason why the catagories are subjective.

Genetic markers can actually assess lineage or ancestry, looks cannot.

I think many people are confused or intimidated by genetics and so attempt to dismiss what they don't understand.

---

posted 20 July 2005 08:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
I think many people are confused or intimidated by genetics and so attempt to dismiss what they don't understand.

---

Correct, that's why people invent crazy theories on Dodona, and we have a paranoiac and schizophrenic Greek spamming this forum and his with insane arguments.

posted 20 July 2005 08:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:

Everyone who has ever studied the Bantu migrations knows for sure that Bantu migrations never came into Sudan, Ethiopia, nor Somalia, only Kenya and all points south.

---

Actually there are Bantus in Somalia, but they are a small minute minority and they all live in the very south of the country close to Kenya.

The idea that Somalis are black-looking because of Bantu ancestry is totally proposterous and insane!!