posted
Para conocer al hombre: Homenaje a Santiago Genovés a 33 años como investigador en la UNAM. By Santiago Genovés, Universidad Autónoma de México Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas Published by UNAM, 1990 ISBN 9683610234, 9789683610232 559 pages
Speaking of which—with regards to the Afalou‘s being “neither Negroid or San”, on the other hand, from Groves,...
factor 2 represents the **sub-Saharan/Caucasoid** contrast. The Caucasoid populations (Egypt, Norse, Cro-Magnon) score positively on factor 2, the sub-Saharan Teita score negatively. The modern Dogon (Southern Mali) samples are intermediate. The fossil Nubians score strongly negative, as does the Asselar skull (Central Mali). What is especially interesting is that Afalou also scores negatively, if only slightly; it occupies the same morphological position as do the modern Dogon.
Recap, [from previous Egyptsearch & blog notes]: So [as already noted yet again], a Maghrebian specimen, namely the Afalou specimens, occupy the same position as the "modern Dogon" [although a Dogon male scores positively], which is the "intermediary" position? Well, we know what the modern Dogon generally look like...but if anything, at the least, this is yet indication that even the Maghrebian series don't all converge into a single cranio-morphometric "type". [Note: Norse, Egypt, Dogon and Teita are supposed to be relatively modern examples from Howells' database — 1973]
The discriminant analysis shows that the Nubian scatter is so wide that it is some of the Nubian males, rather than any of the Maghrebian ones, that are Cromagnon males’ nearest neighbors. The nearest neighbour of the Cromagnon females, however, is the sole Afalou female. - Groves
What seems to be at work here? It looks to be what I call the "Spanish crania" syndrome:
"race classification of all individuals in this sample using the Forensic Data Bank option. Of the 95 individuals, 42 (44 percent) were classified as white, 35 percent as black, 9 percent as Hispanic, 4 percent as Japanese, 4 percent as American Indian, and the remaining three individuals as Chinese and Vietnamese" - Ubelaker et al., Application of Forensic Discriminant Functions to a Spanish Cranial Sample, 2002.
The above pre-historic "Nubian" crania display a phenomenon not uninterestingly distinct from their more modern counterparts:
“If Fordisc 2.0 is revealing genetic admixture of Late Period Dynastic Egypt and Meroitic Nubia, then one must also consider these ancient Meroitic Nubians to be part of Hungarian, part Easter Islander, part Norse, and part Australian Aborigine, with smaller contributions from the Ainu, Teita, Zulu, Santa Cruz, Andaman Islands, Arikara, Ayatal, and Hokkaido populations. In fact, all human groups are essentially heterogeneous, including samples within Fordisc 2.0. Using Fst heritability tests, Relethford (1994) demonstrated that Howells’s cranial samples exhibit far more variation within than between skeletal series. There is no reason to assume that the heterogeneity of the Late Period Dynastic Egyptian population exceeds that characterizing our Nubian sample. This heterogeneity may also characterize the populations in the Forensic Data Bank; Fordisc 2.0 classified the Meroitic Nubians not as either all black or all white but as black, white, Hispanic, Chinese, Japanese, and Native American.” - Williams et al. 2005
Such is the result of preconceived attempts to force superficial population variations to undeviating non-overlapping socio-ethnic or "racial" types.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bottom line is that the so-called "Mediterranean" or "dark white" type was simply a natural biological development among African populations that produces straighter wavier hair and more aquiline features. But whites cannot simply admit that the cranio-facial features of whites evolved in Africa. They have to posit some stupidity that whites from Eurasia migrated to Africa 30,000 years ago as the basis for these features (even as such features did not exist yet in Eurasia). This is similar to how they try and claim that people from India with straighter wavy hair are descended from Aryan whites, when in reality it is the opposite, Aryan whites are descended from wavy haired blacks. The northern Mediterranean African type is a similar biological result to the populations of India, which includes straight to wavy hair, however due to its proximity to Europe and small relative size compared to European and other African populations, it was easily absorbed by later migrations of other Eurasian populations.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ What's new?! We've discussed the Cacazoid syndrome in this forum for God knows how many years! LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^If there's something slightly different from what was mentioned in the last topic on this subject, it might be this...
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
Speaking of which—with regards to the Afalou‘s being “neither Negroid or San”, on the other hand, from Groves,...
factor 2 represents the **sub-Saharan/Caucasoid** contrast. The Caucasoid populations (Egypt, Norse, Cro-Magnon) score positively on factor 2, the sub-Saharan Teita score negatively. The modern Dogon (Southern Mali) samples are intermediate. The fossil Nubians score strongly negative, as does the Asselar skull (Central Mali). What is especially interesting is that Afalou also scores negatively, if only slightly; it occupies the same morphological position as do the modern Dogon.
Recap, [from previous Egyptsearch & blog notes]: So, a Maghrebian specimen, namely the Afalou specimens, occupy the same position as the "modern Dogon" [although a Dogon male scores positively]...
Here, the author is saying that the:
the most ancient, i.e. those from Taforalt in Morocco, Afalou-bou-Rhummel in Algeria and Singa in the Sudan, cannot be considered as being either Negro or San, whereas the later Jebel Sahaba sample (c. 12000 B.P.), the Wadi Halfa (c. 11950 - 6400 B.P.) and the Mechta-el-Arbi individuals (c. 8500 B.P.) and the Jebel Moya sample (c. 2950 - 2350 B.P.) are not significantly removed from the Negro populations.
And the author goes onto say...
Apart from the Mechta 3 individual, they are also not significantly removed from the San male population, but the Jebel Sahaba and the Jebel Moya males and the Jebel Sahaba 8905 individual are all significantly different from the San female population.
Here the Afalou cannot supposedly be considered as being either Negro or San, but according to Grove's factor analysis, cited in my post above, the Afalou specimens reported negatively on factor 2, which is supposed to represent "Sub-Saharan/Caucasoid contrast", Lol. Presumably according to this factor analysis, those specimens that reported 'positively' on factor 2, were in the "caucasoid" camp, while those that reported 'negatively', were in the "sub-Saharan" camp. And so, it also follows, interestingly, that Groves' Dogon male specimen would qualify as a "caucasoid", even if supposedly to a relatively lesser degree than his Taforalt and Cro-Magnon specimens for example. Interestingly though, Groves preferred to refer to his Dogon and Afalou specimens as being "intermediate". But we all know about Grove's reactionary "racial" concepts, don't we. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yeh like Sforza's "reactionary racial concepts" but you fools gleefully use him any way. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference between you and those of us intelligent folks though, is that we have the critical thinking to look past the outdated concepts, and sift out the meaningful aspects of their study from all the reactionary noise. For instance, I'm using Groves' analysis above, but I'm able to look past his outdated constructs, and get to the bottom of what really seems to be at work.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ you cut and paste all over the place his fractions that are based on samples, that are in turn based on outdated concepts. Yes, very intelligent Jewboy. lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if Sforza tested you and called you "negroid", but saw your Y lineage as say, "E3a", and counted that as "African", we should reject it, according to your buffoonery logic. I however, would recognize that despite him calling you "negroid", "caucasoid" or whatever, that "E3a" will still be African regardless. This is what I mean by those of us with critical thinking on the one hand, and you without one, on the other.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is funny to hear these scholars talk of Caucasoid traits in ancient Africans without them defining what Caucasoid means. Because many scholars even claimed that living black Ethiopians were Caucasoid, which therefore means that Caucasoid does not equate to white skin. And, bottom line, if so called Caucasoid traits originate in Africa and are found FIRST there before anywhere else, then how are they Caucasoid, meaning originating among people in the Caucasus mountains?
All this wordplay to obscure the fact that white European feature derived from blacks in antiquity.
It would be interesting to see the earliest Caucasoid skull found in Europe.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: So, if Sforza tested you and called you "negroid", but saw your Y lineage as say, "E3a", and counted that as "African", we should reject it, according to your buffoonery logic. I however, would recognize that despite him calling you "negroid", "caucasoid" or whatever, that "E3a" will still be African regardless. This is what I mean by those of us with critical thinking on the one hand, and you without one, on the other.
If only he did that alone then it would make your defence of him much easier, eh Jew boy? But you know he did much more than that: counted African groups, like say Berbers, as non African. Sometimes he even floats them around as if they have no continental home. Are they Africans or Europeans? LOL How does this ambiguous and contradictory continental grouping reflect some broader mathematical reality? Only you fools think so.
BTW what were his continental samples for his fractions? Run from this question like you alwayes do Jew boy! Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Certainly the idea that these are ancient 'pure white' migrants to North Africa is childish and stupid.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Given that microsatellite Y-DNA analysis suggested that the population ancestral to contemporary northwest African Imazighen ("Berbers") emerged ca. 8.2 kya or so in northeast Africa, the northwest African samples here are all too old to be associated with them. The Mechta-el-Arbi specimen is the only set that comes close to any age associated with contemporary Imazighen speakers, just based on the age given to it; but even here, it is questionable, given that Imazighen expansion in northwest Africa is dated even more recently than the 8 kya time frame -- that expansion dates to ca. 2.3 kya or so. The point is, although some find it tempting to associate contemporary Imazighens with these EpiPaleolithic and early Holocene Neolithic era northwest African specimens, available data suggest otherwise.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes it's been made clear that Northwest Africans carry predominant neolithic lineages and not earlier. So what about those that do carry earlier lineages like A and E2?
Also, what exactly does the Mechta type look like?
By the way, I see the Openass is still sore from its intellectual abuse and tries to pollute this thread its pain. Take that sh*t back to whre it belongs--- here and here!!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also, what exactly does the Mechta type look like?
It doesn't constitute a type, since there is no single look between the specimens that are misleadingly designated as such. The articles presented here further clarify this fact.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
It doesn't constitute a type, since there is no single look between the specimens that are misleadingly designated as such. The articles presented here further clarify this fact.
Good example:
the most ancient, i.e. those from Taforalt in Morocco, Afalou-bou-Rhummel in Algeria and Singa in the Sudan, cannot be considered as being either Negro or San, whereas the later Jebel Sahaba sample (c. 12000 B.P.), the Wadi Halfa (c. 11950 - 6400 B.P.) and the Mechta-el-Arbi individuals (c. 8500 B.P.) and the Jebel Moya sample (c. 2950 - 2350 B.P.) are not significantly removed from the Negro populations.
And the author goes onto say...
Apart from the Mechta 3 individual, they are also not significantly removed from the San male population, but the Jebel Sahaba and the Jebel Moya males and the Jebel Sahaba 8905 individual are all significantly different from the San female population.
They don't even have the same degree of robusticity.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: ^Given that microsatellite Y-DNA analysis suggested that the population ancestral to contemporary northwest African Imazighen ("Berbers") emerged ca. 8.2 kya or so in northeast Africa, the northwest African samples here are all too old to be associated with them.
Even during this time, these people still wouldn't have been pale as we see them today though, as the allele SLC24A5 111*A present in geographical proximate populations in the middle east, north Africa and Pakistan. Comes from gene flow with European populations. This allele was still under selection in the European population at this time, and only in Europe. So the question is when did Europeans come into these areas to contribute this admixture?
Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians Heather L. Norton,*1 Rick A. Kittles
quote:The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).
The virtual absence of MATP 374*G–derived allele in the sub-Saharan African populations that we examined in the CEPH-Diversity Panel is consistent with the origin of this mutation outside of Africa after the divergence of modern Asians and Europeans. In contrast, the SLC24A5 111*A–derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandenka and Yoruba, the Southern African San , and SouthWest Bantu. The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to gene flow with European populations. Similarly, the presence of the derived allele (albeit at low frequencies) in some sub-Saharan African populations may be due to recent gene flow from European and Central Asian populations.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The Mechta-el-Arbi specimen is the only set that comes close to any age associated with contemporary Imazighen speakers, just based on the age given to it; but even here, it is questionable, given that Imazighen expansion in northwest Africa is dated even more recently than the 8 kya time frame -- that expansion dates to ca. 2.3 kya or so.
highligted: Would this be my answer?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Even during this time, these people still wouldn't have been pale as we see them today though, as the allele SLC24A5 111*A present in geographical proximate populations in the middle east, north Africa and Pakistan. Comes from gene flow with European populations. This allele was still under selection in the European population at this time, and only in Europe. So the question is when did Europeans come into these areas to contribute this admixture?
Well, while it is certainly possible that some humans crossed the strait and into Africa, I doubt this would have been to any meaningful size, at least, at anytime prior to the arrival of Imazighen groups. As I noted, even though the Imazighen speakers were in northeastern Africa by ca. 8 kya or so, it wasn't until about 2 to 3 kya that they expanded in the Maghrebian region. So, any European arrival prior to this period, would have had little bearing on Imazighen groups.
Sure the Europeans like to compare North African specimens to European examples, which is what this whole Mechtoid deal is about; in this case, the Cro-Magnon was the Eurocentric template of choice. However, as Brace noted, nothing about the cranio-facial morphology of contemporary Imazighen groups suggests a link to Cro-Magnons. And indeed, genetics backs him on this point as well.
But as we can see, even the attempt to relate prehistoric North Africans to European counterparts has virtually failed, as the Mechtoid concept shows; the group so-designated neither exhibit a single cranio-morphological type, nor robusticity, as the term "Mechtoid" would suggest. Heck, they are all not even dated to the same time frames. So, it is nothing more than the Eurocentric concept, as Brace again noted, to use "Cro-Magnon" and say that the "Cro-Magnon are us"...with the "us" meaning "European". Brace characterized this as more of an anthropological "folklore" than fact. In fact, Brace says that the Cro-Magnon doesn't tie with any of the contemporary European specimens he studied. So again, the Mechtoid concept and its supposed relationship with Cro-Magnon, is nothing more than another Eurocentric way of trying to relate North Africa to Europe...essentially as more an extension of Europe than the actual continent [Africa] its attached to. However, it fails miserably not only for reasons just noted, but also from the fact that none of the so-called Mechtoid specimen 'types' mentioned have ever been located in Europe itself.
As for the skin tone development in Imazighen groups of northwest African coast, this is what I've said before; I believe much of it occurred during the historic era of the Holocene, and in no small part due to...
"Trafficking of women from the other side of the Mediterranean sea as slaves surely must have left its own mark. This coupled with a tradition of polygamy [especially amongst those sections of north African populations which were Muslim-converts] would have facilitated households with sizeable headcount of offspring per a single male 'owner'. Then there were also sudden waves of migration to the north African coast during the fall of direct northwest African rule in the Iberian peninsula; no doubt families who reached the north African coast had left some genetic imprint therein. And of course, genetic drift has its own role to play in all this. All that aside, a look at samplings so far undertaken in coastal northwest Africa suggests that these have generally relied on sampling small, scattered populations [see Cherni et al. 2005], giving fragmented or incomplete picture of northwest African maternal gene pool structure."
The caveat here is that, if Imazighen populations had found some "white European" groups upon arriving in the northwest African coast, then it certainly doesn't appear to have been one of a large population, with a sizeable European male demography. Contemporary Imazighen speakers of the North African coast have very little to essentially neglegable European male contribution in their gene pool.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Even during this time, these people still wouldn't have been pale as we see them today though, as the allele SLC24A5 111*A present in geographical proximate populations in the middle east, north Africa and Pakistan. Comes from gene flow with European populations. This allele was still under selection in the European population at this time, and only in Europe. So the question is when did Europeans come into these areas to contribute this admixture?
Well, while it is certainly possible that some humans crossed the strait and into Africa, I doubt this would have been to any meaningful size, at least, at anytime prior to the arrival of Imazighen groups.
Genetic evidence certainly raised the plausibility of migrations occurring the other way around; that is, Africans moving into Europe from North Africa:
"The prescence in Portugal of both the A and E1 haplogroups may be independent from the slave trade (otherwise E3a would be well represented since it comprises the majority of West African lineages). These findings either suggest a pre-neolithic migration from North Africa or a more recent origin from a founder population of small size that did not carry haplogroup E3a, which is a major component in North African populations today. TMRCA for Portuguese E1 lineages estimated as 22.9 +/- 7.2 ky favors the first scenario..." - Goncalves et al 2005.
And...
“The medieval Priego sample showed greater affinities to North-Africa than other Iberian Peninsula samples including that of present day Priego. Haplotype analysis revealed that some African haplotypes detected in Medieval Priego have matches with samples of precise north African origin as Tunisia, west-Sahara or the Canary Islands point to well documented historic connections with this area. However, medieval Priego L1b lineages carrying the 16175 transition have their most related counterparts in Europe instead of Africa. The coalescence age for these L1b lineages is compatible with a minor prehistoric African influence on Priego that also reached other European areas.” - A. Gonzalez et al., 2006
quote: As for the skin tone development in Imazighen groups of northwest African coast, this is what I've said before; I believe much of it occurred during the historic era of the Holocene, and in no small part due to...
"Trafficking of women from the other side of the Mediterranean sea as slaves surely must have left its own mark. This coupled with a tradition of polygamy [especially amongst those sections of north African populations which were Muslim-converts] would have facilitated households with sizeable headcount of offspring per a single male 'owner'. Then there were also sudden waves of migration to the north African coast during the fall of direct northwest African rule in the Iberian peninsula; no doubt families who reached the north African coast had left some genetic imprint therein. And of course, genetic drift has its own role to play in all this. All that aside, a look at samplings so far undertaken in coastal northwest Africa suggests that these have generally relied on sampling small, scattered populations [see Cherni et al. 2005], giving fragmented or incomplete picture of northwest African maternal gene pool structure."
The caveat here is that, if Imazighen populations had found some "white European" groups upon arriving in the northwest African coast, then it certainly doesn't appear to have been one of a large population, with a sizeable European male demography. Contemporary Imazighen speakers of the North African coast have very little to essentially neglegable European male contribution in their gene pool.
And of course, inheritance of some of the pigmentation alleles associated with "light skin tones" may have come about by way of other demographic events, like historic Arab intrusions into north Africa [e.g. see: Arredi et al.] -- it is not a farfetched prospect either. After autochthonous male markers, haplogroup J is the next frequent marker in coastal North African groups. However, as one study noted, the frequency of this lineage in north Africa may well be largely attributable to positive genetic drift.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
You mean North West Africans originated among people like this:
Well, they originate from the source population that gave rise to some of the folks in the pics you posted. Microsatellite examination of E-M78 shows that it emerged in groups now in Upper Egypt. So the likely place where they originated first, was somewhere in eastern Sahara, the area straddling Egypt and Sudan. Others migrated north, while others headed south, to areas like the African Horn. E-M78 in turn derives from E-M35, which emerged somewhere in sub-Saharan east Africa; if not in the vicinity of Tanzania, then the African Horn general area.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
A note on the coastal Northwest African skin tones.
I do still think they would have undergone some skin tone lightening even if they were not influenced by northern Eurasians, especially those on the Atlas Mountain area. Though, it probably would more closely approach the San "bushmen" or KhoiSan levels. A visual aid might help...
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: As for the skin tone development in Imazighen groups of northwest African coast, this is what I've said before; I believe much of it occurred during the historic era of the Holocene, and in no small part due to...
"Trafficking of women from the other side of the Mediterranean sea as slaves surely must have left its own mark. This coupled with a tradition of polygamy [especially amongst those sections of north African populations which were Muslim-converts] would have facilitated households with sizeable headcount of offspring per a single male 'owner'.
So there were likely no white populations(not in large numbers at least), as we see them today in north Africa amongst geographically proximate populations, before historic times. Regardless, there was never a large non African male population as noted through uni-parentals. The large number of maternal genes is likely due to the Islamic era in North Africa, where the African Moors, took European female slaves, as well as many European wives etc(Polygamy)... This is how the maternal gene pool is predominantly European and to a lesser extent African, and paternally predominantly African, and to a lesser extent Asian.
But what does this tell us about some Lybians during dynastic Egypt?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
But what does this tell us about some Lybians during dynastic Egypt?
Interesting question. Bear in mind this is still the historic period. I suppose "Eurasian" influence could have well predated the era I described, but I suspect much of it happened then. Consider the fact that "dark skin" Libyan elements appear first in ancient Egyptian artwork, before these "lighter skin" counterparts appear. What does that tell us, from your standpoint?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: A note on the coastal Northwest African skin tones.
I do still think they would have undergone some skin tone lightening even if they were not influenced by northern Eurasians, especially those on the Atlas Mountain area. Though, it probably would more closely approach the San "bushmen" or KhoiSan levels.
True.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it is obvious that some areas of the coasts of Northern Africa have indeed received paler skinned populations over thousands of years. The question is how far back does this go and how extensive was it at any given point in time. Even the phenotypes of those Libyans probably didn't extend more than a few hundred miles inland into Libya. But some people like to gloss over this and make extraordinary claims like North Africa is simply the immediate coast closest to the Mediterranean or that white Eurasians have been in North Africa for over 30,000 years, which is blatant nonsense. But it is very possible that there were pockets of white Eurasians in various parts of Northern Africa before 5,000 years ago. The problem is that Egyptian art does not tell you anything about the geographic range of such pale populations and it doesn't tell you exactly how long such populations have been there. And Egyptian art certainly does not cover ALL of North Africa or go back 10,000 years. But again, this still does not stop some people from lumping all North Africans to these pale images in Egyptian art as the ancestors of all modern North Africans and the basis of the "indigenous" culture and language of North Africa.
Here is a recent study that attempted to compare the traits of various populations in Europe, Asia and Africa in various phases of the Paleolithic based on a 'robusticity' index. But the African samples are quite limited to say the least.
But that does not stop it from observing the following:
quote: Individuals from the European EUP demonstrate body shapes reminiscent of modern sub-Saharan Africans (Holliday, 1997). After the LGM, LUP modern humans show a shift toward more cold-adapted body shapes that approximate modern Europeans with wide trunks, greater body mass, large femoral heads, and shorter limb segments in the arms and legs (Jacobs, 1985; Holliday,1997). In addition to a decrease in stature from the EUP to the LUP in all regions of Europe, there is an associated decrease in sex differences in stature (Jacobs, 1985; Formicola and Giannecchini, 1999).
But what does this tell us about some Lybians during dynastic Egypt?
Interesting question. Bear in mind this is still the historic period. I suppose "Eurasian" influence could have well predated the era I described, but I suspect much of it happened then. Consider the fact that "dark skin" Libyan elements appear first in ancient Egyptian artwork, before these "lighter skin" counterparts appear. What does that tell us, from your standpoint? [/QB]
True, I know about the darker depictions of Lybians, which is why I asked about some, but what this would tell me is that during this era people in this area most likely started to accept/receive non African influence genetically. Or they could be converts of European or near Eastern background who migrated and accepted the culture without much intermixing.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
I think that it is obvious that some areas of the coasts of Northern Africa have indeed received paler skinned populations over thousands of years. The question is how far back does this go and how extensive was it at any given point in time.
I think there is necessity to perhaps make a distinction between the any "Eurasian" influence during antiquity, as the Dynastic era, and those after that period. I suspect that the earlier ones might have been influenced from the likes of Phoenicians, while the later ones, largely through more contact with folks from across the Iberian peninsula.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I think that it is obvious that some areas of the coasts of Northern Africa have indeed received paler skinned populations over thousands of years. The question is how far back does this go and how extensive was it at any given point in time.
Well regarding light pigmentation alleles in Northern Africa, the middle east and Pakistan(ranging from 62% to 100%), this is what we are told...
The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).
The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to gene flow with European populations.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. I would also make a distinction between possible Eurasian influence prior to 10,000 years ago as well, since many of them may not have been as pale as later Eurasian migrants.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
True, I know about the darker depictions of Lybians, which is why I asked about some, but what this would tell me is that during this era people in this area most likely started to accept/receive non African influence genetically. Or they could be converts of European or near Eastern background who migrated and accepted the culture without much intermixing.
If so, which is not unreasonable, I suspect these were most likely "Near Eastern" groups. If it were Europeans whom they received intrusions from, or "mixed" with, then the male contribution must have undergone an acute negative genetic drift phenomenon over the years.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: As for the skin tone development in Imazighen groups of northwest African coast, this is what I've said before; I believe much of it occurred during the historic era of the Holocene, and in no small part due to...
"Trafficking of women from the other side of the Mediterranean sea as slaves surely must have left its own mark. This coupled with a tradition of polygamy [especially amongst those sections of north African populations which were Muslim-converts] would have facilitated households with sizeable headcount of offspring per a single male 'owner'.
So there were likely no white populations(not in large numbers at least), as we see them today in north Africa amongst geographically proximate populations, before historic times. Regardless, there was never a large non African male population as noted through uni-parentals. The large number of maternal genes is likely due to the Islamic era in North Africa, where the African Moors, took European female slaves, as well as many European wives etc(Polygamy)... This is how the maternal gene pool is predominantly European and to a lesser extent African, and paternally predominantly African, and to a lesser extent Asian.
But what does this tell us about some Lybians during dynastic Egypt?
Wow, another post without gringo Ehret! You're improving day by day pedro. I would tell you that this topic (and those pictures) have been long discussed in The Golden Age of the Moor but I don't remember Ehret being referenced in the book so I know you won't read it.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only reason for large migrations directly from Europe would possibly have been as a result of the glaciation in Europe. But there is no such evidence of such large migrations. Hence why most who propose an early white presence in North Africa say it originated in Eurasia, with an emphasis on Asia, as in the Levant, Central Asia etc. However, as already mentioned, that does not change the fact that the largest impact on the base population in North West and North Africa has been from recent migrations of people originating in East Africa over the last few thousand years.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).
The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to gene flow with European populations.
Which also doesn't rule out the probability of North Africans receiving some of the variation they have from so-called "Middle Easterners" as well.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
True, I know about the darker depictions of Lybians, which is why I asked about some, but what this would tell me is that during this era people in this area most likely started to accept/receive non African influence genetically. Or they could be converts of European or near Eastern background who migrated and accepted the culture without much intermixing.
If so, which is not unreasonable, I suspect these were most likely "Near Eastern" groups. If they were European whom they received intrusions from, or "mixed" with, then the male contribution must have undergone an acute negative genetic drift phenomenon over the years.
True, as there really isn't any evidence for European migrations into Africa during these times (especially since European markers in Africa are maternal), the more plausible would be near eastern, with contribution of male J.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
The only reason for large migrations directly from Europe would possibly have been as a result of the glaciation in Europe. But there is no such evidence of such large migrations. Hence why most who propose an early white presence in North Africa say it originated in Eurasia, with an emphasis on Asia, as in the Levant, Central Asia etc.
...not to leave out the part about their first appearance [which proceeds that of "darker toned" peoples] in art from ancient north African complexes like Dynastic Egypt.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
True, as there really isn't any evidence for European migrations into Africa during these times (especially since European markers in Africa are maternal), the more plausible would be near eastern, with contribution of male J.
What about possible contacts between north African and "Minoan" elements? I heard something to that effect in a past discussion.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
"The inhabitants of the Aegean area in the Bronze Age may have been much like many people in the Mediterranean basin today, short and slight of build with dark hair and eyes and sallow complexions. Skeletons show that the population of the Aegean was already mixed by Neolithic times, and various facial types, some with delicate features and pointed noses, others pug-nosed, almost negroid, are depicted in wall paintings from the 16th century BC. But men and women are always represented with black hair, and the presence of fair-haired people is not attested in the Aegean until later Greek times. Some very tall men buried in the Mycenaean shaft graves may be descendants of invaders who entered the mainland at the end of the 3rd millennium. A few skeletons from the single graves that appear on the mainland at the very end of the Bronze Age suggest the presence of new people from the north."--- Sinclair Hood, The Home of the Heroes: The Aegean Before the Greeks (1967) also found in Encyclopedia Britannica 1990 ed. Macropedia Article, Vol 20: Greek and Roman Civilizations
....and in cattle samples tested from Spain dated to the bronze age, we see the presence of African T1 amongst the remains.
However, even if 63 and 11 different T1 haplotypes are observed in Africa and Europe, respectively, only two of them are present in both regions. In addition, (i) T1 haplotypes can be found well beyond the area of maximum Moorish expansion,(ii) recent introductions of exotic cattle are usually male mediated (not affecting mtDNA) (34), and (iii) one T1 haplotype has been recently observed in a sample of 16 Bronze Age cattle remains from Spain. ----Testing the Hypothesis of an African Cattle Contribution in Southern European Breeds (H2).
So possibly during this connection from North Africa into Southern Europe, mixed African/Aegean populations could have entered back into north Africa and into the Maghreb. Could have been a back and forth connection
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
True, as there really isn't any evidence for European migrations into Africa during these times (especially since European markers in Africa are maternal), the more plausible would be near eastern, with contribution of male J.
What about possible contacts between north African and "Minoan" elements? I heard something to that effect in a past discussion.
The Minoan influence seems to be a two way street, with many of the Minoans themselves looking more like 'dark whites' from North Africa, in other words straight haired, narrow featured black Africans.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Upon viewing a show on the history channel about the Minoans from Crete, speaking about Atlantis etc...(you know how they dream) I came across this pic, couldn't help but to notice the broad nose and thick full lips.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually you and your usual gringo sources are late again. The "Atlantian theory" and Minoan civilisation was discussed by Diop long ago. But again, I don't remember Ehret being referenced in that book either so again you might not want to read it. lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
At any rate, as far the specimens under discussion are concerned, one shouldn't loose sight of this:
The point is, although some find it tempting to associate contemporary Imazighens with these EpiPaleolithic and early Holocene Neolithic era northwest African specimens, available data suggest otherwise.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
These are Minoans. They don't look like dark whites.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
True, as there really isn't any evidence for European migrations into Africa during these times (especially since European markers in Africa are maternal), the more plausible would be near eastern, with contribution of male J.
What about possible contacts between north African and "Minoan" elements? I heard something to that effect in a past discussion.
The Minoan influence seems to be a two way street, with many of the Minoans themselves looking more like 'dark whites' from North Africa, in other words straight haired, narrow featured black Africans.
posted
Tell them Clyde! I mean, "dark whites"? lol
It seems as if the Hamitic hypothesis is making a sneaking come back as a result of too much Sforza et al. punch! lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course there is no such thing as "dark whites", which is why I have it in quotes. It is a reference to the erroneous contention by some anthropologists that certain features are the exclusive domain of white Europeans even if they are found on black Africans.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic