posted
IMO, the following subject matter deserves a topic on its own. I mean, we’ve talked about skin pigmentation quite a bit, usually in pseudo-scientific fashion - and every now and then, associated genes and how UV irradiation and environmental temperatures factor into this; what we haven’t looked much into, is why, aside from relatively very recent migrations into certain regions, human populations show certain unique skin tone phenomena among “natives” of certain parts of the world, when compared to their counterpart “natives” of the same latitude(s) elsewhere. I am going to use Peter Sweet’s notes, since he does make interesting deductions based off available bio-anthropological reports available to him at the time of his publication of these notes.
Elsehwere Djehuti said:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Notice though that although Sardinia has the highest percentage of 'dark' type people, according to genetic studies like the one Super presented, they have the lowest frequency of E lineages. Which means having dark features is not necessarily an indication of mixed or African ancestry.
This is because more is involved; skin tone can be the product of gene flow as well as the following factors:
why Europeans became uniquely fair-complexioned, with lighter tone than any other group on earth, regardless of latitude.
They are all consistent about the gradient of lightest skin from northwest Europe, grading into a relatively darker skin tone, as one goes into Southern Europe.
Both maps seem to have glitches:
The first map based on Biasutti’s data, has an error when it comes to the coastal Berbers, which shows a band of Berbers who appear to be “lighter” than the Southern European groups like Iberians and Italians;
It may be of interest to know that the band of Berbers who appear as fairer than Spaniards in the above figure do not really exist. The light-colored intra-coastal stripe from Casablanca to Tunisia is merely an accidental artifact of the copying process from Biasutti. It appears in no other publication of this figure. Also, the reader should notice the small text note within the above figure from Jurmain. It says that: “these [Biasutti’s] data are, unfortunately, the best available.” As it turns out, this complaint is not entirely accurate… - Peter Sweet
Brace and Montagu’s improvements over the Biasutti repro:
…C. Loring Brace and Ashley Montagu updated Biasutti’s data in 1977. The following three corrections are among their most important.
[*]They more precisely depicted different complexion shades among Australian Aborigines.
[*]They showed that the northern Lapps (Saami) of Finland are swarthier than Scandinavians.
[*] They completely redrew central Africa and repositioned the iso-complexion gradient contours within Madagascar, Indonesia, Burma, and elsewhere. This more up-to-date and more accurate map is depicted below [now presented above], as taken from (Brace 2000, 296). It also appears in (Robins 1991, 187), incorrectly attributed to Biasutti. A similar map appears in (Blum 1961) from (Fleure 1945). - Peter Sweet
As I pointed out before, the Biasutti based repro, actually shows the dark skin tone indicative of the likes of the Dinka and Nuer in the upper Nile Valley. The Brace & Mantagu map, on other hand, doesn’t seem to indicate this. Both maps do however, communicate the same “general” picture of skin color gradient among human populations:
“In any event, tables with unconnected data points, and maps with or without interpolated cline contours, all tell the same story:
Europeans have lighter skin (and hair) than any other group on earth.
Conversely, equatorial Native Americans are not even remotely as dark as other groups at the same latitude. The traditional explanation was that Europeans had had more time to adapt. The traditional explanation no longer works…
The most eye-catching feature on the above maps is that the lightest complexion on earth is native only to the region within 600 miles of the Baltic and North seas. The feature is unique on the globe.
One can further grasp its uniqueness by examining a similar plot of iso-color contour lines for the color gradients of human head hair. The figure below appears in (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza 1994, 267), although it was first published in (Coon 1939, 270-71).
This map of head hair gradients shows that blondes are also native only to the region within 600 miles of the Baltic and North seas. With two minor exceptions, the genetic trait for blonde hair precisely matches that for fair complexion.
Even the black-haired and beige-skinned Saami of northern Lapland can be discerned in both maps. (The two minor exceptions are the fair-skinned but brown-haired people of Bordeaux and the blonde but swarthy descendants of the Volga Rus.)…
To be sure, not every researcher is comfortable with the above complexion maps. Their data were collected by comparing people with von Luschan’s ceramic tiles, numbered 1-36 from white to black. Some prefer supposedly more objective readings, taken with portable reflectance spectrophotometers (Robins 1991, 98-99). Others object to the whole idea of interpolating sample points to derive cline contours. As Robins put it, “for regions where no information existed, Biasutti simply filled in the map by extrapolation [sic: Robins clearly meant interpolation] from findings obtained in other [adjacent] areas!” (Robins 1991, 188) Hence, to avoid criticism, some researchers prefer simply to present tables or maps with unconnected sample points, such as the one below (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000). Unfortunately, this makes it nearly impossible to spot patterns.” - Peter Sweet
**Multiregional vs. Out of Africa hypothesis:**
Peter Sweet continues…
Why did Europeans become pink even as Mongols and Inuits at the same or higher latitudes remained brown? Why did Mayas and Incas fail to become as dark brown as Africans or Melanesians of the same latitude?
The older scenario of multiregional evolution avoided the puzzle by affirming that the ancestors of modern Europeans had lived there for 250 millennia (ten thousand generations), whereas northeast Asia and the New World were populated, respectively, only 20 and 12 millennia ago (a few hundred generations), not enough time for natural selection to act.
A review of the multiregional scenario and of three increasingly strong out-of-Africa scenarios may make this clearer.
In 1960, scholarly consensus had settled that the first members of genus Homo (erectus or ergaster, depending on terminology) emerged in Africa about two million years ago and dispersed throughout Eurasia starting about one million years ago. It was believed that modern humans evolved from older forms simultaneously in China, Southeast Asia, Europe, and Africa. Because this happened over a period of one million years, regional variation did not need explanation.
Indeed, forty years ago, it was routinely believed that each of the “races” was an “incipient subspecies” that had evolved independently (Jordan 1968, 584). Modern Chinese have a high incidence of shovel-shaped incisors because their ancestral H. erectus had shovel-shaped incisors (Coon 1962, 454). Australian Aborigines have sloping foreheads because their ancestral H. erectus had sloping foreheads (Klein 1999, 504). Modern Europeans have fair complexion because their ancestral H. neanderthalensis had fair complexions (Brace 2000, 300), and so forth. Observed regional variation in skin tone did not pose a puzzle because it supported and was supported by multiregional evolution.
Since 1990, widespread consensus has been reached that a second dispersal out of Africa occurred between 50 and 60 millennia ago and that this dispersal comprised anatomically modern humans. That this second dispersal actually took place, even though modern humans may have already evolved in Eurasia, is the weakest form of a hypothesis hereinafter called Out-of-Africa 2 (OOA2, for short). A very few scholars still insist that no such dispersal as OOA2 ever happened (Wolpoff, Hawks, and Caspari 2000).
These holdouts do not object to multiple people movements having occurred between Africa and Eurasia throughout the late Pleistocene. It is the idea of a “first” anatomically modern human dispersal that is objectionable. Either way, acceptance of this weakest form of OOA2 did not seriously challenge the prior view of regional complexion variation. Presumably, the African newcomers simply interbred with the local anatomically modern human populations, perhaps darkening them a bit, but having little other effect.
This stronger form of OOA2 began to undermine the old explanation of regional complexion variation. If African newcomers were a new species, only marginally able to interbreed with local archaic humans, then why should their hybrid descendants inherit the local (archaic human) complexion phenotype everywhere? The answer focused on timing differences. It was said that Europeans were unique because only they had had time to adapt.They alone fully adapted to their latitude because only their Neandertal ancestors had been cold-adapted for 250 millennia. Archaic-modern hybrids did not reach northeastern Asia until 20 millennia ago and did not populate the Arctic or the equatorial New World until 12 millennia ago—not enough time for them to turn pink or dark brown, respectively.
Since 2000, the strongest OOA2 hypothesis has emerged, advocated by a slim majority. It says that the dispersal of African-evolved anatomically modern humans represented a new bio-species. It says that modern humans totally replaced the populations of older species (H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, H. heidelbergensis) everywhere, with little or no hybridization. A large minority opposition suggests that miscegenation could have happened, either by gene flow before OOA2 or by interbreeding after the dispersal (Relethford 2001, 54-66).
This strongest version of the OOA2 scenario is well supported by molecular evidence.
Two sets of Neandertal-modern DNA comparisons have been made, one from Feldhofer in western Europe, the other from Mesmaiskaya in the northern Caucasus. Both show a neanderthalensis-sapiens split 370 to 850 millennia ago, using Pan troglodytes as outgroup (Relethford 2001, 178-87). This finding challenges the relevance of Neandertal adaptations, to modern human regional variation. Additionally, phylogeographic analyses of mtDNA and SR-Y clades, suggest that the region around the Baltic and North Seas was depopulated during the last glacial maximum and only re-colonized after 16 millennia ago (Torroni and others 2001).
People took refuge in Spain and Italy during the last glaciation. Consequently, any clear regional variation, such as the complexion pattern actually seen, must have evolved after they returned.
In fact, SR-Y studies (Underhill and others 2001) suggest that the New World was colonized before post-glacial Europe was re-colonized. Apparently, Beringia re-submerged before the Alpine glaciers receded.
"...the strongest version of OOA2, supported by molecular evidence, gives Europeans no more time on site to develop their world-unique complexion than it gives to light brown Asians at European latitudes, or to light brown Native Americans at African latitudes.
And so, the questions are: why are Europeans pink? Why are Mayas and Incas not dark brown? Some obviously visible regional adaptations do not seem to have had enough time to become fixed, and yet there they are. Other expected adaptations have had just as much time to unfold, and yet there they are not.
II. The Solution: Solar UV, Diet, and Genes
Three factors explain the odd distribution of global skin tone variation under the strong OOA2 scenario (as mentioned, nothing needs explaining under the MRE scenario). The first factor applies to everyone. Overwhelming clinical and experimental evidence reveals that epidermal melanin’s adaptive role is to regulate the amount of solar ultraviolet penetrating to the dermal layer—enough UV for vitamin D synthesis but not so much as to destroy folate. The second applies to Europeans. Humans ingest vitamin D from certain foods, which supplements that synthesized from solar UV. The third applies to Native Americans.
The very dark complexion of Africans, Andaman Islanders, Melanesians, and Australian Aborigines requires at least five genes working in concert. Once the trait is lost in a population, it cannot be regained.
Skin Melanin Blocks Solar Ultraviolet
As mentioned earlier, the default human complexion is apparently the light brown of the Khoisan and Ethiopian peoples. It is easy to see one’s own complexion as normal and others as needing explanation, but this is an illusion.
The map below, for example, shows that C.S. Coon saw everyone from Norway southwards to and including Senegambia, Ethiopia, and Sri Lanka as of the “Caucasoid subspecies” (Coon 1962, 6-7).
In fact, both the deep darkness of the Bantu people and the extraordinary near-albino lightness of the Scandinavians seem to be relatively recent and selectively driven adaptations. One is a paleness adaptation. The other is a darkness adaptation. Recent evidence suggests two different mechanisms to explain the two different adaptations.
The darkness adaptation enhances folic acid (folate) synthesis. Too little epidermal melanin for low latitudes allows intense UV to penetrate the skin, preventing or degrading folic acid synthesis, thus reducing folate levels. In pregnant females this produces neural tube defects in the fetus, causing such congenital abnormalities as craniorachischisis, anencephalus, and spina bifida. High levels of distributed epidermal melanin blocks UV and enables normal gestation at low latitudes (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000). Admittedly, some prior authors (Robins 1991, 210) had not seen evidence that fair-skinned residents of low latitudes suffered worse from folate deficiency than dark-skinned ones, but a collection of recent studies cited by Jablonski and Chaplin provide just such evidence. Hence, it seems confirmed that the darkness adaptation overcomes a threat to Darwinian fitness in its most unalloyed form—rate of successful reproduction.
The lightness adaptation enhances calciferol (vitamin D) synthesis. Too much epidermal melanin for the latitude blocks UV penetration essential to the dermal synthesis of calciferol or vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency causes skeletal neonatal abnormalities (skull, chest, and leg malformations), rickets being the best known. Again, some mid-twentieth-century authors were not convinced that dark-skinned residents of temperate regions were more susceptible to rickets than light-skinned ones. But public health studies in the U.S. and Europe collected so much evidence of this, that vitamin D is now routinely added to milk in the West for precisely this reason. Hence, the paleness adaptation also overcomes a direct Darwinian threat to successful reproduction.
Other explanations have been offered. Some have suggested that vitamin D synthesis alone suffices to produce the global pattern of skin tone (Loomis 1967), but this sole-cause hypothesis has not withstood scrutiny.
Others have suggested that dark complexion reduces
[*]the incidence of skin cancer, improves thermoregulation (ability to sweat),
[*]or camouflages the hunter.
Others say that light skin is less at risk from cold injury.
[*] Some speculate that skin tone is merely an unselected by-product of adaptations to disease and parasites (Robins 1991, 187-211).
But such hypotheses suffer from one of three flaws. Either they propose adaptations to a non-Darwinian threat (skin cancer strikes long after offspring are on their own), they assume that one complexion extreme or the other is the norm (in fact, both extremes are adaptations), or they lack clinical or experimental evidence.
Both adaptations, paleness and darkness, are positively selected for by natural selection to allow only the most beneficial amount of solar UV to penetrate the skin. The map below (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000) depicts: “Predicted shading of skin colors for indigenous humans based on the results of a linear regression model in which skin reflectance (at 685 nm) for indigenous peoples in both hemispheres was allowed to respond to annual average UVMED for both hemispheres.” In other words, it shows what the regional variation of complexion would look like, if skin tone depended solely on solar ultraviolet radiation. The cited paper argues that both skin tone extremes are adaptations to solar UV, and so the trait’s regional variation depends only on sunlight intensity at ultraviolet wavelengths. On the plus side, the paper is extremely persuasive.
Compare the Jablonski-Chaplin map with actual skin tone measurements around the world, as depicted in Part I, above. The prediction is surprisingly accurate at the low latitudes of the Old World. The Jablonski-Chaplin hypothesis is confirmed in that variations in skin tone displayed by natives of lands within twenty-five degrees of the equator in Africa and Asia may indeed have evolved in response to solar ultraviolet radiation.
On the minus side, their argument suffers from three major discrepancies.
[*]First, the Jablonski-Chaplin map predicts Native South Americans of Colombia, Venezuela, and coastal Peru to be as dark as equatorial Africans. In fact, they are not much darker than native North Americans.
[*]Second, the Jablonski-Chaplin map predicts the Saami of Lapland, the Inuit people of Greenland and Canada, and the Aleuts of the Bering Sea and northern Siberia to be lighter-skinned than Scandinavians. In fact, they are darker.
[*]Third, the Jablonski-Chaplin map predicts a band of people stretching around the globe at 55 degrees north latitude (the natives of Kazakhstan, Irkutsk, Ulan Bator, northernmost Manchuria, the Aleutians, Juneau, Hudsons Bay, and Labrador) to be as fair as Danes. In fact, they are much darker.
Incidentally, the Jabloski prediction map has been widely published in the popular press (sometimes with attribution and sometimes without). It has appeared in the February 2001 Discover magazine and in the Winter 2000 California Wild magazine, and at several Internet sites. Oddly, the popular press often labels the map as showing actual skin tone distribution. California Wild said that its “patterns illustrate three zones of human skin tone.” Discover said that the map shows “the skin colors of indigenous people across the globe.” Of course, Jablonski and Chaplin would agree that it shows no such thing. It portrays prediction, not measurement.
In short, Jablonski and Chapel convincingly demonstrate that skin tone was naturally selected, via two different adaptations, to block just enough UV penetration to enable both folic acid and vitamin D synthesis. But their explanation alone does not suffice to explain this paper’s central puzzle. Two more points are necessary.
[*]The first focuses on dietary vitamin D to explain how and why Europeans became uniquely fair-complexioned, with lighter tone than any other group on earth, regardless of latitude.
[*]The second discusses the heredity of complexion to explain why equatorial Native Americans have not become as dark as equatorial Africans.
Vitamin D was Also Available in Diet of Pre-LGM Europeans
Understanding that the paleness adaptation is designed to enhance vitamin D synthesis is key to solving the European half of the puzzle Other animals also produce vitamin D and store it in their fat, just as humans do. The table at left shows the vitamin D content of common foods, as published by the National Institutes of Health (http://www.cc.nih.gov/ccc/supplements/vitd.html).
Prehistoric people did not consume fortified milk or cereal, of course. But, judging from their cave art and artifacts, they certainly ingested significant amounts of meat and fish. Assuming adequate caloric intake, their dietary content was well within the range of the current USDA recommended daily allowance (400 IU), especially when added to the vitamin D synthesized in the skin from sunlight. Late Paleolithic Europeans’ risk of neonatal defects caused by vitamin D deficiency was mitigated by two independent factors: solar UV and diet.
Jablonski and Chaplin show that, as modern humans migrated away from the equator to Europe, Siberia, the Arctic, and Beringia, the paleness adaptation compensated for decreased solar ultraviolet. This left them with the light brown or beige complexion common to everyone above the 55th parallel except Europeans.
Then, European diet changed with farming.
European agriculture began about ten millennia ago in the Near East and spread to the Baltic by five millennia ago (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza 1994, 215-16, 256-57) (Chicago 1974, 16:304).[My emphasis: Neolithic expansion]
As in Asia, Africa, and America, the advent of agriculture saw a dietary shift from meat to grains. This reduced dietary vitamin D intake among farming peoples and so perhaps lightened their complexions slightly via the paleness adaptation. It was probably not significant outside Europe because domestic grains (corn, wheat, oats, sorghum, millet, rice) do not grow without intensive modern agricultural techniques above about 55 degrees of latitude. Higher latitudes are just too cold—the growing season is too short—to let crops compete successfully with herds as food source. Consequently, even post-Neolithic high-latitude peoples continued to have a diet rich in meat (and so, vitamin D). These include the Inuit (seagoing mammals), Aleuts (fish), Saami (reindeer), Mongols (horses), and Native North Americans (bison).
**Only one spot on the globe enables economically competitive grain production above the 55th parallel.** It is where the warm Gulf Stream washes into the North and Baltic Seas, keeping temperatures moderate despite dim near-Arctic sunlight. Around the planet, only circum-Baltic farmers could switch to a grain diet devoid of vitamin D, in a place where sunlight also lacked UV. And so, the extreme of the paleness adaptation is found only within 600 miles of this unique spot on earth.
The main objection to this hypothesis is its recency. Five or six millennia seems too short a time for such a genetic change. Three supporting arguments come to mind.
[*]First, as mentioned, acceptance of the strongest version of OOA2 unavoidably shortens the time available for any modern human regional variation, and yet variations are clearly present.
[*]Second, the European adult lactose tolerance adaptation was also inarguably caused by the Neolithic revolution—herding in this case (no one suggests that Paleolithic hunters milked their prey before spearing it)—and so it must have unfolded in the same time frame.
[*]Third, paleness and lactose tolerance are both neotenous adaptations that merely delay an existing developmental change until later in the organism’s life (until past its life-span, in these cases). Skin, like hair, normally darkens at puberty (Relethford, Lees, and Bayard 1985).
And females, who have other neotenous features (associated with human sexual dimorphism) are slightly lighter-skinned on average than men (Rebato and others 1999). The point is that neotenous adaptations can be very fast indeed—as fast as one generation for some salamanders (Gould 1977, 319). [Otherwise important distinctions among neoteny, paedomorphosis, and postdisplacement are irrelevant to the point being made.]
An alternative explanation is that the extraordinary paleness of Europeans was due to sexual selection—it was more attractive to the opposite sex (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza 1994, 145). The problem with this speculation is that sexual selection normally results in a trait’s strong sexual dimorphism.
Incidentally, Cavalli-Sforza also advocates a Neolithic time frame for both the paleness and lactose tolerance adaptations, but offers no mechanism for the former. Ultimately, it all depends on evidence. The hypothesis presented here will be contradicted when someone finds evidence as early as Magdalenian cave art, that Paleolithic Europeans were as fair complexioned as Neolithic Europeans.
Once Lost, Dark Skin Could Not be Regained by Native Americans
Understanding that several genes must work together to produce the darkness adaptation is key to solving the Native American half of the puzzle.
Since 1910, researchers have known that human skin pigmentation is polygenic, depending on just a few codominant additive genes of essentially two alleles each. We have known that complexion is polygenic, rather than the result of one gene with many alleles, because breeding of palest with darkest yields a spectrum of offspring genotypes from the same parents, not just the four Mendelian ones. We have known that human pigmentation genes are additive and codominant because half the offspring of differently skin-toned parents have a complexion between that of their parents, no matter how similar the parents. We have known that at least three genes are involved because histograms of population skin reflectance yield continuous, not discrete, values (Stern 1973, 443-65), (Cavalli-Sforza and Bodmer 1971, 527-31).
Where knowledge has improved over the past century has been in precisely how many genes are involved and their specific loci. As of 1998, five human pigmentation genes had been identified. Their symbols and genome loci are: “TYR” at 11q14-21, “TYRP1” at 9p23, “TYRP2” at 13q31-32, “P” at 15q11.2-12, and “MC1R” at 16q24.3 (Sturm, Box, and Ramsay 1998).
Subsequent work has identified five non-synonymous polymorphisms at the MC1R site (Rana and others 1999). Polymorphisms have been related to phenotype (Harding and others 2000). And gene-enzyme-protein reaction chains have been identified (Kanetsky and others 2002).
Much of the genetic mechanism remains to be unraveled but one conclusion is pertinent to this essay. Several independent genes must work in concert to produce the deepest complexion—the extreme of the darkness adaptation.
Many things can go wrong and, when they do, the result is a lighter complexion. For instance, deleterious mutations at the five loci above result in various forms of albinism, whether the patient’s heritage is dark or pale. In other words, there are many random ways “accidentally” to evolve a light complexion. But no genetic defect can make the child of light-skinned parents come out dark. [Nelson’s syndrome does this, but it is due to a pituitary tumor, not to a mutation, nor to genetic variability (Robins 1991, 125-26).]
This essay suggests that as modern humans migrated into northeastern Asia, they became lighter in response to two selective pressures. Less darkness was needed to protect against folic acid destruction by solar UV penetrating the dermal layer and causing neonatal neural defects. And more paleness was needed to enhance vitamin D synthesis which, together with calciferol ingested in meat, prevented neonatal skeletal malformations. But these adaptations functioned by the loss of genetic coding for dark complexion.
[b]**The gene pool of the Native Americans who crossed through the Beringia bottleneck and populated the New World no longer had all the needed genes.** The genetic variability subsequently available to their descendants simply did not include alleles at the five loci necessary to produce dark brown offspring.
In conclusion, this essay has tried to show that the growing consensus for an out-of-Africa scenario of modern human dispersal has produced a two-part puzzle of regional variation.
Europeans and equatorial Native Americans are both too light for their latitudes. One would expect Europeans to have a light brown complexion like everyone else at or above 55 degrees. One would expect equatorial Native Americans to be dark brown. The puzzle does not exist in a multiregional evolution scenario because MRE explains differences as either primordial (Coon 1962) or the result of differing duration of residence (Brace 2000).
This essay has offered falsifiable explanations that exploit recent genetic and anthropological findings to suggest that Europeans are unique because their diet became uniquely cereal-based and so deficient in vitamin D. Native Americans had already lost the alleles necessary for dark brown skin before they crossed Beringia.Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The Brace map is tactically informative on why modern Eurocentrists eshew skin color as a qualifier of their race typologies.
Skin color effectively isolates them, as a 'recent' phenomenon of extreme depigmentaion, separated even from southern Europeans.
Better to divide by nose shape [as no social designation ever did], since there are narrow nosed people all over the world.
Of course - they don't necessarily have any biological relationship to Europeans...but, hey, the devil's in the details. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ The Brace map is tactically informative on why modern Eurocentrists eshew skin color as a qualifier of their race typologies.
It would effectively isolate them, as a 'recent' phenomenon of extreme depigmentaion, separated even from southern Europeans.
Well, the unique phenomenon creates problems even socially in Europe, where "swarthy" Europeans of Southern European regions, want to be placed on the same social level as the more northerly European counterparts. Indeed, if one were to go simply by skin tone as a social construct of "race", the pale northwest Europeans clearly represent a minority on the planet. But then, analomies for such contructs come to the fore, when the more northerly Europeans realize that the ancient "advanced" cultural complexes of Europe, are all located in Southern Europe; ancient Greece cannot be left alone.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder where they got the Egyptian data from? The map shows Egyptians as having complexions 18-20, but look at the chromatic scale the study uses:
Ancient art sharely shows Egyptians lighter than 25.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only outliers, so to speak, within the African skin tone range, are the coastal West African west-Afrasan speakers/"Berbers", which is due to massive northern Eurasian gene flow into that region, via the maternal lines - hence, not a natural African environmental phenomenon. Egypt, despite years of foreign incursions, hasn't seen gene flow from northern Eurasia to the extent that their coastal west African counterparts have; hence, it is understandable from the Biasutti repro, that Egypt still falls within the African ranges, from medium in north Egypt, grading into darker tone as one reaches southern Egypt; something which has to be taken into consideration, along with the point made earlier about ancient Egypt art evoking darker peoples for the ancient Nile Valley polity, and the follow up point, about Ancient Egypt not being modern Egypt.
But even the coastal "Berbers"/west-Afrasan speakers, along with their southern European neighbors, don't match the very low levels of skin pigmentation exhibited in northern Europe.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: The only outliers, so to speak, within the African skin tone range, are the coastal West African west-Afrasan speakers/"Berbers", which is due to massive northern Eurasian gene flow into that region, via the maternal lines - hence, not a natural African environmental phenomenon. Egypt, despite years of foreign incursions, hasn't seen gene flow from northern Eurasia to the extent that their coastal west African counterparts have; hence, it is understandable from the Biasutti repro, that Egypt still falls within the African ranges, from medium in north Egypt, grading into darker tone as one reaches southern Egypt; something which has to be taken into consideration, along with the point made earlier about ancient Egypt art evoking darker peoples for the ancient Nile Valley polity, and the follow up point, about Ancient Egypt not being modern Egypt.
But even the coastal "Berbers"/west-Afrasan speakers, along with their southern European neighbors, don't match the very low levels of skin pigmentation exhibited in northern Europe.
Indeed, I even remember a study showing how 'white' Berbers are among the populations with high incidences of skin cancers. And while many of the people look good when young, they age terribly. Of course all of this is due to the fact that their fair skin is not good for the African sun like say the aboriginal black populations whom they live with.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ interesting Djehuti ... I thought it was because of their dieties, yet I have no scientific proof of that so I have to accept what is acceptable.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those are not even outliers! The principals of this map drawing attempts to 'whitewash' the results in that the latitiude/longitude are even regarding pigmentation. Nature does not work like that! If you find a certain species in a 'habitat' they posses the same characteristics so the map attempts to purposely realine based on present prejudices.
South America is essentially indigena with mestizaje influences and it is drawn as if it has European roots! The recents immigrants are since the 1900's. The native American is varied in pigmentation and it no way reflects past heritage. Same with N. Africa.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
South America is essentially indigena with mestizaje influences and it is drawn as if it has European roots! The recents immigrants are since the 1900's. The native American is varied in pigmentation and it no way reflects past heritage. Same with N. Africa.
The fact that many groups have only recently migrated into certain areas make the map useless for understanding the skin tone of the original inhabitants of these lands, a fact mentioned by Underpants man in relation to the ancient Egyptians.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercare: In short, Jablonski and Chapel convincingly demonstrate that skin tone was naturally selected, via two different adaptations, to block just enough UV penetration to enable both folic acid and vitamin D synthesis. But their explanation alone does not suffice to explain this paper’s central puzzle. Two more points are necessary.
[*]The first focuses on dietary vitamin D to explain how and why Europeans became uniquely fair-complexioned, with lighter tone than any other group on earth, regardless of latitude.
[*]The second discusses the heredity of complexion to explain why equatorial Native Americans have not become as dark as equatorial Africans.
^^I get this, been gettin' it, doesn't totally make sense.
makes you wonder what a white population in Africa might develope after a while.
quote:We have known that human pigmentation genes are additive and codominant because half the offspring of differently skin-toned parents have a complexion between that of their parents
^^so if a 'thirty-six' guy does a 'one' girl, and they have kids, probably half would be in the mid range around '18' down to a '1' (albinism), but could an offspring be a '36?
(referr to color map)^^
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^This is what we get when we have laypeople who do not understand the studies. I suggest you guys go back and read over all the factors involved in skin color.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^^ interesting Djehuti ... I thought it was because of their dieties, yet I have no scientific proof of that so I have to accept what is acceptable.
Diet plays ‘a’ role, in influencing vitamin D levels, but it is not the only means by which the body attains it; remember that is where the solar UV radiation comes in. UV radiation intensity has been determined to vary in terms of latitudes, not in terms of one continent to another, while diet is pretty self-explanatory, in that, cultures don’t have a consistent or standard diet. It doesn’t end there, as pointed out time and again here; skin pigmentation genes also play an important role, in melanin synthesis. The interplay of all these factors, have an impact on the level of skin pigmentation. In Africa, the climatic conditions are simply not there, to generate naturally ‘de-pigmented’ populations. Certainly, as can be seen in two different maps, the coastal west African groups are an outlier, in terms of skin melanin distribution. In terms of prediction of skin tone distribution with respect to latitudinal UV radiation intensity, without other factors taken into consideration, the product is the Jablonski-Chaplin map, as was the intention of that map. Now, the perceptive individuals would notice that neither the Biasutti map, nor the later Brace and Mantagu version, are assessments with regards to UV radiation vis-à-vis latitudes. In fact, they don't comply, because populations were assessed, as opposed to UV radiation intensity.
quote:Originally posted by yazid904:
Those are not even outliers!
The heavily light-skin toned coastal western African Berbers are outliers in terms of that trait on the continent. What is your basis for this, for it is even obvious by casual observation, other than what you provide below…
quote:yazid904:
The principals of this map drawing attempts to 'whitewash' the results in that the latitiude/longitude are even regarding pigmentation. Nature does not work like that!
Which map is doing the ‘whitewashing’; there are literally multiple maps posted herein, each with a distinctive point of focus; and in what aspect does Nature not work according to the map in question?
quote:yazid904: If you find a certain species in a 'habitat' they posses the same characteristics so the map attempts to purposely realine based on present prejudices.
Again, map and basis for your assessment?
quote:yazid904: South America is essentially indigena with mestizaje influences and it is drawn as if it has European roots!
How so? Europe has a skin color gradient just as any other region. Again, you make these claims without being specific either about the map or on what basis you are supposedly making your contention. Where did you derive the conclusion that the aim of the unidentified map, was to draw a link to “Europe roots”?
quote:yazid904: The recents immigrants are since the 1900's. The native American is varied in pigmentation and it no way reflects past heritage. Same with N. Africa.
North and South America likely reflect the ‘native’ American groups, and do in fact show skin color gradient. What I don’t get, is why you assume the intention of the your yet-to-be ‘specified’ map, bears the purpose which you attribute to it, such as ‘reflecting past heritage’.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Yazid904
quote:
South America is essentially indigena with mestizaje influences and it is drawn as if it has European roots! The recents immigrants are since the 1900's. The native American is varied in pigmentation and it no way reflects past heritage. Same with N. Africa.
The fact that many groups have only recently migrated into certain areas make the map useless for understanding the skin tone of the original inhabitants of these lands, a fact mentioned by Underpants man in relation to the ancient Egyptians.
.
Which map ‘useless’? What is the ‘purpose’ of the said map? Does it attempt to ‘assess’ the ‘original’ inhabitants of the area, or is it based on observation of populations assessed at the time of observation?
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus 27:
quote:Originally posted by Supercare: In short, Jablonski and Chapel convincingly demonstrate that skin tone was naturally selected, via two different adaptations, to block just enough UV penetration to enable both folic acid and vitamin D synthesis. But their explanation alone does not suffice to explain this paper’s central puzzle. Two more points are necessary.
[*]The first focuses on dietary vitamin D to explain how and why Europeans became uniquely fair-complexioned, with lighter tone than any other group on earth, regardless of latitude.
[*]The second discusses the heredity of complexion to explain why equatorial Native Americans have not become as dark as equatorial Africans.
^^I get this, been gettin' it, doesn't totally make sense.
If you’ve “got it”, then why does "it" not make sense. Please elaborate.
quote:WhatBox:
makes you wonder what a white population in Africa might develope after a while.
Using that logic, the same could probably be rationalized, in terms of what forms humans as a species might develop after a while. What did you have in mind that a non-indigenous ‘white’ population in Africa “might develop after a while“, and based on what underlying factors?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^This is what we get when we have laypeople who do not understand the studies. I suggest you guys go back and read over all the factors involved in skin color.
A fair assessment; has any of the posters I’ve just now responded to, barring Djehuti of course, really gone through the maps AND corresponding notes ‘carefully’ before coming to a conclusion?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Diet plays ‘a’ role, in influencing vitamin D levels, but it is not the only means by which the body attains it; remember that is where the solar UV radiation comes in. UV radiation intensity has been determined to vary in terms of latitudes, not in terms of one continent to another, while diet is pretty self-explanatory, in that, cultures don’t have a consistent or standard diet. It doesn’t end there, as pointed out time and again here; skin pigmentation genes also play an important role, in melanin synthesis. The interplay of all these factors, have an impact on the level of skin pigmentation. In Africa, the climatic conditions are simply not there, to generate naturally ‘de-pigmented’ populations. Certainly, as can be seen in two different maps, the coastal west African groups are an outlier, in terms of skin melanin distribution. In terms of prediction of skin tone distribution with respect to latitudinal UV radiation intensity, without other factors taken into consideration, the product is the Jablonski-Chaplin map, as was the intention of that map. Now, the perceptive individuals would notice that neither the Biasutti map, nor the later Brace and Mantagu version, are assessments with regards to UV radiation vis-à-vis latitudes. In fact, they don't comply, because populations were assessed, as opposed to UV radiation intensity.
I understand what you are saying but for those who believe in race as a reality, doesn't this give eurocentrics the amunition that they need to justify their claim that ... (lol)Egyptians are dark-skinned europeans ... lol
Also I was writing last night and it was erased on and accident but I do have a question about the American Native Indians, they were a lot darker then what these charts show, then I don't think that the chart is accurate when reviewing the older Indian of Americas.
Example:
If you notice the last indians hands, it is the same as the African brotha next to him. Yet Indians get darker the further you go back. I think this chart with indian variations are based on modern so-called indians. What separated indians from African was texture of hair ...
Modern indians have a strong spaniard presence. Does this take away from the Siberian migration? No .. . yet they were much darker then what that chart say.
Your thoughts
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Diet plays ‘a’ role, in influencing vitamin D levels, but it is not the only means by which the body attains it; remember that is where the solar UV radiation comes in. UV radiation intensity has been determined to vary in terms of latitudes, not in terms of one continent to another, while diet is pretty self-explanatory, in that, cultures don’t have a consistent or standard diet. It doesn’t end there, as pointed out time and again here; skin pigmentation genes also play an important role, in melanin synthesis. The interplay of all these factors, have an impact on the level of skin pigmentation. In Africa, the climatic conditions are simply not there, to generate naturally ‘de-pigmented’ populations. Certainly, as can be seen in two different maps, the coastal west African groups are an outlier, in terms of skin melanin distribution. In terms of prediction of skin tone distribution with respect to latitudinal UV radiation intensity, without other factors taken into consideration, the product is the Jablonski-Chaplin map, as was the intention of that map. Now, the perceptive individuals would notice that neither the Biasutti map, nor the later Brace and Mantagu version, are assessments with regards to UV radiation vis-à-vis latitudes. In fact, they don't comply, because populations were assessed, as opposed to UV radiation intensity.
I understand what you are saying but for those who believe in race as a reality, doesn't this give eurocentrics the amunition that they need to justify their claim that ... (lol)Egyptians are dark-skinned europeans ... lol
How does it give either "racialists" or "Eurocentrists" amunition to justify their claims? How does the skin tone in say, Egypt, support the notion of "dark-skinned Europeans"?
quote:RU2religious:
Also I was writing last night and it was erased on and accident but I do have a question about the American Native Indians, they were a lot darker then what these charts show, then I don't think that the chart is accurate when reviewing the older Indian of Americas.
What chart are referring to, and please present the basis of the source for the chart that you are presumably contesting; in other words, I'd like to know what you've learnt about the determinants used to come up with the said chart.
quote:RU2religious:
If you notice the last indians hands, it is the same as the African brotha next to him. Yet Indians get darker the further you go back. I think this chart with indian variations are based on modern so-called indians. What separated indians from African was texture of hair ...
Modern indians have a strong spaniard presence. Does this take away from the Siberian migration? No .. . yet they were much darker then what that chart say.
Your thoughts
Until you can provide the specifics of the chart in question, and address the questions just now asked, there isn't much else for me to think about at this point, other than to assume, as related to the very last question in my last post, that you may not have actually 'carefully' read the notes and corresponding illustrations of the topic.
NOTE: Just want to correct repetitive and [careless] mistakes on my part in the intro notes about the source for the notes; it should read "Frank" Sweet, as pointed out later on here, NOT "Peter" Sweet as I presented in initial thread. Other than that, every source was presented as it is. Thanks for taking note.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Diet plays ‘a’ role, in influencing vitamin D levels, but it is not the only means by which the body attains it; remember that is where the solar UV radiation comes in. UV radiation intensity has been determined to vary in terms of latitudes, not in terms of one continent to another, while diet is pretty self-explanatory, in that, cultures don’t have a consistent or standard diet. It doesn’t end there, as pointed out time and again here; skin pigmentation genes also play an important role, in melanin synthesis. The interplay of all these factors, have an impact on the level of skin pigmentation. In Africa, the climatic conditions are simply not there, to generate naturally ‘de-pigmented’ populations. Certainly, as can be seen in two different maps, the coastal west African groups are an outlier, in terms of skin melanin distribution. In terms of prediction of skin tone distribution with respect to latitudinal UV radiation intensity, without other factors taken into consideration, the product is the Jablonski-Chaplin map, as was the intention of that map. Now, the perceptive individuals would notice that neither the Biasutti map, nor the later Brace and Mantagu version, are assessments with regards to UV radiation vis-à-vis latitudes. In fact, they don't comply, because populations were assessed, as opposed to UV radiation intensity.
I understand what you are saying but for those who believe in race as a reality, doesn't this give eurocentrics the amunition that they need to justify their claim that ... (lol)Egyptians are dark-skinned europeans ... lol
How does it give either "racialists" or "Eurocentrists" amunition to justify their claims? How does the skin tone in say, Egypt, support the notion of "dark-skinned Europeans"?
quote:RU2religious:
Also I was writing last night and it was erased on and accident but I do have a question about the American Native Indians, they were a lot darker then what these charts show, then I don't think that the chart is accurate when reviewing the older Indian of Americas.
What chart are referring to, and please present the basis of the source for the chart that you are presumably contesting; in other words, I'd like to know what you've learnt about the determinants used to come up with the said chart.
quote:RU2religious:
If you notice the last indians hands, it is the same as the African brotha next to him. Yet Indians get darker the further you go back. I think this chart with indian variations are based on modern so-called indians. What separated indians from African was texture of hair ...
Modern indians have a strong spaniard presence. Does this take away from the Siberian migration? No .. . yet they were much darker then what that chart say.
Your thoughts
Until you can provide the specifics of the chart in question, and address the questions just now asked, there isn't much else for me to think about at this point, other than to assume, as related to the very last question in my last post, that you may not have actually 'carefully' read the notes and corresponding illustrations of the topic.
Addressing the first part of your post and response ... You've proven that there are multiple thing that happen which causes variations in skin color (UV, diet, etc), so then I was asking does this give the eurocentrics ammo when they try to come with a caucasoid East Africans (exmaple used was Egypt). As we know, there are european socalled scholars out there who believe in a european/nordic egypt who just so happens to be dark because of UV, diets, etc which causes skin-color mutations from white to dark?
Ahhhhh!!! I think I just had the question answered going back over the original post ...
Please dis-regard first post. I believe this is what answers the question at hand:
quote:Once Lost, Dark Skin Could Not be Regained by Native Americans
Understanding that several genes must work together to produce the darkness adaptation is key to solving the Native American half of the puzzle.
As far as the chart in question is concerned ... I was talking about this one:
I was looking over the North America region and that doesn't seem accurate in terms of past. Maybe in the presence time frame but not the past. The photos I showed above doesn't really give the true color of the more ancient Native Americans ... It seems (opinion) that they were already mixing in that time. Hell, Spaniards where here hundreds of years before photography and they were raping, producing lighter colors ...
I will reread the full post again, but it just doesn't seem correct that the color variations representing Northern Americas is right.
I'm no expert on this so it pretty much a question.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Addressing the first part of your post and response ... You've proven that there are multiple thing that happen which causes variations in skin color (UV, diet, etc), so then I was asking does this give the eurocentrics ammo when they try to come with a caucasoid East Africans (exmaple used was Egypt).
I don't see how it could, as you've realized (in post below), unless one can show that melanin levels in the Nile Valley aren't indigenous to Africa, as presented in the Biasutti and Brace & Mantagu skin tone maps, not to mention the casual observation that Europeans aren't as dark as indigenous Egyptians. Moreover, genetics, archeology and cultural anthropology, geology and climate are never sacrificed to back any Eurocentric claim along those lines; without these, they have no claim.
quote:RU2religious:
As we know, there are european socalled scholars out there who believe in a european/nordic egypt who just so happens to be dark because of UV, diets, etc which causes skin-color mutations from white to dark?
Ahhhhh!!! I think I just had the question answered going back over the original post ...
Please dis-regard first post. I believe this is what answers the question at hand:
quote:Once Lost, Dark Skin Could Not be Regained by Native Americans
Understanding that several genes must work together to produce the darkness adaptation is key to solving the Native American half of the puzzle.
Indeed, as was in the introductory notes. Europeans can 'tan' due to some level of melanin, but not to the relatively more intense levels found in tropical or their descendants in supra and sub-tropical Africa.
quote:RU2religious:
As far as the chart in question is concerned ... I was talking about this one:
I was looking over the North America region and that doesn't seem accurate in terms of past. Maybe in the presence time frame but not the past.
It would have to be at the time the observation was made, which in this case, would be when Biasutti made his assessments. Biasutti doesn't know what skin tone the ancient American populations had by mere 'observation', because he would not have been there. He would have had to note down the skin tones, according to populations assessed, and then extrapolate in other areas, where assessment was limited. Again, from the intro notes:
To be sure, not every researcher is comfortable with the above complexion maps. Their data were collected by comparing people with von Luschan’s ceramic tiles, numbered 1-36 from white to black. Some prefer supposedly more objective readings, taken with portable reflectance spectrophotometers (Robins 1991, 98-99). Others object to the whole idea of interpolating sample points to derive cline contours. As Robins put it, “for regions where no information existed, Biasutti simply filled in the map by extrapolation [sic: Robins clearly meant interpolation] from findings obtained in other [adjacent] areas!” (Robins 1991, 188) Hence, to avoid criticism, some researchers prefer simply to present tables or maps with unconnected sample points, such as the one below (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000) [not shown here]. Unfortunately, this makes it nearly impossible to spot patterns.” - Frank Sweet
^Understanding this sort of info, will allow one to know what to expect in terms of precision of the map, and its intentions.
quote:RU2religious:
I will reread the full post again,...
Please do, I highly recommend it. Once the maps are read in coordination with the notes, their premises become more clear, and hence, open to logical scrutiny via addressing specifics.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And I suppose those Native Americans presented are ones of recent African ancestry as many Seminoles of Florida and another group up in the northeast which has caused somewhat of a controversy (as well as laughing stalk) because they are entirely African Americans who want to reap benifits for being 'Native Americans'. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a tendency to portray 'Native Americans' as some sort of a monotypic entity, and perhaps one which had been subjected to little biological modification, but in reality, recalling on...
Neves et al.
A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil: implications for the settlement of the New World.
J Hum Evol. 2005 Apr;48(4):403-14
Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans.
The **Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.**
Here, we present the results of a comparative morphological assessment of a late Paleoindian/early archaic specimen from Capelinha Burial II, southern Brazil. The Capelinha skull was compared with samples of four Paleoindian groups from South and Central America and worldwide modern groups from W.W. Howells' studies. In both analyses performed (classical morphometrics and geometric morphometrics), the results show a clear association between Capelinha Burial II and the Paleoindians, as well as Australians, Melanesians, and Africans, confirming its Paleoamerican status.
...it is obvious, that this isn't the case. And I doubt that such a scenario has been put forth in any study presented herein, as it pertains to skin tones.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And I suppose those Native Americans presented are ones of recent African ancestry as many Seminoles of Florida and another group up in the northeast which has caused somewhat of a controversy (as well as laughing stalk) because they are entirely African Americans who want to reap benifits for being 'Native Americans'.
Djehuti I understand what your saying because I think that there are a lot of African Americans who are trying to reap the benefits from Indian nations. I also understand that in history their were indian who accepted slaves into their tribes so that the slaves could obtain freedom.
I am well aware of the history of slaves and Native Americans. I highly respect your debates, knowledge on many issues but this topic opinions don't real many anything in concerns to me. My grandfather was full blood indian i.e. Witchita Indian who looked like this:
He was a very dark east asian looking man. He was a real Siberian indian type just so that you will know. His wife came from the same tribe which was my grandmother. My father their son was full blood indian ... which makes me half indian and half African ...
lol ... Every African American is not trying to get money Djehuti ... to be honest I have enough of that, so I don't care about what the government can give me. lol
My mothers side I have trace back to the Senegal area so I suspect Olof/Wolof or Fulani heritage ... no gaurantee but I suspect.
From Childhood my Native American cousins and African cousins hung around with each other and still do in our thirties. My Indian cousins call me a Red African and my African American cousins call me half black Indian (all in fun ... that how we do it).
I know a lot of people with my same story here in the United States. As a matter of fact many of us who's story is just like mine love our Native American side and will die for our African heritage without a second thought about it.
The story of black natives is nothing new because those who were called the California indians/Natives were follower of Califia the black amazonian ... I'm sure you've heard of here. She is where the name Califorian got its name from.
Black natives should not be called Indian which is something that I agree with, but as my grandfather taught me (note: The Siberian one) ... There have always been black people on Turtle Island i.e. United States.
It is what it is ... It may be view as a form of Afrocentric b/s but its not according to tradition in the United States i.e. Turtle Island.
Once again ... I highly respect your debates and knowledge but unless you have strong evidence that Africans were not here nor voyaged to the land then opinion as the old saying goes ... there like as#holes, everyone has it but no one want to smell the ...???? lol ...
No disrespect ... just having a little fun with the post.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My question was, are there any adaptations to compensate for de-pigmentation, in a case, like the case of the Native Americans. Did they develope any adaptations?
My question was, are there any adaptations to compensate for de-pigmentation, in a case, like the case of the Native Americans. Did they develope any adaptations?
I am not aware of 'de-pigmentation' in Native Americans, at least, not in the sense of northern Eurasians like, north Europeans; some groups might be within the range of southern European groups. On the other hand, many are relatively more pigmented than even southern Europeans.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: I think there is a tendency to portray 'Native Americans' as some sort of a monotypic entity, and perhaps one which had been subjected to little biological modification, but in reality, recalling on...
Neves et al.
A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil: implications for the settlement of the New World.
J Hum Evol. 2005 Apr;48(4):403-14
Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans.
The **Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.**
Here, we present the results of a comparative morphological assessment of a late Paleoindian/early archaic specimen from Capelinha Burial II, southern Brazil. The Capelinha skull was compared with samples of four Paleoindian groups from South and Central America and worldwide modern groups from W.W. Howells' studies. In both analyses performed (classical morphometrics and geometric morphometrics), the results show a clear association between Capelinha Burial II and the Paleoindians, as well as Australians, Melanesians, and Africans, confirming its Paleoamerican status.
...it is obvious, that this isn't the case. And I doubt that such a scenario has been put forth in any study presented herein, as it pertains to skin tones.
Very good post and I don't think that I've seen that study before but the post was more in concern with how dark the actual natives were and not so much as African Americans trying to claim their heritage.
The post was dealing with skin color ... My cousin Cheif has hair down to his knee caps and he is as dark as I am but his hair is straight as europeans and asians. He looks like a very dark-skinned asian or even like a dark-skin tiger woods ...
Its funny when I hear people tell me that African Americans are trying to get money or even worse ... stealing peoples heritage.
There are black folks whos family may have never touched African soil like their are Black people in Asian, and so forth ... That doesn't make them Africans, just like the blacks who were already here. it doesn't make them indians nor Africans.
They were Tutle Islanders with very dark-skin/black(dark-reddish black skin like mine)color. I'm a very dark weird red color (click name see picture) ... and my son and daughter are much more red them I am with slanted eyes as east Asians ... My features are more African ... and I love it.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I am not aware of 'de-pigmentation' in Native Americans, at least, not in the sense of northern Eurasians like, north Europeans; some groups might be within the range of southern European groups. On the other hand, many are relatively more pigmented than even southern Europeans.
It is important to note that the "Native Americans" are not being presented as 'depigmented' in the notes provided herein; they are just not 'as dark as would be expected', as seen in some equatorial African groups, if this is to be predicted from latitudinal intensity of Solar UV radiation. Hence, reiterating some points:
"And so, the questions are: why are Europeans pink? Why are Mayas and Incas not dark brown? Some obviously visible regional adaptations do not seem to have had enough time to become fixed, and yet there they are. Other expected adaptations have had just as much time to unfold, and yet there they are not.
Compare the Jablonski-Chaplin map with actual skin tone measurements around the world, as depicted in Part I, above. The prediction is surprisingly accurate at the low latitudes of the Old World. The Jablonski-Chaplin hypothesis is confirmed in that variations in skin tone displayed by natives of lands within twenty-five degrees of the equator in Africa and Asia may indeed have evolved in response to solar ultraviolet radiation.
On the minus side, their argument suffers from three major discrepancies.
[*]First, the Jablonski-Chaplin map predicts Native South Americans of Colombia, Venezuela, and coastal Peru to be as dark as equatorial Africans. In fact, they are not much darker than native North Americans.
[*]Second, the Jablonski-Chaplin map predicts the Saami of Lapland, the Inuit people of Greenland and Canada, and the Aleuts of the Bering Sea and northern Siberia to be lighter-skinned than Scandinavians. In fact, they are darker.
[*]Third, the Jablonski-Chaplin map predicts a band of people stretching around the globe at 55 degrees north latitude (the natives of Kazakhstan, Irkutsk, Ulan Bator, northernmost Manchuria, the Aleutians, Juneau, Hudsons Bay, and Labrador) to be as fair as Danes. In fact, they are much darker.”
And...
“Two more points are necessary.
[*]The first focuses on dietary vitamin D to explain how and why Europeans became uniquely fair-complexioned, with lighter tone than any other group on earth, regardless of latitude.
[*]The second discusses the heredity of complexion to explain why equatorial Native Americans have not become as dark as equatorial Africans.” - Frank W. Sweet
Hence, they are dark alright; just not as dark as they would be expected, as some groups within the same latitudes, if this latitudinal variation of Solar UV radiation intensity was to predetermine the observed levels of melanin content.
Remember this piece:
"some researchers prefer simply to present tables or maps with unconnected sample points, such as the one below (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000) [not shown here]. Unfortunately, this makes it nearly impossible to spot patterns." - Frank Sweet
Well, I'll now post the map in question...
See the point about how it doesn't give a sense of 'pattern'? Having said that, look at the spots assessed, particularly in south America, and to a lesser degree north America; all those groups are presented in dark skin tone. Also note the colored piece in Greenland.
On the Biasutti representation, take note of Australia and Melanesia.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Very good post and I don't think that I've seen that study before but the post was more in concern with how dark the actual natives were and not so much as African Americans trying to claim their heritage.
The post was dealing with skin color ...
I know; my post wasn't targeted at your post about comparing skin tones; point blank, I just wanted to re-emphasize the point that there are different groups in the Americas which are referred to as "Native Americans", but in actuality, i.e. as far as archeology and anthropology is concerned, there appears to have been the initial Paleo-Americans, and then successive later migrations from Asia. The earlier "Paleo-Americans" had affinities with tropical groups like the Australian Aborigines, Melanesians and Africans.
Again, from Biasutti:
There are South and North American groups, presumably reflecting 'Native American' groups, which appear to be in the same range as south Asian groups like Vietnamese, Malaysians, Indonesians etc, and in Africa, groups in the Sahara and Sahelian regions, not to mention south Africa, perhaps like the KhoiSan groups.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Convergent evolution is not unknown in humans; lighter skin colour seems to have evolved independently in Europe and Asia.
Source: Nature 444, 994-996 (21 December 2006) By Erika Check (Erika Check is a senior reporter for Nature in San Francisco.)
Independantly and so well after their ancestors outmigration from Africa to Southern Asia, and much later separation into Eastern Asians and Western Asian [Europeans].
The relatively recdent leucoderm [white] phenotype would have then evolved subsequently to this.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I cannot help but looking at the Pigmentation Quotient (PQ), wherein, Australia vis a vis S. Africa vs South America. Australia has a far visible European population but it on the same level as Southern Africa! The Amazonian population are not even accorded a little "colour blimp" on the map along with the highland population of Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Brazil, a half African/mulataje population with recent European immigration! Just thinking aloud here!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why so many keep confusing themselves over these maps.
Again: The maps attempt to represent indigenous populations.
Europeans in Australia and South Africa, or African Americans in North and South America have no bearing on those maps because these are not the indigenous populations in said regions.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I re read,(well read it since skimming doesn't count) it last night and felt bad (rightfully so) before posting a remaining question, before re-reading it.
So basically from what I understand the groups who have lost the gene(s) responsable for skin tones better wear their suntan lotionn.
But then there are the bantu who had a darkness adaptation. I know they didn't lose any of the necessary genes, but is there a known case of people in who some of the necessary genes are missing, yet they are dark?
Is there any darkness adaptations in a group with missing genes?
And I do understand that no matter how many generations of living in africa a european group would probably just lose their depigmentation, but wouldnot get deep dark skin.
posted
^I never said that African Americans in general are trying to reap benefits from Native American ancestry.
I just merely questioned the sources of some Native American pictures.
But Super is correct that Native American peoples themselves have more than one lineage.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't know why so many keep confusing themselves over these maps.
Again: The maps attempt to represent indigenous populations.
Europeans in Australia and South Africa, or African Americans in North and South America have no bearing on those maps because these are not the indigenous populations in said regions.
Thanks for making that point, yet again. I’ve been trying endlessly, it seems, to encourage thorough reading of the intro notes in coordination with the maps, because each isn’t adequately understood without the other. There are various maps here, produced by different researchers, NOT a single one; hence, I’ve also been trying to emphasize the specification of these maps, and their functions. There are maps that attempt to show skin tone ‘pattern’, through the assessment of actual populations, mainly those considered ‘indigenous’ groups; Biasutti and Brace & Mantagu ‘clinal’ skin color maps, and Jablonski-Chaplin’s ‘unconnected sample points’ version, serve this purpose. On the other hand, another Jablonski-Chaplin map serves to ‘predict’ skin color distribution pattern with respect to latitudinal solar UV radiation intensity, without emphasizing actually assessed populations; this is still useful, as it gives an idea of what is the expected pattern, vis-à-vis latitudinal solar UV radiation, and whether this concords with actual skin distribution of bio-historically ‘mobile’-capable populations assessed on the ground. In various cases, the expected pattern per latitude presents itself, and in some occasions, it doesn’t; this phenomenon is what Frank Sweet explains, on the basis of studies thus far done, including genetics, out-of-Africa migration theories, studies on effects of diet on skin tone, archeology and so forth. At least another map assesses the correlation of hair color with skin tone, as both are dependent on human pigmentation genes. Having said that, I’ll reiterate an instructive point about these genes, by addressing Morpheus’ post in the following:
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus 27:
I re read,(well read it since skimming doesn't count) it last night and felt bad (rightfully so) before posting a remaining question, before re-reading it.
So basically from what I understand the groups who have lost the gene(s) responsable for skin tones better wear their suntan lotionn.
But then there are the bantu who had a darkness adaptation. I know they didn't lose any of the necessary genes, but is there a known case of people in who some of the necessary genes are missing, yet they are dark?
Is there any darkness adaptations in a group with missing genes?...
Good for you, for reading the notes in their entirety, and expanding your understanding on the subject. As for your question, you might find this piece from the notes useful:
Where knowledge has improved over the past century has been in precisely how many genes are involved and their specific loci. As of 1998, five human pigmentation genes had been identified. Their symbols and genome loci are: “TYR” at 11q14-21, “TYRP1” at 9p23, “TYRP2” at 13q31-32, “P” at 15q11.2-12, and “MC1R” at 16q24.3 (Sturm, Box, and Ramsay 1998).
Subsequent work has identified five non-synonymous polymorphisms at the MC1R site (Rana and others 1999). Polymorphisms have been related to phenotype (Harding and others 2000). And gene-enzyme-protein reaction chains have been identified (Kanetsky and others 2002).
Much of the genetic mechanism remains to be unraveled but one conclusion is pertinent to this essay. Several independent genes must work in concert to produce the deepest complexion—the extreme of the darkness adaptation.
Many things can go wrong and, when they do, the result is a lighter complexion. For instance, deleterious mutations at the five loci above result in various forms of albinism, whether the patient’s heritage is dark or pale. In other words, there are many random ways “accidentally” to evolve a light complexion. **But no genetic defect can make the child of light-skinned parents come out dark.** [Nelson’s syndrome does this, but it is due to a pituitary tumor, not to a mutation, nor to genetic variability (Robins 1991, 125-26).] - Frank Sweet
...because it straightup answers the questions you raised. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't know why so many keep confusing themselves over these maps.
Again: The maps attempt to represent indigenous populations.
Europeans in Australia and South Africa, or African Americans in North and South America have no bearing on those maps because these are not the indigenous populations in said regions.
Thanks for making that point, yet again. I’ve been trying endlessly, it seems, to encourage thorough reading of the intro notes in coordination with the maps, because each isn’t adequately understood without the other. There are various maps here, produced by different researchers, NOT a single one; hence, I’ve also been trying to emphasize the specification of these maps, and their functions. There are maps that attempt to show skin tone ‘pattern’, through the assessment of actual populations, mainly those considered ‘indigenous’ groups; Biasutti and Brace & Mantagu ‘clinal’ skin color maps, and Jablonski-Chaplin’s ‘unconnected sample points’ version, serve this purpose. On the other hand, another Jablonski-Chaplin map serves to ‘predict’ skin color distribution pattern with respect to latitudinal solar UV radiation intensity, without emphasizing actually assessed populations; this is still useful, as it gives an idea of what is the expected pattern, vis-à-vis latitudinal solar UV radiation, and whether this concords with actual skin distribution of bio-historically ‘mobile’-capable populations assessed on the ground. In various cases, the expected pattern per latitude presents itself, and in some occasions, it doesn’t; this phenomenon is what Frank Sweet explains, on the basis of studies thus far done, including genetics, out-of-Africa migration theories, studies on effects of diet on skin tone, archeology and so forth. At least another map assesses the correlation of hair color with skin tone, as both are dependent on human pigmentation genes. Having said that, I’ll reiterate an instructive point about these genes, by addressing Morpheus’ post in the following:
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus 27:
I re read,(well read it since skimming doesn't count) it last night and felt bad (rightfully so) before posting a remaining question, before re-reading it.
So basically from what I understand the groups who have lost the gene(s) responsable for skin tones better wear their suntan lotionn.
But then there are the bantu who had a darkness adaptation. I know they didn't lose any of the necessary genes, but is there a known case of people in who some of the necessary genes are missing, yet they are dark?
Is there any darkness adaptations in a group with missing genes?...
Good for you, for reading the notes in their entirety, and expanding your understanding on the subject. As for your question, you might find this piece from the notes useful:
Where knowledge has improved over the past century has been in precisely how many genes are involved and their specific loci. As of 1998, five human pigmentation genes had been identified. Their symbols and genome loci are: “TYR” at 11q14-21, “TYRP1” at 9p23, “TYRP2” at 13q31-32, “P” at 15q11.2-12, and “MC1R” at 16q24.3 (Sturm, Box, and Ramsay 1998).
Subsequent work has identified five non-synonymous polymorphisms at the MC1R site (Rana and others 1999). Polymorphisms have been related to phenotype (Harding and others 2000). And gene-enzyme-protein reaction chains have been identified (Kanetsky and others 2002).
Much of the genetic mechanism remains to be unraveled but one conclusion is pertinent to this essay. Several independent genes must work in concert to produce the deepest complexion—the extreme of the darkness adaptation.
Many things can go wrong and, when they do, the result is a lighter complexion. For instance, deleterious mutations at the five loci above result in various forms of albinism, whether the patient’s heritage is dark or pale. In other words, there are many random ways “accidentally” to evolve a light complexion. **But no genetic defect can make the child of light-skinned parents come out dark.** [Nelson’s syndrome does this, but it is due to a pituitary tumor, not to a mutation, nor to genetic variability (Robins 1991, 125-26).] - Frank Sweet
...because it straightup answers the questions you raised.
No child of light-skinned parents (as in high yellow blacks, for example) coming out dark? I can tell you quite the contrary from personal experience. Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What the map says and what reality says is two totatlly different things. First off, who said that Native Americans were depigmented? THAT is the crux of the problem. There were and are some native Americans, unmixed with any Africans, who were NATURALLY dark. Look at the pictures of Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse, they dont look depigmented to me. There are even dark skinned Eskimos who live in the far North. Likewise there are MANY Native Americans throughout South and Central America, who are NOT mixed with any Africans and who are ALSO dark.... And these are MODERN populations of Native Americans. Just think what they looked like BEFORE the Europeans got there and KILLED off so many and intermarried with the rest. So my question is, how much does this MAP represent a TRUE indigenous skin color gradient versus a MODERN population derived from indigenous populations, but no longer TRULY representative of the full range of ancient skin color variation....... It seems to me that this map is more a reflection of the REMAINING inigenous populations and not the TRUE natural skin color variation that was found PRIOR to European arrival.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No child of light-skinned parents (as in high yellow blacks, for example) coming out dark? I can tell you quite the contrary from personal experience.
Well, I am sure many here would welcome seeing demonstrations of just how common depigmented European parents come out with heavily pigmented [dark] projeny...and no, I'm not referring to adopted children.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
What the map says and what reality says is two totatlly different things. First off, who said that Native Americans were depigmented?
Good question; who said Native Americans were depigmented, other than yourself just now?
quote:Doug M:
THAT is the crux of the problem.
Not the problem being investigated in the notes, I can tell that you that.
quote:Doug M:
There were and are some native Americans, unmixed with any Africans, who were NATURALLY dark. Look at the pictures of Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse, they dont look depigmented to me. There are even dark skinned Eskimos who live in the far North. Likewise there are MANY Native Americans throughout South and Central America, who are NOT mixed with any Africans and who are ALSO dark.... And these are MODERN populations of Native Americans. Just think what they looked like BEFORE the Europeans got there and KILLED off so many and intermarried with the rest. So my question is, how much does this MAP represent a TRUE indigenous skin color gradient versus a MODERN population derived from indigenous populations, but no longer TRULY representative of the full range of ancient skin color variation.......
You might want to first specify the map you are referring to, and then determine how the map functions. What do you think?...the researcher was assessing the 'original' indigenous populations, or populations considered 'indigenous' at the time of observation by the researcher? On the other hand, was this really an 'assessment' of actual populations? Depends on map and context, you specify!
quote:Doug M:
It seems to me that this map is more a reflection of the REMAINING inigenous populations and not the TRUE natural skin color variation that was found PRIOR to European arrival.
'Reality' could be what you make it. This may be different from the notes' reality. What do you think?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I am sure many here would welcome seeing demonstrations of just how common depigmented European parents come out with heavily pigmented [dark] projeny...and no, I'm not referring to adopted children.
Oh, you're just talking about whitey, my mistake . Hey, does michael jackson count? Just kidding, anyways, peripherally related to this topic, why were ancient nubians so diverse in color and phenotype? They seemed more diverse than their northern brethren!!!
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Relative consistency in skin tone would apply to relatively highly conservative [culturally] 'endogamous' groups within say, Khoisans, or coastal light-skin northwest African "Berbers". These groups won’t automatically become much darker than they generally are. In the case of the former, it is more likely the product of selective pressure, while in the case of the latter, it is more likely assisted by the historic interference of gene flow from the populations in the more northern latitudes. Common sense is order; nobody is implying color is absolutely uniform in any group, but well within a noticeable range. Naturally, in the more heterogenous multicultural exogamous societies, more patterns are observed [i.e. a mix of patterns].
Ancient Egypt was diverse, and so were their southern neighbours. I am not sure what you are basing your claims on. If it pertains to art, well that would just be artistic conventions meant to demonstrate the 'oneness' of the nation of Egypt. For instance, today there are folks in the U.S., who portray the country as mainly 'Euro-American' or 'Euro-American' and then 'Afro-American', and to a lesser degree "Hispano-American", when in reality, it is much more diverse than that. When some person deemed "Middle Eastern" proclaims to be full American, it is easily glossed over by the other groups. In this respect, I've seen reactions to the ads where it appears people of diverse background were made to say "I'm an American".
But back to the Nile Valley; the very same people ask questions, the answers to which were relayed to them time and again:
Keita and Boyce, on the peopling of the Nile Valley…
“Archeological data, or the absence of it, have been interpreted as suggesting a population hiatus in the settlement of the Nile Valley between Epipaleolithic and the Neolithic/predynastic, but this apparent lack could be due to material now being covered over by the Nile (see Connor and Marks 1986, Midant-Reynes 2000, for a discussion). Analogous to events in the Atacama Desert in Chile (Nunez et al. 2002), a moister more inhabitable eastern Sahara gained more human population in the late Pleistocene-early Holocene (Wendorf and Schild 1980, Hassan 1988, Wndorf and Schild 2001). If the hiatus was real then perhaps many Nile populations became Saharan.
Later, stimulated by mid-Holocene droughts, migration from the Sahara contributed population to the Nile Valley (Hassan 1988, Kobusiewicz 1992, Wendorf and Schild 1980, 2001); the predynastic of upper Egypt and later Neolithic in lower Egypt show clear Saharan affinities. A striking increase e of pastoralists’ hearths are found in the Nile valley dating to between 5000-4000 BCE (Hassan 1988). Saharan Nilo-Saharan speakers may have been initial domesticators of African cattle found in the Sahara (see Ehret 2000, Wendorf et. Al. 1987). Hence there was a Saharan “Neolithic” with evidence for domesticated cattle before they appear in the Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 2001). If modern data can be used, there is no reason to think that the peoples drawn into the Sahara in the earlier periods were likely to have been biologically or linguistically uniform.
…A dynamic diachronic interaction consisting of the fusion, fissioning, and perhaps “extinction” of populations, with a decrease in overall numbers as the environment eroded, can easily be envisioned in the heterogenous landscape of the eastern Saharan expanse, with its oases and Wadis, that formed a reticulated pattern of habitats. This fragile and changing region with the Nile Valley in the early to mid-Holocene can be further envisioned as holding a population whose subdivisions maintained some distinctiveness, but did exchange genes. Groups would have been distributed in settlements based on resources, but likely had contacts based on artifact variation (Wendorf and Schild 2001). Similar pottery can be found over extensive areas. Transhumance between the Nile valley and the Sahara would have provided east-west contact, even before the later migration largely emptied parts of the eastern Sahara. Early speakers of Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic apparently interacted based on the evidence of loan words (Ehret, personal communication). Nilo-Saharan’s current range is roughly congruent with the so-called Saharo-Sudanese or Aqualithic culture associated with the less arid period (Wendorf and Schild 1980), and therefore cannot be seen as intrusive. Its speakers are found from the Nile to the Niger rivers in the Sahara and Sahel, and south into Kenya. The eastern Sahara was likely a micro--evolutionary processor and pump of populations, who may have developed various specific sociocultural (and linguistic) identities, but were genealogically “mixed” in terms of origins.
These identities may have further crystallized on the Nile, or fused with those of resident populations that were already differentiated. The genetic profile of the Nile Valley via the fusion of the Saharans and the indigenous peoples were likely established in the main long before the Middle Kingdom…
…Hoffman (1982) noted cattle burials in Hierakonpolis, the most important of predynastic upper Egyptian cities in the later predynastic. This custom might reflect Nubian cultural impact, a common cultural background, or the presence of Nubians.
There was some cultural and economic bases for all levels of social intercourse, as well as geographical proximity. There was some shared iconography in the kingdoms that emerged in Nubia and upper Egypt around 3300 BCE (Williams 1986). Although disputed, there is evidence that Nubia may have even militarily engaged upper Egypt before Dynasty I, and contributed leadership in the unification of Egypt (Williams 1986). The point of reviewing these data is to illustrate that evidence suggests a basis for social interaction, and gene exchange.
There is a caveat for Lower Egypt. If Neolithic/predynastic northern Egyptian populations were characterized at one time by higher frequencies of VII and VIII (from Near Eastern migration), then immigration from Saharan souces could have brought more V and XI in the later northern Neolithic. It should further be noted that the ancient Egyptians interpreted their unifying king, Narmer (either the last of Dynasty 0, or the first Dynasty I), as having been upper Egyptian and moving from south to north with victorious armies (Gardiner 1961, Wilkinson 1999). However, this may only be the heraldic “fixation” of an achieved political and cultural status quo (Hassan 1988), with little or no actual troup/population movements. Nevertheless, it is upper Egyptian (predynastic) culture that comes to dominate the country and emerges as the basis of dynastic cilization. Northern graves over the latter part of the predynastic do become like those in the south (see Bard 1994); some emigration to the north may have occurred - of people as well as ideas.
Interestingly, there is evidence from skeletal biology that upper Egypt in large towns at least, was possibly becoming more diverse over time due to immigration from northerners, as the sociocultural unity proceeded during the predynastic, at least in some major centers (Keita 1992, 1996). This could indicate that the south had been impacted by northerners with Haplotypes V, VII, and VIII, thus altering southern populations with higher than now observed levels of IV and XI, if the craniometric data indicate a general phenomenon, which is not likely. The recoverable graves associated with major towns are not likely reflective of the entire population. It is important to remember that population growth in Egypt was ongoing, and any hypothesis must be tempered with this consideration.
Dynasty I brought the political conquest (and cultural extirpation?) of the A-Group Nubian kingdom Ta Seti by (ca. 3000 BC) Egyptian Kings (Wilkinson 1999). Lower Nubia seems to have become largely “depopulated,” based on archeological evidence, but this more likely means that Nubians were partially bioculturally assimilated into southern Egypt. Lower Nubia had a much smaller population than Egypt, which is important to consider in writing of the historical biology of the population. It is important to note that Ta Seti (of Ta Sti, Ta Sety) was the name of the southernmost nome (district) of upper Egypt recorded in later times (Gardiner 1961), which perhaps indicates that the older Nubia was not forgotten/obliterated to historical memory.
Depending on how “Nubia” is conceptualized, the early kingdom seems to have more or less become absorbed politically into Egypt. Egypt continued activities in Nubia in later Dynasty I (Wilkinson 1999, Emery 1961).”
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
And I suppose those Native Americans presented are ones of recent African ancestry as many Seminoles of Florida and another group up in the northeast which has caused somewhat of a controversy (as well as laughing stalk) because they are entirely African Americans who want to reap benifits for being 'Native Americans'. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. Hey, does michael jackson count? Just kidding, anyways, peripherally related to this topic, why were ancient nubians so diverse in color and phenotype? They seemed more diverse than their northern brethren!!!
Printer-friendly view of this topic