This is topic Tropical adaptations in remains from Middle Bronze age Israel? in forum Egyptology at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007058

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 















From:
The archaeology of society in the Holy Land Door Thomas E. Levy
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
Where does it say Moses was not black, or even lived? lol
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
Where does it mention tropical adaptations at all?
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Amazing! These snippets from Smith(1995) People of the Holy Land from
Prehistory to the Ancient Past seem to directly contradict Smith(2002)
The Paleo-biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in
the Southern Levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millenia BCE.
Especially the part about intruders from "a damper and/or more
temperate climate than Israel."



3100-2900 BCE Early Bronze Age I
2900-2700 BCE Early Bronze Age II
2700-2400 BCE Early Bronze Age III
2400-2000 BCE Early Bronze Age IV

2000-1800 BCE Middle Bronze Age I
1800-1650 BCE Middle Bronze Age II ______(Patriarchal Age)
1650-1550 BCE Middle Bronze Age III

1550-1400 BCE Late Bronze Age I _________(Joseph/12 sons in Egypt)
1400-1300 BCE Late Bronze Age IIA _______(Oppresion to Exodus)
1300-1200 BCE Late Bronze Age IIB

1200-1000 BCE Iron Age I
1000--900 BCE Iron Age II
_900--800 BCE Iron Age IIB _________________(United Monarchy established)
_800--539 BCE Iron Age IIIC ________________(Duration of Kingdom of Israel)

Metal ages per http://farahsouth.cgu.edu/timeline/main.htm

Biblical ages per Seder `Olam
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
hehehe

Rev. Kalonji has a burning interest in keeping ancient Israel black-free.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Just to make sure of my understanding, I took the trouble to search the term "Tropical Adapted" and as I expected, the only sources of the term is in forums like this one, where intellectually challenged denizens cling to their "misunderstanding" of the term as if their very lives depended on it.

But of course their lives have nothing to do with it. It is merely a matter of convenience. It is much more convenient to throw that term around and argue that, than it is to learn and understand the nature and movements of ancient man.

INVESTIGATING HUMAN ADAPTATIONS IN
THE EARLY UPPER PALEOLITHIC
James G. Enloe (University of Iowa)

www.uiowa.edu/~zooarch/EarlyUpPaleo.pdf

ABSTRACT

Since early anatomically modern populations are well-dated in Western
Asia, ca. 92,000 years ago, and antedate local populations
considered to be Neanderthals, ca. 50,000 years ago,
hypotheses have arisen that consider them either as parts of a
single, highly variable population or as distinct populations.
Holliday (2000) examined postcranial morphology of the
varied Levantine hominids from Qafzeh and Skhul(anatomically
modern) and from Amud, Kebara and Tabun (Neanderthal). He
determined that they were morphologically distinct; the
anatomically moderns had tropically adapted body proportions,
suggesting African origins, while the Neanderthals had cold
adapted body proportions, suggesting European origins.
Neither of these studies fully address the question of whether
Neanderthals were at least some part of modern human
ancestry.


I say again: ALL HUMANS ARE "TROPICALLY ADAPTED" REGARDLESS OF RACE. That is because all humans evolved in Africa - a tropical place!!!

Yes that does mean that there are NO anatomical differences between Blacks and Whites. But as I have said many times, Whites are merely Black Albinos, so how could there possibly be anatomical differences?

The term "Tropically Adapted" can ONLY be used when comparing Modern Man and Neanderthals - PERIOD!!

And NO, Whites did not evolve from Neanderthals.
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Where does it mention tropical adaptations at all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Amazing! These snippets from Smith(1995) People of the Holy Land from
Prehistory to the Ancient Past seem to directly contradict Smith(2002)
The Paleo-biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in
the Southern Levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millenia BCE.
Especially the part about intruders from "a damper and/or more
temperate climate than Israel."



3100-2900 BCE Early Bronze Age I
2900-2700 BCE Early Bronze Age II
2700-2400 BCE Early Bronze Age III
2400-2000 BCE Early Bronze Age IV

2000-1800 BCE Middle Bronze Age I
1800-1650 BCE Middle Bronze Age II ______(Patriarchal Age)
1650-1550 BCE Middle Bronze Age III

1550-1400 BCE Late Bronze Age I _________(Joseph/12 sons in Egypt)
1400-1300 BCE Late Bronze Age IIA _______(Oppresion to Exodus)
1300-1200 BCE Late Bronze Age IIB

1200-1000 BCE Iron Age I
1000--900 BCE Iron Age II
_900--800 BCE Iron Age IIB _________________(United Monarchy established)
_800--539 BCE Iron Age IIIC ________________(Duration of Kingdom of Israel)

Metal ages per http://farahsouth.cgu.edu/timeline/main.htm

Biblical ages per Seder `Olam

---

I'm not sure what they mean yet, though.
I want to know, how distinct exactly these samples (in totality) are from preceeding groups in comparison to Africans. The canonical variate plots that contain Bronze age Israelite samples show nothing out of the ordinary.

They don't particularly cluster with Upper Egypt, as Risdon suggested but cluster near Northern Africa (Brace 93, 05), and closer still to the Middle East when included (Brace 05).










^Hellenistic-Byzantine era



Can you show how these excerpts contradict Smith 2002?

Also, in my interpretation, these biblical dates don't coincide with the anthropological changes described in the excerpts. Nomadic shepards like Isaac and his offspring are unlikely to show up in metropolitan cemeteries, nor can they account for the magnitude of the change that is observed according to these excerpts.
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Mediterranean features with African traits

The skulls of a male from the Hellenistic period and a female from the Roman period were reconstructed. Based on its facial reconstruction, the male skull might have belonged to the large Mediterranean group that inhabited the area from historic to modern times. The female skull also exhibits all the Mediterranean features but, in addition, there are probably some African traits, as manifested by the shape of the nose and face.

"This woman certainly had some African intermixture," Kobyliansky explains. "We know from history and the stories of King Solomon that there were Ethiopian Jews in Israel. In this particular female, we see some African traits. But maybe she was absolutely white in color. It's impossible to say."

A composite facial reconstruction of female Jews in the Ancient Roman era
(37 BCE-324 CE)

---

 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

The skulls of a male from the Hellenistic period and a female from the Roman period were reconstructed. Based on its facial reconstruction, the male skull might have belonged to the large Mediterranean group that inhabited the area from historic to modern times.

A composite facial reconstruction of
male Jews in
ancient Israel
(332-37 BCE)

---

More interesting data to come later..
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
White people just "LOVE" to play pretend!

Oh yes, the first modern humans looked just like us!

Oh yes, we evolved to look just as we do now in Europe!

Oh yes, we created the worlds first civilizations!

Oh no, we have no idea what the ancient Hebrews looked like!


Quote: What did Moses really look like? Or Jesus? Artists, philosophers, theologians and anthropologists have engaged in centuries-long debates about the appearance of the earliest Jewish people. Now, a researcher from Tel Aviv University, Prof. Eugene Kobyliansky of TAU’s Sackler Faculty of Medicine, is the first in the world to provide concrete facial reconstructions.


Although the busts open a new window onto how Jews looked two millennia ago, Prof. Kobyliansky is careful to say that not all Jewish people looked the same. “This woman certainly had some African intermixture,“ he says. “We know from history and the stories of King Solomon that there were Ethiopian Jews in Israel. In this particular female, we see some African traits. But maybe she was absolutely white in color. It’s impossible to say.”

The anthropologist adds, “It’s not likely, though, that Jesus was black.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many times must I say it?

WHITE BOY DREAMING!


REALITY!









 

---

Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Mediterranean features with African traits

The skulls of a male from the Hellenistic period and a female from the Roman period were reconstructed. Based on its facial reconstruction, the male skull might have belonged to the large Mediterranean group that inhabited the area from historic to modern times. The female skull also exhibits all the Mediterranean features but, in addition, there are probably some African traits, as manifested by the shape of the nose and face.

"This woman certainly had some African intermixture," Kobyliansky explains. "We know from history and the stories of King Solomon that there were Ethiopian Jews in Israel. In this particular female, we see some African traits. But maybe she was absolutely white in color. It's impossible to say."

A composite facial reconstruction of female Jews in the Ancient Roman era
(37 BCE-324 CE)

---

---

The classification 'Mediterranean' is itself
fraught with numerous difficulties and
inconsistencies. What exactly is 'Mediterranean"
as a racial or ethnic classification?

As Keita notes, often clearly sub-Saharan in
various archaelogical digs have been classified
as "Mediterranean" with racial models skewing
the collection and interpretation of data..

"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... "Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..."

and

Coon et al. (1950) note groups who have almost stereotypical
tropical African soft part characteristics
coupled with “Mediterranean” bony
cranio-facial form, but they do not report the
reverse.

(S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48)

So precisely what is "Mediterranean"? as a
population classification or biological identifier? And African features are highly
variable overlapping so-called "Mediterraneans"..
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
Crown prince Sennacherib,
relief from the Khorsabad


 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Mediterranean features with African traits

The skulls of a male from the Hellenistic period and a female from the Roman period were reconstructed. Based on its facial reconstruction, the male skull might have belonged to the large Mediterranean group that inhabited the area from historic to modern times. The female skull also exhibits all the Mediterranean features but, in addition, there are probably some African traits, as manifested by the shape of the nose and face.

"This woman certainly had some African intermixture," Kobyliansky explains. "We know from history and the stories of King Solomon that there were Ethiopian Jews in Israel. In this particular female, we see some African traits. But maybe she was absolutely white in color. It's impossible to say."

A composite facial reconstruction of female Jews in the Ancient Roman era
(37 BCE-324 CE)

---

---

The classification 'Mediterranean' is itself
fraught with numerous difficulties and
inconsistencies. What exactly is 'Mediterranean"
as a racial or ethnic classification?

As Keita notes, often clearly sub-Saharan in
various archaelogical digs have been classified
as "Mediterranean" with racial models skewing
the collection and interpretation of data..

"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... "Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..."

and

Coon et al. (1950) note groups who have almost stereotypical
tropical African soft part characteristics
coupled with “Mediterranean” bony
cranio-facial form, but they do not report the
reverse.

(S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48)

So precisely what is "Mediterranean"? as a
population classification or biological identifier? And African features are highly
variable overlapping so-called "Mediterraneans"..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Mediterranean features with African traits

The skulls of a male from the Hellenistic period and a female from the Roman period were reconstructed. Based on its facial reconstruction, the male skull might have belonged to the large Mediterranean group that inhabited the area from historic to modern times. The female skull also exhibits all the Mediterranean features but, in addition, there are probably some African traits, as manifested by the shape of the nose and face.

"This woman certainly had some African intermixture," Kobyliansky explains. "We know from history and the stories of King Solomon that there were Ethiopian Jews in Israel. In this particular female, we see some African traits. But maybe she was absolutely white in color. It's impossible to say."

A composite facial reconstruction of female Jews in the Ancient Roman era
(37 BCE-324 CE)

---

---

The classification 'Mediterranean' is itself
fraught with numerous difficulties and
inconsistencies. What exactly is 'Mediterranean"
as a racial or ethnic classification?

As Keita notes, often clearly sub-Saharan in
various archaelogical digs have been classified
as "Mediterranean" with racial models skewing
the collection and interpretation of data..

"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... "Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..."

and

Coon et al. (1950) note groups who have almost stereotypical
tropical African soft part characteristics
coupled with “Mediterranean” bony
cranio-facial form, but they do not report the
reverse.

(S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48)

So precisely what is "Mediterranean"? as a
population classification or biological identifier? And African features are highly
variable overlapping so-called "Mediterraneans"..

---

Well

The use of the word in this context isn't necessarily questionable as the Levant does have a Mediterranean climate and borders its sea. The person who did the reconstructions didn't appropriate the term inappropriately as was the case with various African remains in the past. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
WHITE BOY DREAMING THAT HE IS THE CENTER OF MANKIND.

Mediterranean race (Wiki)

The Mediterranean race was one of the three sub-categories into which the Caucasian race and the people of Europe were divided by anthropologists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, following the publication of William Z. Ripley's book "The Races of Europe" (1899). The others were Nordic and Alpine.

The Mediterranean race was thought to be prevalent in southern Europe, parts of Eastern Europe, most of North Africa, Northeast Africa, West Asia and parts of South Asia,[1] as well as parts of Wales, and was characterized by moderate to short stature, long (dolichocephalic) or moderate (mesocephalic) skull, aquiline nose, dark hair, dark eyes and olive complexion.

Early debates

These differentiations occurred following long-standing claims about the alleged differences between the Nordic and the Mediterranean people. Such debates arose from responses to ancient writers who had commented on differences between northern and southern Europeans. For the Greeks and Romans, Germanic and Celtic peoples were often stereotyped as wild red haired barbarians. Pseudo-Aristotle argued that the Greeks were an ideal race because they possessed a medium skin-tone, in contrast to pale northerners and dark southerners. However Tacitus argued that the Germanic tribes were an "unmixed" people, who had preserved their ancient language and race. By the nineteenth century long-standing cultural and religious differences between Protestant northern Europe and the Catholic south were being reinterpreted in racial terms.

Racial theories
In the nineteenth century the division of humanity into distinct races became a matter for scientific debate. In 1870, Thomas Huxley argued that there were four basic racial categories (Xanthocroic, Mongoloid, Australioid and Negroid). The Xanthocroic race were the "fair whites" of north and Central Europe. According to Huxley,

On the south and west this type comes into contact and mixes with the "Melanochroi," or "dark whites"...In these regions are found, more or less mixed with Xanthochroi and Mongoloids, and extending to a greater or less distance into the conterminous Xanthochroic, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australioid areas, the men whom I have termed Melanochroi, or dark whites. Under its best form this type is exhibited by many Irishmen, Welshmen, and Bretons, by Spaniards, South Italians, Greeks, South Slavics, Armenians, Arabs, and high-caste Brahmins...I am much disposed to think that the Melanochroi are the result of an intermixture between the Xanthochroi and the Australioids. It is to the Xanthochroi and Melanochroi, taken together, that the absurd denomination of "Caucasian" is usually applied.

By the late nineteenth century Huxley's Xanthocroic group had been redefined as the "Nordic" race, while his Melanochroi became the Mediterranean race.

William Z. Ripley The Races of Europe (1899) created a tripartite model that was later popularised by Madison Grant. It divided Europeans into three main subcategories: Teutonic, Alpine and Mediterranean.

European Racial Types according to Ripley

Head Face Hair Eyes Stature Nose Synonyms

Alpine (Celtic) Round Broad Light chestnut Hazelgray Medium, stocky Variable; rather broad; heavy Occidental (Deniker), Homo Alpinus (Lapouge)

Mediterranean Long Long Dark brown or black Dark Medium, slender Rather broad

Teutonic Long Long Very light Blue Tall Narrow; aquiline Nordic (Deniker), Homo Europaeus (Lapouge)


Obviously "Mediterranean" is a totally bogus classification MADE-UP by fantasizing Whites - nothing new there, they do that a lot!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REALITY

North Africa:

Indigenous people; Berber and Egyptian - small Phoenician sample.

INCOMING ALBINOS; (White skin, Blond hair, Blue eyes, narrow nose).

ANCIENT INCOMING - Greeks, Romans, Alans, Goths, TURKS: MODERN INCOMING - Spanish (Goth), French, Italian.

"PROPER" CLASSIFICATION OF RESULTANT POPULATIONS IN NORTH AFRICA.

Mulatto denotes a person with one white parent and one black parent.

Quadroon is a racial category of hypodescent used to describe a person of mixed-race with one-fourth African and three-fourths Caucasian ancestry.

Octoroon refers to a person with one-eighth African ancestry; that is, someone with family heritage of one biracial grandparent, in other words, one African great-grandparent and seven Caucasian great-grandparents.

Mustefino or quintroon or hexadecaroon refers to a person with one-sixteenth African ancestry.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
Cypriots




 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^First four = Quadroon

Last guy = Octoroon
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
^First four = Quadroon

Last guy = Octoroon

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
The canonical variate plots that contain Bronze age Israelite samples show nothing out of the ordinary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Replying piecemeal while reading a post, so may
miss later explanations/expansions in the ref post.

===

There were people in Bronze Age Canaan and Philistia
but there were no Israelites in those lands at that time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
The canonical variate plots that contain Bronze age Israelite samples show nothing out of the ordinary.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

Can you show how these excerpts contradict Smith 2002?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:


Also, in my interpretation, these biblical dates don't coincide with the anthropological changes described in the excerpts. Nomadic shepards like Isaac and his offspring are unlikely to show up in metropolitan cemeteries, nor can they account for the magnitude of the change that is observed according to these excerpts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
I think you misunderstood what I wrote about Smith.
She seems to contradict herself in the two given reports.

In the earlier one she mentions phenetic altering influx.
In the later one she denies phenetic altering influx.

Not sure why unless it's era specific.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

Can you show how these excerpts contradict Smith 2002?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Again I don't know where you're coming from.
I worked out the timeline co-relation between
metal ages and biblical personages/events as
an aid to see where reported data may apply.

I'm not going to get into a debate about this.
Perhaps I don't understand why this thread was
broached or if its supposed to be presenting a
position to be defended or attacked.

My intents is to learn not to fight over nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:


Also, in my interpretation, these biblical dates don't coincide with the anthropological changes described in the excerpts. Nomadic shepards like Isaac and his offspring are unlikely to show up in metropolitan cemeteries, nor can they account for the magnitude of the change that is observed according to these excerpts.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
The Lachish ossuary is not any of the Middle Bronze Ages.
The remains there belong to Iron Age IIIC.
That's this segment of the comparative timeline
_800--539 BCE Iron Age IIIC ________________(Duration of Kingdom of Israel)
The last of the Bronze Ages ended a good 400 years earlier.

Am I missing something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
The intruders from "a damper and/or more temperate
climate than Israel" that you redlined in Smith(1995)
belong to MB II per that report and would correspond
to the entire lifetime of Abraham.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
We do have to make correspondances if the goal is
shedding light on the forebearers of the Jews. They
are only known to us by their legends surviving in
written form. They only enter history with Merenptah's
stela were they are known as the landless people Israel.

They were only first a family of three at the start of
MB II and last a family of seventy at MBII's end. They
had migrated from Mesopotamia to the Levant and in
those three generations while living in the Levant,
between leaving Mesopotamia and settling in Egypt,
they sent or went back to northern Mesopotamia for
wives from their relatives (daughters of uncles or
grand-uncles).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Did they also satisfy Smith's crania due to climate requirement?

---

quote:

---

Several Anthropologist have tried this and have stumbled on obstacles ie, biblical events that have left no corresponding tracks in Archaeological finds. Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prematurely discussing events that have no evidence/archeological equivalent will ...

---

...lead to endless speculative BS, and your inability to address the question of dates concerning your claim of the bible being "authored" around the time of the influx of light skinned invaders into Mesopotamia.
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Kalonji

In response to your first paragraph, how can you
speak of MBII 'Canaanites' as viewed by Hebrews
without first establishing there were any such
entities as Hebrews (or Canaanites for that matter)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
(or Canaanites for that matter)
when in your second
paragraph you deny any validity in the attempt to
correspond archaeological dates with the Jewish Seder
`Olam dates as a guide to identify stages in the
development from Hebrews to Israelites to KoI & KoJ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
To be consistent you must stop using anglicized
Hebrew names and adopt those in the archaeological
contemporaneous records.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Of course this will nullify
the relevancy of this thread to the phenotype and
ethnic relations of the supposed pre-9th century
Hebrews/Israelites/Judahites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
That being so, there is nothing for me to further
discuss.

---

quote:

---

It's your thread. Just go on patting your own back and have fun further developing it with
utter rubbish like a 'Mediterranean Race.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Even when I exit in good faith and commend your
research you still must give an immature showing.

---

quote:

---

F. X. Ricaut
M. Waelkens
Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements
Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564

Abstract:

"Since the beginning of the Holocene, the Anatolian region has been a crossroads for populations and civilizations from Europe, Asia, and the Near to Middle East, with increasing interactions since the Bronze Age. In this context, we examine cranial discrete traits from a Byzantine population from southwest Turkey, excavated at the archeological site of Sagalassos; the site displays human occupation since the 12th millennium b.p. To investigate the biological history of this population, we analyzed the frequency distribution of 17 cranial discrete traits from Sagalassos and 27 Eurasian and African populations. Ward’s clustering procedure and multidimensional scaling analyses of the standardized mean measure of divergence (MMDst), based on trait frequencies, were used to represent the biological affinity between populations. Our results, considered within a large interpretive framework that takes into account the idea that populations are dynamic entities affected by various influences through time and space, revealed different strata of the Sagalassos biological history. Indeed, beyond an expected biological affinity of the Sagalassos population with eastern Mediterranean populations, we also detected affinities with sub-Saharan and northern and central European populations. We hypothesize that these affinity patterns in the Sagalassos biological package are the traces of the major migratory events that affected southwest Anatolia over the last millennia, as suggested from biological, archeological, and historical data."

"Keeping in mind these three elements, if we consider the affinity of the Sagalassos population with the sub-Saharan populations from Gabon and Somalia, a recent direct contact between these populations and regions probably can be excluded because they are seperated by significant geographic distances. However, indirect contacts through geographically intermediary populations carrying "sub-Saharan"biological features in the late Pleistocene-Holocene period are discussion points."

"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Saharan genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2004) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey(E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinnioglu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinnioglu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintanna-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic. Indeed, the rare and incomplete 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semal 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile Valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980)-show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic-early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations."

"A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004)following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."

"Following the numerous interactions among eastern Mediterranean and Levantine populations and regions, caused by the introduction of agriculture from the Levant into Anatolia and southeastern Europe, there was, beginning in the Bronze Age, a period of increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean, mainly during the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. These interactions resulted in the development of trading networks, military campaigns, and settler colonization. Major changes took place during this period, which may have accentuated or diluted the sub-Saharan components of earlier Anatolian populations. The second option seems more likely, because even though the population from Sagalassos territory was interacting with northeastern African and Levantine populations [trade relationships with Egypt (Arndt et al. 2003), involvement of thousands of mercanries from Pisidia (Sagalassos region) in the war around 300 B.C. between the Ptolemaic kingdom (centered in Egypt) and the Seleucid kingdom (Syria/Mesopotamia/Anatolia), etc.], the major cultural and population interactions involving the Anatolian populations since the Bronze Age occured with the Mediterranean populations form southeastern Europe, as suggested from historical and genetic data."

"Consequently, one may hypothesize as the most parsimonious explanation that sub-Saharan biological elements were introduced into the Anatolian populations after the Neolithic spread and have been preserved since this time, at least until the 11th-13th century A.D., in the population living in the Sagalassos territory of southwestern Anatolia. This scenario implies that the affinity between Sagalassos and the two sub-Saharan populations (Gabon and Somalia) is more likely due to the sharing of a common ancestor and that the major changes and increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean beginning in the Bronze Age did not erase some of the sub-Saharan elements carried by Anatolian populations, as shown by genetic data and the morphologivcal features of our southwestern Anatolian sample."

"In this context it is likely that Bronze Age events may have facilitated the southward diffusion of populations carrying northern and central European biological elements and may have contributed to some degree of admixture between northern and central Europeans and Anatolians, and on a larger scale, between northeastern Mediterraneans and Anatolians. Even if we do not know which populations were involved, historical and archaeological data suggest, for instance, the 2nd millenium B.C. Minoan and later Mycenaean occupation of Anatolian coast, the arrival in Anatolia in the early 1st millennium B.C. of the Phrygians coming from Thrace, and later the arrival of settlers from Macedonia in Pisidia and in the Sagalassos territory (under Seleucid rule). The coming of the Dorians from Northern Greece and central Europe (the Dorians are claimed to be one of the main groups at the origin of the ancient Greeks) may have also brought northern and central European biological elements into southern populations. Indeed, the Dorians may have migrated southward to the Peloponnese, across the southern Aegean and Create, and later reached Asia Minor."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Whatbox:
Wouldn't be a surprise to me.

quote:

---

F. X. Ricaut
M. Waelkens
Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements
Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564

Abstract:

"Since the beginning of the Holocene, the Anatolian region has been a crossroads for populations and civilizations from Europe, Asia, and the Near to Middle East, with increasing interactions since the Bronze Age. In this context, we examine cranial discrete traits from a Byzantine population from southwest Turkey, excavated at the archeological site of Sagalassos; the site displays human occupation since the 12th millennium b.p. To investigate the biological history of this population, we analyzed the frequency distribution of 17 cranial discrete traits from Sagalassos and 27 Eurasian and African populations. Ward’s clustering procedure and multidimensional scaling analyses of the standardized mean measure of divergence (MMDst), based on trait frequencies, were used to represent the biological affinity between populations. Our results, considered within a large interpretive framework that takes into account the idea that populations are dynamic entities affected by various influences through time and space, revealed different strata of the Sagalassos biological history. Indeed, beyond an expected biological affinity of the Sagalassos population with eastern Mediterranean populations, we also detected affinities with sub-Saharan and northern and central European populations. We hypothesize that these affinity patterns in the Sagalassos biological package are the traces of the major migratory events that affected southwest Anatolia over the last millennia, as suggested from biological, archeological, and historical data."

"Keeping in mind these three elements, if we consider the affinity of the Sagalassos population with the sub-Saharan populations from Gabon and Somalia, a recent direct contact between these populations and regions probably can be excluded because they are seperated by significant geographic distances. However, indirect contacts through geographically intermediary populations carrying "sub-Saharan"biological features in the late Pleistocene-Holocene period are discussion points."

"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Saharan genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2004) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey(E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinnioglu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinnioglu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintanna-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic. Indeed, the rare and incomplete 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semal 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile Valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980)-show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic-early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations."

"A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004)following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."

"Following the numerous interactions among eastern Mediterranean and Levantine populations and regions, caused by the introduction of agriculture from the Levant into Anatolia and southeastern Europe, there was, beginning in the Bronze Age, a period of increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean, mainly during the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. These interactions resulted in the development of trading networks, military campaigns, and settler colonization. Major changes took place during this period, which may have accentuated or diluted the sub-Saharan components of earlier Anatolian populations. The second option seems more likely, because even though the population from Sagalassos territory was interacting with northeastern African and Levantine populations [trade relationships with Egypt (Arndt et al. 2003), involvement of thousands of mercanries from Pisidia (Sagalassos region) in the war around 300 B.C. between the Ptolemaic kingdom (centered in Egypt) and the Seleucid kingdom (Syria/Mesopotamia/Anatolia), etc.], the major cultural and population interactions involving the Anatolian populations since the Bronze Age occured with the Mediterranean populations form southeastern Europe, as suggested from historical and genetic data."

"Consequently, one may hypothesize as the most parsimonious explanation that sub-Saharan biological elements were introduced into the Anatolian populations after the Neolithic spread and have been preserved since this time, at least until the 11th-13th century A.D., in the population living in the Sagalassos territory of southwestern Anatolia. This scenario implies that the affinity between Sagalassos and the two sub-Saharan populations (Gabon and Somalia) is more likely due to the sharing of a common ancestor and that the major changes and increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean beginning in the Bronze Age did not erase some of the sub-Saharan elements carried by Anatolian populations, as shown by genetic data and the morphologivcal features of our southwestern Anatolian sample."

"In this context it is likely that Bronze Age events may have facilitated the southward diffusion of populations carrying northern and central European biological elements and may have contributed to some degree of admixture between northern and central Europeans and Anatolians, and on a larger scale, between northeastern Mediterraneans and Anatolians. Even if we do not know which populations were involved, historical and archaeological data suggest, for instance, the 2nd millenium B.C. Minoan and later Mycenaean occupation of Anatolian coast, the arrival in Anatolia in the early 1st millennium B.C. of the Phrygians coming from Thrace, and later the arrival of settlers from Macedonia in Pisidia and in the Sagalassos territory (under Seleucid rule). The coming of the Dorians from Northern Greece and central Europe (the Dorians are claimed to be one of the main groups at the origin of the ancient Greeks) may have also brought northern and central European biological elements into southern populations. Indeed, the Dorians may have migrated southward to the Peloponnese, across the southern Aegean and Create, and later reached Asia Minor."

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lynass:

did you pull that out of your ass?

---

This is like the crow calling the dove black. LOL You pull stuff out of your lynass all the time.

Your hypocrisy is duly noted though. You are quick to point out Eurasian admixture in Africans but just as quick to deny African admixture in Eurasians. No surprise there.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Of course. Not all white Western scholars are bias or dishonest. Speaking of which...

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lynass:

did you pull that out of your ass?

---

This is like the crow calling the dove black. LOL You pull stuff out of your lynass all the time.

Your hypocrisy is duly noted though. You are quick to point out Eurasian admixture in Africans but just as quick to deny African admixture in Eurasians. No surprise there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
admixture was not present such as West African Fula and East African Somali.

---

lie
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ That's right. All you ever do is lie. Meanwhile others and I provide TRUTH that debunks your silly lies.

Speaking of your lies, what part of "West Africa" are you from again?? LOL
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Let's not forget Ramses II's tiles representing the heads of foreigners.

Syrian


That the black man above is supposed to be from Syria should be proof of something.
 

---