posted
I'd like to thank Troll Patrol for first bringing this enlightening news to attention.
Incredible Human Journey, Episode 1, Arabia Sequence (Eden) High atop a dusty plateau on the Arabian Peninsula, archaeologist Jeffrey Rose picked up a rock, saw something surprising, and started asking questions that could change history. His unusual discoveries in southern Oman help shape new theories about when early humans may have exited Africa, who those pioneers were, and what route they took on the first stage of their journey to every corner of the Earth.
In the late 1990s geneticists identified mitochondrial DNA signatures suggesting that the first humans to leave Africa may have traveled through Ethiopia to Yemen and Oman. Scientists theorized they were beachcombers who followed the coastline. Rose arrived in the area, eager to test the theory that Arabia was the gateway out of Africa by searching for archaeological evidence. "We surveyed for years," he recalls. "Stone Age artifacts littered the landscape; virtually any place I stopped the car, I found a Paleolithic site. But none of it showed a connection to Africa; and along the coast we found no evidence of humans at all."
He and his international team of scientists returned to Oman in 2010, and on the final day of their surveying season, at the last site on their list, "we hit the jackpot." The find was a very specific stone tool technology used by the "Nubian Complex," nomadic hunters from Africa's Nile Valley. Nubian technology is a unique method of making spear points that was previously only known from North Africa. Rose's team ultimately discovered over a hundred workshop sites where these artifacts were manufactured en masse. "It was scientific euphoria," he describes.
The Nubian origin and inland location of the discovery were equally unexpected. "We had never considered the link to Africa would come from the Nile Valley, and that their route would be through the middle of the Arabian Peninsula rather than along the coast," Rose notes. "But that's what the scientific process is all about. If you haven't proven yourself wrong, you haven't made any progress. In hindsight, the Nubian connection makes perfect sense. The Nile Valley and Oman's Dhofar region are both limestone plateaus, heavily affected by perennial rivers. It's logical that people moved from an environment they knew to another one that mirrored it. At the time when I'm suggesting they expanded out of Africa, southern Arabia was fertile grassland. The Indian Ocean monsoon system activated rivers, and as sand dunes trapped water, it became a land of a thousand lakes. It was a paradise for early humans, whose livelihood depended upon hunting on the open savanna."
Accurately dating Rose's Nubian discovery was made possible by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) technology, which can determine the last time a single buried grain of sand was exposed to light by measuring the amount of energy trapped inside of it. The technique revealed the tools to be 106,000 years old, exactly the same time the Nubian Complex flourished in Africa. This also means Rose's theory places the first exit from Africa much earlier than previously believed. "Geneticists have shown that the modern human family tree began to branch out 60,000 years ago. I'm not questioning when it happened, but where. I suggest the great modern human expansion to the rest of the world was launched from Arabia rather than Africa."
Rose's passion for the past extends beyond fieldwork to how science can be shared with the public. "A few years ago, I was going through an incredibly dramatic wadi (valley) in Oman, hours off the beaten track, and I thought, wouldn't it be great if we could share this place with other people, I bet they'd love to see this." He began shooting short videos every few days and chronicling his work via Twitter updates and website posts. "You can't put into words how unique the landscape here is. Arabia feels like this romantic lost world filled with mysterious ruins; it's a living museum of artifacts. Everyone on Earth had ancestors who passed through this place; why wouldn't you want to show it to people?"
"I'm like a kid in a candy store, there's so much to learn; and now we have so many ways to disseminate information—the Internet, blogs, myriad TV channels, documentaries—it's all making science more interesting, digestible, and relevant to the public," he says. "There's no reason for archaeology and history to be stuffy. How could you not want to know how you got here? It's been said that there's more diversity within a group of 55 chimpanzees than in the entire human population. I think if we help people conceptualize how tiny the genetic distance is between them, it might even help bridge some of the tensions in our world today."
Trying to explain what keeps him based in a desert truck stop, digging through sand, and lugging 100-pound loads of rocks in 100-degree heat, Rose says, "It's like an itch you absolutely have to scratch. An answer you have to find. Who lived here? What were they doing? Are these the people who went on to colonize the entire world? Now that we know it was the Nubians who spread from Africa, I want to know why them in particular? What was it about their technology and culture that enabled them to expand so successfully? And what happened next? That's one of the defining characteristics of our species—we've always looked to the beginning and wanted to understand how we got here. That's what it means to be human."
^ Note the coastlines during that time of the Pleistocene when these cultures were extant. The Red Sea was narrower and Africa and Arabia were much closer to each other. The Bab-el-Mandeb Straits was longer and thinner separating Eritrea and Yemen by only a few miles.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
So is it FINALLY proven that Levant/Arabian peninsula were just EXTENDED parts of Africa and that the early inhabitants of Southwest Asia were still African?
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
Although fossil remains show that anatomically modern humans dispersed out of Africa into the Near East ∼100–130 ka, genetic evidence from extant populations has suggested that non-Africans descend primarily from a single successful later migration. Within the human mtDNA tree, haplogroup L3 encompasses not only many sub-Saharan Africans but also all ancient non-African lineages, and its age therefore provides an upper bound for the dispersal out of Africa. An analysis of 369 complete African L3 sequences places this maximum at ∼70 ka, virtually ruling out a successful exit before 74 ka, the date of the Toba volcanic super-eruption in Sumatra. --Cerezo et al (2012)
posted
^ Yes, Rose's archaeological findings support this as there are no cultural remains (yet) found further afield outside of Arabia associated with the Nubian Complex, at least any that have survived. So far, Arabia and the Levant were the only areas successfully colonized outside of Africa with no signs at all of further spread. In fact the archaeology supports the genetics in that these cultures were later displaced around 70,000 BC by the alleged ancestors of today's Eurasians.
Again, the main point of Rose et al. isn't about when the rest of Eurasia was colonized but about how early Southwest Asia was. His paper merely shows Southwest Asia was colonized much earlier than thought but regardless it was Southwest Asia that was the launching pad for further migrations into Eurasia.
This also supports mine and others notion that Southwest Asia itself should be considered what it is geologically as well as ecologically-- an appendage of Africa or 'Extra-Africa'.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That depends on what one means by 'Eurasian'. As I said, early Southwest Asians are nothing more than Africans who crossed the Red Sea.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ That depends on what one means by 'Eurasian'. As I said, early Southwest Asians are nothing more than Africans who crossed the Red Sea.
Agreed...Has there been a study stating how the early inhabitants of Arabian peninsula are related to the early Africand?
What you posted said this.. "Nubian technology is a unique method of making spear points that was previously only known from North Africa. Rose's team ultimately discovered over a hundred workshop sites where these artifacts were manufactured en masse. "It was scientific euphoria," he describes.
So that means there is a connection.
And may I ask, what does Rose mean when he says "Nubian". Not to sound like a dunbass, but does he mean the ancient Nubians?
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well you would sound dumb if you think ancient Nubians in this case means the Nubians who were neighbors of the Egyptians during dynastic times or during the Neolithic. The Nubian Complex he is referring to is a Paleolithic culture dated to before OOA and is represented by the archaeological sites in Sudan shown in the map.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Well you would sound dumb if you think ancient Nubians in this case means the Nubians who were neighbors of the Egyptians during dynastic times or during the Neolithic. The Nubian Complex he is referring to is a Paleolithic culture dated to before OOA and is represented by the archaeological sites in Sudan shown in the map.
I see.
And very interesting!!! This basically puts Africans leaving East Africa at a very early date.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes but they left Africa to colonize Arabia only and didn't move any further during that time.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, Rose's archaeological findings support this as there are no cultural remains (yet) found further afield outside of Arabia associated with the Nubian Complex, at least any that have survived. So far, Arabia and the Levant were the only areas successfully colonized outside of Africa with no signs at all of further spread. In fact the archaeology supports the genetics in that these cultures were later displaced around 70,000 BC by the alleged ancestors of today's Eurasians.
Again, the main point of Rose et al. isn't about when the rest of Eurasia was colonized but about how early Southwest Asia was. His paper merely shows Southwest Asia was colonized much earlier than thought but regardless it was Southwest Asia that was the launching pad for further migrations into Eurasia.
This also supports mine and others notion that Southwest Asia itself should be considered what it is geologically as well as ecologically-- an appendage of Africa or 'Extra-Africa'.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it does seem like Rose is using this AMH population as the base from which later OOA migrations were launched to the rest of Eurasia. In his attempt to not ruffle any feathers in the geneticist camp, he's abusing the genetic data by artificially keeping those Nubians in Oman until 60kya, just to give off the impression that it doesn't conflict with the mtDNA record. Inadvertently it does upset the mtDNA record though, because if they left Africa prior to 106kya, they couldn't have been L3, let alone M or N.
his also means Rose's theory places the first exit from Africa much earlier than previously believed. "Geneticists have shown that the modern human family tree began to branch out 60,000 years ago. I'm not questioning when it happened, but where. I suggest the great modern human expansion to the rest of the world was launched from Arabia rather than Africa."
Are these the people who went on to colonize the entire world?
I suggest the great modern human expansion to the rest of the world was launched from Arabia rather than Africa.Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Geneticists have shown that the modern human family tree began to branch out 60,000 years ago. I'm not questioning when it happened, but where. I suggest the great modern human expansion to the rest of the world was launched from Arabia rather than Africa."
^^^That proves some "Eurasian" clades could actually be African.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: "Geneticists have shown that the modern human family tree began to branch out 60,000 years ago. I'm not questioning when it happened, but where. I suggest the great modern human expansion to the rest of the world was launched from Arabia rather than Africa."
^^^That proves some "Eurasian" clades could actually be African.
that's right, we own Arabia get those damn A-rabs out of there
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yet the original 'Arabs' were (and still are) black people as noted by certain South Semitic tribes like the Mahra of Oman today. Of course you already know this since we showed your lyinass this many times.
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: ^^^That proves some "Eurasian" clades could actually be African.
Again it is a matter of semantics, whether Arabia is considered 'Eurasia' or an appendage of Africa. It wouldn't make a difference since the ancestors of all Eurasians were African immigrants anyway.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yet the original 'Arabs' were (and still are) black people as noted by certain South Semitic tribes like the Mahra of Oman today. Of course you already know this since we showed your lyinass this many times.
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: ^^^That proves some "Eurasian" clades could actually be African.
Again it is a matter of semantics, whether Arabia is considered 'Eurasia' or an appendage of Africa. It wouldn't make a difference since The ancestors of all Eurasians were African immigrants anyway.
I believe Arabia is an extended Africa and should be noted as one. There are still native black people there like you noted.
And Keita did say there were back and forth movements.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 'Native' simply means being born in an area. As such, the vast majority of Arabs in Arabia are 'native'. Whether one is indigenous or even aboriginal is a different story.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^That is because most of them probably have Horner (and 'Zanj') ancestry. There have been mtDNA studies where Yemeni's cluster with Horners before they cluster with other Eurasians. Arabian Vedda populations are a good example of indigenous black Arabs that don't owe their blackness to African admixture. There are undoubtedly other dark skinned Arabian populations whose dark skin predates African admixture, but good luck proving it without genetic analysis.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That is because most of them probably have Horner (and 'Zanj') ancestry. There have been mtDNA studies where Yemeni's cluster with Horners before they cluster with other Eurasians. Arabian Vedda populations are a good example of indigenous black Arabs that don't owe their blackness to African admixture. There are undoubtedly other dark skinned Arabian populations whose dark skin predates African admixture, but good luck proving it without genetic analysis.
Veddas or Veddahsare an indigenous people of Sri Lanka, an island in the Indian Ocean. They, amongst other self-identified native communities such as Coast Veddas and Anuradhapura Veddas, are accorded indigenous status. From as early as 18,000 BCE, a genetic continuum is shown with present-day Veddas
Shams ud Din Al Shammar says There is a presence of African so called “blacks” among many of the the indigenous Arab tribes. There is however dark skinned People in Hadramout and Al Mahra provinces of Yemen.This do not descend from former slaves and they are believed to be rests of ancient veddoid as well as Negrito groups in the Peninsula.These hold the lowest social status in Yemen, much lower than descendants of African origin.The Haplogroups of Negrito and Vedda groups do not cluster with that of Africans, even if they do look African by appearance.They do cluster with Tibetans and other Asiatic groups.This makes them truely Asians.There is no “Black People” – there is only dark skin colour and frizzy hair. Any group of people may have it such as several African races, several Arabian races, several Asian races, several Oceanic races. BTW, not all African origine peoples of Hejaz descend from slaves.Many settled the area peacefully or stayed after Hajj. We Arabs do not have the same black and white thinking like the white Europeans or their descendants. What is much more important, is the tribal affiliation of each individual, not the colour of one’s skin. Most of the slave hunting groups in central Africa where actually black Arabs, tipped of by native Africans about the where abouts of some “non Arab/non-Muslim groups”. This was a criminal act, same as the enslavement of whole groups in modern India as forced labourer of so many ebay items.I condemn it! But Arabs took also white slaves .This was also wrong. It brought a very nasty and destructive racial element into the Arabian Peninsula. If racism persist among Arabs, it comes from the offspring with those white slaves. The so called former “saracenes” i.e. Lebanese, Syrian, and North African Arabs can be racists. Syrian city dwellers may actually walk up to a dark skinned Arab and ask: “whose slave are you?” This may also happen among Palestinians.The other reason is that this northern Arabs have less dignity which got lost during milenia of farming and warfare. Loss of ones own true origin and tribal society. Occupation and colonization, lack of education…..crusades….etc.In other words, utter confusion.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Mind you, the Vedda population of Sri-Lanka barely survives intact today with only several thousand among their community. Even then, many have recent admixture from not only Sinhalese whom they are closest related to and have more or less assimilated with but with other peoples. This is why there are light-skinned 'Vedda' even though all Vedda were once described as black.
Also, the Vedda proper of Sri-Lanka are not to be confused with the Vedda-like or Veddoid people indigenous to Arabia! Speaking of which..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That is because most of them probably have Horner (and 'Zanj') ancestry. There have been mtDNA studies where Yemeni's cluster with Horners before they cluster with other Eurasians. Arabian Vedda populations are a good example of indigenous black Arabs that don't owe their blackness to African admixture. There are undoubtedly other dark skinned Arabian populations whose dark skin predates African admixture, but good luck proving it without genetic analysis.
Are you referring to recent mtDNA lineages? Because, several studies were posted in this forum that show not only Yemenis but Arabians in general though southerners particularly share 'Horner' maternal lineages but these lineages predate the Zanj or African slave-trade by millennia even going into Neolithic times.
The Mahra and Kathir people of Oman who speak South Semitic languages and exhibit 'Veddoid' phenotype carry NRY J1 and J1* especially in Socotra Island though I am unaware of what type of maternal lineages they carry. I have read some of the studies which Dana have pointed out which say there are affinities between the Rub al-Khali Neolithic and the Hargeisan/Doian culture of Somalia.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Hate to be a party pooper, but:
Although fossil remains show that anatomically modern humans dispersed out of Africa into the Near East ∼100–130 ka, genetic evidence from extant populations has suggested that non-Africans descend primarily from a single successful later migration. Within the human mtDNA tree, haplogroup L3 encompasses not only many sub-Saharan Africans but also all ancient non-African lineages, and its age therefore provides an upper bound for the dispersal out of Africa. An analysis of 369 complete African L3 sequences places this maximum at ∼70 ka, virtually ruling out a successful exit before 74 ka, the date of the Toba volcanic super-eruption in Sumatra. --Cerezo et al (2012)
^^WHat is interesting is that Cerezo et al detected there was gene flow circa 11,000 ago from Africa into Europe, complementing even earlier known flow from the archeological record.
Abstract
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages of macro-haplogroup L (excluding the derived L3 branches M and N) represent the majority of the typical sub-Saharan mtDNA variability. In Europe, these mtDNAs account for <1% of the total but, when analyzed at the level of control region, they show no signals of having evolved within the European continent, an observation that is compatible with a recent arrival from the African continent. To further evaluate this issue, we analyzed 69 mitochondrial genomes belonging to various L sublineages from a wide range of European populations. Phylogeographic analyses showed that ∼65% of the European L lineages most likely arrived in rather recent historical times, including the Romanization period, the Arab conquest of the Iberian Peninsula and Sicily, and during the period of the Atlantic slave trade. However, the remaining 35% of L mtDNAs form European-specific subclades, revealing that there was gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa toward Europe as early as 11,000 yr ago.
--Cerezo et al 2012. Reconstructing ancient mitochondrial DNA links between Africa and Europe. Genome Res. 22: 821-826
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^^ Mind you, the Vedda population of Sri-Lanka barely survives intact today with only several thousand among their community. Even then, many have recent admixture from not only Sinhalese whom they are closest related to and have more or less assimilated with but with other peoples. This is why there are light-skinned 'Vedda' even though all Vedda were once described as black.
It is not certain how far back into Arabian peninsula history the Veddas go. If they do represent an earlier indigenous population of the region, I do not think this guy on the left would be mistken for a contemporary African
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Cerezo et al.. African gene flow into Europe
"Here, we show, for the first time, genetic evidence signaling prehistorical movements in the opposite direction, from sub-Saharan Africa toward Europe. It is likely that most of the signals in the nuclear genome of this ancestral gene admixture between African immigrants and local Europeans had been erased by historical recombination and genetic drift. Therefore, as demonstrated in the present study, the mtDNA genome (and perhaps the Y chromosome) (Capelli et al. 2009) is the source to rescue the echoes of prehistorical sub-Saharan movements into Europe."
Djehuti says: In fact the archaeology supports the genetics in that these cultures were later displaced around 70,000 BC by the alleged ancestors of today's Eurasians.
^^You may have it on another thread but what archaeology evidence? Can you furnish some citations? Are you saying that the African migrants were in place already in Arabia- specifically the Oman Nubian Complex, but later backflow replaced them?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ This is something I've read recently in a science blog about these findings. As Swenet states the archaeological finds in Oman predate the L3 divergence characterizing modern Eurasians. Therefore population displacement or dominance must have taken place after the advent of these Nubian Complex derived cultures but later African immigrants.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: What is interesting is that Cerezo et al detected there was gene flow circa 11,000 ago from Africa into Europe, complementing even earlier known flow from the archeological record.
Abstract
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages of macro-haplogroup L (excluding the derived L3 branches M and N) represent the majority of the typical sub-Saharan mtDNA variability. In Europe, these mtDNAs account for <1% of the total but, when analyzed at the level of control region, they show no signals of having evolved within the European continent, an observation that is compatible with a recent arrival from the African continent. To further evaluate this issue, we analyzed 69 mitochondrial genomes belonging to various L sublineages from a wide range of European populations. Phylogeographic analyses showed that ∼65% of the European L lineages most likely arrived in rather recent historical times, including the Romanization period, the Arab conquest of the Iberian Peninsula and Sicily, and during the period of the Atlantic slave trade. However, the remaining 35% of L mtDNAs form European-specific subclades, revealing that there was gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa toward Europe as early as 11,000 yr ago.
--Cerezo et al 2012. Reconstructing ancient mitochondrial DNA links between Africa and Europe. Genome Res. 22: 821-826
I'm not the least bit surprised by this. This is no doubt what Swenet meant when he said there were African maternal lineages present in Europe well before NRY E-M78 were.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass,: It is not certain how far back into Arabian peninsula history the Veddas go. If they do represent an earlier indigenous population of the region, I do not think this guy on the left would be mistaken for a contemporary African
The Veddas are NOT native to Arabia but to Sri-Lanka!! That was my point!
The Vedda-like or Veddoid people of Arabia are very much a different people but they are grouped under the (false) racial label 'Veddoid' due to certain features, mainly wavy hair. But if that's the case then there are Africans who would be called as such also! There are also indigenous Southern Arabians mainly in Yemen who were labeled as 'Negrito', does that mean these people have any direct relation to the Andamanese or Aeta (Filippine) Negritos or looked exactly like them?? No.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That is because most of them probably have Horner (and 'Zanj') ancestry. There have been mtDNA studies where Yemeni's cluster with Horners before they cluster with other Eurasians. Arabian Vedda populations are a good example of indigenous black Arabs that don't owe their blackness to African admixture. There are undoubtedly other dark skinned Arabian populations whose dark skin predates African admixture, but good luck proving it without genetic analysis.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness It is not certain how far back into Arabian peninsula history the Veddas go. If they do represent an earlier indigenous population of the region, I do not think this guy on the left would be mistaken for a contemporary African
The Veddas are NOT native to Arabia but to Sri-Lanka!! That was my point!
The Vedda-like or Veddoid people of Arabia are very much a different people but they are grouped under the (false) racial label 'Veddoid' due to certain features, mainly wavy hair. But if that's the case then there are Africans who would be called as such also!
what is the name of an indigenous African tribe that you have a picture of more than one adult male in a group that has hair of the type this man in the picture has? or is it hypothetical? This man would not be mistaken for a contemporary African in my opinion
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
There are also indigenous Southern Arabians mainly in Yemen who were labeled as 'Negrito', does that mean these people have any direct relation to the Andamanese or Aeta (Filippine) Negritos or looked exactly like them?? No.
Your logic here is inconistent. Swenet had said " Arabian Vedda populations are a good example of indigenous black Arabs " You say the are from Sri Lanka. But you don't say the negritos are related to Andamanese or Aeta. That's arbitrary. The Vedda could have been indigenous to Arabia before they got to Sri Lanka. Or both the Vedda and the negrito of Arabia are not native to Arabia.
population: 500,000–1,000,000 Sana'a, Aden, Ta'izz, Lahij, Abyan, Al Hudaydah, Al Mukalla
Al-Akhdam, Akhdam or Achdam (singular Khadem, meaning "servant" in Arabic; also called Al-Muhamasheen, "the marginalized ones") is a social group in Yemen, distinguished from the majority by its members' Negrito-like physical features and stature. They are considered to be at the very bottom of the societal ladder and are mostly confined to menial jobs in the country's major cities. The exact origins of Al-Akhdam are uncertain. One popular account holds that they are descendants of soldiers who accompanied the Abyssinian army during the latter's occupation of Yemen in the pre-Islamic period. Once the Abyssinian troops were finally expelled at the start of the Muslim era, some of the soldiers are said to have remained behind, giving birth to the Akhdam. Another theory maintains that they are of Veddoid origin.
Anthropologists such as Vombruck suggest that Yemen's history and social hierarchy that developed under various regimes, including the Zaydi Imamate, created a caste-like society.
Though their social conditions have improved somewhat in modern times, Al-Akhdam are still stereotyped by mainstream Yemeni society; they have been called lowly, dirty, immoral and untouchables. They form a kind of hereditary caste at the very bottom of Yemeni social strata.
Many NGOs and charitable organizations from other countries such as CARE International are working toward improving the living circumstances of the Akhdam. Genetic studies by Lehmann (1954) and Tobias (1974) noted the sickle cell trait at high frequencies amongst the Akhdam. According to Lehmann, this suggests a biological link with the Veddoids of South Asia, who also have a high incidence of the trait.
My sympathies go out to these people on the way they are marginalized.
My guess on their ancestry is that they come from more than one place, from Africa as well as from regions east of Arabia
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMAO!!! On other sites, since Jeffery Rose Human journey, Eurocentrics are now trying to claim L3 may be Eurasian! Lol!
But what they don't know is that Rose is not arguing about when the Human family tree branched out. He still believes it was 60,000 BC but in Arabia!
Also why don't they question haplogroup N? Since N is older than when the human family tree branched out. LMAO!
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
M and N are Eurasian clades of L3 which is East African
but you can follow back any haplogroup to a point where it's Africa, therefore we own everything
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti. Now that I think of it, some Australian Aboriginals carry/carried extra-mtDNA Eve lineages. The Mungo fossil (the earliest Australian skeleton) was tested positive for this lineage, as well as some Late Palaeolithic Australian fossils. Since they were the first successful wave out of Africa, and are perceived to have followed the same Arabian route as Rose's Palaeolithic Nubians, they might have mixed with this group which split off from Africans 106kya, who MAY have been extra-mtDNA Eve.
^This is another smack in the face to those who latch on to their wishful conjecture that L lineages were present in noteworthy frequencies in peripheral Africa during the earliest OOA migrations. We're supposed to believe that fossil Australian Aboriginals preserved rare extra-mtDNA Eve lineages all the way to Australia, but that the said fossil Australians magically lost all super abundant mtDNA L upon exiting Africa.
quote:Evolutionary history of mtDNA haplogroup structure in African populations inferred from mtDNA d-loop and RFLP analysis.
(A) Relationships among different mtDNA haplogroup lineages inferred from mtDNA d-loop sequences and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies (Kivisild, Metspalu, et al. 2006). Dashed lines indicate previously unresolved relationships.
(B) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, L5, L2, L3, M, and N in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies.
(C) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, and L5 subhaplogroups (excluding L2 and L3) in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies. Haplogroup frequencies from previously published studies include East Africans (Ethiopia [Rosa et al. 2004], Kenya and Sudan [Watson et al. 1997; Rosa et al. 2004]), Mozambique (Pereira et al. 2001; Salas et al. 2002), Hadza (Vigilant et al. 1991), and Sukuma (Knight et al. 2003); South Africans (Botswana !Kung [Vigilant et al. 1991]); Central Africans (Mbenzele Pygmies [Destro-Bisol et al. 2004], Biaka Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991], and Mbuti Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991]); West Africans (Niger, Nigeria [Vigilant et al. 1991; Watson et al. 1997]; and Guinea [Rosa et al. 2004]). L1*, L2*, and L3* from previous studies indicate samples that were not further subdivided into subhaplogroups.
--Norman A. Johnson (2007) Darwinian Detectives: Revealing the Natural History of Genes and Genomes pg100
quote:Genetic evidence of an early exit of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa
The mitochondrial haplogroup M, first regarded as an ancient marker of East-Asian origin4, 5, has been found at high frequency in India6 and Ethiopia7, raising the question of its origin.(A haplogroup is a group of haplotypes that share some sequence variations.) Its variation and geographical distribution suggest that Asian haplogroup M separated from eastern-African haplogroup M more than 50,000 years ago.
Two other variants (489C and 10873C) also support a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa.
These findings, together with the virtual absence of haplogroup M in the Levant and its high frequency in the South-Arabian peninsula, render M the first genetic indicator for the hypothesized exit route from Africa through eastern Africa/western India. This was possibly the only successful early dispersal event of modern humans out of Africa.
quote:In modern humans, this elongation is a pattern characteristic of warm-adapted populations, and this physique may be an early Cro-Magnon retention from African ancestors. Similar retentions may be observed in certain indices of facial shape ...
--Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory: Second Edition by Eric Delson
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That is because most of them probably have Horner (and 'Zanj') ancestry. There have been mtDNA studies where Yemeni's cluster with Horners before they cluster with other Eurasians. Arabian Vedda populations are a good example of indigenous black Arabs that don't owe their blackness to African admixture. There are undoubtedly other dark skinned Arabian populations whose dark skin predates African admixture, but good luck proving it without genetic analysis.
Right. And nobody is doubting the the obvious historical fact of recent geneflow between the Horn and Arabia.
quote:lyinass posted:
what is the name of an indigenous African tribe that you have a picture of more than one adult male in a group that has hair of the type this man in the picture has? or is it hypothetical? This man would not be mistaken for a contemporary African in my opinion
Yeah, and we all know you have a lot of opinions as opposed to FACTS. Also, what does it matter about the man's 'hair'?! LOL Either way, he and his people of Sri-Lanka have NO recent ties to modern Southern Arabians or Africans. So your point is null.
quote:Your logic here is inconistent. Swenet had said " Arabian Vedda populations are a good example of indigenous black Arabs " You say they are from Sri Lanka. But you don't say the negritos are related to Andamanese or Aeta. That's arbitrary. The Vedda could have been indigenous to Arabia before they got to Sri Lanka. Or both the Vedda and the negrito of Arabia are not native to Arabia.
LMAO Again your ignorance befuddles you. I know what Swenet said, and better yet unlike YOU, I know what he meant when he said "Vedda". He meant the populations of Arabia who were 'Vedda-like' as Western anthropologists described them. Still, these Arabian peoples are NOT the actual Vedda proper of Sri-Lanka but an entirely different people! As I stated, there are peoples in southern Arabia that were also described by Westerners as 'Negrito' but that does not mean they have direct ties to the Negritos of the Andamans or the Philippines, anymore than the Arabian 'Veddoids' have connections to the Veddas of Sri-Lanka! The very terms 'Vedda' and 'Negrito' as racial terms have no validity anymore than the term 'Caucasian' does; therefore using these terms to describe peoples other than the original ethnic groups these terms were made for is essentially erroneous. As for ancestors of the Veddas being present in Arabia before reaching Sri-Lanka, the same can be said of ANY Eurasian group! Thus the prehistoric ancestors of a people are NOT the same as their descendants, dummy!
quote: Al-Akhdam people in Yemen
Akhdam children in a Ta'izz neighborhood.
Al-Akhdam population: 500,000–1,000,000 Sana'a, Aden, Ta'izz, Lahij, Abyan, Al Hudaydah, Al Mukalla
Al-Akhdam, Akhdam or Achdam (singular Khadem, meaning "servant" in Arabic; also called Al-Muhamasheen, "the marginalized ones") is a social group in Yemen, distinguished from the majority by its members' Negrito-like physical features and stature. They are considered to be at the very bottom of the societal ladder and are mostly confined to menial jobs in the country's major cities. The exact origins of Al-Akhdam are uncertain. One popular account holds that they are descendants of soldiers who accompanied the Abyssinian army during the latter's occupation of Yemen in the pre-Islamic period. Once the Abyssinian troops were finally expelled at the start of the Muslim era, some of the soldiers are said to have remained behind, giving birth to the Akhdam. Another theory maintains that they are of Veddoid origin.
Anthropologists such as Vombruck suggest that Yemen's history and social hierarchy that developed under various regimes, including the Zaydi Imamate, created a caste-like society.
Though their social conditions have improved somewhat in modern times, Al-Akhdam are still stereotyped by mainstream Yemeni society; they have been called lowly, dirty, immoral and untouchables. They form a kind of hereditary caste at the very bottom of Yemeni social strata.
Many NGOs and charitable organizations from other countries such as CARE International are working toward improving the living circumstances of the Akhdam. Genetic studies by Lehmann (1954) and Tobias (1974) noted the sickle cell trait at high frequencies amongst the Akhdam. According to Lehmann, this suggests a biological link with the Veddoids of South Asia, who also have a high incidence of the trait. __________________________________________ http://idsn.org/country-information/yemen/
My sympathies go out to these people on the way they are marginalized.
My guess on their ancestry is that they come from more than one place, from Africa as well as from regions east of Arabia
We all know about the Akhdam as their identity and plight was discussed numerous times in this forum. And again, your own "guess" does not matter at all, only the facts do! Their form of sickle-cell is known as the Arab-Indian HBS and is shared by peoples in both Arabia and India regardless of phenotype and it is still unknown from which region the allele arose. Also, the Akhdam are not the only 'Negrito' group in Arabia.
The Qarra were also traditionally described as 'Negrito'.
But unlike the Akhdam, the Qarra and Hawt are not marginalized at all but are respected as ancient tribes of the Qahtani or southern division of Arabs. The Akhdam are marginalized primarily because they are considered non-Arab outcasts. The popular theory is that the Akhdam are descended from Ethiopian invaders of the 6th century CE, but the problem with this notion is that there are no archaeological traces tying them to 6th century Ethiopia. Furthermore their physical features are distinct from the Ethiopians/Eritreans across the straits. Even the poster/moderator Yom commented that their beardless faces and very short statures contrast them from the Eritrean peoples. And again, the genetic studies including the Arab-Indian HBS all point to indigenous origins. The likely hood is that the Akhdam represent an indigenous group of people who were not Semiticized/Arabized until relatively recently. They are not the only ones. There are several other groups in Arabia including the Sibyan in the north and certain coastal fishermen who are considered outcasts because their ancestry is considered non-Arab or non-Semitic.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: LMAO!!! On other sites, since Jeffery Rose Human journey, Eurocentrics are now trying to claim L3 may be Eurasian! Lol!
But what they don't know is that Rose is not arguing about when the Human family tree branched out. He still believes it was 60,000 BC but in Arabia!
Also why don't they question haplogroup N? Since N is older than when the human family tree branched out. LMAO!
Actually N is younger in that both N and M descend from L3. Also, what those idiotic Euronuts obviously don't know is that L3 has both its highest diversity and frequency in Africa and that most L3 lineages found outside of Africa are associated with recent migrations outside of Africa especially in correlation with slavery! LOL Therefore there's no way they can white-wash L3. The only clades that can be definitely 'Eurasian' are L3 derived MN which gave rise to M and N both, but even then their non-African identification is questionable since it arose among an African immigrant population likely in Arabia. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: LMAO!!! On other sites, since Jeffery Rose Human journey, Eurocentrics are now trying to claim L3 may be Eurasian! Lol!
But what they don't know is that Rose is not arguing about when the Human family tree branched out. He still believes it was 60,000 BC but in Arabia!
Also why don't they question haplogroup N? Since N is older than when the human family tree branched out. LMAO!
Actually N is younger in that both N and M descend from L3. Also, what those idiotic Euronuts obviously don't know is that L3 has both its highest diversity and frequency in Africa and that most L3 lineages found outside of Africa are associated with recent migrations outside of Africa especially in correlation with slavery! LOL Therefore there's no way they can white-wash L3. The only clades that can be definitely 'Eurasian' are L3 derived MN which gave rise to M and N both, but even then their non-African identification is questionable since it arose among an African immigrant population likely in Arabia.
Agreed.
But isn't N dated around 71,000 BC?
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, which is still around the time of the first OOA expansion that populated Eurasia and the rest of the world.
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: M and N are Eurasian clades of L3 which is East African.
Yes well we don't know exactly what region in Africa L3 arose, just because L3 derived ancestors of Eurasians exited via East African does not necessarily mean L3 is from there. Also, there is still some debate whether M and N actually arose in 'Eurasia' which likely was Arabia or in Africa proper. Both N1 and M1 are present in East Africa.
quote:but you can follow back any haplogroup to a point where it's Africa, therefore we own everything
LOL at "we are black" nonsense. It's not a matter of black Africans owning anything. All humans populations share lines of descent that make us all siblings to one and another and these lines go back to Africa is all.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Djehuti. Now that I think of it, some Australian Aboriginals carry/carried extra-mtDNA Eve lineages. The Mungo fossil (the earliest Australian skeleton) was tested positive for this lineage, as well as some Late Palaeolithic Australian fossils. Since they were the first successful wave out of Africa, and are perceived to have followed the same Arabian route as Rose's Palaeolithic Nubians, they might have mixed with this group which split off from Africans 106kya, who MAY have been extra-mtDNA Eve.
^This is another smack in the face to those who latch on to their wishful conjecture that L lineages were present in noteworthy frequencies in peripheral Africa during the earliest OOA migrations. We're supposed to believe that fossil Australian Aboriginals preserved rare extra-mtDNA Eve lineages all the way to Australia, but that the said fossil Australians magically lost all super abundant mtDNA L upon exiting Africa.
Wow! That is very interesting finding they have on Mungo Man. I didn't even know they successfully tested his DNA. Mind you, the theories of founder effect and bottlenecks that have occurred throughout the 'southern coastal' route of OOA migrants. There were rising sea levels that led to not only the advent of the modern Persian Gulf, but most of Southeast Asia connecting Indonesia comprising the Sunda subcontinent is underwater and so is the land that connected New Guinea to Australia comprising the Sahul continent. From what I understand, Australia was settled in various waves which is reflected in the gene-pools of aborigines as well as the languages.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Are there any followups on this AMH yet extra-Eve mtDNA (sequence 223 230 263 264 278 290 301 355 356 387) ? Are there any more AMH extra-EVE mtDNA sequences or has OoA "dogmatism" quashed further such inquiries?
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: Interesting thread Djehuti
So is it FINALLY proven that Levant/Arabian peninsula were just EXTENDED parts of Africa and that the early inhabitants of Southwest Asia were still African?
The Arabian peninsula was once connected to Africa and it was one land. It was no "EXTENDED" parts of Africa. Early inhabitants of southwest Asia were Asian technically. The bible debunks the OOA.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Some early inhabitants of Southwest Asia resembled tropical Africans, depending on the time and location measured. Sinai Peninsula by the way is considered part of Africa by many geographers.
"The limits of the great majority of the continent are clearly delineated by its coastline; it is bounded on the north by the Mediterraneans Sea, in the West by the Atlantic Ocean, and in the east by the Indian Ocean. Africa's only point of contact with another continent is in the extreme northeast, where the Sinai Peninsula forms a land bridge to Asia. Geographers usually include the Sinai Peninsula, as part of Africa, rather than Asia."
--Stokes, J (2009). Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East: L to Z.764.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^Some early inhabitants of Southwest Asia resembled tropical Africans,
The first and earliest inhabitants of Southwest Asia resembled Southwest Asians. Tropical Africans may have resembled those of the southwestern asian peninsula. There's no OOA the bible debunks it. People went into Africa from Asia.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: Interesting thread Djehuti
So is it FINALLY proven that Levant/Arabian peninsula were just EXTENDED parts of Africa and that the early inhabitants of Southwest Asia were still African?
The Arabian peninsula was once connected to Africa and it was one land. It was no "EXTENDED" parts of Africa. Early inhabitants of southwest Asia were Asian technically. The bible debunks the OOA.
Are you using the Bible as an argument??? Not smart..Just saying.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: Interesting thread Djehuti
So is it FINALLY proven that Levant/Arabian peninsula were just EXTENDED parts of Africa and that the early inhabitants of Southwest Asia were still African?
The Arabian peninsula was once connected to Africa and it was one land. It was no "EXTENDED" parts of Africa. Early inhabitants of southwest Asia were Asian technically. The bible debunks the OOA.
Are you using the Bible as an argument??? Not smart..Just saying.
It's very smart..just saying. OOA theory is founded on racist ideology. Africans are closest to apes who are the ancestors of modern day humans. The white man believed the black African resemble closest to Apes and thus must be the benefactor or source of modern day humans. OOA theory is based on evolution that humans evolved from apes. Do you believe that.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first and earliest inhabitants of Southwest Asia resembled Southwest Asians. Tropical Africans may have resembled those of the southwestern asian peninsula. There's no OOA the bible debunks it. People went into Africa from Asia.
Wrong actually, as already demonstrated by the scholars quoted.
As for OOA many CHristians accept parts, just as they do evolutionary processes, whild still maintaining faith in a Supreme designer. Some who hold to the Old Earth perspective for example see the 6 "days" of Genesis as 6 PHASES of indeterminate length, beginning with an expansion- "let their be light" and progressing to atmosphere, water, earth, plants, reptiles etc etc. Others maintain there is a gap between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 that made the earth waste and void- a time gap of indeterminate length - the so called "Gap Theory" - oft connected with eons involving the fall of Satan and his demonic host. After the period of waste and void, then there are 6 days of "creation" - or a rejuvenation. Any such rejuvenation or redesign however would draw on the forms previously in existence.
Neither of the above of course are accepted by scientists and final proof of who is ultimately right will only come beyond death's portal, when reputedly, each shall be held accountable and judged according to his works before a Supreme One.
Both approaches above have no scientific proof, but the main point though is that both allow plenty of time for evoltuonary processes and a very old fossil record to form. Both allow ancient hominids hundreds of thousands of years old to arise in Africa, and to then go out and populate the world.
Thus the Bible does not "debunk" OOA as you say. In fact, if the Old Earther perspective is right, then the fact that Genesis says the creator made various species "after their kind" is an indication that there would be a pathway from ancient to modern. The anatomically modern human of today is "after his kind" - upright tool-making hominids who left Africa millennia ago. Likewise todays modern elephant is "after his kind"- like the wooly mammoths or older forms millennia ago.
OOA is in this sense quite compatible with the Old Earther perspective. ANd at some time, yes, people did go from Asia to Africa- whether it be Assyrians, Arabs, or earlier backflow by people resembling tropical Africans.
OOA theory is based on evolution that humans evolved from apes.
Which humans for example descended from orangutans, and which from chimps? And evolutionary processes are not incompatible with the Old Earth perspective. You make it seem as if there is only ONE interpretation or "official" approach. There isn't.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: The Arabian peninsula was once connected to Africa and it was one land.
Do you have biblical quotations to prove that?
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Early inhabitants of southwest Asia were Asian technically. The bible debunks the OOA. [/QB]
OOA theory says that human beings, lived for thousands of years in Africa before migrating to other parts of the world.
The bible says that humankind started with Adam and Eve. They would have been populating some area of the world first and then little by little migrate further and further, sometimes staying in settlements along the way before spreading to other parts of the world. What part of this is not similar to OOA theory?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: The first and earliest inhabitants of Southwest Asia resembled Southwest Asians. Tropical Africans may have resembled those of the southwestern asian peninsula. There's no OOA the bible debunks it. People went into Africa from Asia.
Wrong actually, as already demonstrated by the scholars quoted.
As for OOA many CHristians accept parts, just as they do evolutionary processes, whild still maintaining faith in a Supreme designer.
Firstly, it's not what scholars or many christians accept it's what thus saith the Lord. Secondly, GOD debunks the OOA theory. Thirdly, Christians don't put faith in both man science and God's word. You either believe GOD (not a supreme designer) created man or you believe man's science that man evolved from apes or even water life.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic