This is topic A study reveals that white/ blue eyed people were present in Israel 6500 years ago. 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=010149

---

Posted by real expert (Member # 22352) on :
 
Many members of egyptsearch vehemently deny that white people did exist outside Europe. However there is now a DNA study on human remains that proves that people with white skin and blue eyes were common in ancient Israel 6500 years ago. What is the take of egyptsearch on this isssue and why was this study unlike other studies ignored on this forum?

Besides the alleles that produce white skin and blue eyes existed already 14. 000 or 13.000 years ago (in Italy and the Caucasus). So if white skinned and blue eyed people did exist in Israel 6500 years ago the depictions of white and blue eyed folks from the levant area in ancient Egyptian art were accurate. Plus ancient Egyptians were closely related to Anatolian farmers and Levantine people too. Hence the claim of scientists that Ramesses II had been a red head man with white skin is very likely true and can't be easily dismissed.


https://www.livescience.com/63396-ancient-israel-immigration-turkey-iran.html

https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/users/117186-hila-may/posts/38003-what-were-blue-eyed-people-doing-in-northern-israel-6-500-years-ago




In another study the scientists conclude that Early European farmers, neolithic farmers were lactose-intolerant and had light colored skin and that they had brown eyes even though some alleles for blue eyes existed in the population. Also, in the annex it is stated that according to statistics based on their DNA, some had dark brown hair and some lighter colored hair.

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886
 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
^^^
Who here except an extreeme minority claim so called white people dont exist outside of Europe
 

---

Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
 
It already known that by the end of the late Holocene era and the beginning of the Bronze Age, populations from the Northern surrounding areas of the Western Eurasia, began to dispersed and settled into the Middle East. Mainly in territories such as the Aegean region, the Northern Levant, Northern Mesopotamia, and parts of Iran. So the fact that they found skeletal remains of a population capable of producing blue eyes is not surprising. But here the problem, for you there were already people living in the Middle East.



Head of a Bedouin captive



A Levantine mercenary with his family



Portrait of two Akkadian men

http://spiritualpilgrim.net/pictures/00_Ancient-Civilization/2040-1870-BC_Palace-of-Zimri-Lim_Priest-Guiding-a-Sacrificial-Bull.jpg
Large IMG converted to link format! //MOD

A portrait of an Akkadian priest sacrificing a Bull



A reconstructed image of a portrait of Sumerian dignitaries



Syrians paying tribute



A reconstructed portrait of an Assyrian soldier smiting a Judaean man



A Portrait of biblical character Samson killing a lion from catacomb in Rome
 

---

Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
 
Also, the Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Nile Valley Africans and of African origin, not Levantine origin. Another thing your allege back-flows from the Middle East migrated to Africa before the intrusion of fair skinned populations into the Middle East, also Ramses was not a natural redhead, the reason for his hair coloring is because of the mummification process. I mean it really contradicting when you insist that the Egyptians were naturally fair haired, but ignore the jet-black true Negro Nubians who were nearly always portrayed with blonde and red hair.




Nubian tributaries
 

---

Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
 
More pictures of Ancient Middle Easterners



A Byzantine depiction of three Chaldean soldiers with Judean captives from the Bristol Psalter, circa 11th century



Another Byzantine depiction of Biblical character King David from the same manuscript



Glazed image of bound Philistine Chief



Bound Asiatic captive



Bound Aegean captive

A

Depiction of Sea peoples in captivity



Aegean/Keftiu tribute bearers



Close up of two Aegean/Keftiu tribute bearers
 

---

Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
 
More Ancient depictions of Middle Easterners



Kushite and Asiatic ambassadors paying homage to the Pharaoh



A Melanosyri(Black Syrian) and Luecosyri(White Syrian) paying tribute



More Syrian tributaries



A depiction of Mesopotamian tributary



A statuette of a bound Semitic slave



Portrait of three Hyskos men
 

---

Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
 


Hyksos Women



Hyskos warriors getting trampled on


Close up of two former Aegean tributaries



Asiatic and Nubian enemies getting trampled to death by a Griffin



Depiction of bound Libyan, Nubian, and Asiatic captives on King Tutankhamen’s footstool



Portrait of Elamite soldier
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
There were white blue eyed people in Central Africa 50K years ago.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
There were white blue eyed people in Central Africa 50K years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
Why not? I don't think albinism is a new phenomenon so I would assume they existed that far back as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
There were white blue eyed people in Central Africa 50K years ago.

---

of course, that's common knowledge

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ase:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
There were white blue eyed people in Central Africa 50K years ago.

---

of course, that's common knowledge

---

Not to me, anyone got a link to that study?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ase:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
There were white blue eyed people in Central Africa 50K years ago.

---

of course, that's common knowledge

---

Not to me, anyone got a link to that study?

---

http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1487/light-skin-eyes-white-africans

White skin is old and diverse in Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by real expert:
Many members of egyptsearch vehemently deny that white people did exist outside Europe. However there is now a DNA study on human remains that proves that people with white skin and blue eyes were common in ancient Israel 6500 years ago. What is the take of egyptsearch on this isssue and why was this study unlike other studies ignored on this forum?

Besides the alleles that produce white skin and blue eyes existed already 14. 000 or 13.000 years ago (in Italy and the Caucasus). So if white skinned and blue eyed people did exist in Israel 6500 years ago the depictions of white and blue eyed folks from the levant area in ancient Egyptian art were accurate. Plus ancient Egyptians were closely related to Anatolian farmers and Levantine people too. Hence the claim of scientists that Ramesses II had been a red head man with white skin is very likely true and can't be easily dismissed.


https://www.livescience.com/63396-ancient-israel-immigration-turkey-iran.html

https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/users/117186-hila-may/posts/38003-what-were-blue-eyed-people-doing-in-northern-israel-6-500-years-ago




In another study the scientists conclude that Early European farmers, neolithic farmers were lactose-intolerant and had light colored skin and that they had brown eyes even though some alleles for blue eyes existed in the population. Also, in the annex it is stated that according to statistics based on their DNA, some had dark brown hair and some lighter colored hair.

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886

---

quote:

---

“Europeans carry a motley mix of genes from at least three ancient sources: indigenous hunter-gatherers within Europe, people from the Middle East, and northwest Asians from near the Great Steppe of eastern Europe and central Asia. One high-profile recent study suggested that each genetic component entered Europe by way of a separate migration and that they only came together in most Europeans in the past 5000 years.

Now ancient DNA from the fossilized skeleton of a short, dark-skinned, dark-eyed man who lived at least 36,000 years ago along the Middle Don River in Russia presents a different view: This young man had DNA from all three of those migratory groups and so was already “pure European,” says evolutionary biologist Eske Willerslev of the Natural History Museum of Denmark at the University of Copenhagen, who led the analysis.”

---

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/european-genetic-identity-may-stretch-back-36000-years


And Ramesses II had no white skin, “self-proclaimed expert”.


Relief of Ramses II, ca. 1279-1213 B.C.E. Limestone



http://cdn2.brooklynmuseum.org/images/opencollection/objects/size4/11.670_SL1.jpg


https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/3066/Relief_of_Ramses_II



 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^
Who here except an extreeme minority claim so called white people dont exist outside of Europe

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:


All he data says white skin evolved around 6Kya to 10Kya. So I have no idea from where this 14Kya came.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1487/light-skin-eyes-white-africans

White skin is old and diverse in Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xxyman

PLoS Genet. 2013 Mar; 9(3): e1003372.
Published online 2013 Mar 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003372


Genetic Architecture of Skin and Eye Color in an African-European Admixed Population
Sandra Beleza, 1 ,

To explore these ideas, we first examined worldwide allele frequency distributions for the most strongly associated SNP at each locus, using information from the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) [39] and HapMap III [19]. THE DERIVED APBA2 (OCA2) ALLELE IS PRESENT AT LOW FREQUENCIES IN ***MOST POPULATIONS*** OF AFRICAN ANCESTRY, AND AT HIGH FREQUENCIES IN MOST POPULATIONS OF ASIAN AND EUROPEAN ANCESTRY. By contrast, the derived HERC2 (OCA2) allele is absent??? from African and East Asian populations, and appears at high frequency only in Western and Northern Europe (Figure 6a, 6b). These results suggest that an APBA2 (OCA2) mutation conferring light skin arose BEFORE the spread of humans out of Africa, and that a HERC2 (OCA2) mutation conferring pale eye color arose much later.

Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1487/light-skin-eyes-white-africans#ixzz5uQNpbImJ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ase:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
There were white blue eyed people in Central Africa 50K years ago.

---

of course, that's common knowledge

---

Not to me, anyone got a link to that study?

---

http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1487/light-skin-eyes-white-africans

White skin is old and diverse in Africa.

---

which mutation gave central Africanss blue eyes 50kya?

---

Who knows. You could name it anything. How about the 50 Kago mutation? The genes and the condition predates the human race. Mutations in these genes are a constant. It doesn't matter what you call it, you know it was happening and you know what it do.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Who knows. You could name it anything. How about the 50 Kago mutation? The genes and the condition predates the human race. Mutations in these genes are a constant. It doesn't matter what you call it, you know it was happening and you know what it do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


PLoS Genet. 2013 Mar; 9(3): e1003372.
Published online 2013 Mar 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003372


Genetic Architecture of Skin and Eye Color in an African-European Admixed Population
Sandra Beleza, 1 ,

To explore these ideas, we first examined worldwide allele frequency distributions for the most strongly associated SNP at each locus, using information from the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) [39] and HapMap III [19]. THE DERIVED APBA2 (OCA2) ALLELE IS PRESENT AT LOW FREQUENCIES IN ***MOST POPULATIONS*** OF AFRICAN ANCESTRY, AND AT HIGH FREQUENCIES IN MOST POPULATIONS OF ASIAN AND EUROPEAN ANCESTRY. By contrast, the derived HERC2 (OCA2) allele is absent??? from African and East Asian populations, and appears at high frequency only in Western and Northern Europe (Figure 6a, 6b). These results suggest that an APBA2 (OCA2) mutation conferring light skin arose BEFORE the spread of humans out of Africa, and that a HERC2 (OCA2) mutation conferring pale eye color arose much later.

Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1487/light-skin-eyes-white-africans#ixzz5uQNpbImJ

---

quote:

---

possed“Further, the alleles associated with skin pigmentation at all loci but SLC24A5 (lighter and darker skin pigmentation associated alleles within Africa are ancient, predating the origin of modern humans. The ancestral alleles at the majority of predicted causal SNPs are associated with light skin, raising the possibility that the ancestors of modern humans could have had relatively light skin color, as is observed in the San population today. This study sheds new light on the evolutionary history of pigmentation in humans

Despite the wide range of skin pigmentation in humans, little is known about its genetic basis in global populations. Examining ethnically diverse African genomes, we identify variants in or near SLC24A5, MFSD12, DDB1, TMEM138, OCA2 and HERC2 that are significantly associated with skin pigmentation.

Genetic evidence indicates that the light pigmentation variant at SLC24A5 was introduced into East Africa by gene flow from non-Africans. At all other loci, variants associated with dark pigmentation in Africans are identical by descent in southern Asian and Australo-Melanesian populations. Functional analyses indicate that MFSD12 encodes a lysosomal protein that affects melanogenesis in zebrafish and mice, and that mutations in melanocyte-specific regulatory regions near DDB1/TMEM138 correlate with expression of UV response genes under selection in Eurasians.”
 
Loci associated with skin pigmentation identified in African populations

---

quote:

---

Although the lineage containing this haplotype must have originated in Africa, C3 is rare in Africa (1.0% in MKK) but widely distributed in East Asia, the New World, and Oceania.

[...]

Frequencies display strong population differentiation, with the derived light skin pigmentation allele (A111T) fixed or nearly so in all European populations and the ancestral allele predominant in sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia (Lamason et al. 2005; Norton et al. 2007).

[...]

Phased haplotypes were retrieved from HapMap, Release 21. For phylogenetic analysis, graphs were drawn by the use of a simple nearest-neighbor approach and rooted by the use of ancestral alleles determined by comparison with other primate sequences.

[...]

"Of the remaining 10 common core haplotype groups, all ancestral at rs1426654, eight clearly have their origins in Africa (Figure 3B, Figure 4, and Table S4). Three early diverging haplotypes, C1, C2, and C4, are rare outside of Africa and clearly originated there."

"In the lineage containing the majority of haplotypes, each of the three branches, containing C5, C6-C7, and C8-C11, give strong evidence of having originated in Africa. C5 reaches its greatest abundance in West Africa and is rare outside of Africa. Within the other two branches, C6 and C9, which are the most common haplotypes in Africa, are also common worldwide, whereas C7 is abundant in East Asia and much less common but widespread in Africa. "

[...]

Our dating for this haplotype is consistent with a non-African origin. The most likely location for the origin of C11 is, therefore, within the region in which it is fixed or nearly so. As both models for the origin of C11 imply that C3 and C10 were present in ancestors of Europeans, the observed and inferred distributions of these autosomal haplotypes are consistent with the single-out-of- Africa hypothesis derived using uniparental markers (Oppenheimer 2003; Macaulay et al. 2005).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Who knows. You could name it anything. How about the 50 Kago mutation? The genes and the condition predates the human race. Mutations in these genes are a constant. It doesn't matter what you call it, you know it was happening and you know what it do.

---

Lemme ask this.... how are probable random mutations relevant to known mutations widely involved in the make up of modern pale skinned and blue eyed individuals. How are the philistines at all related to 50kya central Africans who might've been pale skinned. Africans till this day have very high variation in the regions that are involved in pigmentation... but Eurasians... particularly west Eurasians Do not. And if iirc the upper bound estimate for their oldest pigmentation mutation is about 24kya and only became widespread after 10kya. So how are you planning on tying unknown genes for pigmentation to the OP?

On a side not have you ever heard of Joseph Yahuda?

---

quote:

---

Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade.”

---

quote:

---

In our data, with the exception of a low frequency haplotype in Africa, rs916977 and rs1667394 are in nearly complete LD. Therefore, we treat them as another haplotype system, BEH3, blue-eye associated haplotype #3. The blue-eye associated allele of BEH3 is CA, again the derived haplotype. In the HGDP populations BEH3 will consist of rs1667394 only since rs916977 is not present in the data set.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xxyman:
Egyptsearch reloaded


PLoS Genet. 2013 Mar; 9(3): e1003372.
Published online 2013 Mar 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003372


Genetic Architecture of Skin and Eye Color in an African-European Admixed Population
Sandra Beleza, 1 ,

To explore these ideas, we first examined worldwide allele frequency distributions for the most strongly associated SNP at each locus, using information from the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) [39] and HapMap III [19]. THE DERIVED APBA2 (OCA2) ALLELE IS PRESENT AT LOW FREQUENCIES IN ***MOST POPULATIONS*** OF AFRICAN ANCESTRY, AND AT HIGH FREQUENCIES IN MOST POPULATIONS OF ASIAN AND EUROPEAN ANCESTRY. By contrast, the derived HERC2 (OCA2) allele is absent??? from African and East Asian populations, and appears at high frequency only in Western and Northern Europe (Figure 6a, 6b). These results suggest that an APBA2 (OCA2) mutation conferring light skin arose BEFORE the spread of humans out of Africa, and that a HERC2 (OCA2) mutation conferring pale eye color arose much later.

Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1487/light-skin-eyes-white-africans#ixzz5uQNpbImJ

---

You are desperate and hopeless. I am speaking of white skin as in European white! SMH

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xxyman:
Egyptsearch reloaded

Keep in mind I am not arguing Africans are as white as Europeans. That is strawman tactic. H is framing the argument as such. Clear deception by him. Agreed some Africans may be of the same shade as Southern Europeans. But again, some East Asians are fairer than Northern Europeans.

I TOLD LIONESS OVER AT ES ABOUT 2 YEARS AGO THAT LIGHT SKIN WAS ANCESTRAL AND SHE DID NOT GET IT. I HOPE YOU ARE MORE FORMIDABLE THAN HER AND GET IT.


Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1487/light-skin-eyes-white-africans#ixzz5uVxvUjwF

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lemme ask this.... how are probable random mutations relevant to known mutations widely involved in the make up of modern pale skinned and blue eyed individuals.

---

Same genes and effects, symptoms, conditions etc.

quote:

---

How are the philistines at all related to 50kya central Africans who might've been pale skinned. Africans till this day have very high variation in the regions that are involved in pigmentation... but Eurasians... particularly west Eurasians Do not. And if iirc the upper bound estimate for their oldest pigmentation mutation is about 24kya and only became widespread after 10kya. So how are you planning on tying unknown genes for pigmentation to the OP?

On a side not have you ever heard of Joseph Yahuda?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lemme ask this.... how are probable random mutations relevant to known mutations widely involved in the make up of modern pale skinned and blue eyed individuals.

---

Same genes and effects, symptoms, conditions etc.

quote:

---

How are the philistines at all related to 50kya central Africans who might've been pale skinned. Africans till this day have very high variation in the regions that are involved in pigmentation... but Eurasians... particularly west Eurasians Do not. And if iirc the upper bound estimate for their oldest pigmentation mutation is about 24kya and only became widespread after 10kya. So how are you planning on tying unknown genes for pigmentation to the OP?

On a side not have you ever heard of Joseph Yahuda?

---

Same as above
You know the Xmen have different mutations too?
I never heard of Joseph Yahuda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
I'm not sure what you mean by that as all creatures in the presence of the sun have to deal with uv light in some way,the only time you'll find white fur,skin and feathers are in environments in which they are a benefit or how are eyes perceive those things and for skin I'm talking non human creatures.

---

Panama is hella equatorial yet you have indigenous pale blue eyed blondes.


https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/jun/12/panama-albino-children-of-the-moon-in-pictures

Snowflake was from the equator yet he was an indigenous pale blue eyed blonde


North Africa is right off the equator yet Egyptians depicted white Libyans before the real back migrat---invasion.

West Asia was portrayed as having black and white people. No reason for white people there. There are higher UVs in west Asian than Central Africa.






Greece is damn near tropical yet most of the people who live there would be considered white.

So why so many white people in areas where white skin isn't beneficial? Because we are all white.



until we aren't


 

---

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


This is a very rare gorilla, snowflake from Equatorial Guinea who has a genetic condition called oculocutaneous albinism.
Researchers to believe that his parents were uncle and niece. Snowflake received the recessive gene from both parents, causing his albinism.
Other gorillas in Snowflakes his group were the typical dark color.

.


.





These are Japanese snow monkeys
this is their typical color not due to albinism
 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
Are you saying white skin is some base form for living organism and we evolved photo protection in term of melanin content,fur and feathers? Because I can understand that if you're insinuating it.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
No I am not saying that. I am showing that albinism explains snowflake the gorilla but not these Japanese snow monkeys
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Fixed the pic. My point is that its almost never the same mutations yet the variations are still a constant and the effects are the same. White skin predates humanity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


This is a very rare gorilla, snowflake from Equatorial Guinea who has a genetic condition called oculocutaneous albinism.
Researchers to believe that his parents were uncle and niece. Snowflake received the recessive gene from both parents, causing his albinism.
Other gorillas in Snowflakes his group were the typical dark color.

.


.





These are Japanese snow monkeys
this is their typical color not due to albinism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Okay I see... your arguing point I made on here about four years ago as well a focal point of my research as an undergrad. But that point has nothing to do with my question. At the end of the day only a handful of variants are responsible for the majority or Eurasian variation. How do Africans with their OWN unique variants have anything to do with known Eurasian variants. What do a supposed Roca or Boca individual have to do with Levantines and philistines having the same A111T mutations as modern Europeans for example? Where does this point lead?

---

For example? I'm not seeing any raw data so I'm assuming they aren't even talking about mutations. I'm thinking its just pigment gene version.


Something like this.


I need to see more on this too.

quote:

---

DNA analysis showed that skeletons preserved in the cave were genetically distinct from people who historically lived in that region. And some of the genetic differences matched those of people who lived in neighboring Anatolia and the Zagros Mountains, which are now part of Turkey and Iran, the study found.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
The Japanese monkeys could be a race of snowflakes. It all depends on how you define things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
The Japanese monkeys could be a race of snowflakes. It all depends on how you define things.

---

No, it's defined by genetics

---

quote:

---

Homologs of the SLC24A5 gene: The SLC24A5 gene is conserved in human, chimpanzee, Rhesus monkey, dog, cow, mouse, zebrafish, and frog.

---

quote:

---

Repression of Slc24a5 can reduce pigmentation in chicken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

^^^
Who here except an extreme minority claim so called white people don't exist outside of Europe

---

Exactly! Also just because the remains of a white blue-eyed person was found in Israel 6500 years ago, are we to assume this person was indigenous to the area or representative of the native peoples??

In the Akkadian mural from Mari (Syria) that Baalberith posted above, note the one white man in the lower left hand corner:



By the way, if the ancient Israelite person had alleles for white skin and blue eyes does this mean he had these traits since recall the debacle with the Mesolithic Englishman who supposedly looked like this:


 

---

Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
 
How did this thread went from a topic about the presence of Whites in the Levant to a debate about Whites being Albinos?
 

---

Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

^^^
Who here except an extreme minority claim so called white people don't exist outside of Europe

---

Exactly! Also just because the remains of a white blue-eyed person was found in Israel 6500 years ago, are we to assume this person was indigenous to the area or representative of the native peoples??

In the Akkadian mural from Mari (Syria) that Baalberith posted above, note the one white man in the lower left hand corner:



By the way, if the ancient Israelite person had alleles for white skin and blue eyes does this mean he had these traits since recall the debacle with the Mesolithic Englishman who supposedly looked like this:

---

Djehuti, I don't think the man at the bottom is "White" at all. This is only a reconstruction of the mural and there are still patches of the mural not recovered.

Here is the actual mural:


 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

^^^
Who here except an extreme minority claim so called white people don't exist outside of Europe

---

Exactly! Also just because the remains of a white blue-eyed person was found in Israel 6500 years ago, are we to assume this person was indigenous to the area or representative of the native peoples??

In the Akkadian mural from Mari (Syria) that Baalberith posted above, note the one white man in the lower left hand corner:

---

From what we understand these people originated from the "Crescent" (Caucasus) and spread from there into Europe and the Levant.

What "Real Expert" claimed was that white people at one point in time (before the colonial period), populated all of the world, all over globe. "Real Expert" was referring to places like Easter Islands etc.,
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Glad DJ remembered that proof of complexion, one yte amid a sea of blx.
Ish has got it down that ytes came from beyond The Rock into Mesopotamia.

Seeing only this 'repro' the past 40 yrs


I'd love to see the original but this ain't it.

Apparently of the same provenance but not a dead ringer.


BTW
appreciate yr img exhibit
u make img collecting so much the easier
thx
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
^^
photo:

Fresco mural Investiture of Zimri-Lim
(palace of Zimri-Lim)


The fresco was poorly preserved due to the region's conditions and the destruction of the palace in the fire when Hammurabi sacked the city in 1760 BC. The painting underwent several restorations and repainting, most of which was cleared recently by the Louvre. The cleaning revealed several details hitherto unseen, including the fish in the dispensed water. It also restored some brilliance to the colors of the painting.

____________________________

illustration:

Reconstruction of the wall painting from room 132 Zimri-Lim's palace. Image created Parrot 1958: pl. XVII.

The first major set of rooms is Court 131, a massive area measuring 48 by 33 meters. It leads to Room 132, an unusual room with only one entrance and includes a throne dias at one end with a set of semi-circular steps leading to it. Room 132 was also painted with various images, and fragments have been reassembled for 5 different friezes, reconstructed to be 3 meters high and 3.36 meters wide. They are painted in black, white, red, and yellow, and show the king before various deities, being assisted by interceding goddesses and priests (fig. 6).
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
alternate photo

Fresco mural Investiture of Zimri-Lim
(palace of Zimri-Lim)




Statue of Puzur Ishtar, Governor of Mari, Neo-Sumerian Art. Period Ur III, 2100-200 BC.



Iku-Shamagan, King of Mari, praying. Staetite statuette (2650 BCE)
Early dynastic period II, from the temple of Ishtar, Mari, Syria, National Museum, Damascus, Syria
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

From what we understand these people originated from the "Crescent" (Caucasus) and spread from there into Europe and the Levant.

---

quote:

---

What "Real Expert" claimed was that white people at one point in time (before the colonial period), populated all of the world, all over globe. "Real Expert" was referring to places like Easter Islands etc.

---

You're telling me 'Real Expert' subscribes to the long debunked theory of the 'Global Aryan Race' that the 3rd Reich promoted?! I'll believe it when I read it from his own post.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
^ … I have to lookup those posts, if it still exists that is.
 

---

Posted by Gregws (Member # 23174) on :
 
...
 

---

Posted by Gregws (Member # 23174) on :
 
...
 

---

Posted by Gregws (Member # 23174) on :
 
...
 

---

Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregws:
I think history is bent to one race as a God, Pharos of Egypt called them self's Gods and the people worshiped them as Gods, for they had the power to grant and take life.

I think your history books are of recorded history. Winners in Wars.

But you have to consider the fact that South America has more diversify in life forums then Africa.

No one every tells you that the white man, came from other places then Africa, Most every thing said about white man ( Neanderthal, cave dweller, and modern times "sub human" ) race.

Pyramids, build by early man migrated in to Europe, and probably build the great pyramids.
Then the race that built the pyramids, was either killed of was forced to breed with a more aggressive man forum of life, as the found that it was good. They always say, History repeats it self.

Africa had flesh eating predators, Like they call the origins of Crocodiles "Old World" as they was once only found in Africa.

---

....I didn't understand this at all.
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregws:
I think history is bent to one race as a God, Pharos of Egypt called them self's Gods and the people worshiped them as Gods, for they had the power to grant and take life.

I think your history books are of recorded history. Winners in Wars.

But you have to consider the fact that South America has more diversify in life forums then Africa.

No one every tells you that the white man, came from other places then Africa, Most every thing said about white man ( Neanderthal, cave dweller, and modern times "sub human" ) race.

Pyramids, build by early man migrated in to Europe, and probably build the great pyramids.
Then the race that built the pyramids, was either killed of was forced to breed with a more aggressive man forum of life, as the found that it was good. They always say, History repeats it self.

Africa had flesh eating predators, Like they call the origins of Crocodiles "Old World" as they was once only found in Africa.

---

I gotta agree with Ase.


 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregws:
I be new, and tried to edit post. oops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^
photo:

Fresco mural Investiture of Zimri-Lim
(palace of Zimri-Lim)


The fresco was poorly preserved due to the region's conditions and the destruction of the palace in the fire when Hammurabi sacked the city in 1760 BC. The painting underwent several restorations and repainting, most of which was cleared recently by the Louvre. The cleaning revealed several details hitherto unseen, including the fish in the dispensed water. It also restored some brilliance to the colors of the painting.

____________________________

illustration:

Reconstruction of the wall painting from room 132 Zimri-Lim's palace. Image created Parrot 1958: pl. XVII.

The first major set of rooms is Court 131, a massive area measuring 48 by 33 meters. It leads to Room 132, an unusual room with only one entrance and includes a throne dias at one end with a set of semi-circular steps leading to it. Room 132 was also painted with various images, and fragments have been reassembled for 5 different friezes, reconstructed to be 3 meters high and 3.36 meters wide. They are painted in black, white, red, and yellow, and show the king before various deities, being assisted by interceding goddesses and priests (fig. 6).

---

Yup

Different imgs
Different provenance




Palace of Zimri Lim Room 132
Palace of Zimri Lim Court 106


The former scene is not [in] the latter.

The former has a fragment w/a yte man.
Probably from peoples of the Rock or beyond.
Ytes moved south into Mesopotamia.
I think they formed chariot corps once integrated
i.e., the maryannu
? https://www.historynet.com/first-aryan-blitzkrieg.htm ?

This particular white man appears to be a fisherman
as may be the blk man next in line who's mostly fragmented away.
 

---

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



this is the quality of the above mural
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
This is after the Louvre's cleaning & restoration?
That's Ishtar investing Zimri-Lim, right?


 

---

Posted by Neferet (Member # 17109) on :
 
Very interesting
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
That white guy from the Zimri-Lim palace room 132 painting:


Courtesy of Magara & Duvar Boyamalari

Thx Boyamalaris, for evidence of an image from a book in my memory that I no longer own.


It'd unbalance the dominant racial color theme if
ytes were called pink peach creme and beige and
blx were called brown from manila thru to cola


Hey! The only flesh tones olives come in are red & black
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
This is after the Louvre's cleaning & restoration?
That's Ishtar investing Zimri-Lim, right?

---

This is the exact same item
The settings for the camera on the photo at top are too blue or it's in some post photo editing or lighting

the photos are both legit but vary in color accuracy according to the equipment
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Of course they're photos of the exact same object.
One both or neither may be post clean & restore.
Why are you believing either img is illegit?

And let's not get into filtering again, done it already.
With the right lighting lens and filter any part of the color spectrum can be livid.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


the photos are both legit but vary in color accuracy according to the equipment

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

Why are you believing either img is illegit?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Of course they're photos of the exact same object.
One both or neither may be post clean & restore.
Why are you believing either img is illegit?

And let's not get into filtering again, done it already.
With the right lighting lens and filter any part of the color spectrum can be livid.

---

That is true.

An image by the Louvre




Recent restoration

The nature of the ground, a skin of whitewash or plaster on the mud plaster of the wall of unbaked brick, the fresco secco technique (true fresco appearing in Crete in the early second millennium BC), and the humid conditions meant that such paintings were poorly preserved in the region.

Furthermore, the Investiture painting was considerably darkened and damaged when Hammurabi of Babylon set fire to the city in around 1760 BC, causing the complete destruction of its monuments.
As part of the reorganization of the display at the Louvre, this painting was recently cleaned and cleared of the repainting done in previous restorations, revealing hitherto unknown details (fish in the jetting water, the scalloped hem of the king's robe, etc.) and in places restoring an unexpected vibrancy to the colors (one of the bulls still being a vivid orange).

https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/mural-painting
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
That white guy from the Zimri-Lim palace room 132 painting:


Courtesy of Magara & Duvar Boyamalari

Thx Boyamalaris, for evidence of an image from a book in my memory that I no longer own.


It'd unbalance the dominant racial color theme if
ytes were called pink peach creme and beige and
blx were called brown from manila thru to cola


Hey! The only flesh tones olives come in are red & black

---

On the opposite side there's another individual.




Mari Palace, small reception hall
Libation scenes in front of Sin and Ishtar
2nd frieze: the spear fisherman (?)
Old Babylon

Fotoğraflarla Arkeoloji
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Appreciate you trying to find the book over in the Asiatic Blackman thread but it was an oversize art BOOK but not as large as a coffee table book.

I doubt the man above is on the same wall mural as that artist repro above.

Different motif patterns.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
^ Ok, that's helpful. I will keep an eye on that one.
 

---

Posted by ZULU X (Member # 23209) on :
 
This was rather difficult to follow. Left me even more confused.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:
This was rather difficult to follow. Left me even more confused.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:
This was rather difficult to follow. Left me even more confused.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by real expert:
Many members of egyptsearch vehemently deny that white people did exist outside Europe. However there is now a DNA study on human remains that proves that people with white skin and blue eyes were common in ancient Israel 6500 years ago. What is the take of egyptsearch on this isssue and why was this study unlike other studies ignored on this forum?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

If you look on page one he mentions three articles. The first two are about the source scientific article I just linked.
None of these articles mention the word "white"
but they do mention blue eyes.
But since he seems to have equated that to "white skin" people in the thread are looking at this old Mesopotamia mural in terrible conditions and speculating about whites or lack thereof on it

But if you read these articles they are talking about various migrations into Israel and in the other article some Europeans descending from Aegeans (Greeks)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

If you look on page one he mentions three articles. The first two are about the source scientific article I just linked.
None of these articles mention the word "white"
but they do mention blue eyes.
But since he seems to have equated that to "white skin" people in the thread are looking at this old Mesopotamia mural in terrible conditions and speculating about whites or lack thereof on it

But if you read these articles they are talking about various migrations into Israel and in the other article some Europeans descending from Aegeans (Greeks)

---

That's right, Lioness. The Hamitic hypothesis doesn't die, it mutates.

A lot of excellent points were raised in the thread:

(1). They keep finding all this Eurasian admixture in Africa, due to back-migrations, yet no African admixture in ancient genomes in Eurasia, from the initial migrations, is EVER found. It's as if the moment you cross the Red Sea you suddenly mutate into a white man.

(2). This is all a slick attempt to reclaim Egypt for Eurasia ...

Peace & love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:
This was rather difficult to follow. Left me even more confused.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:

(1). They keep finding all this Eurasian admixture in Africa, due to back-migrations, yet no African admixture in ancient genomes in Eurasia, from the initial migrations, is EVER found. It's as if the moment you cross the Red Sea you suddenly mutate into a white man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, 12,000-9,800 BC, of the 5 Natufians tested
2 carried the Y-DNA E1b1b1b2
2 carried haplogroup CT
1 carried E1b1(xE1b1a1,E1b1b1b1).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, 12,000-9,800 BC, of the 5 Natufians tested
2 carried the Y-DNA E1b1b1b2
2 carried haplogroup CT
1 carried E1b1(xE1b1a1,E1b1b1b1).

---

Ummm...Lioness, this is the shit that confuses me though:

There's that Johannes Krausse study ("Pleistocene North African Genomes Link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African Human Populations") which claims that Pleistocene Saharans were only one-third "sub-Saharan" African, and mostly Levantine. Furthermore, the Natufians had no sub-Saharan DNA. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Don't mean to get off topic though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:
Thanks, Lioness.

---

quote:

---

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059311v1.full#disqus_thread


The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers
Iosif Lazaridis,

pre-print, 2016


A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested that the Natufians may have migrated from north or sub-Saharan Africa25,26, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia 27,28.) The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.

---

quote:

---

North African paternal population structure
Comparison of the studied populations was first carried out
using principal component analysis (PCA) on haplogroup
frequencies shown in Table S2. The first two components account
for 55.35% of the variation and reveal a strong geographical
clustering of the populations analyzed (Figure 2A). The first
component separates sub-Saharan Africans which have higher
frequencies of B-M60 A-M91, E-M2, and E*-M96 haplogroups.
The first component also shows clustering of the Europeans
characterized by R*-M207 and I-M170 and Middle Easterners
which have higher frequencies of E-M78, E-M123, J-M267,
and JM172. The second component separates all North African
populations except Egyptians from all other populations and
shows that E-M81 plays a major role in this structure. The Tuareg
appear to be drawn towards sub-Saharans while Egyptians
clustered with Middle Easterners close to Palestinians

--And Genome-Wide and Paternal
Diversity Reveal a Recent Origin of Human Populations in North Africa. PLoS ONE 8, e80293, (2013).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Lioness

Anyone claiming North Africans are products of backmigration (e.g. Lazaridis et al, Henn et al), is either ignoring that corresponding component, or they're too incompetent to realize it, even as it's staring them in the face (e.g. Raqefet Natufians with African Y-DNA, but the corresponding autosomal ancestry is not mainly Sub-Saharan, and so it has to be something else they're ignoring).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Lioness

Anyone claiming North Africans are products of backmigration (e.g. Lazaridis et al, Henn et al), is either ignoring that corresponding component, or they're too incompetent to realize it, even as it's staring them in the face (e.g. Raqefet Natufians with African Y-DNA, but the corresponding autosomal ancestry is not mainly Sub-Saharan, and so it has to be something else they're ignoring).

---

I have no idea what any of this means but...concerning the Natufians:

(1). Where is the boundary between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa before the dessication of the Green Sahara? I mean, San territory used to extend from the Southernmost tip of South Africa all the way above the Equator, that's why "the San and Ethiopians share the deepest Y-chromosome clades." (Cavalli-Sforza). So why enforce a strict demographic boundary before it even existed between North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans. I might be confusing myself here.

(2). Are Natufians like Liberian-American immigrants, who have "Middle Passage American" ancestry, from the initial "migration" (Transatlatic Slave Trade), who then "back-migrated" to Africa in the 19th century (Repatriation), then emigrated to the United States in the 21st Century? But at a greater time depth? I'm confused. Why so many caveats on their Africanity? "Yes, they had African ancestry but not Sub-Saharan African, it was North African Eurasian-admixed ancestry..." What was their osteology?


I'm growing in understanding so I might have misunderstood some things...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

"Please help me, but remember, my opinion is already fixed"

You either accept the genetic evidence, or you don't. There is no "but I have this objection" or "but this doesn't sit well with me".

If the genetics explain the affinities of Raqefet Natufian and Taforalt samples, how could that be changed with objections?

Objections have to be backed up with analysis. No one here has to answer Objections based on "it doesn't sit well with me, you better explain it".

---

My brother (sister?), you have misunderstood my "objection" here. I'm not objecting to the affinities, it's the labelling that I have some questions about. Questions, not objections. I don't have the competence to object yet.

I just wanna know who the Natufians were and what they probably looked like. That's all.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Natufians didn't have one look. Some Natufians preserve more affinities with pre-existing Kebarans than others.



Human Fossils from the Upper Palaeolithic through the Early Holocene
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/quaternary-of-the-levant/human-fossils-from-the-upper-palaeolithic-through-the-early-holocene/8D902B3F1696C9308388463009ECB733
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Any study that doesn't model ancient Levantine groups as a combination of ancient African "basal" DNA components plus later localized DNA evolution is suspect. Almost all of the papers involving Levantines whether "Early European Farmers" or any other such groups omit any African ancestry in their models for some odd reason. There should be a cline both geographically and temporally between African lineages and Levantine/Eurasian lineages. Unfortunately in most of the models of ancient gene flow around the Mediterranean, African DNA stops south of the Sahara.

So the issue isn't that "white people" or "light skin" didn't exist outside of Europe, as opposed to the fact that humans historically have had dark skin longer than any other kind of skin color. Light skin is a relatively recent evolution. But if you look at models and papers about Eurasian history it implies that Eurasians were always light skinned even 50,000 years ago. Not to mention these models also imply that North Africa was overrun by back migrating light skinned people over 20,000 years ago. Again it is implied which means folks will then go on to speculate that ancient North Africans somehow did not have similar complexions in ancient times as other Africans.....

So from that background you get papers like this:

quote:

---

Carriers of mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup L3 basal lineages migrated back to Africa from Asia around 70,000 years ago

---

quote:

---

2 Abstract The genomes of humans outside Africa originated almost entirely from a single migration out ~50,000-60,000 years ago1,2, followed closely by mixture with Neanderthals contributing ~2% to all non-Africans3,4. However, the details of this initial migration remain poorly-understood because no ancient DNA analyses are available from this key time period, and present-day autosomal data are uninformative due to subsequent population movements/reshaping5. One locus, however, does retain extensive information from this early period: the Y-chromosome, where a detailed calibrated phylogeny has been constructed6. Three present-day Y lineages were carried by the initial migration: the rare haplogroup D, the moderately rare C, and the very common FT lineage which now dominates most non-African populations6,7. We show that phylogenetic analyses of haplogroup C, D and FT sequences, including very rare deep-rooting lineages, together with phylogeographic analyses of ancient and present-day non-African Y-chromosomes, all point to East/South-east Asia as the origin 50,000-55,000 years ago of all known non-African male lineages (apart from recent migrants). This implies that the initial Y lineages in populations between Africa and eastern Asia have been entirely replaced by lineages from the east, contrasting with the expectations of the serial-founder model8,9, and thus informing and constraining models of the initial expansion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Any study that doesn't model ancient Levantine groups as a combination of ancient African "basal" DNA components plus later localized DNA evolution is suspect. Almost all of the papers involving Levantines whether "Early European Farmers" or any other such groups omit any African ancestry in their models for some odd reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Lioness

Anyone claiming North Africans are products of backmigration (e.g. Lazaridis et al, Henn et al), is either ignoring that corresponding component, or they're too incompetent to realize it, even as it's staring them in the face (e.g. Raqefet Natufians with African Y-DNA, but the corresponding autosomal ancestry is not mainly Sub-Saharan, and so it has to be something else they're ignoring). [/qb]

---

I have no idea what any of this means

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
But if you look at models and papers about Eurasian history it implies that Eurasians were always light skinned even 50,000 years ago.

---

why?
 

---

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


https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2016/06/16/059311.DC1/059311-1.pdf

page 57 (Discussion beginning on page 56)

Swenet this longer statement is in the supplement. What do you think of it?
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING!!!!!!!

There's Eurasian DNA all over Africa, even in the Khoi-Khoi and the San...yet no African lineages in Eurasian?!?!

HOW??!?!?!

---

.

There are several reports on African ancestried lineages in Eurasia,
No "toc or index" to their coverage on ES but offhand I recall one
on L2(?) in Paleolithic Europe unless I got it mixed up with an old
Maghreb L2. Not to discount U6a'b'd as indigenous African mtDNA
as its history is age and development in Africa for some possible
45,000 years (two ice ages).




Some stuff on male specific Y haplogroup E in Greece's prehistory in the archive too.
Interestingly enough, ADMIXTURE's found African ancestry in Mykenae but not Crete.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Lioness

E-M35 has been found as far east as Pakistan (Iron Age sample). The haplogroups found in Pakistan are close to some of the Levantine haplogroups, so they're possibly a part of the same migration as the Natufian Y-DNAs.

So, Lazaridis comments about E-M35 being limited to the Levant (and supposedly absent elsewhere along the Basal Eurasian distribution) are potentially already dated. These Iron Age E samples could be part of a larger E network that has yet to be revealed with better sampling. So far, the oldest Basal Eurasian in Eurasia is ~26ky old (Dzudzuana). This is where geneticists have the best chance of detecting Y-DNA E, not in the later (Neolithic) descendants.

They are also wrong about Natufians being Sub-Saharan in morphology. That Natufian Hayonim skull I posted looks consistent with Sub-Saharan African morphology. But other Natufians (e.g. from Shuqbah) look like North Africans (predynastics/Type B), while others probably have much more ancestry from the older Levantine population.

Eurocentrics keep spamming the "Sub-Saharan African Natufians" strawman to make it an easy target to debunk. Unfortunately some are desperate so they take the bait and end up playing themselves when Lazaridis does his bogus test of "no SSA ancestry".

The genetic evidence says that the Middle East, Europe, North Africa and Iran begin to draw together around 10ky. The genetic distance between farmer samples in all these regions lowers drastically. The skeletal evidence suggests the same thing, with many of these super distant samples beginning to show affinity. This is the basis of the so-called "Mediterranean race" of old anthropology.

This "drawing together" is really the main takeaway for serious researchers, because it's a major clue that one metapopulation is repeatedly diffusing from a single region and influencing West Eurasian samples. Even if you disagree that region is a place in Africa, it's still a fact that this 'drawing together' is in the direction of Africans. These samples are shifting away from their own regional ancestors, and in the direction of Africans.

Lazaridis' mishandled description of Natufians as "Sub-Saharan African" and somehow unique in showing African features, is just a distraction from the fact that all these samples are showing the same change to varying degrees.

quote:

---

ORiginally posted by the lioness,:
What it means is that in the opinion of Swenet modern North Africans might have Eurasian admixture but when some researchers look at the ancient Natufians they assume because they don't have particular sub-saharan affinty it's due to this same Eurasian admixture.
But in reality it's due to an indigenous North African ancestry that was different from sub-saharan ancestry before much later Eurasian admixture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
So far, the oldest Basal Eurasian in Eurasia is ~26ky old (Dzudzuana). This is where geneticists have the best chance of detecting Y-DNA E, not in the later (Neolithic) descendants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Y-DNA E-Z830 found in the Raqefet Natufians (and Indus Valley, IIRC), likely predates the Natufian culture. Subclade E-M123 is apparently already 18ky old in the Middle East.

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Cinnioglu2004.pdf

---

quote:

---

LINK

The male lines of the Maghreb: Phoenicians, Carthage, Muslim conquest and
Berbers
Wim Penninx1
2019-06-22
This document is registered at https://independent.academia.edu/wpenninx

Abstract

In this document I analysed Y-DNA from yfull and ftdna from the Maghreb.
I conclude that the
present descendants of E-M81 originate from Phoenicia.

The majority of males in the Maghreb has a
Y-DNA that descends from a male line ancestor that lived in Phoenicia about 500 BCE. This founding
father effect is extremely strong and a similar founding mother effect is absent. About 20% has a YDNA that originates in Hejaz (Arabia) and arrived at the Muslim Conquest of the Maghreb. The
Berber population has a lower Y-DNA percentage from Hejaz. I see no indication that the present
population has Y-DNA that descends from the population from the Maghreb from the period before
the arrival of the Phoenicians. The Berber and Tuareg languages descend from the Phoenician
language, and the Tuareg language had the least influence from other languages. A timescale
correction of yfull +10% is more likely than a timescale of yfull without correction or a timescale
correction of yfull +20%.
Publications on ancient DNA in the line of E-M81
______________

Only few reports of ancient DNA samples in haplogroup E are reported in the literature.
Harney et al (2018) [19] reported one E-Z830 from the Late Chalcolithic, 4500–3900/3800
BCE in Peqi’in Cave, Israel. Lazaridis et al (2016) [20] reported two E-Z830 (M123-) from
Natufian, 12000-9700 BCE in Raquefet Cave, Israel. The other reported samples from the
Levantine are from haplogroup T (nine samples in the Peqi’in Cave, [19]) and haplogroup J in
the Bronze Age ([20] and Haber et al. 2017, [21]). [19] considered that the high percentage of
haplogroup T in the Peqi’in Cave was a result of a strong homogeneity, not of a large
percentage of haplogroup T in the Levant. The branch of E-M81 and E-FGC18960 are in two
descending lines of E-L19, which is parallel to E-Z830 and is one of three main branches of EM35 with a tmrca of 24000ybp (the third main branch is E-L539, which is often reported as
E-M78, since it is the most often measured marker). A presence of haplogroup E-L19 in the
region and period of the Phoenicians seems possible.

---

quote:

---

According to the genetic analyses done on six Natufian remains from Northern Israel, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA haplogroup E-Z830, a somewhat upwind clade of E-M123 (and therefore ancestral to it).[1] The Natufians were one of the first settled peoples in the world and may have contributed to the domestication of certain crops, and thus the advent of agriculture. The discovery of E-Z830 (without other clades) suggests an indigenous presence in Canaan and Israel that predates all other clades, which are not known to have existed in the region at the time (10,000 years before present). E-M123 is thought to have a TMRCA about 18,000 years ago,[2] 8,000 years before the Natufian (possibly ancestral) remains are from.
A study on the population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia found in the remains from Nerkin Getashen in Armenia, lived during the Middle Bronze Age, two E-M84.[3]
A study on South Asian history, Narasimhan et al. (2019),[4] found several individuals who belonged to E-Y31991 in Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age samples in the Swat valley, modern north Pakistan.
A 137-sample study of ancient Eurasian genomes found one Central Scythian who belonged to E-M123* (E-Y31991), in modern northeast Kazakhstan, dated from 800-750BC.[5] According to the BAM file, made available by the authors, he's presumed to be E-Y168273,[6] a clade downstream of PF4428 which is itself under E-M123*.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


The genetic evidence says that the Middle East, Europe, North Africa and Iran begin to draw together around 10ky. The genetic distance between farmer samples in all these regions lowers drastically. The skeletal evidence suggests the same thing, with many of these super distant samples beginning to show affinity. This is the basis of the so-called "Mediterranean race" of old anthropology.

This "drawing together" is really the main takeaway for serious researchers, because it's a major clue that one metapopulation is repeatedly diffusing from a single region and influencing West Eurasian samples. Even if you disagree that region is a place in Africa, it's still a fact that this 'drawing together' is in the direction of Africans. These samples are shifting away from their own regional ancestors, and in the direction of Africans.

Lazaridis' mishandled description of Natufians as "Sub-Saharan African" and somehow unique in showing African features, is just a distraction from the fact that all these samples are showing the same change to varying degrees.

---

Hmmm...I need to hear MORE about this African meta-population that keeps diffusing to Eurasia. 🤔
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
You already know about that population. You've complained about its affinities since your first post.

The affinities are always going to lead back to the tests done by Loosdrecht and Lazaridis. They can't be avoided by consulting someone else.


 

---

Posted by ZULU X (Member # 23209) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
You already know about that population. You've complained about its affinities since your first post.

The affinities are always going to lead back to the tests done by Loosdrecht and Lazaridis. They can't be avoided by consulting someone else.

---

quote:

---

Although there is genetic evidence of gene flow from the Near East to North Africa (but not vice versa) in Late Pleistocene,
15 ka (van de Loosdrecht et al., 2018), several studies based on uniparental markers show that a bidirectional gene flow occurred between these regions later, during the Holocene (Arredi et al., 2004; Ottoni et al., 2009; Ottoni et al., 2010; Pereira et al., 2010). Moreover, links between Africa and Eurasia are documented in studies of several mitochondrial haplogroups, such as U5 and H1 in Africa and L1b in
Eurasia (Achilli et al., 2005; Cerezo et al., 2012; Kulichová et al., 2017), as well as in studies of Y chromosome haplogroups, such as E-M35 in Eurasia and R1b-V88 in Africa (Cruciani et al., 2010; Trombetta et al., 2015). Other, later migrations between Arabia, Near East, and North Africa (Černý et al., 2016; Fernandes et al., 2015) may be responsible for the fact that variant −13910*T is almost entirely absent from the Near East today (Gerbault et al., 2011).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:
Maybe we are talking past each other. I'm not disagreeing with you. What you say makes a lot of sense. I recently read this (courtesy of @beyoku) from Edita Priehodovál et al.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:
Now, do Eurasians come from North Africa or do North Africans come from Eurasia??? I can't seem to get a clear answer

(Do Yemenis come from the Horn of Africa or do Horners come from Yemen?)

Isn't sub-Saharan just a new way of saying "the true Negro?"

Bear in mind I'm a layman, too much nuance is confusing.

Am I making sense to you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:
Maybe we are talking past each other. I'm not disagreeing with you. What you say makes a lot of sense. I recently read this (courtesy of @beyoku) from Edita Priehodovál et al.

---

Let me explain where we disagree.

(Since I think it's not fair to treat you based on others who have said the same things you have, and who I've come to the conclusion, are unteachable).

Loosdrecht et al say the core of Taforalt, IAM and Raqefet Natufian ancestry (green component) has little affinity with Sub-Saharan Africans. They argue based on this that there is no African ancestry in this component.

I agree with the former, but I disagree with the latter statement.

So, when I talk about Africans diffusing into Eurasia, I'm talking about the same ghost population that Loosdrecht, Lazaridis, etc. are saying is at the center of this affinity. We just disagree about the geographical homeland. This applies to all who are well-informed on ancient DNA. They are only going to differ in view from these scholars where the data allows you some minor leeway to form your own view within the confines of the data. No serious DNA enthusiast is going to have fundamental disagreements with these authors. If they do, then sign me up, because I want to hear what they are saying.

What I hear you say is something very different. You seem to be saying that people are adding "unnecessary caveats" to the Africanity of these samples and that fixing errors in these papers is going to fix controversies in anthropology that have played out for centuries.

It's not going to fix the issues. Look at what you are up against.

It's not even just the Natufian-like 61% in Taforalt that has a controversial origin. It's also the distinctly African 39% that differs from Sub-Saharan African ancestry. Loosdrecht already commented on that, but a more recent example of this is that Berbers with recent SSA ancestry have a weaker relationship with Taforalt, not a stronger relationship. Coastal North African samples with far less recent SSA ancestry are closer to Taforalt. (see the poor performance of the Zenata sample here in Figure S4).

When I say farmers became homogeneous and started resembling Africans more, I mean that without any special reference to living peoples speaking extant languages from the four families. And I'm definitely not specially considering Sub-Saharan Africans (unless when it's obvious, like L2 in PPN and likely that Hayonim Natufian, among other undeniable pieces of evidence).

My advice to you is forget everything you think you know and start over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
So, when I talk about Africans diffusing into Eurasia, I'm talking about the same ghost population that Loosdrecht, Lazaridis, etc. are saying is at the center of this affinity. We just disagree about the geographical homeland. ...

When I say farmers became homogeneous and started resembling Africans more, I mean that without any special reference to living peoples speaking extant languages from the four families....

---

“We all come from East Africa, but this is in the most distant parts of prehistory, going back to 2 million years. Of course, today scientists tell us that humankind originated in the Rift Valley in East Africa. It is from this cradle of humankind that the world became populated. But the proximity of North Africa to East Africa is similar to the proximity of South Africa with East Africa and this is why the first territories that became populated after East Africa are there ones in the South and North Africa. From studying cave art and essentially the human depictions, we can see the Sahara was a land of amalgamation very early on. There is obviously an African influence: we see populations with dark skin. A Negro population is clearly depicted. We also have people with white skin. So the Sahara hasn’t been a land of only one type of people. It is with the emergence of the Ibero-Maurasian culture in North Africa, that we have people living all along the Mediterranean, the Atlantic in Morocco, and also along the Eastern Mediterranean in Tunisia.” – Prof. Simone Hachi






👀🤔
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
So, when I talk about Africans diffusing into Eurasia, I'm talking about the same ghost population that Loosdrecht, Lazaridis, etc. are saying is at the center of this affinity. We just disagree about the geographical homeland. ...

When I say farmers became homogeneous and started resembling Africans more, I mean that without any special reference to living peoples speaking extant languages from the four families....

---

“We all come from East Africa, but this is in the most distant parts of prehistory, going back to 2 million years. Of course, today scientists tell us that humankind originated in the Rift Valley in East Africa. It is from this cradle of humankind that the world became populated. But the proximity of North Africa to East Africa is similar to the proximity of South Africa with East Africa and this is why the first territories that became populated after East Africa are there ones in the South and North Africa. From studying cave art and essentially the human depictions, we can see the Sahara was a land of amalgamation very early on. There is obviously an African influence: we see populations with dark skin. A Negro population is clearly depicted. We also have people with white skin. So the Sahara hasn’t been a land of only one type of people. It is with the emergence of the Ibero-Maurasian culture in North Africa, that we have people living all along the Mediterranean, the Atlantic in Morocco, and also along the Eastern Mediterranean in Tunisia.” – Prof. Simone Hachi

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:
“We all come from East Africa, but this is in the most distant parts of prehistory, going back to 2 million years. Of course, today scientists tell us that humankind originated in the Rift Valley in East Africa. It is from this cradle of humankind that the world became populated. But the proximity of North Africa to East Africa is similar to the proximity of South Africa with East Africa and this is why the first territories that became populated after East Africa are there ones in the South and North Africa. From studying cave art and essentially the human depictions, we can see the Sahara was a land of amalgamation very early on. There is obviously an African influence: we see populations with dark skin. A Negro population is clearly depicted. We also have people with white skin. So the Sahara hasn’t been a land of only one type of people. It is with the emergence of the Ibero-Maurasian culture in North Africa, that we have people living all along the Mediterranean, the Atlantic in Morocco, and also along the Eastern Mediterranean in Tunisia.” – Prof. Simone Hachi






👀🤔

---

I can't speak for Swenet, but I wouldn't say that the indigenous North Africans we have been talking about would have been light-skinned. Of course they would have retained dark skin. Thing is, so would the first OOA people. Keep in mind that "black" Melanesian, Aboriginal Australian, and Negrito people are every bit as OOA as Europeans and Asians. If anything, Europeans and Middle Easterners are less far removed genetically from all the African populations than are Melanesians etc., in no small part due to the gene flow from North Africa that we have been talking about.

What I'm trying to say is, having dark skin doesn't guarantee a West/Central African (or what Swenet calls SSA) genetic affinity.
 

---

Posted by One Third African (Member # 3735) on :
 
@ ZULU X again

If it helps, picture human populations as a spectrum. On one end, you have Khoisan-speaking peoples from southernmost Africa, groups like the San and Khoikhoi. On the opposite end, you have OOA populations. It would look something like this.

Khoisan - Central African "Pygmies" - West Africans and Bantu - East Africans - North Africans - OOA

And of the African populations, North Africans are naturally the closest to Eurasians. That is because it was from North(eastern) Africa that OOA sprang from. This would be true even if you factor out later back-migrations (as well as additional migrations from North Africa into Eurasia).

Now, keep in mind, all these populations would have started out as "black" or dark-skinned. The lighter skin you see in some Eurasian populations would have been a later, post-OOA development that happened one time in western Eurasia (leading to white Europeans and tan Middle Easterners) and another, separate time in northeastern Asia (leading to the "yellow"/"red" complexions of East Asians, Polynesians, and Native Americans). So you can't really use black skin as a marker indicating overall genetic affinity.

I hope this clears things up for you.
 

---

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


https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6388/548



Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations
Loosdrecht
Science 04 May 2018:

Mitochondrial consensus sequences of the Taforalt individuals belong to the U6a (six individuals) and M1b (one individual) haplogroups (15), which are mostly confined to present-day populations in North and East Africa (7). U6 and M1 have been proposed as markers for autochthonous Maghreb ancestry, which might have been originally introduced into this region by a back-to-Africa migration from West Asia (6, 7).

he diversification of haplogroups U6a and M1 found for Taforalt is dated to ~24,000 yr B.P. (fig. S23), which is close in time to the earliest known appearance of the Iberomaurusian culture in Northwest Africa [25,845 to 25,270 cal. yr B.P. at Tamar Hat (26)]

Although the oldest Iberomaurusian microlithic bladelet technologies are found earlier in the Maghreb than their equivalents in northeastern Africa (Cyrenaica) and the earliest Natufian in the Levant, the complex sub-Saharan ancestry in Taforalt makes our individuals an unlikely proxy for the ancestral population of later Natufians who do not harbor sub-Saharan ancestry. An epicenter in the Maghreb is plausible only if the sub-Saharan African admixture into Taforalt either postdated the expansion into the Levant or was a locally confined phenomenon. Alternatively, placing the epicenter in Cyrenaica or the Levant requires an additional explanation for the observed archaeological chronology.

_________________________________

It's all a big guessing game. Generally we can look at modern Africa populations and compare them to these from seven 15,000-year-old remains in Taforalt Morocco.

We see according to this chart on the chart that that the Tafs of Morocco are closer genetically to Middle Easterners and Europeans than they are to West Africans and much further from South Africans.
So are they closer to Middle Easterners and Europeans

a) because Middle Easterners and Europeans because Middle Easterners and Europeans are their descendants ??

b) or are they closer to Middle Easterners and Europeans because 15K or earlier Middle Easterners or Europeans migrated into North Africa?

I don't think the answer to that is knowable.

But what we can do is look at these haplogroups and compare them to modern populations. We see E1b1 aka E-P2 is now found mostly in Northern Africa and the Horn of Africa, and is also found at lower frequencies in the Middle East, Europe and Southern Africa. E-V38 is more common in West Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes, and occurs at low frequencies in North Africa and Middle East.

And U6 most common in North-West Africa, especially among the Mozabites (28%) and Kabyles (18%) of Algeria, as well as Mauritanians (14%) and Canary Islanders (13.5%). Other regions with frequencies of U6 exceeding 1% include 6-8% in Morocco and coastal Algeria, 5% in Tunisia, 4% in Libya, 2.5% in Lebanon, Portugal, Egypt and Oman, 2% in Cyprus, Sudan, Ethiopia and Guinea-Bissau, 1.5% in Saudi Arabia, and 1% in Syria, Jordan and in Spain.

Basal U6* was found in a Romanian specimen of ancient DNA (Peștera Muierilor) dated to 35,000 years ago.

In spite of the highest diversity of Iberian U6, Maca-Meyer argues for a Near East origin of this clade based on the highest diversity of subclade U6a in that region,[52] where it would have arrived from West Asia, with the Iberian incidence primarily representing migration from the Maghreb and not persistence of a European root population.[why?]

______________________________

PLoS One. 2015; 10(10): e0139784.
Published online 2015 Oct 28. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139784
PMCID: PMC4624789
PMID: 26509580
Early Holocenic and Historic mtDNA African Signatures in the Iberian Peninsula: The Andalusian Region as a Paradigm
Candela L. Hernández,

Still, founder analysis highlights that the high sharing of lineages between North Africa and Iberia results from a complex process continued through time, impairing simplistic interpretations. In particular, our work supports the existence of an ancient, frequently denied, bridge connecting the Maghreb and Andalusia.
Still, our FA results of U6 haplogroup have revealed evidence of U6 back-migration from Iberia to North Africa. A southward migration from Iberia is also signaled by some sub-branches of mtDNA lineage H [16,19]. Several and solid evidences, including archaeological and historical data, support a scenario of presumable bidirectional gene flow between North Africa and Iberia. Close parallelisms held between the Upper Paleolithic industries Iberomaurusian and the Spanish Magdalenian (~20–12.9 ky cal BP) [55] would have been the result of exploration and side-to-side human movements. Both the Strait of Gibraltar and the Alboran sea (a probable alternative maritime route, eastern Strait) would have represented key scenarios for explaining those early human contacts [1,11]. Moreover, the Neolithization of southern Iberia and the Mediterranean Maghreb (7.6–6.9 ky) has been considered as the same integrative process [10,11]. The historic episodes (the shared government rule of Iberia and the Maghreb during the Roman Empire and the westward expansion of Islam) strengthen the links between both shores of the western Mediterranean. In ancient times, human movements through the regions were dependent on favorable phases in environmental conditions, which were neither numerous nor lasting.

our work supports the existence of an ancient, frequently denied, bridge connecting the Maghreb and Andalusia, located just across the Strait of Gibraltar but also possibly in a more eastern position with a pier on the small island of Alboran.

_______________________________

Again it's all guess work.
What we can say is today U6 is most common in berbers







However in the Siwa we see thus U5 rather than U6 but looking at the mtDNA of the Abusir el-Meleq (disregard highlighting) there are a variety of U clades U1, U3, U5, U6, U7

Also while E-M81 one of the E1b1 clades is considered the berber marker it is less prominent than R1b in the Siwa

Nevertheless of the Taforalt of 15kya Morocco tested they were not R1b carriers but instead E1b1 on the paternal side and many like the Tuareg predominantly H on the maternal side

_______________________________





Biological Sexing of a 4000-Year-Old Egyptian Mummy Head to Assess the Potential of Nuclear DNA Recovery from the Most Damaged and Limited Forensic Specimens, 2018
David Reich 3,6 and Jodi A. Irwin 1

To better understand the mtDNA lineage of the mummy in the context of known Egyptian mtDNA diversity, the mummy haplogroup was compared to the mtDNA haplogroup distribution of 668 Egyptians from various modern populations [68,69,70,71,72,73]. The dominant haplogroups among this dataset were haplogroup T (11.98%) and L3 (11.23%; Table S3). Out of the 64 individuals who belonged to haplogroup U, seven belonged to haplogroup U5 (1.05%), and three (0.5%) belonged to one of the U5b subgroups (U5b1c; U5b1d1a; U5b2a5).
The Djehutynakht sequence was also compared to available ancient human DNA sequences (Table S4). Not surprisingly, no direct matches to the Djehutynakht sequence have been reported. However, related U5b2b sequences have been observed in ancient human remains from Europe, and a haplogroup U5b2c1 haplotype was recently discovered in 2000-year-old remains from Phoenicia [67]. When only the mtDNA sequences recovered from ancient Egyptian human remains are considered, the Djehutynakht sequence most closely resembles a U5a lineage from sample JK2903, a 2000-year-old skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq
 

---

Posted by ZULU X (Member # 23209) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
That is nonsense of course, because the presence of those "light skinned" Africans has been used historically to imply Eurasians in Africa. That is why they distinquish North Africa from the rest of Africa. So it is double talk.

Eurasia has dark skin and light skin people and obviously the first people in Eurasia were dark skin. Doesn't stop them from calling them all Eurasian though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
those are some nice rock art photos but I don't agree with the caption " A Negro population is clearly depicted. We also have people with white skin"

The lighter figures in that wall painting don't look like "white skin". They have yellowish brown skin and it's far from "white" looking. One has dotted hair resembling a Khosian.
There are some theories they were in more Northern parts of Africa long ago

I have seen other rock art where some people do look lighter or "white" but I don't thinks this rock art is so reliable to be assumed to match real life skin color precisely. The colors are very limited and you can't always tell if the intention is silhouette or skin color or a symbolic color
and it's very hard to date accurately

---

Hachi comes across as an anti-Black Berber to me, to be honest. His attitude is that Blacks are, sort of, guests in North Africa. Their proper place is "Sub-Saharan" Africa.

You're right, Lioness, about those elusive "white people" in the Saharan rock art. That high yellow woman has the same protruding breasts as this San mother below (attached):






 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:


You're right, Lioness, about those elusive "white people" in the Saharan rock art. That high yellow woman has the same protruding breasts as this San mother below (attached):

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
those are some nice rock art photos but I don't agree with the caption " A Negro population is clearly depicted. We also have people with white skin"

The lighter figures in that wall painting don't look like "white skin". They have yellowish brown skin and it's far from "white" looking. One has dotted hair resembling a Khosian.
There are some theories they were in more Northern parts of Africa long ago

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by One Third African:
@ ZULU X again

If it helps, picture human populations as a spectrum. On one end, you have Khoisan-speaking peoples from southernmost Africa, groups like the San and Khoikhoi. On the opposite end, you have OOA populations. It would look something like this.

Khoisan - Central African "Pygmies" - West Africans and Bantu - East Africans - North Africans - OOA

And of the African populations, North Africans are naturally the closest to Eurasians. That is because it was from North(eastern) Africa that OOA sprang from. This would be true even if you factor out later back-migrations (as well as additional migrations from North Africa into Eurasia).

Now, keep in mind, all these populations would have started out as "black" or dark-skinned. The lighter skin you see in some Eurasian populations would have been a later, post-OOA development that happened one time in western Eurasia (leading to white Europeans and tan Middle Easterners) and another, separate time in northeastern Asia (leading to the "yellow"/"red" complexions of East Asians, Polynesians, and Native Americans). So you can't really use black skin as a marker indicating overall genetic affinity.

I hope this clears things up for you.

---

quote:

---

As early as the Stone Age, human populations had links that stretched across continents

The high proportion of Near Eastern ancestry shows that the connection between North Africa and the Near East began much earlier than many previously thought. Although the connections between these regions have been shown in previous studies for more recent time periods, it was not generally believed that humans were interacting across these distances during the Stone Age. "Our analysis shows that North Africa and the Near East, even at this early time, were part of one region without much of a genetic barrier," explains co-senior author Choongwon Jeong.

Although the Sahara did present a physical barrier, there was also clearly interaction happening at this time. The strong connection between the Taforalt individuals and sub-Saharan populations shows that interactions across this vast desert were occurring much earlier than was previously thought. In fact, the proportion of sub-Saharan ancestry of the Taforalt individuals, one-third, is a higher percentage than found in modern populations in Morocco and many other North African populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


Although the Sahara did present a physical barrier, there was also clearly interaction happening at this time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Amazing post. Was thinking the same except Gertalian. But Britards? Priceless.

Been trying for years to move ES away from San lumped with Khoe.
One way is to use 'San and Khoe' when having to speak of both.

But tell me. What to call those languages lumped together as
Click? Ndorobo(?), Hadza, San, and Khoe have gutturals. Do they
share between them or are each ethny using a unique set?

Are the languages related by anything other than high number
of gutturals? Is Click (what's the correct proper African agency/
self-determination name) a major language group as far as
lexicon, grammar, and the like would indicate?

=-=

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


To date, nobody has been able to identify the distinct "North African" DNA lineages that are not labeled as Eurasian by these studies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZULU X:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
So, when I talk about Africans diffusing into Eurasia, I'm talking about the same ghost population that Loosdrecht, Lazaridis, etc. are saying is at the center of this affinity. We just disagree about the geographical homeland. ...

When I say farmers became homogeneous and started resembling Africans more, I mean that without any special reference to living peoples speaking extant languages from the four families....

---

“We all come from East Africa, but this is in the most distant parts of prehistory, going back to 2 million years. Of course, today scientists tell us that humankind originated in the Rift Valley in East Africa. It is from this cradle of humankind that the world became populated. But the proximity of North Africa to East Africa is similar to the proximity of South Africa with East Africa and this is why the first territories that became populated after East Africa are there ones in the South and North Africa. From studying cave art and essentially the human depictions, we can see the Sahara was a land of amalgamation very early on. There is obviously an African influence: we see populations with dark skin. A Negro population is clearly depicted. We also have people with white skin. So the Sahara hasn’t been a land of only one type of people. It is with the emergence of the Ibero-Maurasian culture in North Africa, that we have people living all along the Mediterranean, the Atlantic in Morocco, and also along the Eastern Mediterranean in Tunisia.” – Prof. Simone Hachi

https://i.ibb.co/sQR0Jyh/Screenshot-2019-11-23-at-15-12-37.png
https://i.ibb.co/JKHn0Js/Screenshot-2019-11-23-at-15-12-08.png
https://i.ibb.co/G0BJD5v/Screenshot-2019-11-23-at-15-14-48.png
https://i.ibb.co/0myd570/Screenshot-2019-11-23-at-15-15-06.png

👀🤔

---

See?

You are trying to challenge scientific information, but you post it in the format of a question as if it's just curiosity. This time you post no explanation to go along with these pictures and quote. Why not come out and say you are trying to challenge the affinity of these samples?

I'm going to say it again: you can't challenge the affinities of these samples. And you can't consult someone else for a second opinion on these affinities.

If a Eurocentric would come out and deny Ramses was predicted E-M2, you would recognize it as blatant defiance to scientific data. But when you do something similar, it's somehow not blatant defiance?

When you ask me to explain these results in light of your view that the Sahara was never a barrier, that's just an appeal to reason. Appeals to reason have no real substance. Nothing about the demographics of the Sahara is going to change the fact that the samples involved (e.g. Hotu, Iran Neolithic, Raqefet Natufian, etc.) have only a relatively small portion SSA ancestry (in this case it shows up as Hadza-like).



In light of this, the cave art showing Sub-Saharan populations as part of the demographics of the Sahara is irrelevant. Those Saharan populations are only relevant to Eurasian samples that have large portions of matching Sub-Saharan African ancestry. So, unless you have ancient DNA from Eurasia that matches Sub-Saharan DNA, they are irrelevant. Unless you consider ~8%(?) Hadza like in Raqefet Natufians, relevant to their overall/core affinity.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Bumped for Archie
 

---