|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Nov 23, 2003 12:48:24 GMT -5
The (CA)n-1/Alu and (CA)n-2/Alu haplotype systems are highly informative for reconstructing historical migration and population-differentiation events, as demonstrated by the PCA plot of population-clustering based on haplotype-frequency variation (fig. 4). These results are consistent with anthropological knowledge, results from studies of classical markers (Nei and Roychoudhury 1993; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Nei 1995), and results from molecular markers from autosomes (Bowthingy et al. 1991, 1994; Jorde et al. 1995, 1997; Nei 1995; Armour et al. 1996; Tishkoff 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Harding et al. 1997; Stoneking et al. 1997; Zietkiewicz 1997, 1998; Calafell et al. 1998; Kidd et al. 1998, 2000; Harris and Hey 1999), mtDNA (Cann et al. 1987; Vigilant et al. 1989, 1991; Merriwether 1991; Penny et al. 1995), and Y chromosome DNA (Hammer 1995; Hammer et al. 1997, 1998; Underhill et al. 1997). These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v67n4/001733/001733.htmlSimple and plain what does this mean? Northeast African populations are the founder source populations of non-African populations since a SUBSET of the northeast African populations populated the rest of the globe. This is supported by genetic evidence. This means Northeast Africans did not acquire their traits through mixture with invading "Middle Eastern Caucasoids" but that they developed their traits in Africa and are thus biologically African. There is no archaeological evidence of any "Caucasoids" flooding Northeast Africa to the point that it would dramatically change the phenotype of the people. So people can get off dubbing Ethiopians and Somalis as "hybrid intermediates".
|
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 23, 2003 15:15:59 GMT -5
The origins of East Africans are much more complex than the "biologically African" simplification. Of course, East Africans are predominantly of African origins, in the sense that back migrations from Eurasia (which did take place!) do not make up more than a minority element in their ancestry. But, saying that East Africans are "biologically African" does not help us in determining the racial position of East Africans among world populations. African is a geographical not a racial designation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Nov 24, 2003 5:36:17 GMT -5
The origins of East Africans are much more complex than the "biologically African" simplification. Of course, East Africans are predominantly of African origins, in the sense that back migrations from Eurasia (which did take place!) do not make up more than a minority element in their ancestry. But, saying that East Africans are "biologically African" does not help us in determining the racial position of East Africans among world populations. African is a geographical not a racial designation. East Africans are biologically African in the sense that they evolved their traits squarely in Africa and are part of the greater diversity present among African populations. East Africans are of course part of the Negroid race as a subtype, ie, the Nilotic elongated types. Very little of their genes are non-African and anthropologically they group with other sub-Saharans(tropically limbed). There is nothing complex about it. Their anthropological traits were already present BEFORE any out-of-Africa migration which makes them part of the African landscape. Just as African is a geographical designation, so is Caucasoid. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 24, 2003 5:54:39 GMT -5
East Africans are of course part of the Negroid race as a subtype, ie, the Nilotic elongated types. The Nilotics are indeed part of the Negrids, however Ethiopids are intermediate between the Europids and the Negrids taxonomically and combine features of both. Very little of their genes are non-African and anthropologically they group with other sub-Saharans(tropically limbed). Race is about the totality of factors. The Ethiopids are similar to the Negrids in some respects, and similar to the Europids in others. I agree, that it is inaccurate to think of the Ethiopids as a "mixture" of Europids and Negrids, even though they do have a small component of Eurasian origin. Yes, they are predominantly African genetically, but it is also inaccurate to obscure their differences with other Africans and classify them as Negrids. Ethiopian  Afghan  Kenyan Negrid  |
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Nov 24, 2003 6:20:45 GMT -5
The Nilotics are indeed part of the Negrids, however Ethiopids are intermediate between the Europids and the Negrids taxonomically and combine features of both. Race is about the totality of factors. The Ethiopids are similar to the Negrids in some respects, and similar to the Europids in others. I agree, that it is inaccurate to think of the Ethiopids as a "mixture" of Europids and Negrids, even though they do have a small component of Eurasian origin. Yes, they are predominantly African genetically, but it is also inaccurate to obscure their differences with other Africans and classify them as Negrids. Ethiopian Afghan Kenyan Negrid Incorrect. Ethiopians are intermediate between African and non-African. Their traits were evolved in Africa and can be seen among Nilotics. They cannot be intermediate with "Europids" because they have very little admixture with "Europids" and these same racial traits were present in them BEFORE any out of Africa migration. On the other hand, it is Europids that have "Ethiopid" traits although "Ethiopid" traits do not exist as an entity. Genetically these "ethiopids" group with other sub-Saharans. Their similarity with "Europids" is not similarity at all. Since these traits were already present in Africa before any out migration and evolved squarely in Africa, its a misnomer to refer to them as Europid. It is the Europids who are similar to Ethiopians. In the case of Haile Selassie he comes from the Amharas who have some descent from southern Arabians. His type is NOT the predominant racial ohenotype among Ethiopians. There is great variation among African populations as a rule. West and central Africans also have a small amounts of ancient Eurasian DNA but even these two vary among themselves. Africa is phenotypicall and genetically the most diverse place on the earth. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 24, 2003 15:10:05 GMT -5
Their similarity with "Europids" is not similarity at all. Since these traits were already present in Africa before any out migration and evolved squarely in Africa, its a misnomer to refer to them as Europid. It is the Europids who are similar to Ethiopians. I did not refer to them as "Europid", I said that the Ethiopids are intermediate between Negrids and Europids, which is correct. Both modern human genetics and traditional physical anthropology agree with this pronouncement. |
|
|
|
Post by Afrocentrik on Nov 24, 2003 18:37:41 GMT -5
I did not refer to them as "Europid", I said that the Ethiopids are intermediate between Negrids and Europids, which is correct. Both modern human genetics and traditional physical anthropology agree with this pronouncement. Genetics says Ethiopians are intermediate between African and non-African populations, not Negrids and Europids. Either way their anthropological traits evolved in Africa and not through intermixture with Europids. |
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Nov 29, 2003 0:27:35 GMT -5
I thought that Capsians (Caucasians) occupied the highlands of East Africa until the Iron Age or until the arrival of the Bantu-speaking Congids?
If so, I doubt that there was no admixture between them and modern Ethiopids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Nov 30, 2003 17:22:10 GMT -5
I thought that Capsians (Caucasians) occupied the highlands of East Africa until the Iron Age or until the arrival of the Bantu-speaking Congids? If so, I doubt that there was no admixture between them and modern Ethiopids. There was not Caucasoid Caspians in East Africa. Read this abstract: Am J Phys Anthropol. 1975 May;42(3):351-69. New studies of post-Pleistocene human skeletal remains from the Rift Valley, Kenya. Rightmire GP. Prehistoric human crania from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, Makalia Burial Site, Nakuru, and other localities in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya are reassessed using measurements and a multivariate statistical approach. Materials available for comparison include series of Bushman and Hottentot crania. South and East African Negroes, and Egyptians. Up to 34 cranial measurements taken on these series are utilized to construct three multiple discriminant frameworks, each of which can assign modern individuals to a correct group with considerable accuracy. When the prehistoric crania are classified with the help of these discriminants, results indicate that several of the skulls are best grouped with modern Negroes. This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean" Caucasoids, as has been claimed. Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations.As we can see, genetic, archaeological, and anthropological evidence refute the notion of any incoming Caucasians or "Caspians" having any point of entrance into east Africa. Bantus are not the only Negroid subtype in Africa. "Caspians" are simply imaginary peoples in Coon's long debunked anthropological studies. |
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Nov 30, 2003 17:25:42 GMT -5
I thought that Capsians (Caucasians) occupied the highlands of East Africa until the Iron Age or until the arrival of the Bantu-speaking Congids? If so, I doubt that there was no admixture between them and modern Ethiopids. BTW, there is no such thing as Congids or Congoids. Nilotic speaking elongated Negroid types inhabited the region long before Bantu speakers. Bantu is NOT a racial type but a linguistic term, for Tutsis are Bantus and differ in a number of respects from other central Africans. Bantu speaking people are not an uniform racial type but possess variation in phenotypes. |
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Nov 30, 2003 17:34:49 GMT -5
"This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru"
Why is it less 'clear' in the other dig sites?
|
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Nov 30, 2003 21:01:58 GMT -5
BTW, there is no such thing as Congids or Congoids. Nilotic speaking elongated Negroid types inhabited the region long before Bantu speakers. Bantu is NOT a racial type but a linguistic term, for Tutsis are Bantus and differ in a number of respects from other central Africans. Bantu speaking people are not an uniform racial type but possess variation in phenotypes. I know that Bantu is not a race, but they gave their name to the Bantid racial type. But I don't see how this is relevant to Ethiopids. |
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Nov 30, 2003 21:22:26 GMT -5
I don't really have any knowledge of the three especially Negroid sites, or the other two sites mentioned (what others were named?). But only the race of specimens from Bromhead's Site, Wiley's Kopje and Nakuru is "especially clear", implying that the rest are not so clearly Negroid. It could support the idea that Nilotids and Mediterranids intermixed in East Africa.
Can anyone show Nilotid and Ethiopid African phenotypes, for us to compare? They aren't the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Nov 30, 2003 22:28:36 GMT -5
I don't really have any knowledge of the three especially Negroid sites, or the other two sites mentioned (what others were named?). But only the race of specimens from Bromhead's Site, Wiley's Kopje and Nakuru is "especially clear", implying that the rest are not so clearly Negroid. It could support the idea that Nilotids and Mediterranids intermixed in East Africa. Can anyone show Nilotid and Ethiopid African phenotypes, for us to compare? They aren't the same. It doesn't imply that any were Caucasoid. Its states just what is the truth, that is supported by genetic as well as anthropological evidence. There is no Bantuid or Ethiopid race. Both so-called types are Negroid subraces. |
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Nov 30, 2003 23:39:29 GMT -5
"It doesn't imply that any were Caucasoid."
It says that only three of the sites were most Negroid. It is not "especially clear" that the rest are, suggesting that there is non-Negroid admixture. It is unreasonable that they were partly Caucasian?
|
|
