|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 4, 2005 4:22:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 4:25:09 GMT -5
This is not a genetics paper, don't troll. |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 4, 2005 4:29:06 GMT -5
This is not a genetics paper, don't troll. Thats not trolling, it proves my point that populations from sub-Saharan Africa did indeed move north into the Lower Nile valley therefore supporting what I cited about E3b(M-81 type) came from a precursor in sub-Saharan Africa. Aside from that , Howells data isn't supported by genetics since populations in the Horn of Africa and Ethiopia have negligible to no mixture from bantu migrations. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 4:37:52 GMT -5
Explain why E3a Tutsis differ *SIGNIFICANTLY* from other central African populations and look more similar to Somalis. They look Negroid to me:  If you have mtDNA and Y-chromosomal data on them, we can talk about how best to explain their appearance. the precurson of E3b is African, and E3b is found in Caucasoids and Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids. It was therefore probably associated with Caucasoid morphology, because I know of no purely Negroid populations who possess it. The "Early West Asians" are bronze or iron age Iranians in this study. Try reading the studies you post. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 4:39:43 GMT -5
Thats not trolling, it proves my point that populations from sub-Saharan Africa did indeed move north into the Lower Nile valley therefore supporting what I cited about E3b(M-81 type) came from a precursor in sub-Saharan Africa. Aside from that , Howells data isn't supported by genetics since populations in the Horn of Africa and Ethiopia have negligible to no mixture from bantu migrations. The paper is not relevant in the discussion of where E-M81 came from. You need to post a genetic study to refute the scientists' conclusion that it spread into North Africa from the Near East. |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 4, 2005 4:57:47 GMT -5
They look Negroid to me: If you have mtDNA and Y-chromosomal data on them, we can talk about how best to explain their appearance. Their Y chromosone has already been discussed and published, I already posted the source study. Its a well established fact that Tutsis look *significantly* distinct from neighboring central African populations; Coon even called Tutsis remnants of Neolithic Saharan 'Caucasoid' populations. Their heads are more oval and narrow and their noses more narrow that neighboring central African populations. A kindred group, the Hima, possess the same features. Coon called Hima 'Mediterraneans. Basically the distinction between Tutsis and other central populations does exist. The physical remains in East Africa indicate that in a number of measurements, including body proportions, prehistoric East Africans are ancestral to populations like the Tutsis and Somalis. Neither are Caucasoid. None were found in the Horn, all were found in either Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya. They migrated from the south. In the south indeed is where the E3a and E3b split from a common ancestor. Howells' crania lists as 'African' Dogon and Teita people, it contains only a fraction of the diversity in sub-Saharan African populations. Furthermore: Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, edited by J.O. Vogel Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California. "Who were the Late Stone Age people living in eastern Africa before the arrival of early iron Age Bantu-speaking peoples? Early claims by L.S.B. Leakey that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong. It has been demonstrated that the early eastern Africans of Late Stone Age times were Negroids who probably would have physically resembled peoples living in the southern Sudan at present." Nilotes were not included in Howells' crania. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 6:15:00 GMT -5
I am not interested in what is well-established in your mind, only hard numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 4, 2005 12:33:35 GMT -5
I am not interested in what is well-established in your mind, only hard numbers. I'm equally not interested as well as not impressed with what is well-established in your mind, especially **YOUR** labelling of East Africans as 'East Africa Caucasoid', especially when East Africans are not defined as such in published data and your stubborn insistence that West and Central Africans='True without diversity Negroes' especially when genetic studies do not defined these populations . Different genetic studies give numerous definitions of sub-Saharan, some include East African populations, some don't. The 'Dark-White' or 'Dark Caucasoid' hypothesis is long abandoned and is a thing of past debunked scholarship. |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Apr 4, 2005 14:01:42 GMT -5
Well, that is a red herring because nobody here believes in dark whites, at least not I. One might as well say mestizos or Polynesians or Dravidians are dark Caucasians, too. That's ridiculous, of course. I rarely agree with Charlie about anything, but this I most definitely agree with: the Bantus had little to nothing to do with the Negroid presence in East Africa (except perhaps in the southern East African regions like the southern parts of Ethiopia or the northern parts of Kenya or the like). The elongated African type, commonly called the Nilote, is responsible for the Negroid presence. Nilotes are not Bantus. They form their own subdivision of the Negroid race and their pseudo-Caucasoid features cannot in my opinion be explained away as a product of admixture with whites. The Nilo-Saharan populations are definitely black Africans. Some of them such as in the Nubian region might have mixed with folk like the Egyptians but I'm not an expert on that area (which as I understand is not clearly defined racially) so I don't know. I believe the real argument is the racial nature of the Afro-Asiatic speakers of East Africa, or the type we commonly refer to as the Aethiopid. Is this type intermediate between the Nilote and the Caucasoid? I am in agreement with Dienekes when I answer with a resounding "yes." Based on their linguistic alignment alone, it would make sense for Somalis and Bejas and Oromos to have at least some varying amount of Caucasian in them (that doesn't have its origin in the Semites of later days). Intermediate does NOT mean 50-50 mixture, just enough to alter the racial type of a region. Mexican mestizos, for instance, lean heavily on the American Indian side, but they are still called mestizo. So don't misunderstand me when I use the word intermediate. Most Aethiopids I have seen lean heavily on the Negroid side. No doubt about it. Others look slightly more Caucasoid.  www.dankalia.com/afar/k-f1-32_3.JPG  ![]() www.geocities.com/wally_mo/00000_oromo.jpg[/img]    Can these people really be called just another form of Negroid? Compare them to the Maasai and Nuba, true Nilotes:        Can Nilotes and Aethiopids really be summed up under an "elongated African" umbrella? I simply don't think they can. There is a difference there, and I do not think it is purely environmental. By the way, these pictures are not selective. I googled them up and posted them exactly as I got them. For instance, I'm not afraid to post a very Negroid-looking Afar girl:  So you can't say I'm demeaning the Negroid qualities of the Aethiopids, because I'm not. I'm just calling it as I see it. There is variation everywhere, but race is about people groups in general, and in general Aethiopids and Nilotids do not look the same. |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 4, 2005 14:39:13 GMT -5
Well, that is a red herring because nobody here believes in dark whites, at least not I. One might as well say mestizos or Polynesians or Dravidians are dark Caucasians, too. That's ridiculous, of course. This is a perfect example of the 'Dark-White' theory gone bad.. The Story of ManCarleton Coon p 196-197 Borzoi Books, 1965 Few skeletons have been found in the Sahara, and these are hard to date because of soil erosion. In Arabia prehistoric archaeology has barely been started. Yet we can be reasonably confident, until other evidence upsets the theory, that these deserts were the home of the slender variety of Caucasoid man. In East Africa this type has survived among the slender, narrow-faced Watusi and other cattle people. This is Dienekes' line of reasoning, if it doesn't look West or Central African, it isn't truly Negroid. Well at last we agree, great insight. Elongated Africans and Nilotes differ craniofacially. Masai and Somalis have thinner noses than Nuba[Nuba are not Nilotes, they are Kordofanian speaking people and are unrelated to 'true Nilotes'] and Dinka, though Dinka are more narrow headed than Elongated Africans. Elongated Africans[replace Aethiopids with elongated Africans] and Nilotes are not the same, I agree, though they do have many similarities. Nilotes appear as intermediate between Central Sudanic peoples[people of Darfur e.g.] and Elongated Africans, the only thing that truly stands out is their extremely tall height and specialized body build, and also their skin color, which is very dark. I agree there is a difference. Don't be misled by Afro-Asiatic languages and physical appearance. Afro-Asiatic languages are spoken by East Africans, North Africans, Middle-Easterners, and yes...West Africans[Chadic speakers]. All these peoples have a broad range of phenotypes. Languages can spread, but phenotypes do not always correspond with physical appearance. All in all, excellent post. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 16:13:28 GMT -5
This is a perfect example of the 'Dark-White' theory gone bad.. This is an example of a red herring. When you can come up with some studies, we'll talk again. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 16:22:46 GMT -5
I rarely agree with Charlie about anything, but this I most definitely agree with: the Bantus had little to nothing to do with the Negroid presence in East Africa (except perhaps in the southern East African regions like the southern parts of Ethiopia or the northern parts of Kenya or the like). Of course they didn't, since the Bantu had a high frequency of E3a which is lacking in Ethiopians and Somalis. The Negroid features of these peoples are the result of East African males intermarrying with Negroid women. |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Apr 4, 2005 16:38:48 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, what true-blue, undisputed Negroid population then do you think/know East Africans most closely cluster to if not the Bantus, Dienekes? The Nilotes? If the Aethiopids were indeed intermediate as you and many others profess, what subrace of Negroid makes up the Somali maternal Negroid admixture, in your opinion? The Nilotids seem to be the closest undisputed Negroid population. Or is perhaps some other kind of generalized Negroid responsible? I'm not as genetically-inclined as most people here so I just want to cover all the possible bases. Forgive me if it seems like a stupid question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 16:56:37 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, what true-blue, undisputed Negroid population then do you think/know East Africans most closely cluster to if not the Bantus, Dienekes? The Nilotes? If the Aethiopids were indeed intermediate as you and many others profess, what subrace of Negroid makes up the Somali maternal Negroid admixture, in your opinion? The Nilotids seem to be the closest undisputed Negroid population. Or is perhaps some other kind of generalized Negroid responsible? I'm not as genetically-inclined as most people here so I just want to cover all the possible bases. Forgive me if it seems like a stupid question. Remember that African matrilineages are much older than most African patrilineages (except A, B). The Bantu started spreading 3-4 thousand years ago. Clearly, the Bantu were just one group of Negroids, the one whose agriculture made it extremely successful, but not all Negroids are Bantu. |
|
|
|
Post by shango on Apr 4, 2005 17:10:09 GMT -5
To All, What is missing in this conversation is a good understanding of the history of East Africa from Nubia on down. Many of these people have been overrun by Arab merchants/soldiers/invaders since the 7th century. Therefore, you will find the southern Semitic Haplotype J all over. They killed the original men who were likely to be of Y Chromosome Haplotypes E3b and B. The Bani Kanz in Egyptian Nubia are descended from these Arab invaders. However, language is passed from mother to children and these people were originally Nilo-Saharan speakers. The same is true of Nubian tribes in the Sudan. Most Sudanese were Nilo-Saharan, but these people switched rele\igion and language to avoid slave raiders from the north. The Somali have a similar background of African women being impregnated en masse by Arab invaders from across the Red Sea. Many of they people switche their original languages as well. The Amhara Ethiopians have a similar story except their MidEastern invaders were Jewish. The Maasai are Nilo-Saharan. What has remained is the African women of L1-L3 have remained the same and these women of L1-L3 are found all over the continent. There are no earlier women. Do you want to call them Negroid? They are the original women. If you study the CULTURES OF AFRICA, you will very quickly see that their is a common culture in all of Black Africa. You will find a similar religion in all tribes. They are one! This is a perfect example of the 'Dark-White' theory gone bad.. The Story of ManCarleton Coon p 196-197 Borzoi Books, 1965 Few skeletons have been found in the Sahara, and these are hard to date because of soil erosion. In Arabia prehistoric archaeology has barely been started. Yet we can be reasonably confident, until other evidence upsets the theory, that these deserts were the home of the slender variety of Caucasoid man. In East Africa this type has survived among the slender, narrow-faced Watusi and other cattle people. This is Dienekes' line of reasoning, if it doesn't look West or Central African, it isn't truly Negroid. Well at last we agree, great insight. Elongated Africans and Nilotes differ craniofacially. Masai and Somalis have thinner noses than Nuba[Nuba are not Nilotes, they are Kordofanian speaking people and are unrelated to 'true Nilotes'] and Dinka, though Dinka are more narrow headed than Elongated Africans. Elongated Africans[replace Aethiopids with elongated Africans] and Nilotes are not the same, I agree, though they do have many similarities. Nilotes appear as intermediate between Central Sudanic peoples[people of Darfur e.g.] and Elongated Africans, the only thing that truly stands out is their extremely tall height and specialized body build, and also their skin color, which is very dark. I agree there is a difference. Don't be misled by Afro-Asiatic languages and physical appearance. Afro-Asiatic languages are spoken by East Africans, North Africans, Middle-Easterners, and yes...West Africans[Chadic speakers]. All these peoples have a broad range of phenotypes. Languages can spread, but phenotypes do not always correspond with physical appearance. All in all, excellent post. |
|
