|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 6, 2003 0:12:40 GMT -5
Unless someone reclassifies the Caucasoids noted by Coon in Races of Man, there were at least some Caucasoids there.
Why is the idea of Negroids speaking languages with a Caucasoid orgin any less likely than Caucasoids speaking languages with a Negroid origin?
|
|
|
Post by Afrocentrik on Dec 6, 2003 13:37:13 GMT -5
Coon's work is outdated and faulty. He classified East Africans as Mediterraneans with varying degrees of Negroid admixture such as the Maasai and Bahima, and called East Africa "Mediterranean territory". His classification of African races is no longer accepted by today's anthropologists. His classifications of human races is rejected by some Eurocentrics as well as Afrocentrics. His classification of African races has been largely discarded. Nilotic peoples such as the Bahima and Maasai are not "half-whites" ie, Negroid-Caucasoid mixes as Coon suggested. they are classified as elongated Nilotics under the Negroid macro-race.
The problem with YOUR idea is that there is no evidence of Caucasoids spreading this language into Africa. LINGUISTS are unanimous in the hypothesis of this language family originating in Africa, in either the Sahara or along the Red Sea coast. The fact that all of the languages under this family appear in Africa and that only one(Semitic) appears outside of Africa makes it unlikely that a group of Caucasoids brought these languages into Africa. Add that to fact that Afro-Asiatic languages spoken exclusively in Africa are more diverse and divergent from one another and the notion of invading caucasoids spreading this language family is highly unlikely. There is no evidence of proto Afro-Asiatic being spoken outside of Africa. Additionally, the notion that migrants from Arabia migrated into Africa and diffused Omotic, Cushitic, and Chadic is frivolous, since the Arabia's pre-Arab speaking population, commonly called Veddiod or Vedic peoples, still speak some of their pre-Arabic languages and none are even remotely close to Chadic, Omotic, Cushitic or even Afro-Asiatic at all for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 6, 2003 14:14:04 GMT -5
Nilotic is a group of languages but Nilotid is a subrace of the Negroid race.
The classification of racial types by Coon or anyone else is not relevant to East Africans. There are obvious similarities between East Africans and Caucasians, whichever system is used.
Many linguists believe in the Nostratic classification of Afro-Asiatic, putting it as part of a group of languages that originated in West Asia. And others believe that Afro-Asiatic is the closest group of languages to Nostratic anyway, which implies a similar racial origin.
The diversity of African languages in Afro-Asiatic belonging to the Afro-Asiatic group could be because of elements from invading Negroids.
I think that you mean that the South Arabian languages are spoken in Oman and Yemen. These are a group of Semitic languages like Arabic is.
|
|
|
Post by Afrocentrik on Dec 7, 2003 5:31:12 GMT -5
Yes and the Maasai and Bahima are part of that Negroid subrace, not a bunch of “half-whites” as Coon stated.
Why isn't it relevant now? You were just saying Caucasoids had to be there based on Coon's data now its not relevant? The similarites between East Africans and “Caucasians” is more due to the fact that Caucasians resemble East Africans and not the other way around, since non-Africans descend from a subset of Northeast Africans. Thus the so-called “Caucasian” traits observed in east African populations are not due to a population of “Caucasians” migrating into or settling and mixing in East Africa as genetic evidence indicates little to no admixture from “Caucasians”<br>
You're wrong on that point. Read:
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 May 15;90(10):4670-3.
Genetic evidence on origin and dispersal of human populations speaking languages of the Nostratic macrofamily.
Barbujani G, Pilastro A.
Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Italy.
Contemporary patterns of allele frequencies allow inferences on past evolutionary processes. L.L. CavalliSforza [(1988) Munibe 6, 129-137] and C. Renfrew [(1991) Cambridge Archaeol. J. 1, 3-23] proposed that neolithic farmers from the Near East propagated a group of related ancestral languages, from which three or four linguistic families developed. Here we show that genetic variation among Indo-European, Elamo-Dravidian, and Altaic speakers (grouped by some linguists in the Nostratic macrofamily) supports this hypothesis, whereas the evidence on Afro-Asiatic speakers is ambiguous. Gene-frequency clines within these linguistic families suggest that language diffusion was largely associated with population movements rather than with purely cultural transmission. Archeological, linguistic, and genetic evidence can be reconciled by envisaging a process of population growth and multidirectional dispersal from the Near East as the main factor shaping genetic and linguistic diversity in Eurasia and perhaps in North Africa.
Now your statement that implies a similar racial origin is without substance. Chadic, Omotic, and Cushitic speakers are jet black peoples; speakers of certain Semitic languages in the Middle East are wholly Caucasoid, thus race factors little in this equation. If we were to go by Afro-Asiatic languages according to race, it would imply more of an African than Middle eastern origin since Semitic is the only language of AA spoken outside of Africa, not to mention also that Semitc was the LAST language of the family to branch off.
You misunderstood me. By diversity I meant look at the number of languages under Chadic for example. It has over 200-300 distinct languages its branch that are divergent from one another yet group under the same family. What invading group of Negroids affected what languages. The branches of the Afro-Asiatic language family were already present before the Bantu dispersals, so what invading group of Negroids affected the language? Furthermore, Chadic, Omoitic, Cushitic, and Ethiopian Semitic speakers ARE Negroid!
No, I meant the languages spoken by Arabia's pre-Afro-Asiatic speaking population. They are totally unrelated to any Afro-Asiatic language.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 7, 2003 9:52:38 GMT -5
It says that the association of Afro-Asiatic with Nostratic is ambiguous, not disproven. The second thing is that if Afro-Asiatic is not Nostratic, then it is usually considered to be closely related to this group.
The pre-Bantu Negroid population I imply would be the arrival of Congo-Saharan, who I associate with the Negroid expansion into what was Afro-Asiatic territory. Afro-Asiatic, wether or not it is Nostratic, is not Congo-Saharan.
I believe that Negroids spread Congo-Saharan with them, is that if we ignore the expansion of Bantu, then we still see a racial pattern in the distribution of languages. Apart from Khoisans, and the Negroid speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages who border the Caucasoid speakers of related languages, sub-Saharan languages are all Congo-Saharan. I believe that this is strong evidence that it is a Negroid language group.
I've never heard of the Bahima, but I don't think that Maasai are not part of the Nilotid subrace. As far as I know, Nilotid is restricted to the southern Sudan. But racial taxonomy is just labels we put on things. Wether Ethiopids are considered to be Negroid, Caucasoid or whatever is irrelevant to their actural phenotype. Either the Ethiopid racial type arose from the two races, or it did not.
Which languages spoken in Arabia were unrelated to any Semitic language?
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 8, 2003 6:31:59 GMT -5
No, you have it wrong again. Only the Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family has been considered as close or in the Nostratic language family and might I add Nostratic isn't even accepted by the majority of linguists.
What are you talking about when you say "Afro-Asiatic" territory? Chadic is spoken in Nigeria, Chad, Niger, Sudan and Camerron, none ofwhich are"Afro-Asiatic" territories. In Sudan, Ethiopia, Chad, Libya, Mali, and numerous other countries you have Nilo-Saharan speakers who have an uneven distribution in Africa. Nubians areNilo-Saharan speakers that bordered Egypt and Nubians are contemporary with Egyptians. Nilo-Saharan languages spoken in their present places were present long before any Bantu expansion, making the term "Congo-Saharan" nebulous. Cultural exchange might have caused some words from either language to be used in the other but that alone is not sufficient to reclassify two language families as one.
This whole statement is nebulous. There is no racial pattern. As have been stated Negroid speakers are in every branch of Afro-Asiatic speakers, with Chadic, Omotic, and Cushitic being spoken solely by Negroid peoples. What racial pattern are you talking about?
The Maasai are Nilotic Negroid peoples and areconsidered as such. Neither is the Nilotic subrace restricted to southern Sudan. Nilotic Negroids are in Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Rwanda. Nilotic Negroids are not restricted to southern Sudan.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 8, 2003 9:27:19 GMT -5
All of Afro-Asiatic has been considered at some point within Nostratic, and Afro-Asiatic entirely has been considered outside, but closest to, Nostratic. Nostratic is controversial, but this theory has far more supporting evidence than other supposed groups of languages.
When I refer to Afro-Asiatic territory I refer to all areas where Afro-Asiatic is spoken. Within this are both Caucasoid and Negroid types.
The Nuba are not the ancient Nubians and the language of Meroitic speakers is unknown. Either way, Nubians were clearly Caucasoid from their craniometry.
I deliberately excluded the Bantu expansion from consideration because I know that it is later than the Negroid expansion in Africa which we are talking about, although Coon thought that it mignt have been Bantus that brought the Negroid race to Africa.
If you look at a map of African languages, you will see that Congo-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan languages are associated with almost all areas of Negroid distribution.
And referring to race and language, for the last and final time, Nilotic refers to language, and Nilotid refers to race. They are not the same unless you can point out a reasonable similarity in the distribution of the group of languages and the physical type.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 10, 2003 7:01:10 GMT -5
As have been before stated, this theory is compatible with the genetic evidence. Only Semitic is considered as part of Nostratic.
There is no such thing as an Afro-Asiatic territory. Afro-Asiatic langauges are spoken from west Africa to the Middle East. Within and betwen these two areas are numerous speakers of non-AfroAsiatic languages. It does not correspond to race.
Both the Nuba and Nubians are Nilo-Saharan speaking peoples. The Meriotic language Script hasn't been deciphered, but the language of the Nubians themselves is Nilo-saharan. They are not caucasoid craniometrically and were definitely not Caucasoids. they were Negroid peoples of the desert Saharan type. Genetically they group with Negroids and culturally, linguistically, and historically they are black Africans without question.
Provide some evidence.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 10, 2003 8:54:51 GMT -5
What we are discussing is wether the genetic evidence fits the physical and linguistic evidence.
As far as the physical evidence goes, Ethiopids have lots of Caucasoid characters. This fits with the idea that the migrating Negroids absorbed a previous Caucasoid population.
The linguistic evidence is not as clear. But nobody places Afro-Asiatic as coming from areas of Africa which everyone has agreed to have had no presence of Caucasoids, unlike East Africa.
The only Afro-Asiatic languages that are spoken by Negroids are the ones at the edge of the area where Congo-Saharan languages are spoken. I believe that Afro-Asiatic is, like Khoisan, pre-Congo-Saharan. Alternatively it may have spread later, from a source of Caucasoid peoples.
I don't see why I should "provide some evidence" that Nilotic landuages do not correspond with the Nilotid physical type. You sem to have no evidence other than them both getting their name from the Nile.
And I'm afraid that according to C Loring Brace and to Hanihara et al, Nubians are clearly Caucasoids from their craniometry. And that you seem to be thinking of different Nubians to me, if you think that ancient Nubian culture was not most similar to ancient Egyptian culture.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 10, 2003 10:29:46 GMT -5
{quote}What we are discussing is wether the genetic evidence fits the physical and linguistic evidence.[/quote]
There is no correlation. Chadic and Omotic speakers are pure African yet speak Afro-Asiatic languages. Iraqis are pure Caucasoid. There is no correlation.
You didn't read the genetic study I posted at the begining of this thread did you? Please read it again. Amharas and Tigreans(not all Ethiopians) have been affected by minor admixture and the languages they spoke were already present in Africa. Genetic evidence does not indicate a a previous Caucasoid population being absorbed because non-Africans descend from a subset of the genetic components of Northeast Africans. I already posted this. Ethiopians are mostly African.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 10, 2003 10:50:24 GMT -5
I did read it, and it isn't backed by physical anthropology, and probably not by linguistics. There is significant genetic evidence of a Caucasoid component in Ethiopia and you're just arguing by insistence This one abstract iss not revealed truth. The authors of that one abstract did not explain the Caucasoid phenotype of East Africans, if they are not partly Caucasoid. Not everyone believes in a Congo-Saharan grouping of languages. But I don't know what the Bantu expansion has to do with anything. And of course modern Ethiopids are "African" (meaning Negroid). What they are is a Negroid type with physically Caucasoid characters. I am agreeing that "However, narrow-faced, narrow-nosed populations have long been resident in Saharo-tropical Africa... and their origin need not be sought elsewhere. These traits are also indigenous". I am arguing, based on physical evidence, that the indigenous African population was Caucasoid, not Negroid. Ethiopids are the contact area between two subspecies. Here is some evidence of a Caucasoid and Capoid element in Ethiopia. www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v62n2/970077/970077.text.html
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 11, 2003 6:02:09 GMT -5
You didn't read carefully enough did you? Read again: 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.htmlThat means simple admixture is not the likely source of the "Caucasoid" look of some Ethiopians. Rather non-Africans got their look from Ethiopian type people who were already present in Africa before any out of Africa migrations. Since Northeast Africans split from a subset of Sub-Saharan Africans there is no evidence of an indigenous "caucasoid" population. That makes Northeast Africans 100% as Africa as sub-saharans. The study was not dealing with East African phenotypes and according to Stephen Molnar, east Africans with so-called Caucasoid phenotype evolved their features through natural selection not through mixture with Caucasoids.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 11, 2003 7:42:26 GMT -5
Genes determine physical features, so this is obviously relevant to phenotype.
So from the abstract, "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"
I don't have a problem with this as far as the robust Afalou type goes. But this does not explain the similarity between Ethiopids and Mediterranids. Where is the other evidence to support this abstract?
The study contradicts other genetic evidence, as well as archeology and physical anthropology. It may also contradict linguistics. I can't, and won't, accept one abstract over all the other evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 18, 2003 4:42:05 GMT -5
Genes determine physical features, so this is obviously relevant to phenotype. So from the abstract, "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" I don't have a problem with this as far as the robust Afalou type goes. But this does not explain the similarity between Ethiopids and Mediterranids. Where is the other evidence to support this abstract? The study contradicts other genetic evidence, as well as archeology and physical anthropology. It may also contradict linguistics. I can't, and won't, accept one abstract over all the other evidence. Sorry for not replying in a couple of days, my apologies. Anyways, about not believing one abstract over the other i think you're dearly mistaken here. If you read the link I originally posted at the start of the thread you would see that that full text I posted even cited that study you posted concerning the genetic components of the Ethiopians(Passarino et tal 1998). The information I posted came from a much more recent study done by Kenneth Kidd and Sara Tischkopf and is supported by nuclear DNA analysis, no markers. As for Afalou types, Afalou types were described by Colin P. groves as Intermediates and Afalou types were present only in Lower Egypt and coastal north Africa and were not found to be in East Africa. There is no point of entry for your East African caucasoid aboriginals.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 18, 2003 6:18:57 GMT -5
It's alright, that you couldn't reply for a couple of days,
But I can't dismiss all other evidence that I know, just for something that I haven't read.
What did Groves think of the Mediterraneans in East Africa?
|
|