|
Post by mike2 on May 16, 2005 12:45:33 GMT -5
Although Veddoids may have similar looks to Caucasians, I still think they're properly Australoids, in the same general southern family as Negritos and Australians. I think their exotic Caucasian features are partly due to West Eurasian admixture, yes, but mostly due to parallel evolution. It's actually quite easy to see a very archaic-looking Caucasian in the face of most Australoid forms. You can't do that with Negroids.
It was actually postulated earlier in the last century that the black peoples of India were simply very dark Caucasians that originally came from the Mediterranean. I don't believe that, though. I think the Veddoids populated the Indian subcontinent soon after the Negritos. These are the people Herodotus referred to as "the Eastern Ethiopians."
|
|
|
Post by kir on May 16, 2005 19:24:33 GMT -5
There were no Caucasians 30,000 years ago, atleast none have been found. Do you know what the fossils found look like? U7 probablt entered into India in the neolithic. It would actually be the Dravidian expansion into India. The deep coalescence time, even according to the researchers themselves, could be due to massive population movement or expansion. India got most of it's WE mtDNA from the Dravidian (10,000ybp) and Kungun Expansion (3500ypp), but still it only amounts to 15%. Does this mean that Indian’s are 85% veddoid? Also I’m curious about the major division of races as shown in the skeletal records. Human2, can you give me dates for the divergence with respect to the different races, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid and Australoid. Also can you connect Mongoloid with the Americas?
|
|
|
Post by human2 on May 16, 2005 19:48:52 GMT -5
India got most of it's WE mtDNA from the Dravidian (10,000ybp) and Kungun Expansion (3500ypp), but still it only amounts to 15%. Does this mean that Indian’s are 85% veddoid? Also I’m curious about the major division of races as shown in the skeletal records. Human2, can you give me dates for the divergence with respect to the different races, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid and Australoid. Also can you connect Mongoloid with the Americas? It depends on what you classify as West Eurasian mtDNA. Also, the male contribution would've been more. Also, there were probably other waves in-between the Dravidian expansion and the initial settlement. I don't know enough to say. Just by looking at Indians, I'd say that they are more West Eurasian than what you described. The earliest traces of "Caucasoid" would be probably 20,000-15,000. That's what anthros say when looking objectively at morphology and not just defining "race" by region. ~15,000 is a positive for Caucasoids in the Middle East and North Africa. With UP types Europe, there seems to have been constant contact with the Middle East, and so UP types in Europe, though drastically different before the mesolithic and neolithic expansion from the ME blurred the lines, would still have been in continuim with ME, and prolly also in the case of India. Sub-Saharans and Australasians haven't really changed that much. There were still Indian tribal groups now who resemble both. Fossils in Siberia/north China are sparse before end of ice age. No fossils have been found >10,000 or <30,000 AFAIK, though plenty of sites hav ebeen found. The earliest positive identification of "Mongoloids" is 8,000 years ago in the Americas, and 1,000 years later in north China/Mongolia. Finds in western Siberia also seems to be M or proto-M. This is just what the literature I have says, although glimpses of them can be found dating back. The 15,000 YA settlements in the Altai region, for example. I don't know what is said about the ~10,000 bones which the mtDNA is base on but since they have the same mtDNA as modern East Eurasians, I suppose they were "Mongoloid". Zhoukoudian has three specimens who might've been an "interracial" family. One skull, if classified female, woudl be Amerind. Another one is closest to Tasmanians, and the third one is right int he middle (Ainu/Polynesian-like). The date for it ranges from >20,000 to around ~10,000. Some specimens before the arrival of Jomon on Japan might be admixtures or intermediate types. Date is around 18,000. It is for sure older than this but after the ice age, 11,500 YA, there seems to have been an explosion in M expansion, eradicating earlier forms in below-Siberian and coastal Asia and the Americas. Yes, Native Americans are considered osteologically to be "Mongoloids". In fact, Native Americans overall are more osteologically "Mongoloid" than SE Asians. For example, dental morphology. Amerinds and north East Eurasians have full Sinodonty, while many in SE Asia have an intermediate form, which a 2004 study assigns to admixture with Australasians.
|
|
|
Post by kir on May 16, 2005 20:35:34 GMT -5
It depends on what you classify as West Eurasian mtDNA. Also, the male contribution would've been more. Also, there were probably other waves in-between the Dravidian expansion and the initial settlement. I don't know enough to say. Just by looking at Indians, I'd say that they are more West Eurasian than what you described. The earliest traces of "Caucasoid" would be probably 20,000-15,000. That's what anthros say when looking objectively at morphology and not just defining "race" by region. ~15,000 is a positive for Caucasoids in the Middle East and North Africa. With UP types Europe, there seems to have been constant contact with the Middle East, and so UP types in Europe, though drastically different before the mesolithic and neolithic expansion from the ME blurred the lines, would still have been in continuim with ME, and prolly also in the case of India. Sub-Saharans and Australasians haven't really changed that much. There were still Indian tribal groups now who resemble both. Fossils in Siberia/north China are sparse before end of ice age. No fossils have been found >10,000 or <30,000 AFAIK, though plenty of sites hav ebeen found. The earliest positive identification of "Mongoloids" is 8,000 years ago in the Americas, and 1,000 years later in north China/Mongolia. Finds in western Siberia also seems to be M or proto-M. This is just what the literature I have says, although glimpses of them can be found dating back. The 15,000 YA settlements in the Altai region, for example. I don't know what is said about the ~10,000 bones which the mtDNA is base on but since they have the same mtDNA as modern East Eurasians, I suppose they were "Mongoloid". Zhoukoudian has three specimens who might've been an "interracial" family. One skull, if classified female, woudl be Amerind. Another one is closest to Tasmanians, and the third one is right int he middle (Ainu/Polynesian-like). The date for it ranges from >20,000 to around ~10,000. Some specimens before the arrival of Jomon on Japan might be admixtures or intermediate types. Date is around 18,000. It is for sure older than this but after the ice age, 11,500 YA, there seems to have been an explosion in M expansion, eradicating earlier forms in below-Siberian and coastal Asia and the Americas. Yes, Native Americans are considered osteologically to be "Mongoloids". In fact, Native Americans overall are more osteologically "Mongoloid" than SE Asians. For example, dental morphology. Amerinds and north East Eurasians have full Sinodonty, while many in SE Asia have an intermediate form, which a 2004 study assigns to admixture with Australasians. Wow! Full of content, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 16, 2005 22:35:11 GMT -5
I don't know what we would do without human2. He's brought new light to this board.
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on May 17, 2005 8:02:14 GMT -5
This is what your countrymen in Italy looked like 30,000 years ago: As for reconstructions of Cro-Magnons, it depends on which reconstruction of Tut you believe in. Be fair hu, man. That skull is Neanderthal. Everyone knows the Neanderthalers and the moderns coexisted in Europe for some thousands of years until the Neanderthals disappeared. And the Neanderthalers got more extreme in their Neanderthal features as time went on. A sort of reverse evolution. As for reconstructions, I am not an sculptor or an anatomist, so I rely on what is written. And what I have read says that Cro Magnons were modern with some archaic features such as rugged body, craggy skull and thicker bones but otherwise modern. I have never heard of the Cro Magnon described as anything but caucasoid looking though Coon said something about incipient mongoloid features which he claimed were passed on to UP types and Alpinids. I doubt Coon was an anatomist so his views are conjecture. human2, I think you are a good poster but I do not hold you in the same regard as Mike does. I think like all of us you have agendas. It must be hard getting your back clipped every two weeks. Those Ainu genes for you!
|
|
|
Post by human2 on May 17, 2005 10:56:46 GMT -5
1. No, the skull is Predmosti. It's a modern human with features that resemble modern Australian aborigines. 2. I never said Cromagnons were not modern. 3. "Cromagnon" covers a lot of territory and time. The last of the Cromags in the Neolithic would be "Caucasoid" in the generic sense.
As for your accusation about me having agendas, I try to be as objective as possible, though I am only human, as my names says. I never claimed otherwise. I doubt the facts I present, meaning the sources, are in a conspiracy with me.
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on May 17, 2005 11:12:02 GMT -5
www.modernhumanorigins.com/cromagnon1.htmlThis is a Cro Magnon skull. It looks modern and caucasoid to me. Your Predmosti skull is primitive and definitely in the Neanderthal-like direction. The Predmosti skull does not look like an Aborigine skull to me. Aborigines are modern humans not some primitive hominid with Neanderthal-like features. Of course the Predmosti skull is not Neanderthal but it is quite primitive compared to Cro Magnon. By the way Predmosti is in the Czech lands where Gamel-awy lives. I am not Italian. Oh, I naturally doubt all humans, it is my nature, and I am rarely surprised. You are right in that you do try to be objective. I meant no offence.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on May 17, 2005 11:20:07 GMT -5
I know it's in the "Czech lands"... Besides the Abri Cromagnon, all of the Cromagnons in western, southern, and central Europe (AFAIK) were of the type I posted. So, it makes no difference where you come from or which skull I posted.
The Abri Cromagnon, which you just posted, has been described as Eskimo-like. However, it doesn't look "Mongoloid", "Negroid", or "Caucasoid", or any other zoid. It has a combination of features not seen today.
It has wide cheeks (M-like) and a short face (N-like) with a pudgy nose (M/N). The general morphology of the cranial vault actually approaches Africans and Australasians, though there is no prognathism. It's possible that it looked Khoisan, even.
If you are not comfortable with what I say, ask someone else, like Agrippa. I mean I don't get you. Did "Caucasians" just show up one day from Zeus's ass? Why are you so uncomfortable with admitting that people back then didn't look like people now?
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on May 17, 2005 12:49:56 GMT -5
So why did you say this: This is what your countrymen in Italy looked like 30,000 years ago? Who was it meant for? I don't care what those defunct antique humans looked like. I am only interested in today's people and recorded history. Those old bones and fossils are just interesting. Whether caucasoids came out of Zeus' penis is irrelevent to me. Caucasoids and Mongoloids may look different but their genetic histories are connected, afterall living side by side for many centuries if not thousands of years. I am just trying to get you to justify your "there were no caucasoids 35 kya in Europe" statement. They could have existed in Asia at that time.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on May 17, 2005 12:59:33 GMT -5
I was merelt replying to this statement of yours: All the sapien but not modern Humans found in Europe and Asia did not look like primitive Africans of negroid race. Also, you are Italian-speaking, aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on May 18, 2005 2:08:02 GMT -5
I understand Italian, French and German but I for some reason, a type of dyslexia maybe, cannot speak any of them. As far as I know, Italians are caucasoid not negroid or mongoloid.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 18, 2005 6:26:39 GMT -5
When Cromagnon through Taforalt were compared against the panel of 50 recent individuals, 4-5 were closest to the Norse, 6-7 to the Santa Cruz, 2-3 to the Zulu, 2 to the Tolai, and 1 to the Anyang. Qafzeh 6 was most similar to the Santa Cruz, Qafzeh 9 to the Zulu, and Cohuna and Upper Cave 101 to the Tolai. When compared against the 5 modern populations using amount-of-change-corrected distances, only 2 (CroMagnon and Candide 1) were closest to the Norse, and both associations were marginal. 3 others straddled the Norse and one of the other 4 (Mladec with the Zulu, Candide 5 with the Tolai, and Afalou 10 with the Santa Cruz). 4 fell with the Tolai (Kostenki 14, the Oberkassel male, and the 2 Taforalt). 4 fell with the Santa Cruz (Pataud, Oberkassel female, one of the Candide, Afalou 32), and Chancelade and Afalou 9 went strongly with the Anyang. Predmost straddled the Tolai and Santa Cruz, and Afalou 29 was effectively equidistant from all 5. The conclusion, then, is simple: Upper Paleolithic European-area fossils do not show any marked tendency to "look European". www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/hominid_journey/sarich.html
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on May 19, 2005 9:23:12 GMT -5
human2, I have not read your idea of when and where the humans called caucasoids originated. Personally I consider Cro Magnon caucasoid and definitely not mongoloid, negroid or australoid. Thirty five thousand years in not very long in hominid history. And those Cro Magnons are important in race theories for European caucasoids in the creation of the Brunn, Borreby and Alpinid types. They are important in the race pride of some caucasoids with their R1a, R1b and I haplogroups compared with G, J and Eb2. Do you think they are shibboleths without foundation? What do you consider the primitive caucasoids looked like?
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 20, 2005 1:08:30 GMT -5
human2, I have not read your idea of when and where the humans called caucasoids originated. Personally I consider Cro Magnon caucasoid and definitely not mongoloid, negroid or australoid. Thirty five thousand years in not very long in hominid history. And those Cro Magnons are important in race theories for European caucasoids in the creation of the Brunn, Borreby and Alpinid types. They are important in the race pride of some caucasoids with their R1a, R1b and I haplogroups compared with G, J and Eb2. Do you think they are shibboleths without foundation? What do you consider the primitive caucasoids looked like? Who cares if they're importnat for race pride? Thats the reason why racialist site have screwed up anthropology and history. As I've posted earlier a couple of posts ago, Cro-Magnon man, specifically the one human2 posted, show no tendency to look like modern Europeans. Racialist people call them Caucasoid to get around the fact that they cannot find amongst the earliest Cro-Magnons anything resembling modern Europeans.
|
|