|
|
Post by Melnorme on Sept 10, 2004 6:44:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Sept 11, 2004 7:14:50 GMT -5
OK. I'm big enough to admit it: I don't understand. Did these early (non-negroid, non-caucasoid) people with Y-haplogroup E3b evolve into negroids in East Africa, become absorbed by negroid immigrants who came to East Africa, or is the point that no one has enough information to say? Am J Phys Anthropol. 1975 May;42(3):351-69. Related Articles, Links 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. The last sentence refutes Dienekes' argument that their was no biological continuity between modern and early East African populations. It is true that Bantu speaking peoples arrived later, but the area was populated by Nilo-Saharan speaking peoples who populated the area via an earlier migration from the Sahara. And East Africans do cluster with other Africans as we can see here  It should be carefully noted that that blog entry does not reflect the conclusions of those who wrote the paper, those are merely Dienekes own opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Sept 12, 2004 1:29:01 GMT -5
Isn't your opinion that East Africans have been mainly negroid since they became homo sapiens? If so, I don't need you to further clarify it. If you want to challenge the content of the blog entry or W. W. Howells' study, don't let me stand in your way. But for those who have a different opinion, my question was with the last three sentences of D. P.'s blog about the implications of Howells' 1995 study. I wanted to know whether there's enough information there or anywhere else to conclude that this original group became negroid in East Africa mainly through evolution or mainly through mixture with negroid newcomers. It certainly could not have been the later and as per Rightmire's study indicates, there were Negroids there of the Nilotic subtype which is a specialized subtype of the Negroid race. Among the 28 populations used in the Howells database, none were of the Nilotic subtype, so contrary to what Dienekes says Rightmire's study was not refuted by Howells. They used entirely different samples. Because the earliest didn't look like so-called 'true Negroids' it doesn't mean they look 'non-African' especially when these traits were independently evolved in Africa and were not due to mixture from foreign invaders. Bantu Migrations started in 2000 B.C. and the migrants didn't hit the East African Rift Valley until in between 1000 and 500 B.C. so unless someone can prove Negroids didn't exist in this area prior to 1000 B.C. the notion that East Africans became Negroid or more Negroid through the Bantu migrations false and without merit |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 12, 2004 17:16:14 GMT -5
Rightmire's results are rejected by Howells:
"it is fair to say, contra Rightmire, that there seems to be no clear continuity here in late prehistory."
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Sept 16, 2004 15:33:30 GMT -5
Rightmire's results are rejected by Howells: "it is fair to say, contra Rightmire, that there seems to be no clear continuity here in late prehistory." Because Howell's MAY have rejected Rightmire's results does not mean Rightmire's results were wrong, considering the fact they didn't use the same samples. We can just as easily dismiss Howells crania because they lack the morphology to discern wide variation in homogeneous populations. Here is the evidence... Assessment of classification of crania using Fordisc 2.0: Nubian X-Group Test. A. Leathers, J. Edwards, G.J. Armelagos. Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. Fordisc 2.0, a popular forensic anthropology program, claims to classify "an unknown adult crania" based on "known samples" using twenty-one cranial measurements. The known populations are based on WW Howell’s sample that reflects the most common continental racial classification. While the Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," it is clear that Howell was intent on providing known groups that would be distributed among the continental "racial" groups. We tested the accuracy and effectiveness of Fordisc 2.0 using twelve cranial measurements from a homogeneous population from the X-Group period of Sudanese Nubia (350CE-550CE). When the Fordisc program classified the adult X-Group crania, only 51 (57.3%) of 89 individuals were classified within groups from Africa. Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations. Howell’s samples lack the distinct morphology necessary to make Fordisc 2.0 a useful tool for classifying unknown crania.
www.physanth.org/annmeet/aapa2002/ajpa2002.pdf Now using this information and Dienekes' interpretation of Howell's study that he cited, we can infer that X-Group[Ballana] Nubians are a Negroid, Australoid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid people that are just slightly more African morphologically. You see the same logic used in the Howells study Dienekes cited, but just as X-Group Nubians[Ballana] are without a doubt African, so are those prehistoric East Africans. Given the fact that the Howell's database lacks the distinct morphology to discern wide variation in homogeneous populations, no one can come to the conclusion that prehistoric East Africans are morphologically 'non-African'. Since Howell's database crania also make Forsdisc useless in classifying unknown crania, Howell's data DOES NOT refute Rightmire. |
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Sept 16, 2004 17:01:36 GMT -5
Good post, Bass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Sept 17, 2004 16:15:45 GMT -5
I don't have the necessary knowledge to understand the details, but I get a conclusion:
-First Homosapiens were closer to modern negroids than to other modern races.
|
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Sept 18, 2004 15:55:40 GMT -5
Igu, The discussion continues at D. P.'s blog. There, they speak about the validity of Howells' samples, what is a negroid, etc. Said, Thought and Bass have discussions with D. P. Check tomorrow to see if Eve White, Eve Black, and Sybil Dorsett join Bass and his legions to discredit the very idea of phenotypes, to prove the superiority of fordisc 2.0 over DISPOP, etc. Hi, I can't find the discussion, where is it? |
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Sept 18, 2004 16:11:06 GMT -5
Ok I found it, the most ridiculous sentence is :
"The ruse of injecting caucasians into paleolithic Africa is a last ditch effort to avoid the inevitable conclusion that Western Civilization has its base in Black Africa. "
Even if there was a genetic influence of negroids in europeens, it doesn't mean that they brought "civilization"!
They see everything like nordicists!
|
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Sept 18, 2004 17:24:08 GMT -5
Ok I found it, the most ridiculous sentence is : "The ruse of injecting caucasians into paleolithic Africa is a last ditch effort to avoid the inevitable conclusion that Western Civilization has its base in Black Africa. " Even if there was a genetic influence of negroids in europeens, it doesn't mean that they brought "civilization"! They see everything like nordicists! That 'Thought' guy is a flammable freak. He bashes people for using the term 'Negroid' - but he uses his own super-flexible/meaningless 'Black African' label that he applies to any population, at will. |
|
|
|
Post by gbloco on Sept 19, 2004 5:32:05 GMT -5
Mr Bass
The chart you posted is very interesting. What are the axes? Is it an accurate representation of genetic distance?
|
|
