tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post374347404888537842..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Armed conflict in the Sahara, ~13 thousand years agoDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47156624075773382522015-03-24T01:02:56.970+02:002015-03-24T01:02:56.970+02:00It's hard to tell what the oldest aurignacian ...It's hard to tell what the oldest aurignacian is, especially with recalibrated scales. A site north of switzerland was recently claimed to be the oldest, but some iberian cave art that could be aurignacian was dated to over 50k years ago.<br /><br />Asfor coming out of balkans I really doubt that's the case and don't remember that claim before now. That means it spread rapidly west but only very slowly east which is possible but seems unlikely. North africa is even more on the periphery.<br /><br />The obvious is that it indeed radiates out from between france and spain. Unless some much earlier dates on significant sites show up elsewhere that almost has to be the case.Fiend of 9 worldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17712083368615685458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-44963098634572462572014-08-18T22:41:08.689+03:002014-08-18T22:41:08.689+03:00@Dr. Rob
I have published an article on the Westw...@Dr. Rob<br /><br />I have published an article on the Westward entry of the Aurignacian into Western Eurasian. Check it out:<br /><br />Winters, C. (2014). Were the First Europeans Pale or Dark Skinned? Advances in Anthropology, 4,<br />124-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aa.2014.43016Winters, C. (2014). Were the First Europeans Pale or Dark Skinned? Advances in Anthropology, 4,<br />124-132. <br /><br />http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aa.2014.43016<br /><br />.Dr. Clyde Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153945762719431061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15919845096396623732014-08-16T05:21:07.546+03:002014-08-16T05:21:07.546+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-50370570385923711352014-08-11T02:52:55.134+03:002014-08-11T02:52:55.134+03:00“Dr.” Rob you said “ your arguments are based on s...“Dr.” Rob you said “ your arguments are based on selective evidence, ignoring concensus, and what evidence you do present is weak, tangential or (often in your case) non-existent”. This is false. I support my propositions with evidence—references.<br /><br />“Dr.” Rob you continue to claim that the Aurignacian civilization probably began in Southeast Europe and spread to Iberia. You are the one basing your claims “on selective evidence”, while I admit there are early dates for SouthEastern European sites you never admit that these dates are controversial because researchers don’t know if the tools were used at these sites by AMH or Neanderthals. The firm dates for Aurignacian at Eastern European sites like Bachokirian and Temnata are only for 39kya. <br /><br />You claim my evidence is “non-existent” ,this is false, I have already cited papers that note the earliest radiocarbon dates for Aurignacian sites in Iberia . The oldest Aurignacian remains come from Iberia/Spain. These sites vary in age from 41kya for the l'Arbreda Cave, and 43kya for Abric Romani, located in Catalonia, Spain.<br /><br />You maintain that the first AMH are believed to have entered Europe from the Southeast pobably the Levant. Yet, the first Aurignacians in the Levant date back only to 36-34kya from Ksar Akil. This is around 10,000 years later than the Iberian sites.<br /><br /> You have failed to explain where the AMH came from to found the Bachokirian and Temnata sites if they were not living in the Levant.<br /><br />In summary, “Dr” Rob you claim an <br />SouthEastern European origin for Aurignacian civilization, but the archaeological evidence and radiocarbon dates supports a Iberian origin for Augrignacian culture.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Dr. Clyde Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153945762719431061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8046606664468270962014-08-10T11:39:58.781+03:002014-08-10T11:39:58.781+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28132891196030323272014-08-10T05:01:43.062+03:002014-08-10T05:01:43.062+03:00Clyde. The evidence is all there. Its called radio...Clyde. The evidence is all there. Its called radiocarbon dating and typological analysis. But its not for me to convince you, as I don't really care what you believe, because the weight of evidence and consensus is overwhelmingly in support of a SE Europe to western Europe spread;. You're arguments are "not even wrong" because they rely on empty, non-existent evidence. <br /><br />Sure, consensus can change, and nothing is 'bible'. We all know that. But I won't hold my breath for you to 'prove' your arguement, because the evidence for it is non-existent. So as I said, your 'interesting" theories certainly have a role to play - in highlighting what pseudo-science and distorted ethnocentrism can conjure ! <br />Kind RegardsRobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24352193785360523382014-08-09T03:14:37.931+03:002014-08-09T03:14:37.931+03:00@ Dr Rob
I never said the Basque were descendants ...@ Dr Rob<br />I never said the Basque were descendants of the Berbers. Where did you get this idea from?<br /><br />In your post you make it appear as if "ignoring concensus" is a terrible thing to do. Just because there is "concensus" on an issue does not make a proposition correct. You claim that I have made" hair-brained theories", this is false. I have presented abundant evidence in support of my claim from responsible archaeologists conducting research on the Aurignacian culture highligthening an Iberian--not Eastern European origin for this culture--which you have failed to falsify, and yet you make it appear that I have made up archaeological evidence.<br /><br />Instead of making claims based on "concensus views" you should present counter evidence to falsify my confirmation of the spread of Aurignacian from Iberia to the Levant. If the evidence fits a particular hypothesis it is reliable and valid until the hypothesis is disconfirmed. Science is not based on "concensus". Science is based on hypothesis testing and argument. You don't just base your claim on "concensus", you present counter evidence to falsify or disconfirm the hypothesis you find invalid.Dr. Clyde Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153945762719431061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-42890976931597993132014-07-31T07:55:16.807+03:002014-07-31T07:55:16.807+03:00Thanks for the link akb. It'll take me a whil...Thanks for the link akb. It'll take me a while to get through it. <br /><br />"there is significant F* that could be further resolved as well as M9*..." <br /><br />That's my first impression. Therefore probably T which has been found reasonably common in northeast Africa, especially the Horn.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-1924119267922077812014-07-31T06:36:33.563+03:002014-07-31T06:36:33.563+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36437219632525686562014-07-31T03:30:06.576+03:002014-07-31T03:30:06.576+03:00@ Terryt. Yes the Nomenclature is old because the...@ Terryt. Yes the Nomenclature is old because the samples are old. It still retains some good resolution though in refernce to Y-chromosome.<br /><br />http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/11443/1/Hirbo_umd_0117E_11892.pdf<br /><br />I would HIGHLY suggest reading it all but Page 86 is what you are looking for. There are more details and distribution maps throughout. I quickly glanced at it, there is significant F* that could be further resolved as well as M9*...and this is with M70 resolution. There is J*(xJ1,J2), Significant E-M293. Significant Pn2* which is likely part E-M329. New dates for E-V32 as well as an E-V32 subclade.<br /><br />The Sahel Data is closed access. But here:<br />http://ethiohelix.blogspot.com/2013/03/african-sahel-ydna.html<br /><br />@Dr Rob.<br />The dates as of last year have been somewhat re-calibrated. You can search for this quote and get the just of it :<br /><br />"collagen and four skeletons from across the site were selected for bone, enamel and dentine apatite radiocarbon dating (9 samples). The results suggest that the cemetery is at least 11,600 years old, confirming this burial site belongs to the Epipaleolithic and the Qadan culture."<br /><br />The sensationalism in the article regarding race war is ridiculous. Mainly because they bring up limb proportion when Sudanese and their neighbors both have limb proportions that indicate long term presence in Africa. These proportions dont have to overlap as there is variability in different groups - See:<br />"Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample"astenbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11139602696907365942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5117836832981008102014-07-30T06:27:38.513+03:002014-07-30T06:27:38.513+03:00"The Hirbo paper has higher resolution than t..."The Hirbo paper has higher resolution than the one of the Sahel". <br /><br />Do you have a link to the paper? <br /><br />"The are also some surprising K lineages...from memory i believe K1 and K2....." <br /><br />That appears to be a very dated nomenclature. As far as I'm aware all the old K2, found in Africa as well as other places, has now been reclassified as T, and probably originated in India. Until recently K1, K2 and K3 were all 'eastern' haplogroups. And we now have an even more refined phylogeny terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13448246191426348012014-07-30T01:47:37.052+03:002014-07-30T01:47:37.052+03:00@ Dr Rob who said
"Another case in point, y...@ Dr Rob who said<br /><br /><br />"Another case in point, your theories on the spread of Aurignacian from Northern Africa to Iberia, then the rest of Europe https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7785493&postID=799559564272638688&isPopup=true are bizarre and contrary to any credible scientific theories. <br /><br />Nothing personal, I am merely highlighting some of the 'way out in left field' theories and personal agendas which some contributors appear to harbour."<br /> <br />This is not contrary to the credible archaeological evidence which make it clear that the Aurugnacian culture expanded west to east. In support of my proposition I wrote:<br /><br />" This is false the earliest sites for Aurignacian are found in Spain. The radio carbon dates for Bugalria, i.e., the Kozarnika Cave, date back to 39-36kya. <br /><br />Earlier researchers claimed that the artifactual material found at the Bacho Kiro cave, dating to 46kya was Aurignacian, but the remains that consist of a pair of fragmented human jaws, is disputed and researchers don’t know whether these were early humans Homo sapiens or Neanderthals.<br /><br />The first Aurignacians in the Levant date back to 36-34kya from Ksar Akil.<br /><br />The oldest Aurignacian remains come from Iberia/Spain. These sites vary in age from 41kya for the l'Arbreda Cave, and 43kya for Abric Romani, located in Catalonia, Spain.<br /><br />The dates for the Aurignacian in Europe make it clear this culture spread from west to east. You can also recognize that Aurignacian appears not to have reached the Levant, until 11ky after it was established in Spain.<br /><br />These dates for sites where amh were found in Western Europe make it impossible for claims of U6, M1 and etc., originating prior to 32kya in the Levant and entering Africa via a back migration 40kya.<br /><br />For more information on the Aurignacian culture see:<br /><br />Demidenko Y.E., Otte M. & Noiret P. (dir.) - Siuren i rock-shelter. From Late Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic to Epi-Paleolithic in Crimea. Liège, ERAUL 129, 2012, p. 343-357.<br /><br />http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/2268/135222/1/Chapter%2018%20Europe%20Aurignacian.pdf "<br /><br />I supported my statement with the "credible scientific evidence" you claim I lack. If I am wrong why don't you present evidence that Aurignacian entered western Eurasia from the east.<br /><br />There is no evidence to counter the archaeological evidence so your comments are groundless.<br /><br />Dr. Clyde Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153945762719431061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88686599853617493622014-07-29T08:51:44.179+03:002014-07-29T08:51:44.179+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-37291020050272715262014-07-29T01:42:21.431+03:002014-07-29T01:42:21.431+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82506565800995835972014-07-28T06:02:52.372+03:002014-07-28T06:02:52.372+03:00This article illustrates some of the haxards of &q...This article illustrates some of the haxards of "pop science" as dispensed to the public. Their is no evidence of an invasion by a technologically more advanced 'race'. For one thing, the first evidence of archery is from southern Africa, so it is unlikely that supposed 'invaders' from the north would have had an edge on the local people. (Nubia was known to the Egyptians as 'the Land of the Bow'.)<br /><br />Moreover, historically, most violence has been intragroup rather than intergroup. In California, for instance, most 'wars' took place between factions of the same tribe. International wars are fairly new in human history.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06029565423493357259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34430967383258430732014-07-27T07:00:45.271+03:002014-07-27T07:00:45.271+03:00@ Dr. Clyde Winters:
Note that your reference da...@ Dr. Clyde Winters: <br /><br />Note that your reference dates from 1968, and contradicts itself: <br /><br />"D.J. Laubenfels, in Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. (Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50) said the Australians were negroes". <br /><br />And then: <br /><br />"Laubenfels, explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair . Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair". <br /><br />On that basis Australian Aborigines are certainly not 'Negroes', although Tasmanians and Papuans/Melanesians may be. But even with this last group most would have little difficulty distinguishing between them and Africans in spite of both groups having dark skin and woolly hair. Their facial features are very different. <br /><br />"Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges". <br /><br />Showing once more that Australian Aborigines are very different from African Negroes. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85842707705021566832014-07-27T02:57:44.498+03:002014-07-27T02:57:44.498+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43668144213592666252014-07-26T22:45:19.433+03:002014-07-26T22:45:19.433+03:00@ Terryt. Regarding the F*. Both studies show F*...@ Terryt. Regarding the F*. Both studies show F*. The Hirbo paper has higher resolution than the one of the Sahel. Are they really F*? Who knows. Now at least you know the possibility exists. <br /><br />Knowing the diversity and what we should expect in reference to very old, rare or "extinct" lineages (Think A00 in West Africa) I would not be surprised to hit upon some rare lineages like M89* or even an elusive M168* somewhere along the rift valley and Nile Valley corridors, considering the extensive samples that are in the publication. The are also some surprising K lineages...from memory i believe K1 and K2.....A wider range of M123, a wider range and higher frequency of V22 in Nilotic speakers... a few M78*'s, some V12* in Sub Saharans etc. A bunch of surprises in that paper.astenbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06946446840115831804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33144300803886578002014-07-26T05:23:54.242+03:002014-07-26T05:23:54.242+03:00"which are the more recent "race wars&qu..."which are the more recent "race wars" in history?" <br /><br />Israel/Palestine? <br /><br />"Terry T. There are F* representatives in East Africa and the Sahel". <br /><br />Are they F* or just unresolved F-derived haplogroups? <br /><br />"what we must consider is that many haplogroups had already spread across Africa before the various OoA events". <br /><br />For sure. But they were members of A and B. And really in effect CT is just a branch of B. <br /><br />"We must move away from the idea that all Africans look alike". <br /><br />I most certainly have never claimed that 'all Africans look alike'. For a start we have a huge difference between Khoi-San (or whatever you choose to call the southern Africans) and West Africans. And even during my short visit to West Africa I could generally distinguish between Wolof and Mandinke, for example. That is much more than I can do for French and English. <br /><br />"A good example are the negrito (negro pygmy)populations that formerly existed in the Americas and Eurasia" <br /><br />'Negritos' in America? Even the people classed as Negrito in SE Asia are now shown to be completely different groups. They are 'phenotypically identical with the pygmy groups of Central Africa' through environmental adaptation, not common ancestry. <br /><br />"according to the oral tradition of Niger Congo speakers formerly occupied all of West Africa". <br /><br />I would expect them to be virtually confined to the rainforest regions. <br /><br />"How can we explain the presence of pygmy populations on three continents unless we see their migration as the result of population movements out of Africa to other parts of the world. Moreover, no one can deny the evidence of the reconstruction of the first Americans and Europeans who appear to resemble Khoisan people". <br /><br />Now it is you who ' must move away from the idea that all Africans look alike'. Khoisan are not Pygmies. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-76639352345358800432014-07-26T04:52:56.006+03:002014-07-26T04:52:56.006+03:00@ Dr Rob
said...
"Further to Terry T's...@ Dr Rob <br /> said...<br />"Further to Terry T's remarks viz-a-viz Dr Clyde, not only is Dr Clyde's interpretation of the genetic evidence questionable, but even by 19th century racialist physical anthropology standards, his statements are incorrect. Australian Aborigines are not considered "Negroid", but were thought a distinct "Australioid race". His subsequent dispersion story (like others of his tid-bits on other topics) often sound more like 'folk tales' than credible scientific theory.<br /> <br />You don’t know what you’re talking about. D.J. Laubenfels, in Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. (Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50) said the Australians were negroes. Laubenfels, explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair . Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges .<br /><br />Dr. Clyde Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153945762719431061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47426450842921839742014-07-23T12:35:42.174+03:002014-07-23T12:35:42.174+03:00The primary difficulty with assessing this 'ra...The primary difficulty with assessing this 'race war' theory or the rather more plausible sounding climate change theory (discussed by Renee Friedman on the British Museum blog) is that the evidence of the date of Jebel Sahaba is minimal. There is only a single radiocarbon date, from which the 13,000 BP date in the articles come. Recent apatite radiocarbon dates (an alternative to collagen) range from 11,600-7200 BP, with the dates from bones (11-10,000 BP) being thought to be more reliable than those from teeth. <br />In any case, this hardly suggests that a short-lived event of any kind was responsible for this cemetery. I have suggested that this may be a special-purpose cemetery for those who died unexpectedly in some way, e.g. violently. Until we have evidence of other contemporary cemeteries it is very difficult to say how unusual this site is.Nick Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03936982799680681315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30310410709431799992014-07-22T03:21:12.350+03:002014-07-22T03:21:12.350+03:00Dienekes,if this one waw the oldest, which are the...Dienekes,if this one waw the oldest, which are the more recent "race wars" in history?ZAKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06467121668142981308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5492490208832194962014-07-20T18:54:45.561+03:002014-07-20T18:54:45.561+03:00@Unknown
The premise of the whole paper lacks any...<br /><br />@Unknown<br /><br />The premise of the whole paper lacks any foundation.The archaeological evidence indicates that the populations in the Levant and Sahara at this time were identical.<br /><br />Trenton W. Holliday,in "Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) [2000], tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa , "tropically adapted hominids" would be<br />represented in the archaeological history of theLavant,especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area.<br /><br />Holliday confirmed his hypothesis that the replacement of the Neanderthal people were Sub-Saharan Africans. This shows that there were no European types in the Middle East Between 20,000-4,000BP. Moreover, we clearly see the continuity between African culture from Nubia to the Levant. <br /><br /><br /><br />Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/538#ixzz381YiY7GQ<br /><br /><br />Trenton W. Holliday,in "Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) [2000], tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa , "tropically adapted hominids" would be<br />represented in the archaeological history of theLavant,especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area.<br /><br />Holliday confirmed his hypothesis that the replacement of the Neanderthal people were Sub-Saharan Africans. This shows that there were no European types in the Middle East Between 20,000-4,000BP. Moreover, we clearly see the continuity between African culture from Nubia to the Levant. <br /><br />Dr. Clyde Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153945762719431061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-81808456807115780062014-07-20T17:58:09.928+03:002014-07-20T17:58:09.928+03:00terryt said
" It's possible DE and CT l... terryt said<br /><br />" It's possible DE and CT left separately but to me even that seems unlikely. DE certainly left but E may have formed from members of DE that either returned of had never left in the first place. It's possible DE and CT left separately but to me even that seems unlikely. DE certainly left but E may have formed from members of DE that either returned of had never left in the first place. "<br /><br />I agree. But what we must consider is that many haplogroups had already spread across Africa before the various OoA events.<br /><br />We must move away from the idea that all Africans look alike. The craniometrics and dated skeletal remains of African populations show many similarities but they also represent different populations e.g., pgymies vs Khoisan vs Bantu and etc. A good example are the negrito (negro pygmy)populations that formerly existed in the Americas and Eurasia, these pygmy groups were phenotypically identical with the pygmy groups of Central Africa, who according to the oral tradition of Niger Congo speakers formerly occupied all of West Africa. How can we explain the presence of pygmy populations on three continents unless we see their migration as the result of population movements out of Africa to other parts of the world. Moreover, no one can deny the evidence of the reconstruction of the first Americans and Europeans who appear to resemble Khoisan people.Dr. Clyde Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153945762719431061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90111518203160694082014-07-20T13:10:10.909+03:002014-07-20T13:10:10.909+03:00@ Terry T. There are F* representatives in East Af...@ Terry T. There are F* representatives in East Africa and the Sahel. I believe the Hirbo had a few in East Africa and the Latest study on Pastoral/Farmer Y-chrom in the Sahel had a few representatives of F*astenbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11139602696907365942noreply@blogger.com