Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: The African Origins of Civilization

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by ThirdTerm View Post
    The birth of the M1 ancestor was in southeastern Asia instead of India and the route followed by the M1 bearers to reach Africa was across the Levant (Marrero et al. 2016). The founder age of M in India (39.70 ± 3.24 ky) is significantly younger than those in southeastern Asia (55.60 ± 2.94 ky). The carriers of the M lineages spread from southeastern Asia, reaching India westwards and near Oceania eastwards. González et al. (2008) previously argued that M1 is a branch that traces a backflow from Asia to Africa. The majority of the M1 lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern African origin (35.2 ± 7.1 ky).
    Hmmm

    1. There is further confirmation that mtDNA-M is of African origin, albeit India has a higher frequency
    2. M1 is older in Africa compared to European and Asia versions
    3. M1 is found right across the African Sahel into SSA areas like Senegal
    4. There are sub-clades of mtDNA-M that surrounds the Indian Ocean including lands off the East African coast. Madagascar and Seychelles come to mind
    5. There are sub-clades of mtDNA-M found in distant populations such as Andaman Islanders, Australians and Madagascans

    XYman did a great breakdown of that study.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Megalophias View Post
    Transfer of useful crops need not involve gene flow - this is obviously true.
    The nature of those events would definitely involve gene flow.

    All the world grows maize, potatoes, cassava, beans, squash, tomatoes, peppers, etc, but we aren't part Native American are we?
    From both the Pacific and Atlantic we have multiple lines evidence proving that Africans have been making those voyages for over 100,000 years now;

    Dr.Nieda Guidon claims that Africans were in Brazil 100,000 years ago. The evidence that fire existed in Brazil 65kya is an indication that man was at the site 65,000 years ago, since researchers found charcoal, which is the result of fire making.
    The New York Times, reported that humans were Brazil 100,000 years ago .

    If you would see the New York Times video you would noted that Dr.Nieda Guidon supports her dating of human population in Brazil 100,000 years ago to ancient fire and tool making.

    Look at the New York Times video: Human’s First Appearance in the Americas
    @:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/wo...s.html?hp&_r=4

    and

    HLA in Uros from Peru Titikaka Lake: Tiwanaku, Easter and Pacific Islanders.
    Hum Immunol. 2018 Nov 13.

    "Uros people live in floating reed islands in Titikaka Lake in front of Puno town (Peru). They could have started Tiwanaku culture and shared genes and culture with Pacific Islanders; it is particularly relevant the giant hat covered men statues found in both Tiwanaku at Titikaka Lake shore and Easter Island (3700 km far from Chile in Pacific Ocean). These giants monoliths are very similar one another and unique in America and Pacific Islands. The following HLA alleles are shared in a specifically high frequency between Uros and Pacific Islanders : HLA-A*24:02, HLA-B*35:05, HLA-B*48:01, HLA-DRB1*04:03, HLA-DRB1*08:02 and HLA-DRB1*09:01. Uros also have 3 unique HLA haplotypes: A*24:02-B*15:04 - DRB1*14:02-DQB1*03:01, A*68:01:02-B*35:05-DRB1*04:03-DQB1*03:02, A*24:02-B*48:01-DRB1*04:03-DQB1*03:02. Also Uros seem to be one of the most ancient population in Titikaka Lake that could have started Tiwanaku culture. Prehistoric contacts between Amerindians and Pacific Islanders are strongly suggested by genetic and cultural traits. It is not discarded that Uros could have come from Pacific Islands: Uros show melanic skin and are dolichocephalic; in contrast, surrounding Aymara people have a clear skin and are brachicephalic. The Kon-Tiki project led by Thor Heyerdahl showed that a simple sailing is possible between Peru and Polynesia Islands; also, the most ancient skull found in America is of black origin: Luzia, suggesting that first America peopling was also carried out by Black/coloured people."

    There are of course other cases where crops did arrive with substantial migration. From what we have (modern DNA only) there's no evidence of significant gene flow from East Africa to India so early; there could be into Arabia, it's hard to tell.
    Well with genetics being the baby of all of the scientific disciplines it probably just has to catch up with what has been revealed through the other lines of evidence.

    You also brought up sickle cell trait - this is strongly selected for (up to a certain level) where there's endemic falciparum malaria, and strongly selected against when there isn't, which means it's in all respects a terrible choice of ancestral marker.
    No not at all. The frequency of sickle cell appears in all areas where Niger-Congo speakers have or had a substantial presence.



    Given that we now know that sickle cell originated in Sudan, this migration that was attributed to so called "Afro-Asiatic speakers" also involved so called "Niger-Congo" speakers;






    or is there another group that correlates with it's distribution better?





    The archaeological links between Nubia and Egypt, and the possible Egyptian origin of writing, are perfectly good topics, you choosing 20 and 40 year old newspaper articles as references does not exactly suggest you are serious about it but that's not my problem.
    You seem to be implying that you have more current sources that overturn those older conclusions. Care to share them? If not then you should not criticize the mere age of my sources.

    Likewise physical anthropology is a valid field (though difficult to interpret) and comparing the results of those studies with ancient DNA would be interesting, if you actually wanted to have a real discussion.
    Those discussions are always fun.

    But I guess instead we will discuss how Dravidian speakers are really African.
    I guarantee that none of you all will have any sort of serious rebuttal to any other disciplines including linguistics, anthropology, nor archaeology that all suffice in proving a relationship between Dravidian speakers and Africans. For that reason you all have a stern fixation on genetics (the baby of the disciplines). When it comes to common sense observations;




    you will come with the most ridiculous naysaying. You're claiming that there is no connection between the Afro - Dravidians confederations who created the Indus Valley civilization, and the Nile Valley civilization, and the correlation between the divine serpent (which only deals with melaninated people) observed in both civilizations (among many more things). Traditional wrestling in the Indus Valley is literally called Kushti (Nubia), and to anyone who knows Nile Valley culture, that style of wrestling seen in both regions today originated in Kush.





    South Sudan


    India

    PS on the linguistic side you are posting some isolated fringe views,


    It doesn't work like that. In a proven to be racist society, that uses the science of the day to reinforce their racist perceptions of reality.



    There is often a blinding of reality based on that racism, and for that reason that which is considered "fringe" in it's introduction stage;



    is often times validated in hindsight.

    who would be able to meaningfully discuss and judge things like the Niger-Congoness of Minoan. It's an extreme minority view so we have no reason to accept it, sorry.
    Having a minority opinion among historically racist institutions is not an insult.
    Last edited by Asante; 02-08-2019 at 10:22 PM.

  3. #33
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,394
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Anglo
    Nationality
    Canadian

    There we go. In the end, no matter what, if it doesn't appeal to you, it's a product of historical racism. What can stand against that?

    Well, this sure has been a waste of time.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Megalophias For This Useful Post:

     FrostAssassin0701 (02-08-2019),  jonahst (02-08-2019),  Moe12 (04-06-2019),  Power77 (02-08-2019)

  5. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Megalophias View Post
    There we go. In the end, no matter what, if it doesn't appeal to you, it's a product of historical racism. What can stand against that?

    Well, this sure has been a waste of time.
    If it's a racist lying society (proof provided) that likes to reinforce that type of junk science then it is what it is. I have to call it....I'd have to be playing a game if I was to have this conversation, and pretend that white supremacist notions are not the big elephant in the room. If I have to compromise the truth for you to have a shot in a debate then it's not really debate, it is again a game. You want to know how crazy Westerners are when it comes to this game....



    Listen to what he says at 1:40 seconds. This is the man along with Dr. C.A. Diop who wiped the floor with the racist Westernized Egyptologist in UNESCO 1974. To this date this African professor and his African students who pick up his work, dismantle every linguistic lie that Westerners have established as the face of Africa. His views were directly challenged by Western linguistic (Christopher Ehret) back in the 90's, and Ehret had to concede that Obenga's African linguistic grouping is indeed valid;



    (His student's more recent work);



    while at the same time continuing to parrot the same Western junk categorizations (which includes the notion of an "Afro-Asiatic language") that were just debunked. Games like that are apart of these debates, and they only come from one side (and it's not ours). The list goes on and on and on and on.
    Last edited by Asante; 02-08-2019 at 03:04 AM.

  6. #35
    Registered Users
    Posts
    131
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Kerala Syrian Christian
    Nationality
    Canadian
    Y-DNA
    L1a1b3a1a1
    mtDNA
    M6

    Quote Originally Posted by Asante View Post
    Actually the Dravidian population of Pakistan known as the Brahui is likely the relic of the ancient Dravidians who took the fertile crescent route (rather than the ones who took the Indian Ocean route from Nubia) from Africa into the Indus Valley, and they have been found to be genetically closely related to those M1 mtdna carrying Pakistani neighbors.



    These Pakistani Dravidians are closely related genetically to other Pakistanis like the Makranis who were found to carry the M1 maternal lineage than they are with the Dravidian speaking populations of South India. We know that the African M1 lineage in the closely related Makranis is likely the result of an earlier African expansion as indicated by the path of the M1 lineage found from Senegal, the African Sahel, the Levant, Pakistan, Tibet, Russia etc.

    This coupled with a plethora of cultural, linguistic, and archaeological evidence makes for a compelling argument of their African argument;
    Unfortunately, you have not properly read my argument. The Brahui - Dravidian connection has indeed been used as evidence for a Dravidian speaking Indus Valley Civilization but is ultimately irrelevant. The relations between Makranis and Brahuis is irrelevant until you can prove that M1 is present in unadmixed Dravidian populations. Until then, the genetic evidence for this claim is non-existent.


    The interesting thing about this debate, you all have no argument against any of the other scientific disciplines iinguistic, cultural, archaeological, anthropological, and because you don't have an argument against them and their narrative you say that they aren't important. Conversely genetics and geneticist (especially Westerners) have finally been called out for politicizing through racializations the very field that you think was inspired by God. The only thing that you all can do to naysay is twist around and play with one single scientific discipline as though it is somehow been rendered as the only thing that matters, and that's a game that I'm not playing.
    I am not an expert in any of those languages to really adjudicate your claims; but Megalophias states, this grab bag mix of evidence seems to be full of fringe theories not accepted by the linguistic mainstream which means it is unlikely to admissible as evidence here. Your remaining evidence appears to be about commonalities in West Eurasian cultures which has indeed been commented upon by academics.

     

    The paper linked has some discussion about "the elemental association of the reed with the primćval shrine [that] was an early component of the Neolithic bull and shrine complex which spread with agriculture across a longitudinal tract identified by Jared Diamond as the ‘Eurasian Mediterranean Zone,’ stretching from Egypt and North Africa in the west, through the Near East, to north-western India in the east" and also going further to include some populations in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Dravidian Toda tribe with the Neolithic bull and shrine complex tradition. Moreover, the importance of the bull can seen in the Tamil bull baiting practice of jallikattu while IVC seals have been found depicting bull-baiting.


    Although I cannot claim to be an expert on such matters such that members more knowledgeable on the Near East specifically, but genetically speaking the unifying factor between these factors in the Near East and South Asia may be the Y haplogroup J (found in high frequency in the Dravidian Toda tribe) and Iran Neolithic (although it would be prudent to be cautious due the fact that such traditions can be spread culturally and not genetically). That being said resolving the origins of these traditions and say the location of the Afro-Asiatic urheimat are all interesting questions with multiple compelling theories that are more worthy as a subject conversation. Unfortunately, they are irrelevant to the present question of whether Dravidians are Africans as the genetic evidence, for that fact, is non-existent which we have previously discussed. This is the primary fact from genetics that moreover supersedes any physical anthropological sources you have cited EDIT: for any ancestry related questions (if you claim that these facts have been unduly influenced by institutional racism in which case you may not really belong to this forum). Moreover, as discussed earlier, many of the non-spurious commonalities discussed can be more parsimoniously explained by Iran_N influences for Dravidians at least or at the minimum proximal Near Eastern influence without any genetic influence from Africa.

    If you cannot find any genetic evidence (as we have found none so far), I am afraid you have failed to produce any compelling evidence for your claim.
    Last edited by traject; 02-08-2019 at 03:34 AM.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to traject For This Useful Post:

     Power77 (02-08-2019)

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by traject View Post
    Unfortunately, you have not properly read my argument. The Brahui - Dravidian connection has indeed been used as evidence for a Dravidian speaking Indus Valley Civilization but is ultimately irrelevant. The relations between Makranis and Brahuis is irrelevant until you can prove that M1 is present in unadmixed Dravidian populations. Until then, the genetic evidence for this claim is non-existent.
    I'm not sure why it would be irrelevant when M1 does not necessarily define the neighboring Pakistani populations (whom the Dravidians were found to be almost indistinguishable from), but they were found to have it. M1 has simply been noted to have a been found along a clear migratory path from West Africa with ties to modern "Sub Saharan African" - Sahelian populations into far east Eurasia. The presence of that African haplogroup is proof of Africans migrating into that region (formerly the Indus Valley). The lack of M1 in any other Indian populations with the exception of it's recent discovery in the Makrani community that is closely related to that subset of Dravidians in Pakistan (whom many believe of remnants of the most ancient Dravidian stronghold of the region), makes your request for it's presence in an unmixed Dravidian population is uncalled for.

    I am not an expert in any of those languages to really adjudicate your claims; but Megalophias states, this grab bag mix of evidence seems to be full of fringe theories not accepted by the linguistic mainstream
    A narrative informed by corresponding lines of evidence ranging from linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, and now genetics should be called "sound", not "grab bag". As far as your claims of my lines of evidence being fringe, again the context of Western society's narrative of history is not your friend! The institutions from the West that colonized not only the World, but World history are proven liars with white supremacist agendas. The Western narrative of history is built on nothing but European fantasy land, and a blatant suppression of black history and black identities. In many if not most cases however the typical Western narrative of history deceives through omission of pivotal facts, and horrifically false implications. Let me know if you need evidence of this.

    which means it is unlikely to admissible as evidence here. Your remaining evidence appears to be about commonalities in West Eurasian cultures which has indeed been commented upon by academics.
    Thanks for acknowledging that it's not only Clyde Winters who points out such obvious cultural/linguistic overlapping between the continental groups.

    Unfortunately, they are irrelevant to the present question of whether Dravidians are Africans as the genetic evidence, for that fact, is non-existent which we have previously discussed. This is the primary fact from genetics that moreover supersedes any physical anthropological sources you have cited EDIT:
    In order for genetic evidence to "supercede" what all other lines of evidence have implicated there has to be direct genetic comparisons. There have been not outright genetic comparisons between Africans and Dravidians to my knowledge. The referenced study gives us speculative evidence based on the close genetic relationship of Pakistani Dravidians and their more recent neighbors, and the presence of M1 in that neighboring populations. If those Brahuis were tested in that study then they likely (based on the relatedness of to their neighboring communities) been found with that African M1 lineage that is found along that ancient migratory path described. Keep in mind that the Brahuis of Pakistan are considered one of if the most ancient Dravidian groups in the Sub-Continental region.

    for any ancestry related questions (if you claim that these facts have been unduly influenced by institutional racism in which case you may not really belong to this forum).
    That's a little high strong! "If you point out the historical context of racial biased that could very well still be in place today (see below) then you are not playing our game"

    Why White Supremacists Are Chugging Milk (and Why Geneticists Are Alarmed)
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/white-supremacists-science-dna.html


    It's very clear that many Europeans who appear to be interested in genetics are really trying to validate white supremacist notions "in a modern way". It's an age of old game.


    Do you want to see modern examples of "inherent Western biased" (I want say "racist") being blatantly called out again by actual geneticist of color? Institutional racism is a factor in this field rather you like admit it or not. If you need examples where this has been pointed out again just let me know. You want to believe that these conclusions are borne entirely out of scientific objectivity when we all know that that's not always the truth.

    If you cannot find any genetic evidence (as we have found none so far), I am afraid you have failed to produce any compelling evidence for your claim.
    Incorrect!



    At his Cambridge lecture, SOY Keita explains with the first two minutes why the different lines of evidence are important, and one alone (including genetic evidence) will not give you the answer to these questions.
    Last edited by Asante; 02-09-2019 at 10:48 PM.

  9. #37
    Registered Users
    Posts
    220
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    TBT

    Lebanon
    Funny how everything is clearly being copied and pasted from a huge source. I can think of many sites. Apparently Natufians were the same thing as modern West Africans because they carried haplogroup E, which unites them 65,000 years ago with the same paternal ancestor. Makes sense!

  10. #38
    Junior Member
    Posts
    7
    Sex
    Location
    India
    Ethnicity
    Tamil Yadav
    Nationality
    Indian

    India China Hong Kong
    This guy says Indo-European language and Dravidians are originated in Africa[lmao] . Why anyone in the world would take him serious? Afro-centrists are cancer.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to avvaiyar For This Useful Post:

     aaronbee2010 (06-03-2019),  Targum (07-19-2019)

  12. #39
    Proto-Dravidians living in Africa at one point is not far-fetched. People move around. No one is saying they are racially the same as the various SSA groups today but that they once lived in Africa. As the OP mentioned, they themselves claim Africa.

  13. #40
    Registered Users
    Posts
    22
    Sex

    They have no genetic connections to Africa that isn't shared with the rest of the global population. They are genetically nearer to Far Easterners.

    There is nothing more important than genetics when determining objective identity.
    Last edited by Adules; 07-18-2019 at 10:14 PM.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. Who built the Indus Valley Civilization?
    By noman in forum Southern
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-08-2018, 04:55 AM
  2. Anybody has some knowledge about the Varna civilization?
    By Shadogowah in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-11-2016, 02:37 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-18-2016, 06:28 PM
  4. Surprising Discoveries From the Indus Civilization
    By Jean M in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-23-2013, 12:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •