|
|
Post by chatoyer on Sept 15, 2018 0:13:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Sept 15, 2018 21:40:42 GMT -5
"E" originating outside Africa has been proposed in the past. This is a recent argument and would need added validation, which no doubt pro or con will appear in time. But fundamentally, it would make little difference, as regards African foundations. The phenotype of the peoples floating back and forth across Sinai or the Red Sea zone around the time frame proposed would still be people who look more like recent Africans- as skeletal/climatic data indicates. Some can label them "Eurasian" or "Middle Eastern" but they would still be Afrocoid peoples. Diop insisted on the primacy of the phenotype. His data back in the day did not heavily show Africans to be the most phenotypically diverse- but modern data does. Africoid or tropically adapted peoples originating in Africa, or in closely associated migrations in and out of nearby regions, with some long distance migrations, can have narrow noses, wavy hair, light brown skin- etc- or they could have dark skin, broad noses, curly hair etc- they would still be Africoid- all those features are African- one reality, not two. It is just as valid to call said peoples Africoid, (a term that appears in the scientific literature- Keita 1990), or even African, if assorted academics keep insisting on using labels like "basal Eurasian", "Middle Eastern" etc..  Keita on Africoid: "There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual." --Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa" AJPA 83:35-48. 1990 But phenotype would be a secondary matter, and isn't needed to highlight a key weakness - the dearth of ancestral L(s) in question in Asia, which supposedly would be the source of the migrating "Eurasians." What Djehuti said a few years back on Poznikes theory on ES still holds:  Posted elsewhere by Djehuti -Quote:
"According to this paper they're simply stating that it's a possiblity that L3 coalesced in Eurasia before back-migrating to Africa but unless they find evidence of ancestral L3'4 in Asia or/and an archaeological site in Asia Pre-Toba in age that is derived from an African one, then it is just wishful thinking. And of course they propose the same Eurasian origins in regards to a paternal counterpart in this case YAP+ (DE). Though the highest frequency of DE* to date yet is found in Africa." Assorted ES posts 2 yrs ago, go back and forth on this and related items for over 40 pages, including nasty flaming and name-calling back and forth.. Can't really rehash here, but those who feel led to sift thru them, good luck! www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009335;p=35 |
|
