# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  Sumerians and Native Americans could be related?

## XipeTotek

i see on the web, sumerian and turkic languages have so many similar words

and in the science siberian turkic peoples and native americans are related with q hablogroup (have so many similarities about languages, cultures, life style, grammar and also words)

i did look at about the ziggurats and mayan pyramides are looking similar to me.

if thats all real, sumerian/turkic/native american peoples could be same ancestor(q hablogroup) and they languages are come from common language?

and there is one theory about lost continent mu on the pacific ocean sumerians/mayans have a myth like that ; flood myth

i think sumerians/turkic/native americans come from same ancestors and language






Sumerian - Turkic similar words.

9ec92bf44c5bf5f0da4a92738f6b71a8.png


5d84ab9377d99b795eb06788c1c1c5fb.png

bc57588e29a7bd91286f374793550dfc.png

you can see sumerian words and language from that pages ;

http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/...Dictionary.pdf

http://history-world.org/sumerianwords2.htm

----------


## Ygorcs

I really doubt the supposed Sumerian-Turkic cognates are more than random coincidences and wishful thinking. Even if such connection existed, it would've been so, so long ago (considering that the first Sumerian texts are from as early as ~3,000 BC, and it was already a completely distinct and unique language by then) that any directly similar words would be not only extremely rare and unlikely, but also probably an indication that there is nothing but random coincidence, because languages that are really connected on a very distant scale - say, 8,000 years ago - have gone through such profound phonetic and morphological changes that true cognates will never be that obvious that they can be identified by sheer similarity between two words of so distantly related languages. 

Also, the Q haplogroup - we don't even know if Sumerians had any appreciable amount of this haplogroup, but honestly I wouldn't bet on it - is at least 17,000 years ago, more probably before 20,000 years ago. It is extremely unlikely, almost 0% chance, that two languages connected just because they share the same haplogroup Q would've still look similar several milennia later (what specific clades of Q by the way, how are those clades related to each other? Do we know that? Native Americans, according to genetic studies, were already separated from other Northeast Asians at least 18,000 years ago in Beringia, and by 15,000 years ago had migrated to Americas with no ticket back home). 

Finally, I honestly think it is extremely misguided to derive a whole hypothesis about common source by finding similar roots comparing a language from ~2,300 BC with a language from ~500-1000 CE, with a tremendous gap of more than 3,000 years of phonetic evolution between them. It is not only possible but probable that the ancestor of Common Turkic sounded _extremely_ different when Sumerian was still being spoken.

----------


## XipeTotek

> I really doubt the supposed Sumerian-Turkic cognates are more than random coincidences and wishful thinking. Even if such connection existed, it would've been so, so long ago (considering that the first Sumerian texts are from as early as ~3,000 BC, and it was already a completely distinct and unique language by then) that any directly similar words would be not only extremely rare and unlikely, but also probably an indication that there is nothing but random coincidence, because languages that are really connected on a very distant scale - say, 8,000 years ago - have gone through such profound phonetic and morphological changes that true cognates will never be that obvious that they can be identified by sheer similarity between two words of so distantly related languages. Also, the Q haplogroup - we don't even know if Sumerians had any appreciable amount of this haplogroup, but honestly I wouldn't bet on it - is at least 17,000 years ago, more probably before 20,000 years ago. It is extremely unlikely, almost 0% chance, that two languages connected just because they share the same haplogroup Q would've still look similar several milennia later (what specific clades of Q by the way, how are those clades related to each other? Do we know that? Native Americans, according to genetic studies, were already separated from other Northeast Asians at least 18,000 years ago in Beringia, and by 15,000 years ago had migrated to Americas with no ticket back home). Finally, I honestly think it is extremely misguided to derive a whole hypothesis about common source by finding similar roots comparing a language from ~2,300 BC with a language from ~500-1000 CE, with a tremendous gap of more than 3,000 years of phonetic evolution between them. It is not only possible but probable that the ancestor of Common Turkic sounded _extremely_ different when Sumerian was still being spoken.



Yes there is have more more connection with language. 

you can't explain this words with coincidence. 
also grammar so similar.

Sumerian - Turkic similar words.

9ec92bf44c5bf5f0da4a92738f6b71a8.png


5d84ab9377d99b795eb06788c1c1c5fb.png

bc57588e29a7bd91286f374793550dfc.png

and they all basic important words. Sumerian language is more close to Turkic language now on the earth.

also native american languages connected with similarity to turkic - sumerian languages.

----------


## Mark

Many of the most interesting discoveries are made when we explore what is perceived as the outrageous. I think it is important to stay grounded until you have a more solid basis. Perhaps Sumerians have some common roots with some of the groups composite of Native Americans, it’s an intriguing notion. I think it’s also important for you to get particular with your subclades, as suggested above by Ygorcs. Also, don’t get bogged down with Q, find common trace haplogroups... you know, when more results on Sumerian Y DNA come out.

BTW, could we get a source for what you copied and pasted here? Nevermind... you edited.

When dealing with language, I’m partial to wave theory versus pure tree theory. Languages near one another with interacting cultures influence each other greatly.

----------


## XipeTotek

> Many of the most interesting discoveries are made when we explore what is perceived as the outrageous. I think it is important to stay grounded until you have a more solid basis. Perhaps Sumerians have some common roots with some of the groups composite of Native Americans, it’s an intriguing notion. I think it’s also important for you to get particular with your subclades, as suggested above by Ygorcs. Also, don’t get bogged down with Q, find common trace haplogroups... you know, when more results on Sumerian Y DNA comes out.
> 
> BTW, could we get a source for what you copied and pasted here? Nevermind... you edited.


http://history-world.org/sumerianwords2.htm

http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/...Dictionary.pdf

you can see on this pages about sumerian language and words.

i can't believe and explain sumerian language affect to native american languages and cultures. (so far away area) it is not possible. 

i but i can explain with they come from same language ancestors and central asia or siberia. 

https://www.rbth.com/science_and_tec...cousins_569517 

and they are basic words similar to turkish like a father(ata) or god (dingir and tengri)

----------


## XipeTotek

*Native American languages and Turkish similarity*

Keçua dili ile Türkçe arasındaki benzerliklerin bazıları (ilk yazan Keçua, ikincisi Türkçe): 

* tuka - tükürmek 

* paku - bak 

* khapao - kaba 

* ipa - abla 

* ku - koy 

* kaşa - kış 

* kuli - kül 

* kalı - kalın 

* karwın - karın 

* kasa - kes 

* tawga - dağ 

* takhıla - dağıl 

* khipu - ip 

* çur - dur 

* as - az 

* tak - ta ki 

* la - ile 

* mi? - mi? 

* biri - bir 

* tawa - dört (Çuvaş Türkçesi'nde tavat) 

* pis - beş 

* halta - altı 

* khawa - kör 

* kiwi - kir 

* ata, atea, hataa - ata 

* ata cama - ata mezarlığı 

***************************************** 

Diğer Kuzey Amerika dilleri ile Türkçe arasındaki benzerliklerden bazıları: 

Miwok Kızılderilileri'nde "kuççi" - Türkçe'de "küçük" 

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "kiçeeç" - Türkçe'de "küçük" 

Arawak Kızılderilileri'nde "çakira" - Türkçe'de "çakır" 

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda ; "tos, uçun, yangi, kis" - Türkçe'de "toz, için, yeni, kız" 

Maya dilinde "kin" - Türkçe'de "gün" (Eski Türkçe'de kün") 

Birçok Kızılderili boyunda "kan" - Türkçe'de "han" 

Terrawa Kızılderilileri'nde "ut", Allentiac Kızılderilileri'nde "uya", Lule Kızılderilileri'nde "utara" Aymara Kızılderilileri'nde "utah" - Türkçe'de "otağ, yuva, ev" 

Güney Amerika Kızılderili boylarında "kayak" - Türkçe'de "kayık" 

Aztekler'de "kuuş" - Türkçe'de "kuş" 

Mayalar'da "ku" - Türkçe'de "kut" 

Aztekler'de "it zcu inTLi" - Türkçe'de "it" 

Kwaiute Kızılderilileri'nde "ghaz" - Türkçe'de "gez" 

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "tano" - Türkçe'de "cehennem" (Eski Türkçe'de tamu) 

Aztek ve Maya Kızılderilileri'nde "aıtıl" - Türkçe'de "nehir" (Eski Türkçe'de "ıtıl, itil) 

Meksika, Guatemala ve Venezuella yörelerindeki Kızılderililer'de "tepe, satsi" - Türkçe'de "tepe, ses" 

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "yaotl" - Türkçe'de "düşman" (Eski Türkçe'de yağı) 

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "atlatl" - Türkçe'de "atılan mızrak" 

Sioux Dakota (native american): english: turk language: 
icu drink ich, ichmek 
Kan blood Kan 
baha grandfather Baba 
Ik two iki 
Baskin attacking baskinci 

Maya: english: turks: 
Yash new,green yash, yashel 
Ich inside ich 
Kosh bird kush 
Aak white ak 
Chachak very nice chichek (flowers) 
Bin I ben, men, min 
Chalan snake ilan, chalan ilan 
Ba fish balik 
Tur stop dur 
Q'anil blood kan 
Yaklel burn Yak 
Tas bring tashu (rus. Таскать) 
Baldiz The younger sister of his wife - Baldiz 
Bil know bil 
Boya paint boya 

Quechuan languages: english: turks: 
Ogri thief ogru 
Ucuk tiny kucuk 
Acikya explain aciklamaq 
Kok sky gok 
Tata, tayta father ata 
Sunqa beard sukal, sakkal 
Na something Ne 
As little az 
Ari thin ariq 
Qo drive out qovmak 
Pak look bak 
Qhacun daughter-in-law, sister-in-law - xatun﻿ 

we can see clearly with Turkic/Native Americans connected with genetic and also language but Sumerians? and this is a reality sumerian language more closely to turkish/native american languages. but need more evidence for acceptful.

----------


## Mark

Sumerian is that “up for grabs” isolate... I have heard it being connected to Basque, Etruscan, Uralic etc. Languages change with interaction due to the trade of tools/products/ideas, with these exchanges genetic material most certainly. I have no doubt that Sumerians and some Native American ancestor groups have some common ancestry regardless of any further discoveries since Native Americans were a composite of a sequence of migrations from Central Eurasia. I’m afraid you would need to connect Sumerian directly to a Native American language because Turkic (or some proto-Turkic or other precursor) could theoretically inform some Native American words and some Sumerian words with no other direct connection.

----------


## XipeTotek

you can also write to youtube for other sumerian songs

----------


## XipeTotek

> Sumerian is that “up for grabs” isolate... I have heard it being connected to Basque, Etruscan, Uralic etc. Languages change with interaction due to the trade of tools/products/ideas, with these exchanges genetic material most certainly. I have no doubt that Sumerians and some Native American ancestor groups have some common ancestry regardless of any further discoveries since Native Americans were a composite of a sequence of migrations from Central Eurasia. I’m afraid you would need to connect Sumerian directly to a Native American language because Turkic (or some proto-Turkic or other precursor) could theoretically inform some Native American words and some Sumerian words with no other direct connection.


yes Mr Mark i know about sumerian language have similarity with Basque, Etruscan, Uralic languages. also we believe etruscan peoples come from central asia and turkic peoples. (have so much similiarity about myths like a romulus myth and ergenekon myth ) and some scientists are accept sumerian language for the altaic or turkic language family. (but someones dont accept for not enough evidence.)

and there is a reality sumerian language more connected to turkic languages than all languages of the world. you can search about it.

https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37380

http://www.macrothink.org/journal/in...le/4107/pdf_31

https://www.quora.com/What-currently...ed-to-Sumerian

----------


## Mark

It’s certainly likely Sumerian informed words in Turkic/proto-Turkic languages but, like I said, I reject the pure tree linguistic model with influences for a wave model with trees following invasions.

----------


## Ygorcs

Frankly, why the hell do you create topics asking questions if you already think you know all the answers and are already sure about the things that you asked? This is a waste of time for us and an illogical reaction on your part, since you seem to be angry just because people didn't answer exactly what you wanted.

----------


## Mark

I think you should look into the Nostratic theory for a larger language family:

https://archive.org/details/BomhardA...iveLinguistics

http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/dlgsynth.pdf

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/MT-31.htm

----------


## XipeTotek

> It’s certainly likely Sumerian informed words in Turkic/proto-Turkic languages but, like I said, I reject the pure tree linguistic model with influences for a wave model with trees following invasions.


there is must be a big wave for effect to america from messopotamia :)

----------


## Mark

> there is must be a big wave for effect to america from messopotamia :)


HAHAH yeah, that would be an impressive wave, yes. The kind of wave invasion events are made of.

----------


## XipeTotek

> Frankly, why the hell do you create topics asking questions if you already think you know all the answers and are already sure about the things that you asked? This is a waste of time for us and an illogical reaction on your part, since you seem to be angry just because people didn't answer exactly what you wanted.


i wanna a explain for basic sumerian words some with turkish and native american languages. 

i explain with this turkic/native americans/sumerians come from same ancestors and proto languages clearly. 

but you guys says me cultural or waving effects. but you cant explain with waving language effect to native american,turkic and sumerian language similarity. they go to america 15.000 years ago.

and yes maybe central asia/siberia is a bridge from iraq to america with nomadic turks

i believe in the soon turkic/altaic language family have added new cousins sumerians/native americans

----------


## Ygorcs

It would be interesting to know the exact translation of the Sumerian word and of the Turkic word side by side in order to make any assessment of this hypothesis. Withou that it only looks like a bunch of words that sound more or less similar and were compiled. We can say nothing based on that, especially if those words end up not being part of the core basic lexicon or if the languages that are being compared are several thousands of years apart from each other and geographically distant from each other, but still the words sound way too similar for their really ancient connection to be definitely true. 

Comparing Sumerian with modern Turkic languages would be more or less like comparing Proto-Indo-European and English. There will be a sizeable number of similar words, but the vast majority of the REAL - not false - cognates will sound extremely different from each other, because of the milennia of linguistic change separating those languages, and it is anachronistic to compare the two languages and expect, if they are truly connected, to find very similar words. For example, "hill" is connected to reconstructed PIE *kolhn- or possibly *kolhnis, not exactly a very similar word, and in fact you should not expect to find similarities between English and PIE (or Turkic and Sumerian) by finding some word in PIE that looks roughly like *hil-. That's not the right way to deduce the true connections (or lack thereof) between two totally distinct languages that, even worse, were spoken in completely different timeframes. And in the Sumerian-Turkic case that kind of comparison-by-similarity would even more futile, because English at least descends from PIE, while the proposal here is just that Sumerian and Turkic both descend from a common source even earlier, that is, the relationship between them is indirect, not immediate (and Sumerian is already very old, 5,000 years old!). 

It's actually the opposite according to professional linguists: if the languages are supposed to be only very distantly related, with a genetic connection thousands of years ago (in the case of haplogroup Q, more than 20,000 years ago!), then the fact that the apparently cognate words sound too similar to each other is not an evidence _for_ that hypothesis, but actually an evidence _against_ it and a sign that something must be wrong. True cognates, when languages are milennia apart, are usually very distinct due to successive phonetic and morphological changes, and we only notice they are cognates because after analyzing dozens or hundreds of words we start to notice similar patterns of change and are able to deduce, therefore, some sound rules. 

That's not what these Sumerian-Turkic mass comparisons do. They just look for words that sound virtually the same, and that is not just not helpful, but even a drawback to this hypothesis, because it is extremely unlikely that Sumerian and Turkic would be descended from a common source more than 10,000 years ago and still be extremely similar to each other. Just look at how different English, Armenian and Russian sound, and they've been diverging from their common source for "merely" 4,500-5,000 years. I don't think it is impossible that Sumerians and Turks had at least partially a common origin (because both peoples have mixed a lot with other ethnic groups along the milennia), but I really doubt their languages would still be anywhere close to "similar" when they had been diverging from their common source since before the Neolithic era. Not even languages dating to the Bronze Age remain so similar.

----------


## Ygorcs

_Ata_ and _ama_ for father and mother respectively, or some similar form, is an extremely common and almost universal pattern everywhere, so I wouldn't think too much about that. Even in PIE language, certainly not related to Turkic or Sumerian, there seemed to have been an affectionate, more informal term for father and mother more or less like _ata_ and _ama_. The [t] and [m] or [n] sounds are associated with fathers and mothers across completely unrelated languages in all the continents, so it seems to have some onomatopoeic connection with the usual "baby-talk" that mothers and fathers have with their small children. That's the best explanation for why languages that have nothing to do with each other in almost any word, grammar or morphology, often have some variation of ma- or am- and at- or ta-.

----------


## XipeTotek

> _Ata_ and _ama_ for father and mother respectively, or some similar form, is an extremely common and almost universal pattern everywhere, so I wouldn't think too much about that. Even in PIE language, certainly not related to Turkic or Sumerian, there seemed to have been an affectionate, more informal term for father and mother more or less like _ata_ and _ama_. The [t] and [m] or [n] sounds are associated with fathers and mothers across completely unrelated languages in all the continents, so it seems to have some onomatopoeic connection with the usual "baby-talk" that mothers and fathers have with their small children. That's the best explanation for why languages that have nothing to do with each other in almost any word, grammar or morphology, often have some variation of ma- or am- and at- or ta-.


you can see other words from this page 
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...ctionaryRu.htm

not only few words. clearly 160 words are similar and some are common meaning and they are basic words. (most important main words.)

and sumerians say for themself KİENGIR kengir is a old turkic tribe with same name.

there is a common words for basic important for me. 

Firstly i can find a common similar word with sumerian / turkic / native american languages this is 

*Sumerian, Turkish, Native American(**Quechuan) Common Words*

*Ada, Ata, Ata (father)

Suhur, Sig - Sukal, Sakal, Kıl - Sunga (beard)

and there is a word meaning God in the sumerian word ilu, also ilu in native americans have a big spirit that name is ulu manitu ( also ulu meaning is same with turkish is big, ulu manitu is great spirit or god)* 

Sumerian, Turkish

men (ben) (I)
zae (sen) sen (YOU)
di (konuşmak) ti- (demek) (SAY)
dingir (tanrı) tengri (tanrı) (GOD)
Ada = ata (Father)
Ama = Ana (Mother)
Ere = Er (Man)
Shuba,Shupan = Chupan (Sheepman)
Av = Ev (House)
Tak = Tak (Put)

dug (dökmek) tök- (dökmek) 
iduga
(parfüm)
yıdıg (koku)
kur (ülke) kuru (kara 
kur (koruma) parçası, ykeorn)- (korumak)
nig (şey) neng (şey)
sag (iyi) sag (sağ,
tibira (metal) sağlam, ityemi) ir (demir)
ud (zaman) öd (zaman)
udi- (uyuma) udı- (uyumak)
uş (iş) ış/iş (iş)
zag (sağ taraf) sag (sağ taraf)
dib (bağ) yip/ip (ip)
tar (kesmek,
kırmak)
yar- (yarmak)
tir (ülke) yir (yer)
36 Ahmet B. ERCİLASUN
gaz (ezmek) ez- (ezmek)
gig (hasta olmak) ig (hastalık)
gud (öküz) ud (öküz)
giş (orman, ağaç) yış (orman)
gişig (kapı) eşik (kapı)
sig (iyi) yig (yeğ, iyi)
şeg (yağmur) yag- (yağmak)
şurim (yarım) yarım (yarım)
sag (küçük çocuk) çağa (çocuk)
sipad (çoban) çopan (çoban)

Kapkagak = Kapkaçak (water container)
Gadun ———— Hatun
Assinu ———– Asena
Gig-Anu ———- Göktanrı (Gök ana)
Tammuzi ——— Temmuz
Domuzi ———- Domız
Ginç ——— Genç
Auşk ——– — Aşk
Tar- kus-u ——– Talih kuşu
Ungar ———- Uygar
Altun ———– Altın
Anu ———- Ana
Tengiz———- Deniz
Gozam-Ozam —— Ozan
En-gur-ra ——— Ankara
Tamga ——— Damga
Me-en ———- Men-Ben
Agıl ———– Akıl
Bar ———– Var
Er-Eş ———— Erkek-Kadın
Rakibu ——- Rakip
Aga ————— Ağa
Balag-ba ——– Balaban
Kes-da ———— Kesmek
Bira ————- Bira
Tagga ———— Takke
Ge —————– Gel
ilig ———- ilik
Et —————– Et
Mum ————- Mum
Huma-kus-a ———– huma Kuşu
Sin ————- Sin(e)
Karra ———— Kara
Batu ———– Batı
Sar ———— Sar(ı)
Heak———- Hak
Mesu ———- Meşe
Engin ———– Engin
L-elvan-ı ————- Elvan
Nun ———— Un
Apa ———— Apa(ağabey)
Ambar———– Ambar
Gaazi ————- Gazi
Gid-de ———— Git-gide
Amelu ———— Amele
Zindan ————- Zindan
isum ———— Işık
iş-ti ———— işitmek
Uri ———— Arı
Kaskadu ———– Kaskatı
Arpu ———– Arpa
U-ru ——— Uyruk
U-ku ——— Uyku
Murad ——– Murat
Nusa ——– Neşe

and we have common proverbs

you can see with turkic and native language similar words

Keçua dili ile Türkçe arasındaki benzerliklerin bazıları (ilk yazan Keçua, ikincisi Türkçe): 

* tuka - tükürmek 

* paku - bak 

* khapao - kaba 

* ipa - abla 

* ku - koy 

* kaşa - kış 

* kuli - kül 

* kalı - kalın 

* karwın - karın 

* kasa - kes 

* tawga - dağ 

* takhıla - dağıl 

* khipu - ip 

* çur - dur 

* as - az 

* tak - ta ki 

* la - ile 

* mi? - mi? 

* biri - bir 

* tawa - dört (Çuvaş Türkçesi'nde tavat) 

* pis - beş 

* halta - altı 

* khawa - kör 

* kiwi - kir 

* ata, atea, hataa - ata 

* ata cama - ata mezarlığı 

***************************************** 

Diğer Kuzey Amerika dilleri ile Türkçe arasındaki benzerliklerden bazıları: 

Miwok Kızılderilileri'nde "kuççi" - Türkçe'de "küçük" 

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "kiçeeç" - Türkçe'de "küçük" 

Arawak Kızılderilileri'nde "çakira" - Türkçe'de "çakır" 

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda ; "tos, uçun, yangi, kis" - Türkçe'de "toz, için, yeni, kız" 

Maya dilinde "kin" - Türkçe'de "gün" (Eski Türkçe'de kün") 

Birçok Kızılderili boyunda "kan" - Türkçe'de "han" 

Terrawa Kızılderilileri'nde "ut", Allentiac Kızılderilileri'nde "uya", Lule Kızılderilileri'nde "utara" Aymara Kızılderilileri'nde "utah" - Türkçe'de "otağ, yuva, ev" 

Güney Amerika Kızılderili boylarında "kayak" - Türkçe'de "kayık" 

Aztekler'de "kuuş" - Türkçe'de "kuş" 

Mayalar'da "ku" - Türkçe'de "kut" 

Aztekler'de "it zcu inTLi" - Türkçe'de "it" 

Kwaiute Kızılderilileri'nde "ghaz" - Türkçe'de "gez" 

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "tano" - Türkçe'de "cehennem" (Eski Türkçe'de tamu) 

Aztek ve Maya Kızılderilileri'nde "aıtıl" - Türkçe'de "nehir" (Eski Türkçe'de "ıtıl, itil) 

Meksika, Guatemala ve Venezuella yörelerindeki Kızılderililer'de "tepe, satsi" - Türkçe'de "tepe, ses" 

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "yaotl" - Türkçe'de "düşman" (Eski Türkçe'de yağı) 

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "atlatl" - Türkçe'de "atılan mızrak" 

Sioux Dakota (native american): english: turk language: 
icu drink ich, ichmek 
Kan blood Kan 
baha grandfather Baba 
Ik two iki 
Baskin attacking baskinci 

Maya: english: turks: 
Yash new,green yash, yashel 
Ich inside ich 
*Kosh bird kush 
Aak white ak 
Chachak very nice chichek (flowers) 
Bin I ben, men, min 
Chalan snake ilan, chalan ilan 
Ba fish balik 
Tur stop dur 
Q'anil blood kan 
Yaklel burn Yak 
Tas bring tashu (rus. Таскать) 
Baldiz The younger sister of his wife - Baldiz 
Bil know bil 
Boya paint boya 

Quechuan languages: english: turks: 
Ogri thief ogru 
Ucuk tiny kucuk 
Acikya explain aciklamaq 
Kok sky gok 
Tata, tayta father ata 
Sunqa beard sukal, sakkal 
Na something Ne 
As little az 
Ari thin ariq 
Qo drive out qovmak 
Pak look bak 
Qhacun daughter-in-law, sister-in-law - xatun﻿ 


and after all i can say native american similar words for turkic more than sumerian languages. native american migration 15.000 ago sumerians are 5.000 years ago. must be more similar words for turkic languages than native americans i agree. (and you know about turkish language, they are very different from to azerbaycan turkish. and i cant understand so many turkic central asian languages today.) 

and sumerians mixed and relationship with other peoples and speakers. this is another factor

i think must be compare with native american languages and sumerians words(also grammar)

that could be open result for me*

----------


## Ygorcs

I refer back to my previous answer. Mass comparison of words - including some that frankly aren't core vocabulary of languages (e.g. paint, attack, beard) - based on sheer similarity, without regular sound rules, is simply inadequate especially when you're dealing with language families that are distinct and, even if their connection is true, have been separate from each other for many thousands of years. It is absolutely unlikely that after some 10,000 years the Sumerians and Turks would still name "man" or "I" almost exactly the same way. 

Also, even if that happened, it should be first demonstrated that there is a consistent and repeating pattern in the sound rules of vowels, consonants and syllables that explain why those words remained to similar to each other and how and if those same patterns are repeated in several other words. For example, it should be explained why the [d] in "dur" corresponds to a [ç] in Quechua "çur", whereas the same [d] corresponds instead to a [t] in other Quechuan words (e.g. dag vs. tawga). Another issue is that initial [b] in Turkic corresponds to [b] in some Quechua words (biri, bir) and to [p] in others (e.g. pish, besh). And why final -in disappeared in Quechua "kali" (corresponding to Turkic "kalin"), but it is still there in "karwin" (corresponding to Turkic "karin")? Maybe those words aren't as similar in their overall phonetic evolution, thousands of years ago, as they look now.

Why that lack of systematic correspondences? That's a problem. Reconstructing relationships between two language families is not a simple search for words that are almost identical. Sometimes, as I said, the real proof of an actual connection comes when you find very different words that follow a consistent correspondence demonstrating their divergent evolution from one same source, for example English "heart" and Italian "cuore", both systematically going back to PIE *k'erd-.

Otherwise, yes, despite being all very intriguing and curious, we may be seeing just some random coincidences here. If we take any two languages in the world, we're bound to find at least 50 or 100 words that look fairly similar to each other even if they belong to completely different languages. 

For example, "bad" in English means exactly the same as "bad" in Persian, but it has already been demonstrated that the two words have no relationship at all with each other, they just came from different origins and, due to the particular phonetic evolution of English and, separately, of Persian, those two words ended up sounding identical. 

Yes, that happens between two languages more often than most people usually think. If we only mass-compare words and take those words that look similar, but completely ignore those that do not look similar, then of course it will seem like those languages are closely related. But still we didn't explain at all why those e.g. 100 words are almost identical to each other, suggesting two languages that are still recently linked to each other, yet other 2,000 or 3,000 words are totally unrelated, suggesting that there is no close link after all. That's a really problematic incongruence.

Overall, I think that, genetically and geographically, though not necessarily linguistically, there is a much higher probability of a very distant, virtually unreconstructible, connection between Turkic and Native American languages (not all, we aren't sure that the first Americans even spoke just one language). That would make sense, but still I really doubt there would be so closely related (similar) connections in the vocabulary of Turkic and Native American languages when they had split from each other at least 15,000 years ago. Even 5,000 years is enough to make languages diverge very much from each other, let alone 15,000. So, unless there is a coherent demonstration of sound correspondences and probable sound rule for the evolution of both language families, I think the striking similarities are more due to sheer coincidence or convergent evolution, not a proof of their common roots, especially if those connections are found in only 50-150 words but totally absent in other thousands and thousands of words.

----------


## MOESAN

> you can also write to youtube for other sumerian songs


hOW DID THEY DECIPHER THE SUMERIANS MUSIC (tunes, not words)? some clue?

----------


## MOESAN

Not only linguistic but... Here under a compilation of diverses opinions of diverse times, showing the question is not as clear as source water:
A. Wierciñski, contrarywise to the earlier authors, found a far more complicated anthropological structure in the Mesopotamian population, which made the previous search for “Sumerian race” pointless. In his opinion the area of Tibet (or generally Central Asia) may be considered as the Sumerians’ place of origin. The discussion about the “Sumerian race” has been curtailed by the sober Georges Roux’s remark that the iconographical representations were conventionalised and thus their comparison with the osteological data gives no valuable information (Roux 1969:136). However, some remnants of the racial argument continued to be in use also in later discussions. Fifteen years ago H. Crawford referred to the old speculation that the Sumerians were round-headed and the Semites were long-headed and noticed after C.S. Coon (1949) the great tooth size of early inhabitants of Mesopotamia, which used to be taken as the evidence of their aﬃnities with the Indians (Crawford 1991:9). * * * Frankfort’s ﬁrst theory, placing the coming of the Sumerians in the beginning of Uruk period, was supported in 1930s by the German scholars, chie‚y E. Speiser (1930) and A. Ungnad (1936:10). In Speiser’s opinion the names of many most ancient cities of Sumer were Elamite in origin and the Elamites, related by him to the mountain peoples of Lullubeans and Kassites, inhabited the Mesopotamia 
Physical anthropology and the “Sumerian problem” 149
before the Sumerians (1930:40,46). The Sumerians were thought to invade Mesopotamia from the south, coming through the Persian Gulf from the east. Speiser suggested that they may have been related to the Dravidians (1930:83). In later publications (1951; 1969) Speiser has maintained his theory and added some new arguments. He has argued that the diversity of cultural tradition in Late Neolithic Mesopotamia was a re‚ection of ethnical diﬀerences and all archaeological cultures deﬁned by modern scholars – Hassuna, Halaf, Ubaid, Uruk – were developed by diﬀerent ethnic groups (1969:99). In his opinion the Sumerians came to Mesopotamia relatively late, in the last phase of the Ubaid period, and initially settled only in the head of the Persian Gulf. During the Uruk period they moved northward and eventually lost their racial distinctiveness. Such a vision was accepted also by Anton Moortgat and Beno Landsberger (cf. Speiser 1951:345–353; 1969:99–103; Potts 1997:46). Speiser’s theory has been further developed by Jan Braun who has gathered many similarities between Sumerian and Tibetan languages and argued on that base that the Sumerians came to Mesopotamia on ships from northern India and in spite of their small number dominated the local population due to their much more sophisticated culture...]

----------


## ThirdTerm

Figure 2
Phylogeny of Y-chromosome haplogroups and their frequencies (%) in Marsh Arab and Iraqi populations.

Al Zahery et al. (2011) investigated the issue of the origin of Marsh Arabs, who are presumed to be the descendants of the ancient Sumerians. Their mtDNA and Y chromosome haplogroups showed that Marsh Arabs are predominantly of Middle Eastern origin, thus refuting the theory that Marsh Arabs are recent migrants from the Indian sub-continent. Haplogroup Q was found at minor frequencies from 0.7% to 2.1% among Marsh Arabs (Figure 2) and haplogroup Q-M25 (0.7%) and haplogroup Q-M378 (2.1%) are descendant haplogroups of Q-M242, which is a very common Y-DNA haplogroup among Native Americans (92.3% in Navajo.)




> Two hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of Marsh Arabs: (i) they could be aboriginal inhabitants of Mesopotamia, correlated to the old Sumerians; (ii) they could be foreign people of unknown origin. Although the origin of Sumerians has yet to be clarified [5], the two main scenarios, autochthonous vs foreign ancestry, may have produced different genetic outcomes with Marsh Arabs being genetically closer to Middle Eastern groups or other populations, for instance those of the Indian sub-continent. Thus, in order to shed some light on this question Marsh Arab population was investigated for mtDNA and Y chromosome markers. Due to their characteristics (uniparental transmission and absence of recombination) and their wide datasets, they are, at present, among the best genetic systems for detecting signs of ancient migration events and to evaluate socio-cultural behaviours [35, 36].
> 
> When the two J1-M267 sub-clades, J1-M267* and J1-Page08 are considered (Figure 6), differential frequency trends emerge. The less represented J1-M267* primarily diffuses towards North East Mesopotamia and shows its highest incidence in the Assyrians of northern Iraq, and Turkey. By contrast, J1-Page08 accounts for the great majority of the J1 distribution in South Western Mesopotamia, reaching its highest value (74.1%) in the marsh area. By considering the STR haplotypes associated with the two branches, the highest values of variance are localized in northern Mesopotamia (North Iraq/South East Turkey) (Figure 6, Additional files 7, 8 and 9). For the J1-Page08 lineage, high variance values were also observed in Ethiopia, Oman and South Eastern Italy (Table 2). Although present data are not adequate to define the homeland of the J1-Page08 sub-clade, some useful information can be obtained from the haplotype network analysis (Figure 4). Thus, the pheripheric position of the Ethiopian and South Eastern Italian (European) haplotypes suggests that the high values of variance registered in these regions likely reflect the stratification of different migratory events, some of which occurred before the expansion and diffusion of the lineage outside the Middle Eastern area. As previously reported [31, 41], also the value of variance in the Omani is affected by the concomitant presence of both pheripheric and centrally expanded haplotypes. In this context, the low variance (0.118) observed in the Marsh Arabs underlines a recent expansion involving few haplotypes, all of which occupying a central position in the J1-Page08 network (Figure 4). In the less frequent J1-M267* clade, only marginally affected by events of expansion, Marsh Arabs shared haplotypes with other Iraqi and Assyrian samples, supporting a common local background (Figure 4).
> 
> In conclusion, our data show that the modern Marsh Arabs of Iraq harbour mtDNAs and Y chromosomes that are predominantly of Middle Eastern origin. Therefore, certain cultural features of the area such as water buffalo breeding and rice farming, which were most likely introduced from the Indian sub-continent, only marginally affected the gene pool of the autochthonous people of the region. Moreover, a Middle Eastern ancestral origin of the modern population of the marshes of southern Iraq implies that, if the Marsh Arabs are descendants of the ancient Sumerians, also Sumerians were not of Indian or Southern Asian ancestry.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Speiser’s theory has been further developed by Jan Braun who has gathered many similarities between Sumerian and Tibetan languages and argued on that base that the Sumerians came to Mesopotamia on ships from northern India and in spite of their small number dominated the local population due to their much more sophisticated culture...]


That is interesting, but in my opinion has one major drawback: if they dominated the local Mesopotamian population (which was in fact already developing gradually into pre-urban Neolithic societies well before the Sumerians proper) because they had a much more sophisticated culture, then where are the signs of those much more sophisticated cultures (that is, a level of social and economic complexity arguably much higher than that of the Fertile Crescent) in Tibet or anywhere in Central Asia or even Northern India from the time before the expansion of Sumerian culture in the Uruk period in Mesopotamia? 

If they came from that distant region already carrying a much more refined and complex culture, then we should at least see in the archaeological records that Mesopotamia was well behind South Asia, Tibet or Central Asia around 5,000-4,500 BC.

But that is not what we see, actually most of the evidences point exactly to the contrary. Would Sumerians have not only migrated to Mesopotamia, but taken every refinement and cultural/technological superiority with them and away from their homelands? Would everybody who reproduced those more sophisticated cultures just left their homeland and transplanted entirely to Mesopotamia? Very unlikely.

----------


## MOESAN

> That is interesting, but in my opinion has one major drawback: if they dominated the local Mesopotamian population (which was in fact already developing gradually into pre-urban Neolithic societies well before the Sumerians proper) because they had a much more sophisticated culture, then where are the signs of those much more sophisticated cultures (that is, a level of social and economic complexity arguably much higher than that of the Fertile Crescent) in Tibet or anywhere in Central Asia or even Northern India from the time before the expansion of Sumerian culture in the Uruk period in Mesopotamia? 
> 
> If they came from that distant region already carrying a much more refined and complex culture, then we should at least see in the archaeological records that Mesopotamia was well behind South Asia, Tibet or Central Asia around 5,000-4,500 BC.
> 
> But that is not what we see, actually most of the evidences point exactly to the contrary. Would Sumerians have not only migrated to Mesopotamia, but taken every refinement and cultural/technological superiority with them and away from their homelands? Would everybody who reproduced those more sophisticated cultures just left their homeland and transplanted entirely to Mesopotamia? Very unlikely.


I posted this stuff (of diverse opinions in fact) just to show how the question is badly settled yet - I cannot have any opinion to date! - 
the dental traits of someones were supposed to point to India or something North to India, but nothing to confirm it - I red somewhere a legend tells Sumerians were come by sea from South but it was a report, not the scientific source so... the physically foreign persons could have been found among the elites, this does not prove anything concerning the supposed cultural/linguistic imput of this "foreigners" because, as I see it, elites tend to mate with other elites (alliances) withoit it proves the elements come from these other elites took the strong side in the resulting new elite (here Y-haplo's could help) - these new elements could be female mediated as elsewhere - for language, I have seen a lot of linguists play with words of diverse languages and create new theories of surprising common origins based in fact upon a relatively small number of cases; that said, grammar left aside, some common words (or supposed so) can point to trade exchanges over large spaces.
As you (I suppose) we could imagine the most of innovations ran West to East there and not the opposite, but who knows exactly? Agriculture has surely played a big role , a founding role, in the spreading/improvement of culture.

----------


## Salento

Just a visual observation. Sumerians are often depicted as been very Hairy with elaborate long Beards (Annunaki).
I know that the Native Americans not having facial hairs is a myth, but they are not as Hairy at all if compared to the Sumerians.

----------


## XipeTotek

> Just a visual observation. Sumerians are often depicted as been very Hairy with elaborate long Beards (Annunaki).
> I know that the Native Americans not having facial hairs is a myth, but they are not as Hairy at all if compared to the Sumerians.


i think they are not sumerians. these pictures get from akkadians. and sumerian civilization so long time years. they are get mixed other native peoples of messopotamia. (think about turkey turks, our origin ancestors are hairless bu we are so hairy now) 
and i can find two group pictures on the internet similar with akkadians and hairless bald head peoples with donkeys.
i dont know which is real sumerian pictures but i agree native american and asians are hairless (except for ainus) also these statues dont connected with turkic peoples. only language.
i think we must be focused about language for who are they and where come from. language clearly says they are come from asia. but which area of asia. central asia? south asia? who have more connected with language? tibetans, turkic, uralic, japanese or korean there is no more choice. i think high possibility is turkic or tibetans.
maybe they are lost form of altaic people ancestors language. i have a theory about japanese,korean,uralic peoples effected by tibets and turkic peoples effected by mongolians for languages. (this is a reason why we cant create clear altaic language family today. for me) they are earlier peoples of asia. 
i think maybe sumerian peoples speaking isolated proto altaic language.(ancestor of chinese,korean,japanese,uralic,turkic)
because we can see similarities with that all languages.

----------


## XipeTotek

> Just a visual observation. Sumerians are often depicted as been very Hairy with elaborate long Beards (Annunaki).
> I know that the Native Americans not having facial hairs is a myth, but they are not as Hairy at all if compared to the Sumerians.


you cant say today turkey turks are not hairy. but their ancestors and original turks are come from central asians and they are hairless.

also sumerians and akkadians have so much mixed in 3000 years. and turkey peoples only in 1000 years mixed with anatolian and arab peoples.

but today we know our languages come from central asia like a sumerians.

and that anunnaki pictures looking like akkadians.

edit : i again answer it sorry lol

----------


## XipeTotek

language similarity about father/mother words with turkic/native american. also sumerian. http://www.turkishculture.org/litera...ricans-459.htm

----------


## XipeTotek

> Figure 2
> Phylogeny of Y-chromosome haplogroups and their frequencies (%) in Marsh Arab and Iraqi populations.
> 
> Al Zahery et al. (2011) investigated the issue of the origin of Marsh Arabs, who are presumed to be the descendants of the ancient Sumerians. Their mtDNA and Y chromosome haplogroups showed that Marsh Arabs are predominantly of Middle Eastern origin, thus refuting the theory that Marsh Arabs are recent migrants from the Indian sub-continent. Haplogroup Q was found at minor frequencies from 0.7% to 2.1% among Marsh Arabs (Figure 2) and haplogroup Q-M25 (0.7%) and haplogroup Q-M378 (2.1%) are descendant haplogroups of Q-M242, which is a very common Y-DNA haplogroup among Native Americans (92.3% in Navajo.)


i think sumerians are q mixed r hablogroups. later they mixed native peoples. that map show to me.

and their language more close to turkic/native american languages.

----------


## adian808

The sumerians were not so hairy as we think , it is a scientific superstition linked to the fact some scientist don' t accept sumerians were blacks
hair in sumerian is kezer, kes similar to dravidian kes as in Keshava the name of Krishna ( the long haired ones)
sumerians rather said they are sag gig ga where sag means person , head and is translated by qaqqadu whichmeans person , head , self in akkadian, ga means people as people to pasture, calf as in sipa sag gig ga the name of the god of the sky An : the shepherd of the sag gig ga so sumerians were comparing themselves to calfs of the supreme god An but black calfs as sag means both head and person and ga calf

remember they say they are sag gig ga black heads which means zalmat qaqqadu in akkadian the same translation the adamu race the first and the black race in sumerian tales: black people
also the bible said the first mesopotamians were blacks: Nimrod is black and his people and him founded the first cities of Mesopotamia Knowing sumerians were the first people to mesopotamia and they call themselves sag gig ga which means zalmat qaqqadu black people who is the same sense the adamu race the blkack race in sumerian tales
Also greeks divide blacks in two categories the african ethiopians and the asian ones which have long hairs and it is said by Hellanicus that these ones inhabit euphrate’s valey where lies Sumer: we can deduce sumerians were blacks what is corroborated by the map of AASI gene(dravidians and veddoids genes both map) that show irak was peopled by AASI who are famed to be black see qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3

----------


## Blablabla

Historically, as a timeline, there is absolutely no likelihood of such a direct link, especially a genetic one. Turkish has a huge number of Arabic and Persian borrowings, as well as some Indo-European ones (because I noticed some) from where the indirect connection comes from. So the similarities are due to the ethnic groups that inhabited the Mesopotamian region during the Sumerian period.
In simple terms, the Sumerians and the Turks are separated by thousands of years of difference / discrepancy in the formation of ethnicity and language.

----------


## Doggerland

There is no Sumerian sample available today but early Neolithic samples from the eastern Fertile Crescent in the Zagros Mountains:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27417496/

It is likely that those people where a part of the Sumerian ancestry.

They had a broad and also long face, flat, narrow forehead. A slim, long, hooked nose. They had broad lips, a large mouth. Brown eyes, brown skin, wavy to curly hair.

Comparing their genetically determined physical traits to mentioned populations and some others:

Northern South Asian 73%
All African Populations 70% European 70% Neanderthal 70%
Middle East 69% Andaman 69%
Bantu 66%
Papuan 65%
Aboriginal Australian 62%
Native American 61%
Turkish 58%
Malawi Mesolithic 52%

They looked somehow African but also large part Northern South Asian, which includes Afghans, Pakistani and Northern Indians. I think the African component is of archaic origin, because Neanderthal is also high but not Bantu and Malawi Mesolithic.
There is no connection to Native Americans in optical traits or Turkish people.

And we should not forget that Sumerian Empire was established 2000-3000 years after this population lived in the region. Much genetic replacement could have taken place, perhaps from the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean.

----------


## johen

> There is no Sumerian sample available today but *early Neolithic samples* from the eastern Fertile Crescent in the Zagros Mountains:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27417496/
> 
> It is likely that those people where a part of the Sumerian ancestry.
> 
> They had a broad and also long face, flat, narrow forehead. A slim, long,* hooked nose*. They had broad lips, a large mouth. Brown eyes, brown skin, wavy to curly hair.
> 
> Comparing their genetically determined physical traits to mentioned populations and some others:
> 
> Northern South Asian 73%
> ...


As far as I know, they did not have hooked noses. So anthropologist really don't know where sumerian nose like armenian nose came from.

----------


## Doggerland

That's not my opinion, that's what genetics of the samples say:

rs4787778 AA Hooked nose
rs2058742 GG Downturned nose tip
rs17640804 TT Slim nostrils
rs3751074 GG Long nose bridge

The Sumerians liked to portray themselves with those noses:

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/323735
https://www.discovermagazine.com/pla...they-known-for

So in this case art and genetics are matching, as far that those early neolithic samples are a main part of the Sumerian ancestry.

----------


## Vallicanus

Is this an Apricity thread that's lost its way?

----------


## adian808

earlier scientists of 19 th century can' t accept sumerians were blacks and said they were eurafrican people with a nose intermediary between those of africans and those of europeans, they also think sumerians were from australoid families but racism bias make them say sumerians were black red turanians
somesay they are ancestorsof ugrian langages with proof
but the truth show sumerians were australoid peoples:
the analysis of sumerian bones show thay are australoids
According to many experts, the Al-Ubaid people were ancestral to the Sumerians, or at least, to their culture. The Al-Ubaid skulls show a chaemaerrhine index with a mean value of 49.2. In other words, they had very broad noses. The skulls had both subnasal and alveolar prognathism, or fullness of the lower and upper lips. The average linear projection was 8 mm. for the skulls. Their heads were long and narrow. 
Buxton and Rice found that of 26 Sumerian crania 17 were Australoid, five Austrics and four Armenoid. According to Penniman who studied skulls from Kish and other Sumerian sites, these three: the Australoid (Eurafrican), Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians. Here is Penniman's description of the Austric type found at Sumer: 
"These people are of medium stature, with complexion and
hair like those of the Eurafrican, to which race they are 
 allied, dark eyes, and oval faces. They have small ill-filled
dolichocephalic skulls, with browridges poorly developed or
absent, bulging occiputs, orbits usually horizontal ellipses,
broad noses, rather feeble jaws, and slight sinewy bodies."

Both the Australoid and Austric type are found in India, where the former is known as Dravidian in its less extreme variety. Like all the different populations of India, both Dravidian and Austric are long-headed like most of the skulls at Sumer. As one goes further East, Austrics become mostly round-headed due possibly to the greater proportion of Mongoloid blood, and the Austronesians of the South Seas are primarily round-headed. Formerly, it was popular to ascribe the Australoid and Austric types to "dark Caucasoid" origin in the Mediterranean area

from a nationalist iranian pro shah site azargoshnasp.net seek recent_history/pan_turkist_philosophy/sumd/austricsumerian 

BUT when we blacks say this people qualify us afrocentricists !!!!
for example this wikipedia wikipedia.org seek K 3364 which forget scientists have discovered bones and skulls closed to australoids proving sumerians were blacks but australoids and say sumerians are not negroid
i use this stage also to say negroid is a racist term coming from negre/ nigger the way blacks were called from 15th to 20 th centuries and it keeps on producing bias: like blacks have big nose stuff
i notice ASI/AASI and melanesians and australian aborigines who according to experts come from africa ( M haplogroups from african horn L3) are considered as blacks but not called like this
i think both them and africans are blacks and are brothers and should be both called melanoid instead of african blacks called negroid

----------


## adian808

Also noticed close similarities between tamil and sumerians
THE SUMERIAN AND THE TAMOUL ur = city, town, village in Tamil, ur = town, town in Sumerian as = one, alone in Sumerian, as = prime / one, alone in Tamil kur = mountain in Sumerian, kur = name of hill tribes in Tamil and Dravidian, kori / koeum = mountain in Altaic language. tamil arukan arhus Sumerian "benevolent person". Tamil Sumerian avvai. the abbot "speaks". Tamil aakkiNai, aaNai, Sumerian aknja agga, aga "command". Sumerian eye akki igi. Tamil Ukkiram Sumerian ug-gu "furious". Tamil Uruttiran 'Copper' Sumerian Urudu. Ukrainian Sumerian Ulaku, Ukrainian "people". Sumerian Katai ka-ta-a-a "desired self-expression". Tamil Karumam Sumerian gar-u "to set up". Sumerian Tamil Carvam sar-ra "all". Tamil cakkaram sukur Sumerian 'weapon, javelin'. Tamil Sumerian cakalam 'all' sugil. Tamil cettu, Sumerian cittam sid, sed, think, count, recite etc. Tamil ceesu ciidan, Sumerian ses Tamil sisya his "brother, child". Sumerian damhara Tamil tamharam 'battle, war' Tamil ticai Sumerian. te 'direction, Sumerian woman manuci tamil manusi'. Tamil ciivan Sumerian zi 'life' Tamil caalai Sumerian sila 'road' Tamil kaNi, kaNitam Sumerian kin 'to reckon'.
and between tamil and turkish:_Affinity between DRAVIDIAN and TURKISH
1. Dravidian (Dr.): AN upper part;

Turkish (Tr.) "AN" meaning "sky" as in "TANRI" meaning "GOD" from
"aTa + AN + ERI" (ATA AN ERI) meaning "Father Man of Sky".

2. Dr. ANNAL greatness, exaltation, superiority, great man, king, god;

Tr. "HAN AN AL" meaning "Lord Sky Red" referring to sun god. Tr. HAN king.

3. Dr. ENRU the sun;

Tr. TANRU god, sun god.

4. Dr. ADDI heat of the sun;

Tr. ODDI "it is hot", "it is fire"

5a. Dr, ACCAN father, lord; ACCA mother;

Tr. ECHE father, mother; ECHE HAN lord father, lord mother.

5b) Dr. AJJA grandfather; AJJI grandmother.

Tr. ECHE greatfather or greatmother, that is, for the elder and/or
head person of the house.; it is a duality term which can be used for
both man and women leader of the family. For example, Tr. TANRIÇE
(goddess) is from "TANRI ECHE" (god greatmother).

6. Dr. PULLI, PULLE, BOLLE mark, dot, speck, spot.

Tr. PULLU meaning with specks, dots,. marks.

7. Dr. (Tu.) KAR-BULE, KAR-BOLLE a fowl having white plumage with
black spots.

Tr. KARA PULLU meaning "with black spots, specks".

8. Dr. (Ta.) ARAM moral or religious duty, virtue;

Tr. AR virtue, modesty, honesty, bashful, chaste.

9. Dr. (Ta.) KATA cut through ridge of paddy-field to let surplus
water run off;

Tr. AKIT meaning "to let the water run off".

10. Dr. (Ta.) KATA inferior, worse than;

Tr. KÖTÜ bad, inferior, poor in quality.

11a. Dr. (Ta.) IRAI anyone who is great (as one's father or guru or
any renowned and illustrious person), master, chief, elder brother,
husband, king, supreme god, height, head, eminence;

Tr. ER man, husband, hero, warrior, soldier.
Tr. ERAY moon-man, moon-god, venerable person.

11b. Dr. IRAIMAI kingly superiority, celebrity, government,
divinity;

Tr. "ER AY MA" meaning "magnificent moon man" referring to a divinity
or a superiority.

11c. Dr. IRAIVAN god, chief, master, husband, venerable person;

Tr. "ER AY-HAN" meaning "Man Moon-Lord" (god), lord man, head man.

12. Dr. (Ta.) ARU (ARI-) state of being dried, etc.;

Tr. KURU dry, dried up.

13. Dr. ARISU to cause to go out, allay, dry (tr.);

Tr. KURUSU dried up water.

14. Dr. AR (ART-) to be dried, dry up, disappear;

Tr. ERI- to melt away, to disappear as in snow melting and
disappearing.

15. Dr. ARIKE state of growing or being dry or parched;

Tr. ARIK channel, channel cut to dry up a watery land.

16. Dr. (Ta.) KANAL (kanalv-, kananr-) sun, heat, sun's ray, light;

Tr. KUN (GÜN) sun; KUN AL (AL GÜN) red hot sun, hot sun.

17. Dr. KANI (-v-,-nt-) to be redhot, glow, get angry;

Tr. a) KUN (GÜN) sun, b) KAN blood, blood colour; c) KAN OL becoming
blood red as one gets angry ( Turkish "Yüzü KAN GIBI OLMAK" meaning
"face gettin very red when angry").

18. Dr. KANARCI heat, glow, anger;

Tr. KIZARAN glowing red hot, and also face getting red when one gets
angry.

19. Dr. (Ta.) KARU black;

Tr. KARA black.

20. Dr. KARUKKAL darkness, twilight, cloudiness;

Tr. KARA GOK dark sky; KARANLUK darkness.

21. Dr. (Ta.) KARU sunburnt paddy crop;
KARUKKU (karukki-) to darken by heat, burn, scorch, toast, fry;
KARUKU (karuki-) to be scorched, blackened by fire or sun;

Tr. KURAKLUK drought, causing burned out crop by sun. KURU dry.

22. Dr. (Ta.) APPAN, APPU father;

Tr. BABA, APA father

23. Dr. APPACCI father;

Tr. BABACIK dear father, endearnment of father.

24. Dr. APPATTAI elder sister;

Tr. APLA / ABLA elder sister.

25. Dr. (Ta.) ATTAN father, elder, person of rank or eminence;

Tr. ATA father, ATA HAN lord father, elder person of rank or eminence;

26. Dr. ATTISU to cause to evaporate by boiling;

Tr. ATTI SU (SU ATTI) threw away its water, evaporated.

27. Dr. ANTARISU to evaporate, as water by boiling;

Tr. SUYUNI ATAR it throws away its water, it evaporates.

28. Dr. (To.) POT mountain (esp. tit pot id.).

Tr. "TEPE hill;

29. Dr. (Ka.) BETTA, BETTU big hill, mountain;

Tr. TEPETU "it is hill, it is mountain".

30. Dr. (Te.) AMMA, AMA mother, matron; hon. title of woman;

Tr. ANA, ANNA, ANNE mother; MAMA, MEME mother, mother's breast.

31. Dr. (To.) UF IN- (ID-) to blow, blow away (e.g. ashes);

Tr. ÜFLEMEK to blow, blow away.

32. Dr. (Ka.) UPH, UPHI sound emitted when strongly blowing with the
mouth to remove impurities;

Tr. ÜFLEMEK (ISLIK) to blow whisle.

33. Dr. (Ta.) IYANKU (IYANKI-) to move, stir, go, proceed, walk about;
in.movement, act of going;

Tr. "UYANUK" being awake, moving, stirring, going. Almost identical.

34. Dr. (Ta. ) TIRAGANI, TIRAGANE, TIRUGANI, TIRUGANE, TIRUGUNI
turning, that which turns, a wheel for raising water;

Tr. TONERGAN (dönergen) that which turns, that which returns.

Note: It seems that the Dravidian suffixes -LI and -CI are very
similar to Turkish -LI and -CI.

_

----------


## adian808

also ala is land in tamil, ugrian and mayan, kerala is land of coconut in tamil, karjala is name of carelia in carelian korela , guatem ala is land of light in mayan
el is land in turkish and in ugrian; MARI EL is the name of the republic of maris in Russia,, el/eli is land in turkish, ola is city in Mari cf yoshkar ola the capital of mari el, ollam is land in Taos a native american langage, olam is land in hebrew whose scripture come from sumerian, ilim is land in sumerian, ala, alam, eelam is land in dravidian tamil, elam is land in elamite ...
THE SUMERIAN , TAMILand native american and turkish and ugrian cognate !!!!!!!
knowing the preesistence of AASI /ASI in asia and their link with sumerian and their links with turkish and native americans we can say ASI ans AASI blacks fellow influenced langage of turanians the ancestry of native americans...

----------


## MOESAN

> There is no Sumerian sample available today but early Neolithic samples from the eastern Fertile Crescent in the Zagros Mountains:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27417496/
> 
> It is likely that those people where a part of the Sumerian ancestry.
> 
> They had a broad and also long face, flat, narrow forehead. A slim, long, hooked nose. They had broad lips, a large mouth. Brown eyes, brown skin, wavy to curly hair.
> 
> Comparing their genetically determined physical traits to mentioned populations and some others:
> 
> Northern South Asian 73%
> ...



the look you describe (above the list of percentages of common traits) doesn't evoke something typically African (SSA).
and I don't see on what they can produce these curious percentages.

----------


## Doggerland

> the look you describe (above the list of percentages of common traits) doesn't evoke something typically African (SSA).
> and I don't see on what they can produce these curious percentages.


No, they dont look typical African. But they had many optical traits that they share with all African populations and Neanderthals. But like I said, I think its Archaic because Bantu(Samples are from West Africa) and Malawi Mesolithic is not high.
The percentages are the result of comparing the alleles of the SNPs for traits between the populations. Same alleles, match 1. Only 1 allele, half match 1/2. No allele matching, no match 0. The curious percentages are produced, because humans of different populations share many alleles. I cannot stop them from doing this ;) The Percentages are rounded up. So if two populations are 65% it could be in fact that one population is 64,7 and one 65.

----------


## bigsnake49

Come back when there is a whole bunch of samples.

----------


## MOESAN

> the look you describe (above the list of percentages of common traits) doesn't evoke something typically African (SSA).
> and I don't see on what they can produce these curious percentages.


Thanks for answer.
Question: how many phenotypical alleles have been analysed on how many people in every pop?

----------


## MOESAN

Glup! I answered to myself when I was thinking I was doing it to Doggerland. Sorry Doggerland!

----------


## MOESAN

> earlier scientists of 19 th century can' t accept sumerians were blacks and said they were eurafrican people with a nose intermediary between those of africans and those of europeans, they also think sumerians were from australoid families but racism bias make them say sumerians were black red turanians
> somesay they are ancestorsof ugrian langages with proof
> but the truth show sumerians were australoid peoples:
> the analysis of sumerian bones show thay are australoids
> According to many experts, the Al-Ubaid people were ancestral to the Sumerians, or at least, to their culture. The Al-Ubaid skulls show a chaemaerrhine index with a mean value of 49.2. In other words, they had very broad noses. The skulls had both subnasal and alveolar prognathism, or fullness of the lower and upper lips. The average linear projection was 8 mm. for the skulls. Their heads were long and narrow. 
> Buxton and Rice found that of 26 Sumerian crania 17 were Australoid, five Austrics and four Armenoid. According to Penniman who studied skulls from Kish and other Sumerian sites, these three: the Australoid (Eurafrican), Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians. Here is Penniman's description of the Austric type found at Sumer: 
> "These people are of medium stature, with complexion and
> hair like those of the Eurafrican, to which race they are 
> allied, dark eyes, and oval faces. They have small ill-filled
> ...


The linguistic aspect of the thread is the most interesting one. The phenotypic aspect is very confuse in your post, and in your place I would not put too much faith in the ancient anthropologists works or I 'd try to distinct between the more or less serious ones and the strictly un reliable ones. BTW we are all cousins spite different and the term 'negroid' has nothing racist in it: it is based on Latin 'niger' which gave the French 'noir' in north and 'nègre' in south (Occitan) and 'negro' in Spanish, not based on 'nigger' which is an evolutive form of the same roots but took over centuries a contempt colour in the Anglo-Saxon word. It seems we all Eurasians are come from Africa, and you are not obliged to search more close cousins in some Asia dark populations; it's more complicated, and proximity is not tied only to external features so it isn't useful to construct some kind of affective feelings based on all that (your "brothers"). 
&: for an anthropologist, 'melanoid' is not sufficient (blackish skin), so you need an epithet (African melanoid and Asian melanoid) terms you can use if you want; personally when I say 'negroid' I think 'African melanoid', not 'nigger'. No offense, that said.

----------


## ThirdTerm

> THE SUMERIAN AND THE TAMOUL ur = city, town, village in Tamil, ur = town, town in Sumerian as = one, alone in Sumerian, as = prime / one, alone in Tamil kur = mountain in Sumerian, kur = name of hill tribes in Tamil and Dravidian, kori / koeum = mountain in Altaic language. tamil arukan arhus Sumerian "benevolent person".


Tamil tribes carry Q-M242 at 6%-8%. The Marsh Arabs (2%) are considered the population with the strongest link to ancient Sumerians. The diversity of sub-lineages of Q-M242 before 15.3 kya resulted from the differentiation of Q-M242 in South Siberia since the Paleolithic Age. The appearance of the Paleo-Indian population is part of the great human diffusion throughout the Eurasia after the Last Glacial Maximum. The Tamils and the Marsh Arabs are partly descendants of the Paleo-Indian population from South Siberia.

----------


## johen

> *Tamil tribes carry Q-M242 at 6%-8%*. The Marsh Arabs (2%) are considered the population with the strongest link to ancient Sumerians. The diversity of sub-lineages of Q-M242 before 15.3 kya resulted from the differentiation of Q-M242 in South Siberia since the Paleolithic Age. The appearance of the Paleo-Indian population is part of the great human diffusion throughout the Eurasia after the Last Glacial Maximum. The Tamils and the Marsh Arabs are partly descendants of the Paleo-Indian population from South Siberia.


Probably that Q-M242 is related with neolithic WSHG who migrated into IVC. Both language similarity also seems to be with *WSHG migration.*

"The Japanese professor Tsutomu Kambe claimed to have found more than 500 similar words about agriculture between Tamil and Japanese in 2011"

"Comparative linguist Kang Gil-un identifies 1300 Dravidian Tamil cognates in Korean. He suggests that Korean is probably related to the Nivkh language and influenced by Tamil.[17]"

- american indian admixture in Iran territory:

----------


## Doggerland

> Thanks for answer.
> Question: how many phenotypical alleles have been analysed on how many people in every pop?


80alleles. 
Face bone morphology 11
Ear morphology 8
Mouth morphology 7
Eye morphology 5
Nose morphology 7
Teeth morphology 5
Skull morphology 5
Eye color 19
Skin color 4
Hair morphology 2
Hand and arm morphology 3
Spine and torso 3
Height1

Some SNPs have an influence on more then one trait.
All can be found at GWAS Catalog and studies on the internet.

I only use alleles which are ethnically different in today's population. The reason for this is following: Not every population has samples that provide all 80 SNPs. When you compare SNPs that have in every population almost over 90% the same alleles, this would enhance the percentage for traits which are similar in every human population and that would not help to see differences, but enhance the percentage of similarity in incomplete samples, when they are rich in them.

The minimal SNPs that a (final) sample must provide is 40.
Forthat reason there is no Afontova Gora, Yana, Salkhit, Ofnet and many others. They all lacking too many SNPs.

For modern populations that are available on the internet like on NCBI i use the average alleles of the population for comparison.

For example:

The value for rs1235789 in the default population is A 0.5 T 0.5 so the allele will be AT
The value for rs1235789 in the default population is A 0.8 T 0.2 so the allele will be AA

For populations that are not to find open on the Internet I use Human Genome Project samples or the ones that can be found in the European Nucleotide Archive.
When it comes to ancient samples some are very good and provide all SNPs I need, but in general they are rare and often of poor quality/low in SNPs for traits.
I merge them into one by using the “Jurassic Park” method: I fill the gaps with SNPs of another individual of the same population, so a sample for comparison will consist of many individuals of the same population.

When there is more then one sample of a population which provides the SNPs I need, I consider to use the heterozygote variations, if they are present.

For example: Yamnaya induvidual 1 has rs123456 AA and Yamnaya individual 2 has rs123456 TT. I this case I use AT for that SNP because is is likely, that both variations existed in the population.

When many samples are available (which is normally not the chase) it would be needed to calculate this different:

9 Individuals have AA and only one has TT, AA will be the chosen alleles becauseit is unlikely that TT is the typical one, or AT.

I don’t use outliers if they where identified by a study or hobby anthropologist. For people who dont know what that is: A individual which has a very different ancestry admixture to the rest of the population.

----------


## kingjohn

> Figure 2
> Phylogeny of Y-chromosome haplogroups and their frequencies (%) in Marsh Arab and Iraqi populations.
> Al Zahery et al. (2011) investigated the issue of the origin of Marsh Arabs, who are presumed to be the descendants of the ancient Sumerians. Their mtDNA and Y chromosome haplogroups showed that Marsh Arabs are predominantly of Middle Eastern origin, thus refuting the theory that Marsh Arabs are recent migrants from the Indian sub-continent. Haplogroup Q was found at minor frequencies from 0.7% to 2.1% among Marsh Arabs (Figure 2) and haplogroup Q-M25 (0.7%) and haplogroup Q-M378 (2.1%) are descendant haplogroups of Q-M242, which is a very common Y-DNA haplogroup among Native Americans (92.3% in Navajo.)


So only 2.8% Q 
Thats low % 
If anything we need to look more
On the dominant y haplogroup 
In this case j1 80% thats huge...  :Thinking: 

P.s 
I don't think they are descendents of sumerians
They might be groups of arabic and bedouin tribes 
Who settled at some point in marsh area in iraq

----------


## johen

They seems to be brutal w/o mercy:



*The Great Death Pit:* PG1237, with its 74 attendants, was the most spectacular of Ur’s royal tombs. Woolley called any burial without a tomb chamber a "death pit”. He named PG1237 “The Great Death Pit" because of the many bodies that were found within it. http://sumerianshakespeare.com/117701/117801.html




> the royal tombs at ur have been long famous for their chilling scenario of young soldiers and courtesans who loyally took poison to die with their mistress. the authors investigate two of the original skulls with ct scans and propose a procedure no less chilling, but more enforceable. the victims were participants in an elaborate funerary ritual during which they were felled with a sharp instrument, heated, embalmed with mercury, dressed and laid ceremonially in rows.

----------


## kingjohn

> They seems to be brutal w/o mercy:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Great Death Pit:* PG1237, with its 74 attendants, was the most spectacular of Ur’s royal tombs. Woolley called any burial without a tomb chamber a "death pit”. He named PG1237 “The Great Death Pit" because of the many bodies that were found within it. http://sumerianshakespeare.com/117701/117801.html



thats interesting  :Good Job: 
i think we can get some idea what were the main haplogroups 
in mesopotamia 
by this future paper :

*Altınışık N. Ezgi et al. First Genomic Insights into Pre-pottery Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia*  :Cool V: 

p.s
it is before the sumerian period but that can still give something to the puzzle

----------


## johen

How about Q1b?
Jewish people has Q1b
Abraham was a Ur people.

----------


## adian808

> The linguistic aspect of the thread is the most interesting one. The phenotypic aspect is very confuse in your post, and in your place I would not put too much faith in the ancient anthropologists works or I 'd try to distinct between the more or less serious ones and the strictly un reliable ones. BTW we are all cousins spite different and the term 'negroid' has nothing racist in it: it is based on Latin 'niger' which gave the French 'noir' in north and 'nègre' in south (Occitan) and 'negro' in Spanish, not based on 'nigger' which is an evolutive form of the same roots but took over centuries a contempt colour in the Anglo-Saxon word. It seems we all Eurasians are come from Africa, and you are not obliged to search more close cousins in some Asia dark populations; it's more complicated, and proximity is not tied only to external features so it isn't useful to construct some kind of affective feelings based on all that (your "brothers"). 
> &: for an anthropologist, 'melanoid' is not sufficient (blackish skin), so you need an epithet (African melanoid and Asian melanoid) terms you can use if you want; personally when I say 'negroid' I think 'African melanoid', not 'nigger'. No offense, that said.


Dodgerland proved i was right, according to his site pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27417496/ sumerians were blacks and have 70 per cent genes of africans, 69 percent genes of adamanese who are from M haplogroup common to dravidians and australoids and 62 per cent genes of australian aborigines who are from M HAPLOGROUP TOO from L3 haplogroup of africa
Also ASI/AASI map of genetic presence qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3 show Irak was peopled by ASI/AASIs 50000 years ago and bahrein ( the sumerian dilmun) and coastal arabia from horn of africa to irAK and from there to iran , pakistan , india and burma to southeast asia and australia coroborated by map of haplogroup Mdispersal from africa which show the M haplogroup people which were blacks come from african L3 and migrate from horn of africa to coastal arabia to irak and then iran and india and then southeast asia and oceania/ australia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)
Also sumerians were of same genes dravidians ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3770703/ The haplogroup M49 brings them closer to Bengal, Assam, Thibet and Burma (GENE of harappa peoples which we know to be Dravidian) Haplogroup M65a brings them closer to Tamils. Haplogroup 223 brings them closer to Bengal, Burma and Tamils. Haplogroup 234 brings them closer to northern India and Burma (gene of the harappa populations known to be Dravidian) Haplogroups 266 and 289 bring them closer to the Tamils. Haplogroup 311 brings them closer to Tamils, Bengal and Burma.

----------


## adian808

> Tamil tribes carry Q-M242 at 6%-8%. The Marsh Arabs (2%) are considered the population with the strongest link to ancient Sumerians. The diversity of sub-lineages of Q-M242 before 15.3 kya resulted from the differentiation of Q-M242 in South Siberia since the Paleolithic Age. The appearance of the Paleo-Indian population is part of the great human diffusion throughout the Eurasia after the Last Glacial Maximum. The Tamils and the Marsh Arabs are partly descendants of the Paleo-Indian population from South Siberia.


you say yourself both marsharabs and dravidians are partly descendants of paleo indians which we know are AASIs
so marsharabs were not the first people of mesopotamia, they inherited from a people which were much older than them and we know axxording to bible first mesopotamians were black people 
(*fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Table_of_Nations.jpg* ) the Nimrod people, Nimrod was a black a koushite with a sumerian name NIM which means high in sumerian and is closed of Nim in dravidian which is linked to something high , nimir meaning arise
When we know the map of ASI/AASI genetic presence *qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3* show ASI/AASI ( dravidians and australoids) predate marsharabs in irak because they were there since 50000 years old and inhabited irak , iran till india and burmese frontier and were known to be black , so sumerians were blacks , ASI/AASIs , dravidians and australoid folks, this explaining the similarity of sumerian with austric and dravidians language

----------


## johen

> That's not my opinion, that's what genetics of the samples say:
> 
> *rs4787778 AA Hooked nose*
> rs2058742 GG Downturned nose tip
> rs17640804 TT Slim nostrils
> rs3751074 GG Long nose bridge


Do you know what kind of nose alleles natufian had? It seems to me that the natufian had african skull genetically. If iran neolithic got hooked nose, anatolia farmer had the nose of a person in the middle.:

----------


## Doggerland

> Do you know what kind of nose alleles natufian had? It seems to me that the natufian had african skull genetically. If iran neolithic got hooked nose, anatolia farmer had the nose of a person in the middle.:


Anatolia HGs nose had an average long nose bridge and a down tuned nose tip. Other SNPs for nose are missing.

I once posted about the Natufians in another thread. Here are the similarities to modern populations again:

Middle East 75%
Swede 70%
Estonian 67% European 67% Ashkenazi Jewish 67% Northern South Asian 67%
Netherlands 65% United Kingdom 65%
Danish 61% Pygmy 61% African 61%
Basque 51%
Bedouin 50%
Sardinian 48%
Orcadian 46%
Adygei 45% Palestine 45%
French 44% Russian 44%
Italian 43%
Hungarian 39%
Turkish 36%
Ukrainian 21.4 %

IfI only use SNPs for skull physiology, it is only 50% matching with Africans.

About the nose again:

rs4787778 MISSING (nosebridge angle)
rs2058742 TT (Nose tip position is upturned)
rs17640804 TT (Breadth of nostrils is slim)
rs3751074 GG (Nose bridge lenght is long)

Seems that some People disliked that they or some of them had an upturned nose tip, because its not matching with their ideas of how they should look.

Hooked nose bridge with upturned nose tip:https://www.drhilinski.com/wp-conten...e1Diagram1.jpg

Straight nose bridge with upturned nose:https://i.pinimg.com/originals/45/80...8c81956d44.jpg

Hooked nose bridge with down turned nose tip:https://rhinoplasty-blog.com/wp-cont...Roman-Nose.jpg

We don’t know that kind of nose bridge type they had, only nose tip.

----------


## kingjohn

> Anatolia HGs nose had an average long nose bridge and a down tuned nose tip. Other SNPs for nose are missing.
> 
> I once posted about the Natufians in another thread. Here are the similarities to modern populations again:
> 
> Middle East 75%
> Swede 70%
> Estonian 67% European 67% Ashkenazi Jewish 67% Northern South Asian 67%
> Netherlands 65% United Kingdom 65%
> Danish 61% Pygmy 61% African 61%
> ...



interesting :Thinking: 
*and with who it match the best in terms of skull physiology* ?

----------


## Tryaga

> you say yourself both marsharabs and dravidians are partly descendants of paleo indians which we know are AASIs
> so marsharabs were not the first people of mesopotamia, they inherited from a people which were much older than them and we know axxording to bible first mesopotamians were black people 
> (*fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Table_of_Nations.jpg* ) the Nimrod people, Nimrod was a black a koushite with a sumerian name NIM which means high in sumerian and is closed of Nim in dravidian which is linked to something high , nimir meaning arise
> When we know the map of ASI/AASI genetic presence *qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3* show ASI/AASI ( dravidians and australoids) predate marsharabs in irak because they were there since 50000 years old and inhabited irak , iran till india and burmese frontier and were known to be black , so sumerians were blacks , ASI/AASIs , dravidians and australoid folks, this explaining the similarity of sumerian with austric and dravidians language


You even using a book made by a land of goatherders outs you as a crackpot. Considering how antisemitic Black Nationalists/Hoteps are I wouldn't be surprised if you hated the Jews as well.

----------


## Doggerland

> interesting
> *and with who it match the best in terms of skull physiology* ?


Danish 80%
Hungarian 75% Swede 75%
Middle East 67%

Like I said in the Natufian thread, they seemed to have a connection to the founder population of SHG. Maybe this is based on interbreeding with LGM survivors or the idea of a Basal Eurasian, or whatever.

Compared to ancient populations Natufians had the highest match with Iberomaurusians in physiological traits.
There where also anthropologist in the last century who connected skulls found in denmark(The Borreby type) to Mechta Afalou skulls, this could be a coincidence, but maybe they are really much similar, according to genetics of skull morphology.

----------


## kingjohn

> Danish 80%
> Hungarian 75% Swede 75%
> Middle East 67%
> 
> Like I said in the Natufian thread, they seemed to have a connection to the founder population of SHG. Maybe this is based on interbreeding with LGM survivors or the idea of a Basal Eurasian, or whatever.
> 
> Compared to ancient populations Natufians had the highest match with Iberomaurusians in physiological traits.
> There where also anthropologist in the last century who connected skulls found in denmark(The Borreby type) to Mechta Afalou skulls, this could be a coincidence, but maybe they are really much similar, according to genetics of skull morphology.



how do you concluded it 
*what are the snp's who determine skull physiology ?
and what are the natufian values in each snp ? 
*maybe it is has a conection to the* dzudzuana component* in them :Thinking: 

p.s
it is nteresting to me since many of them were e-z830 
although from what i read in anthrogenica most of the chances that they were *a dead end linages*  :Thinking:

----------


## real expert

> Danish 80%
> Hungarian 75% Swede 75%
> Middle East 67%
> 
> Like I said in the Natufian thread, they seemed to have a connection to the founder population of SHG. Maybe this is based on interbreeding with LGM survivors or the idea of a Basal Eurasian, or whatever.
> 
> Compared to ancient populations Natufians had the highest match with Iberomaurusians in physiological traits.
> There where also anthropologist in the last century who connected skulls found in denmark(The Borreby type) to Mechta Afalou skulls, this could be a coincidence, but maybe they are really much similar, according to genetics of skull morphology.


Hi Doggerland it's a bit offtopic,but could you please check the phenotype analysis for the BA Aegeans?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127963/

HIrisPLex predicted 1 BA Aegean individual to be in the "dark" category, while the other two were predicted to be most likely "dark to black". These 3 individuals are AA on rs1426654 (SLC24A5) but CC and CG (overwhelmingly GG in contemporary Europeans) on rsrs16891982 (SLC45A2). Besides, the two Aegeans that scored "dark to black" carried OCA2, which also contributes to pigmentation. 



Is it possible for you to verify how accurate the phenotype analysis, in terms of BA Greeks being very dark skinned, is?

----------


## Tryaga

Someone kill away the We Wuz Kangz poster.

----------


## MOESAN

> someone kill away the we wuz kangz poster.


??? Meaning?

----------


## MOESAN

> Danish 80%
> Hungarian 75% Swede 75%
> Middle East 67%
> 
> Like I said in the Natufian thread, they seemed to have a connection to the founder population of SHG. Maybe this is based on interbreeding with LGM survivors or the idea of a Basal Eurasian, or whatever.
> 
> Compared to ancient populations Natufians had the highest match with Iberomaurusians in physiological traits.
> There where also anthropologist in the last century who connected skulls found in denmark(The Borreby type) to Mechta Afalou skulls, this could be a coincidence, but maybe they are really much similar, according to genetics of skull morphology.


btw Mechta Afalou skulls were far enough of the mean tendancies of SSA skulls as a whole.

----------


## MOESAN

> Dodgerland proved i was right, according to his site pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27417496/ sumerians were blacks and have 70 per cent genes of africans, 69 percent genes of adamanese who are from M haplogroup common to dravidians and australoids and 62 per cent genes of australian aborigines who are from M HAPLOGROUP TOO from L3 haplogroup of africa
> Also ASI/AASI map of genetic presence qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3 show Irak was peopled by ASI/AASIs 50000 years ago and bahrein ( the sumerian dilmun) and coastal arabia from horn of africa to irAK and from there to iran , pakistan , india and burma to southeast asia and australia coroborated by map of haplogroup Mdispersal from africa which show the M haplogroup people which were blacks come from african L3 and migrate from horn of africa to coastal arabia to irak and then iran and india and then southeast asia and oceania/ australia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)
> Also sumerians were of same genes dravidians ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3770703/ The haplogroup M49 brings them closer to Bengal, Assam, Thibet and Burma (GENE of harappa peoples which we know to be Dravidian) Haplogroup M65a brings them closer to Tamils. Haplogroup 223 brings them closer to Bengal, Burma and Tamils. Haplogroup 234 brings them closer to northern India and Burma (gene of the harappa populations known to be Dravidian) Haplogroups 266 and 289 bring them closer to the Tamils. Haplogroup 311 brings them closer to Tamils, Bengal and Burma.



I fear you are making a mess of what you read.
If you read correctly Doggerland, you see: not percentages of genes or markers FROM these populations, but genes or markers IN COMMON with them; and you see same or more elevated percentages of COMMON markers with Northern European TODAY white populations!!! And again these markers concern for the most the external aspect. Do open your eyes!
Sumerians were living 5000 years ago, not 50000. Human beings changed over those tomes (my 40000 BC ancestors were surely brown skinned spite i'm white todate. And their skills and culture changed too.
Here we have forgotten the thread's goal. 
Concerning language and culture, it isn't new that people think about Dravidian (as language, not by force "race"), it's so possible! We even don't know where Dravidian languages originated (have we an East to West or a West to East expansion (the last could be true).
&: concerning the geographic origins some traditions would propose that original Sumerians would be come from sea and that their were very high statured people; but what faith to give to those traditions? If true it could evoke people come from the Indus Valley, but also from Kushitic pop's of certain places; and that the language could have ties with farther Asiatic languages, but also Afro-Asiatic ones. I cannot say more because it isn't my first focus of interest.
My point was to discard too old links between unrelated facts as remote physical origins and recent cultural ones. I think someones are going fast an far based on uncertain facts.
No offense, that said.

----------


## adian808

> You even using a book made by a land of goatherders outs you as a crackpot. Considering how antisemitic Black Nationalists/Hoteps are I wouldn't be surprised if you hated the Jews as well.


bible is a source for history, numerous sites was cited in bibles and were later found proven real in archeology: in middle ages to 19th century people thought sumerians doesn' t exist or were the same akkadians until we discovered Ur the city of sumerians which was cited in bible and sumerians had been proven to be different from akkadians. bible also said about Nimrod a king with sumerian name ( Nim means high in sumerian) who was the founder of mesopotamia as sumerians were proven the first people of mesopotamia and who was a black a koushite when we know sumerians call themselves black heads people( sag gig ga) zalmat qaqqadu in akkadian when we know the same word translate the adamu race the first race created by annunakis, the black race in sumerian tales meaning sumerians were blacks too...
Rawlinson and 19th century authors found it true but were busied by bias about a so called black red turanians and some others call sumerians eurafricans because they can' t accept sumerians to be black, thinking only african blacks were blacks neglecting the notice of old greeks about western ethiopians ( african blacks, koushites, puntites and ancient egyptians and egyptians colonies in caucasus) and eastern ethiopians ( dravidians, meluhhites , indusians,sumeriansthe black cephenes of euphrate of hellanicus, elamites the people of memnon, australoides people)
Adolphe bloch even said about a difference to be made between " nigger" race and black races *persee.fr/doc/bmsap_0301-8644_1902_num_3_1_6078*
Also bible help discover hattians called hethians in bible and discovered longtime after bible was written, so are hattis not real? bible also said hethians live in canaan too and acording to amjad jaimoukha a jebusite king has a hurrian name Heba abdi from heba the wife of the god of hurrians who are also chechens ancestors ( see the site *te(dot)lib(dot)limited/book/3266535/5e718c*) meaning the jebusite were mixed semitic caucasian tribe and proving caucasians as hattis were indigenous of palestine

----------


## MOESAN

Natufians were variated based on metric surveys (modern ones, not typologic ones), spite they have some mean tendencies. On this aspect, later ancient Levant peasants were already different enough from Natufians, and the modifications pointed to mixings/crossings more than to internal evolution.
I have no typology study on them, only some vague local comparisons with North-Maghreb mesolithical pops and Levant farmers, and internal comparisons within Natufian groups: no absolute measure, no "absolute" index. 
I could be possible they approached some kind of what was called 'grimaldi' type, kind of 'cromagnoid' with higher skull, and wider nose, so, sort of partly "SSA-africanised cro-magnoid"; just a bet without solid basis; old anthropologists were not in accord, but some slight Afr. 'negroid' aspect could have existed among the most ancient Natufians.
Some 'negroid' traits have been found among first EEF farmers at the individual level (usefulness of typology here!!!) and the 'grimaldi' type has been present around all Mediterranea Sea at low level until Chalcolithic, and faded out progressively (it's to say, its most striking traits).

----------


## adian808

> I fear you are making a mess of what you read.
> If you read correctly Doggerland, you see: not percentages of genes or markers FROM these populations, but genes or markers IN COMMON with them; and you see same or more elevated percentages of COMMON markers with Northern European TODAY white populations!!! And again these markers concern for the most the external aspect. Do open your eyes!
> Sumerians were living 5000 years ago, not 50000. Human beings changed over those tomes (my 40000 BC ancestors were surely brown skinned spite i'm white todate. And their skills and culture changed too.
> Here we have forgotten the thread's goal. 
> Concerning language and culture, it isn't new that people think about Dravidian (as language, not by force "race"), it's so possible! We even don't know where Dravidian languages originated (have we an East to West or a West to East expansion (the last could be true).
> &: concerning the geographic origins some traditions would propose that original Sumerians would be come from sea and that their were very high statured people; but what faith to give to those traditions? If true it could evoke people come from the Indus Valley, but also from Kushitic pop's of certain places; and that the language could have ties with farther Asiatic languages, but also Afro-Asiatic ones. I cannot say more because it isn't my first focus of interest.
> My point was to discard too old links between unrelated facts as remote physical origins and recent cultural ones. I think someones are going fast an far based on uncertain facts.
> No offense, that said.


dodgerland prooved sumerians have 70 per cent genes similar to african blacks and 69 per cent genes of adamanese who we know have same genes australoids which are high in dravidians and we know according to the Asi/AAsi map i have posted ASI/AASI are first people of mesopotamia so are sumerians ancestors *qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3*
and we know according to ncbi , tamils and sumerians have same genes *ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3770703/* 
*The haplogroup M49 brings sumerians closer to Bengal, Assam, Thibet and Burma (GENE of POPULATIONS of HARAPPA which we know to be Dravidian) Haplogroup M65a brings them closer to Tamils. Haplogroup 223 brings them closer to Bengal, Burma and Tamils. Haplogroup 234 brings them closer to northern India and Burma (gene of the harappa populations known to be Dravidian) Haplogroups 266 and 289 bring them closer to the Tamils. Haplogroup 311 brings them closer to Tamils, Bengal and burma
So we can guess sumerians were blacks ASI/AASI peoples
Remember Nimrod which name is sumerian( Nim means high) was first occupier of Irak according to bible and was a black , while sumerians are proven first people of irak and called themselves sag gig ga which is translated as zalmat qaqqadu the name of the adamu race the black race in akkadian and they were called by all foreign kings by this name...
Even the dispersal of peoples episode is proven true by sumerians who didn' t say people separate from sumrians because of their high tower pyramidal temple cf Enmerkar epos
*

----------


## kingjohn

> thats interesting 
> i think we can get some idea what were the main haplogroups 
> in mesopotamia 
> by this future paper :
> 
> *Altınışık N. Ezgi et al. First Genomic Insights into Pre-pottery Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia* 
> 
> p.s
> it is before the sumerian period but that can still give something to the puzzle





i found the 
*pre-pottery neolithic of upper mesoptamia paper abstract*  :Cool: 
here :
https://isba9.sciencesconf.org/data/...ISBA9_2022.pdf


*First Genomic Insights into Pre-pottery Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia
*Altınışık N. Ezgi (1) Aydoğan Ayça (1), Kazancı Duygu Deniz (1), Vural KıvılcımBaşak (2), Koptekin Dilek (2), Özkan Mustafa (2), Gemici Hasan Can (3),Karamurat Cansu (3), Erdal Ömür Dilek (4), Götherström Anders (5, 6), SürerElif (7), Atakuman Çiğdem (8), Erim Aslı (9), Özer Füsun (1), Somel Mehmet (2),Erdal Yılmaz Selim (1)1 - Human-G Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Hacettepe University, Ankara,Turkey (Turkey), 2 - Department of Biology, Middle East Technical University(METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 3 - Graduate School of Social Sciences, MiddleEast Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 4 - Husbiol Laboratory,Department of Anthropology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 5 -Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Stockholm University, Stockholm,Sweden (Sweden), 6 - Centre for Palaeogenetics, Stockholm, Sweden (Sweden), 7 -Department of Modeling and Simulation, Graduate School of Informatics, Middle EastTechnical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 8 - Institute of SocialSciences, Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 9 -Department of Archaeology, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale 17100,Turkey (Turkey)

Recent studies showed that Neolithic populations in southwest Asia included distinctgene pools in the Levant, in Central Anatolia, and in the Zagros. Further, genomic comparisons suggested that all three populations adopted sedentism and farming without major admixture or replacement from other regions. Meanwhile, the population genetic characteristics of the geographic midpoint of these regions,namely upper Mesopotamia, has not been investigated so far. *Here in this study, we present the first genomic data of individuals excavated from the PPNB phase of Çayönü. Çayönü, near the upper stretches of river Tigris, is one of the earlysettlements discovered in southeast Anatolia at the upper-most edge of FertileCrescent.* Material culture data indicate that the Çayönü population interactedintensely with nearby regions - Anatolia, Levant, and Zagros. *Despite poor DNA preservation due to harsh environmental conditions, after screening the remains of 33 individuals we managed to obtain genomic data enough for population genetics analyses from 14 individuals.* *We revealed that Çayönü individuals were genetically similar to early Holocene groups of C Anatolia, Levant, and Zagros, with higher affinity to the C Anatolia-Levant cline.* We also modelled Çayönü as a three-way admixture utilizing qpAdm and found that pre-pottery Neolithic population of Çayönü harbored ancestry from all surrounding populations. Overall, in line with archaeological evidence, Çayönü appears to have been a melting pot of neighbouring Neolithic populations during the 9th and 8th millennia BC.


the site 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87ay%C3%B6n%C3%BC

----------


## MOESAN

> dodgerland prooved sumerians have 70 per cent genes similar to african blacks and 69 per cent genes of adamanese who we know have same genes australoids which are high in dravidians and we know according to the Asi/AAsi map i have posted ASI/AASI are first people of mesopotamia so are sumerians ancestors *qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3*
> and we know according to ncbi , tamils and sumerians have same genes *ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3770703/* 
> *The haplogroup M49 brings sumerians closer to Bengal, Assam, Thibet and Burma (GENE of POPULATIONS of HARAPPA which we know to be Dravidian) Haplogroup M65a brings them closer to Tamils. Haplogroup 223 brings them closer to Bengal, Burma and Tamils. Haplogroup 234 brings them closer to northern India and Burma (gene of the harappa populations known to be Dravidian) Haplogroups 266 and 289 bring them closer to the Tamils. Haplogroup 311 brings them closer to Tamils, Bengal and burma
> So we can guess sumerians were blacks ASI/AASI peoples
> Remember Nimrod which name is sumerian( Nim means high) was first occupier of Irak according to bible and was a black , while sumerians are proven first people of irak and called themselves sag gig ga which is translated as zalmat qaqqadu the name of the adamu race the black race in akkadian and they were called by all foreign kings by this name...
> Even the dispersal of peoples episode is proven true by sumerians who didn' t say people separate from sumrians because of their high tower pyramidal temple cf Enmerkar epos
> *



You already wrote or copied this kind of stuff. What serious sources? Are you not confusing Dravidian language with Dravidian kind of "race"? (if one) - BTW the bones shapes Harappa people (of the 2000 BC? Sorry, not sure of the dates) put them rather close to today and ancient so called 'indo-afghan' means of typologists.
And what the hell about mt-M? I would be happy if you could provide me the mt-DNA haplo's/subclades of ancient Sumerians and Harappa people: your whole collection of mt-M, a very old and primal mt-lineage doesn't seem relevant in this discussion, it' s so broadly spred and ancient.
When I read you I have the sentiment that myself I'm Kushitic-Dravidian-Austrasian, what could be true if I go back far enough in my past, but Sumerians are closer to our time...
As population(s) Dravidian speaking people are very heterogenous and if someones could be _supposed_ as a kind of Ethiopianlike undifferentiated group = kind of pre-Westeurasian/pre-East-Eurasian group with some rare old features evoking SAAfricans , the today diversity cannot be born by purely internal variations of a previous homogenous group; there have been crossings on a lot of directions by time. Language is not genetic Bound.

----------


## real expert

> i found the 
> *pre-pottery neolithic of upper mesoptamia paper abstract* 
> here :
> https://isba9.sciencesconf.org/data/...ISBA9_2022.pdf
> 
> 
> *First Genomic Insights into Pre-pottery Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia
> *Altınışık N. Ezgi (1) Aydoğan Ayça (1), Kazancı Duygu Deniz (1), Vural KıvılcımBaşak (2), Koptekin Dilek (2), Özkan Mustafa (2), Gemici Hasan Can (3),Karamurat Cansu (3), Erdal Ömür Dilek (4), Götherström Anders (5, 6), SürerElif (7), Atakuman Çiğdem (8), Erim Aslı (9), Özer Füsun (1), Somel Mehmet (2),Erdal Yılmaz Selim (1)1 - Human-G Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Hacettepe University, Ankara,Turkey (Turkey), 2 - Department of Biology, Middle East Technical University(METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 3 - Graduate School of Social Sciences, MiddleEast Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 4 - Husbiol Laboratory,Department of Anthropology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 5 -Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Stockholm University, Stockholm,Sweden (Sweden), 6 - Centre for Palaeogenetics, Stockholm, Sweden (Sweden), 7 -Department of Modeling and Simulation, Graduate School of Informatics, Middle EastTechnical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 8 - Institute of SocialSciences, Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 9 -Department of Archaeology, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale 17100,Turkey (Turkey)
> 
> ...



Nice abstract about Mesopotamia. However, DNA from Southern Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, would've been even more awesome. I’m speculating that the Southern Mesopotamians were heavily Iran_ Neo or Iran Zagros farmers-like.

----------


## MOESAN

> i found the 
> *pre-pottery neolithic of upper mesoptamia paper abstract* 
> here :
> https://isba9.sciencesconf.org/data/...ISBA9_2022.pdf
> 
> 
> *First Genomic Insights into Pre-pottery Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia
> *Altınışık N. Ezgi (1) Aydoğan Ayça (1), Kazancı Duygu Deniz (1), Vural KıvılcımBaşak (2), Koptekin Dilek (2), Özkan Mustafa (2), Gemici Hasan Can (3),Karamurat Cansu (3), Erdal Ömür Dilek (4), Götherström Anders (5, 6), SürerElif (7), Atakuman Çiğdem (8), Erim Aslı (9), Özer Füsun (1), Somel Mehmet (2),Erdal Yılmaz Selim (1)1 - Human-G Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Hacettepe University, Ankara,Turkey (Turkey), 2 - Department of Biology, Middle East Technical University(METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 3 - Graduate School of Social Sciences, MiddleEast Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 4 - Husbiol Laboratory,Department of Anthropology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 5 -Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Stockholm University, Stockholm,Sweden (Sweden), 6 - Centre for Palaeogenetics, Stockholm, Sweden (Sweden), 7 -Department of Modeling and Simulation, Graduate School of Informatics, Middle EastTechnical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 8 - Institute of SocialSciences, Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 9 -Department of Archaeology, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale 17100,Turkey (Turkey)
> 
> ...


it's more interesting than speculations covering 50000 years and continents!
That said we are not sure that Sumerians were the direct descendants of these local Neolithic pop's. They could be come from the Horn of Africa, or, mabe more accurately, from southern Iran (near Elam?) or southern Indus Valley. Their physical aspect is debated and they could have mixed with other pop's by time. The so called 'eurafrican' type was perhaps not their original one, spite it seems likely. Concerning language the plenty of diverse opinions of real specialists show us the height of the wall! It seems Dravidian and Tibeto-Burman languages could be leading the race but?...

----------


## kingjohn

> Nice abstract about Mesopotamia. However, *DNA from* *Southern Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, would've been even more awesome.* I’m speculating that the Southern Mesopotamians were heavily Iran_ Neo or Iran Zagros farmers-like.



agree
it is a bummer i thought the samples will be from mesoptamia proper
not in actual south east turkey  :Thinking: 
either way it is going to be cool samples *ppnb remains from southeast turkey*  :Great:  
14 remains 
i expecting the males to be a combination of:
*j2 , j1 , r1b , G , L* 
*maybe also T* 
i would be surprised if E would show up  :Thinking:

----------


## real expert

> agree
> it is a bummer i thought the samples will be from mesoptamia proper
> not in actual south east turkey 
> either way it is going to be cool samples *ppnb remains from southeast turkey*  
> 14 remains 
> i expecting the males to be a combination of:
> *j2 , j1 , r1b , G , L* 
> *maybe also T* 
> i would be surprised if E would show up


I second that.

----------


## Doggerland

> Hi Doggerland it's a bit offtopic,but could you please check the phenotype analysis for the BA Aegeans?


The three ones Pta08, Kou1 and Log02 right? Yes i can, but it will take some time. What do you want to know, how they looked and/or matching phenotypical SNPs to living populations?

----------


## Doggerland

> dodgerland prooved sumerians have 70 per cent genes similar to african blacks and 69 per cent genes of adamanese who we know have same genes australoids which are high in dravidians and we know according to the Asi/AAsi map i have posted ASI/AASI are first people of mesopotamia so are sumerians ancestors *qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-*


No, I didnt say this or propagate such a conclusion.

I dont test here for percentage of Admixture genes, but for allele similarity in SNPs for optical traits. And in that sense they looked like an Archaic Population of the Region the samples where found. They dont looked like Sub Saharan Africans of today. All African Populations(Involves North Africans too) is the population that matches most to archaic populations like Neanderthal or Denisovan. But this archaic hominids lived around whole Eurasia in the past, in my opinion their genetic material mostly survived in Africa, because its environment supported their genetics and lifestyle. Big game hunting was possible, not much pressure from other human populations. No pressure for depigmentation or straight hair. The archaic hominids gave rise to modern Africans, but also to all other human populations in the past in Eurasia.

I personally think that the neanderthal admixture in LGM Europeans is of an atavistic origin and not the result of an admixture event. All humans evolved from archaic hominids in Eurasia and Africans split from the Eurasian populations in or even before the LGM, because the pressure of other human populations and cold climate pushed them to migrate to Africa. This explains the PCA gap between Africans and all Non-African populations. It also explains why there are african optical traits in eurasian populations without having much modern African components. These traits are not exclusively African, but archaic.

I will now post the percentage of admixture(Not optical traits) of the Eastern fertile Crescent Neolithic, to proof that they where not mainly of an modern SSA ancestry: 

Eurogenes K36:

South Central Asian 69.95
Armenian 16.98
West Caucasian 10.38
North Caucasian 2.28
Central African 0.38

South Central Asian 70.1
Armenian 13.86
West Caucasian 7.67
Central African 1.26
West African 1
Pygmy 0.73

South Central Asian 70
Armenian 14.6 
West Caucasian 7.97
Pygmy 2.92
East Med 1.52
West African 0.88

No, they did not came from modern African populations, they looked some kind like them, because of archaic hominid origin.

----------


## real expert

> The three ones Pta08, Kou1 and Log02 right? Yes i can, but it will take some time. What do you want to know, how they looked and/or matching phenotypical SNPs to living populations?


Exactly. I'd really like to know whether the HIrisPL predidcted the skin tone of Pta08, Kou1, and Log02 which was very dark, accurately. Given the fact that the BA Aegeans were primarily of Anatolian farmer stock, I find it hard to believe that they were dark brown. Furthermore, it would be awesome if you could make a phenotype analysis in terms of their hair texture and facial features.

----------


## adian808

> You already wrote or copied this kind of stuff. What serious sources? Are you not confusing Dravidian language with Dravidian kind of "race"? (if one) - BTW the bones shapes Harappa people (of the 2000 BC? Sorry, not sure of the dates) put them rather close to today and ancient so called 'indo-afghan' means of typologists.
> And what the hell about mt-M? I would be happy if you could provide me the mt-DNA haplo's/subclades of ancient Sumerians and Harappa people: your whole collection of mt-M, a very old and primal mt-lineage doesn't seem relevant in this discussion, it' s so broadly spred and ancient.
> When I read you I have the sentiment that myself I'm Kushitic-Dravidian-Austrasian, what could be true if I go back far enough in my past, but Sumerians are closer to our time...
> As population(s) Dravidian speaking people are very heterogenous and if someones could be _supposed_ as a kind of Ethiopianlike undifferentiated group = kind of pre-Westeurasian/pre-East-Eurasian group with some rare old features evoking SAAfricans , the today diversity cannot be born by purely internal variations of a previous homogenous group; there have been crossings on a lot of directions by time. Language is not genetic Bound.


i am not confusing dravidian language and race
according to scientists first people of india are AASIs and dravidians and mundas have a lot of their genes
according to scientists dravidians are a mix of a zagros people and AASIs
but we know Bernard Sergent of the french CNRS said dravidians come from africa and mix with aasis which come from africa too *clio.fr/BIBLIOTHEQUE/l_origine_des_populations_de_l_inde_a_la_lumiere_d es_dernieres_decouvertes_archeologiques.asp* 
and according ASI/AASI genetic presence map *qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3* mesopotamia was peopled by ASI/AASIs 50000years ago and they were the first people of the region, it's what Masaman called arab veddoid, so mesopotamia was peopled by blacks 50000 years ago and we know sumerians are sons of ubaidians and are the first people of mesopotamia,just like ASI/AAsis in the map so ubaidians were blacks and sumerians were blacks roo
my map is not about langage but genetics
about langage we have this site *azargoshnasp.net/recent_history/pan_turkist_philosophy/sumd/austricsumerian.htm* which says nearly the same thing I
i can' t post clearly linkscause i am newbie the forum said i must post 20 posts before posting pictures, 
if you can help me , i can show yoi more and you would see i was right

----------


## adian808

> No, I didnt say this or propagate such a conclusion.
> 
> I dont test here for percentage of Admixture genes, but for allele similarity in SNPs for optical traits. And in that sense they looked like an Archaic Population of the Region the samples where found. They dont looked like Sub Saharan Africans of today. All African Populations(Involves North Africans too) is the population that matches most to archaic populations like Neanderthal or Denisovan. But this archaic hominids lived around whole Eurasia in the past, in my opinion their genetic material mostly survived in Africa, because its environment supported their genetics and lifestyle. Big game hunting was possible, not much pressure from other human populations. No pressure for depigmentation or straight hair. The archaic hominids gave rise to modern Africans, but also to all other human populations in the past in Eurasia.
> 
> I personally think that the neanderthal admixture in LGM Europeans is of an atavistic origin and not the result of an admixture event. All humans evolved from archaic hominids in Eurasia and Africans split from the Eurasian populations in or even before the LGM, because the pressure of other human populations and cold climate pushed them to migrate to Africa. This explains the PCA gap between Africans and all Non-African populations. It also explains why there are african optical traits in eurasian populations without having much modern African components. These traits are not exclusively African, but archaic.
> 
> I will now post the percentage of admixture(Not optical traits) of the Eastern fertile Crescent Neolithic, to proof that they where not mainly of an modern SSA ancestry: 
> 
> Eurogenes K36:
> ...


I never said sumerians were african blacks but that they are dravidians/ australoid peoples
according to ASI/AASI map i have posted mesopotamia, south iran and india and coastal arabia were peopled by Asi/AASIs peoples

----------


## Doggerland

> Exactly. I'd really like to know whether the HIrisPL predidcted the skin tone of Pta08, Kou1, and Log02 which was very dark, accurately. Given the fact that the BA Aegeans were primarily of Anatolian farmer stock, I find it hard to believe that they were dark brown. Furthermore, it would be awesome if you could make a phenotype analysis in terms of their hair texture and facial features.


I would post this in the original thread about the Aegeans, but it is closed.

About Kou1:

Was more a long, narrow faced person. Wide eye sockets, narrow eye distance, narrow forehead, long nose, broad lips, broad mouth. Data for nose tip position or nose bridge angle is missing.
Two SNPs suggest light skin, one dark, one is missing:

rs1426654 AA light
rs26722 CC light
rs642742 TT dark
rs2424984 MISSING

I would suggest brown skin.
Eye color was light brown to hazel.
Hair was curly and dark brown.

About Log02:

More SNPs for face are missing, but it suggest more round face, narrow forehead. Wide eye sockets, big eyes. Narrow nose, broad lips, middle sized mouth.
Only 2 eye color SNPs, determining the color is not possible.
Skin color:

rs1426654 MISSING
rs26722 CT one allele for dark
rs642742 CC light skin
rs2424984MISSING

Maybe brown, but we don’t know.
Wavy to curly, brown hair.


About PTA08:

More round faced, average forehead, wide eye sockets, narrow eye distance, big eyes, narrow nose, long nose bridge, large mouth, narrow lips.
Only 2 eye color SNPs, determining the color is not possible.
Skin color:

rs1426654 MISSING
rs26722 CC light skin.
rs642742 MISSING
rs2424984 MISSING

Cannot be determined.
Hair was wavy to curly, brown.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> i am not confusing dravidian language and race
> according to scientists first people of india are AASIs and dravidians and mundas have a lot of their genes
> according to scientists dravidians are a mix of a zagros people and AASIs
> but we know Bernard Sergent of the french CNRS said dravidians come from africa and mix with aasis which come from africa too *clio.fr/BIBLIOTHEQUE/l_origine_des_populations_de_l_inde_a_la_lumiere_d es_dernieres_decouvertes_archeologiques.asp* 
> and according ASI/AASI genetic presence map *qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3* mesopotamia was peopled by ASI/AASIs 50000years ago and they were the first people of the region, it's what Masaman called arab veddoid, so mesopotamia was peopled by blacks 50000 years ago and we know sumerians are sons of ubaidians and are the first people of mesopotamia,just like ASI/AAsis in the map so ubaidians were blacks and sumerians were blacks roo
> my map is not about langage but genetics
> about langage we have this site *azargoshnasp.net/recent_history/pan_turkist_philosophy/sumd/austricsumerian.htm* which says nearly the same thing I
> i can' t post clearly linkscause i am newbie the forum said i must post 20 posts before posting pictures, 
> if you can help me , i can show yoi more and you would see i was right


I wonder why this kind of pseudoscientific BS is still going on here

----------


## adian808

> I wonder why this kind of pseudoscientific BS is still going on here


so are you saying map of ASI/AASI is a lie ? it's recognised by scientists meanwhile
even Masaman agree this map *youtube.com/watch?v=slTy8MvLQ4U*
the map show the irak region was peopled by ASI/AASIs 50000 years ago , so before semites come out of africa to people middle east see *qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3*
Masaman showed a similar map and called this people arab veddoid (meaning here veddoids of arab region) and say this kind of people mixed later with jibali people of yemen
Also bernard sergent proposed ancient dravidians come from africa and mixed with AAsi people which come from africa too
and the ASI/AASI map is about presence of dravidians and AASIs from somalia to yemen, coastal arabia , bahrein , irak , iran , afghanistan , tadjikistan and pakistan and india to burma
are you saying Bernars Sergent is a liar too ? he's from the french CNRS !!!!!!!! 
See *clio.fr/BIBLIOTHEQUE/l_origine_des_populations_de_l_inde_a_la_lumiere_d es_dernieres_decouvertes_archeologiques.asp
- NB: ther's some somalis who contest masaman too ( somalispot.com/threads/masaman-claims-dir-is-austoloid.63709/) but what he says it's the truth even proven true by Bernard Sergent: australoids and dravidians come from horn of africa
*

----------


## Doggerland

If Africa was the origin of modern humans, it would have the highest/newest haplogroups and mtDNAs. But it hasn't. It has an archaic form of it and not much diversity. Why? I explain it this way: Because this was the first successful wave of migration of modern human ancestors into Africa, a long time ago which also gave rise to Neanderthals in Europe. The main admixture component of Neanderthals is Pygmy. The population did not rise very much in Africa, so not much mutations/new haplogroups and mtDNAs took place. There was also not much environmental pressure to adapt to climate changes or social situations. Only the drying of the Sahara. The fauna of Africa resembling the mega fauna of Eurasia before the glaciation periods.

According to this, the cradle of humanity may lie somewhere in East Asia/Siberia and the waves of migration spread first to Africa, Middle East, Europe, South Asia + Oceania/Australia, Americas.
Asia has the most haplogroup diversity, newest haplogroups. 

If Dravidians where the first out of Africa, they would have a low genetic distance in PCAs to them, the fact is that this is not the chase. Dravidians are near modern Indians and 40.000 years old Tianyuan sample from Beijing. Negritos are even more distant to Africans and closer to Neolithic Vietnam, Singapore.

Why doesn't any of the very old Eurasian modern human samples have a large amount of Pygmy (Oldest African) component? They all have a rainbow-like mixed Ancestry of many components but not dominating African ancestry. If they where “Out of Africa” they had to carry this component a lot.
Is there any population in Africa who has the components of today's or pre LGM Eurasians? No. But African ancestry components where present in archaic Eurasian hominids like Neanderthals and Denisovans. The conclusion for this is: Modern Africans originate from Eurasia/Asia and represent a very early migration into Africa.

The only old modern human samples that carry a little more Afrcian ancestry components are Dzudzuana and Iberomaurusian, but they are not so old as Ust Ishim, Zlaty Kun, Yana, Salkhit or Krems who all have rainbow like admixture and not mainly African ancestry like Neanderthals. Dzudzuana and Iberomaurusian are too young to be “Basal Eurasian” and look more like a mixed population, created in later admixture events. So I didn’t see any genetic evidence for an “Out of Africa” as an initiator for human diversity.

In my opinion Dravidians descended from a very old Asian population that also gave rise to Iran HG. There is a connection between fertile crescent Neolithic and Dravidians, but it has nothing to do with Africans in my opinion, but with a very old Asian population.

I would change my mind, if very old samples from Africa, 40.000 years and older would show that i am wrong, but for now i dont see this.

----------


## real expert

> I would post this in the original thread about the Aegeans, but it is closed.
> 
> About Kou1:
> 
> Was more a long, narrow faced person. Wide eye sockets, narrow eye distance, narrow forehead, long nose, broad lips, broad mouth. Data for nose tip position or nose bridge angle is missing.
> Two SNPs suggest light skin, one dark, one is missing:
> 
> rs1426654 AA light
> rs26722 CC light
> ...


Klasse!  :Great: Thanks for checking the prediction up. So overall you think that the complexion of one individual could be determined with a certain probability unlike the other two? Right? Plus how reliable do find the HIrisPL phenotype analysis on these 3 Aeageans?

----------


## MOESAN

> i am not confusing dravidian language and race
> according to scientists first people of india are AASIs and dravidians and mundas have a lot of their genes
> according to scientists dravidians are a mix of a zagros people and AASIs
> but we know Bernard Sergent of the french CNRS said dravidians come from africa and mix with aasis which come from africa too *clio.fr/BIBLIOTHEQUE/l_origine_des_populations_de_l_inde_a_la_lumiere_d es_dernieres_decouvertes_archeologiques.asp* 
> and according ASI/AASI genetic presence map *qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3* mesopotamia was peopled by ASI/AASIs 50000years ago and they were the first people of the region, it's what Masaman called arab veddoid, so mesopotamia was peopled by blacks 50000 years ago and we know sumerians are sons of ubaidians and are the first people of mesopotamia,just like ASI/AAsis in the map so ubaidians were blacks and sumerians were blacks roo
> my map is not about langage but genetics
> about langage we have this site *azargoshnasp.net/recent_history/pan_turkist_philosophy/sumd/austricsumerian.htm* which says nearly the same thing I
> i can' t post clearly linkscause i am newbie the forum said i must post 20 posts before posting pictures, 
> if you can help me , i can show yoi more and you would see i was right


I cannot read your link; ancestors of Dravidians, at the population level, surely came from Africa like the most of ours, around 50000 BC or earlier; the question is and stays: can we be sure the Sumerians were direct and unmixed descendants of these first "Dravidians"? Did B Sergent say the Dravidians were a secind wave?
Physically speaking we know Koweiti by example show today some "veddoid"like imput; but when occurred it, and where from?

----------


## MOESAN

> I wonder why this kind of pseudoscientific BS is still going on here


Whatever your opinion about the present thread, what push you to consider Bernard Sergent is specially "pseudo-scientific" as you say?

----------


## adian808

> If Africa was the origin of modern humans, it would have the highest/newest haplogroups and mtDNAs. But it hasn't. It has an archaic form of it and not much diversity. Why? I explain it this way: Because this was the first successful wave of migration of modern human ancestors into Africa, a long time ago which also gave rise to Neanderthals in Europe. The main admixture component of Neanderthals is Pygmy. The population did not rise very much in Africa, so not much mutations/new haplogroups and mtDNAs took place. There was also not much environmental pressure to adapt to climate changes or social situations. Only the drying of the Sahara. The fauna of Africa resembling the mega fauna of Eurasia before the glaciation periods.
> 
> According to this, the cradle of humanity may lie somewhere in East Asia/Siberia and the waves of migration spread first to Africa, Middle East, Europe, South Asia + Oceania/Australia, Americas.
> Asia has the most haplogroup diversity, newest haplogroups. 
> 
> If Dravidians where the first out of Africa, they would have a low genetic distance in PCAs to them, the fact is that this is not the chase. Dravidians are near modern Indians and 40.000 years old Tianyuan sample from Beijing. Negritos are even more distant to Africans and closer to Neolithic Vietnam, Singapore.
> 
> Why doesn't any of the very old Eurasian modern human samples have a large amount of Pygmy (Oldest African) component? They all have a rainbow-like mixed Ancestry of many components but not dominating African ancestry. If they where “Out of Africa” they had to carry this component a lot.
> Is there any population in Africa who has the components of today's or pre LGM Eurasians? No. But African ancestry components where present in archaic Eurasian hominids like Neanderthals and Denisovans. The conclusion for this is: Modern Africans originate from Eurasia/Asia and represent a very early migration into Africa.
> ...


Yves Coppens wouldn' t agree with you youtube.com/watch?v=3B62pG4i8RA&t=29s
remember also the mitochondrial eve come from africa ...

----------


## adian808

> If Africa was the origin of modern humans, it would have the highest/newest haplogroups and mtDNAs. But it hasn't. It has an archaic form of it and not much diversity. Why? I explain it this way: Because this was the first successful wave of migration of modern human ancestors into Africa, a long time ago which also gave rise to Neanderthals in Europe. The main admixture component of Neanderthals is Pygmy. The population did not rise very much in Africa, so not much mutations/new haplogroups and mtDNAs took place. There was also not much environmental pressure to adapt to climate changes or social situations. Only the drying of the Sahara. The fauna of Africa resembling the mega fauna of Eurasia before the glaciation periods.
> 
> According to this, the cradle of humanity may lie somewhere in East Asia/Siberia and the waves of migration spread first to Africa, Middle East, Europe, South Asia + Oceania/Australia, Americas.
> Asia has the most haplogroup diversity, newest haplogroups. 
> 
> If Dravidians where the first out of Africa, they would have a low genetic distance in PCAs to them, the fact is that this is not the chase. Dravidians are near modern Indians and 40.000 years old Tianyuan sample from Beijing. Negritos are even more distant to Africans and closer to Neolithic Vietnam, Singapore.
> 
> Why doesn't any of the very old Eurasian modern human samples have a large amount of Pygmy (Oldest African) component? They all have a rainbow-like mixed Ancestry of many components but not dominating African ancestry. If they where “Out of Africa” they had to carry this component a lot.
> Is there any population in Africa who has the components of today's or pre LGM Eurasians? No. But African ancestry components where present in archaic Eurasian hominids like Neanderthals and Denisovans. The conclusion for this is: Modern Africans originate from Eurasia/Asia and represent a very early migration into Africa.
> ...


Dravidians come from africa see this genetic map from 50000years ago qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3
clio.fr/BIBLIOTHEQUE/l_origine_des_populations_de_l_inde_a_la_lumiere_d es_dernieres_decouvertes_archeologiques.asp

----------


## Doggerland

> Yves Coppens wouldn' t agree with you youtube.com/watch?v=3B62pG4i8RA&t=29s
> remember also the mitochondrial eve come from africa ...


Yes I know, most people wouldn't agree with me, because Out of Africa is the most widely accepted theory today, it also has evidence. But from the data I have seen by myself I wouldn't agree to this theory. I also have doubts about this idea of Basal Eurasian. But that doesn't mean that I am 100% confident that I am right, because if there would be data that convinced me, I would change my mind. But I also explained this widely in my last post.

The mtDNA and Y-DNA that is believed to be of Afrcian origin is also found in very old (low quality) samples from Europe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archae...983_to_present)

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB10597

Predicted mtDNA and Y-DNA:

ERR995358+ ERR995359 Y=BT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_BT

ERR995361 MT = L1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L1_(mtDNA)

The oldest Sub Saharan African DNA sample today is from Malawi Mesolithic. Pygmy is its main ancestry component. So there is no genetic evidence for Out of Africa in my opinion, but many against it. Low haplogroup and mtDNA diversity in Africa against Asia, Pygmy as main component of Neanderthals and Denisovans VS diverse Eurasian Ancestry in very old Eurasians like Zlaty Kun, Ust Ishim, Salkhit or Krems. Africans appear isolated on PCAs and populations that are believed to be first out of Africa like Aborigines or Negritos doesn't carry much African admixture and doesn't cluster with Africans, instead of Neanderthals and Denisovans, who cluster with today's Africans.

Eurogenes K36:


Malawi Mesolithic:

Pygmy 55.94
East African 17.83
West African 11.68
Omotic 11.56
1.85 Basque
1.04 French

Neanderthal Forbes Quarry Gibraltar 30-50.000 years old:

Pygmy 71.38
North Atlantic 10
Italian 8.18
Iberian 4.22
East African 3.25
French 1.46
Oceanian 0.96

Salkhit from Siberia 33-34.000 years old:

East Balkan 14.85
Italian 9.91
Siberian 9.05
Indo Chinese 8.86
South Asian 5.94
East African 5.81
West Med 5.52
Oceanian 5.46
North Caucasian 4.35
Near Eastern 4.35
West Caucasian 3.96
East Med 3.35
Fennoscandian 3.33
South Chinese 2.97
Central Euro 2.96
French2.66
Eastern Euro 1.90
Malayan 1.62
North Atlantic 1.28
North African 0.74
North Sea 0.64
Pygmy 0.27
Iberian 0.19
South Central Asian 0.03

Krems from Austria, 31.000 years old:

Iberian 22.75
North Sea 15.55
Central Euro 14.79
Eastern Euro 10.14
North Atlantic 8.89
South Asian 4.53
Basque 4.12
French 4
West Med 3.37
East Med 3.14
Indo Chinese 3
Fennoscandian 2.75
Amerindian 1.56
East Balkan 1.33

Zlaty Kun 45.000 years old human from Europe:

South Asian 24.86
South Central Asian 14.29
Oceanian 8.71
Malayan 7.89
East African 5.03
Omotic 4.56
North African 4.33
West African 3.63
Pygmy 3.05
Volga Ural 2.93
Arabian 2.62
East Asian 2.59
East Med 2.34
North Atlantic 1.67
North Sea 1.61
Amerindian 1.52
Armenian 1.33
Eastern Euro 1.09
West Caucasian 0.20
East Central Asian 0.17
Central African 0.14
Iberian 0.14

Aboriginal Australian:

Oceanian 78.4
South Asian 10.71
Pygmy 3.81
Central African 3.34
Malayan 2.23
Arabian 0.43
West African 0.42

Andaman Islander:

South Asian 42.42
Malayan 29.08
Oceanian 12.5
East Asian 4.03
Omotic 3.16
East Med 2.6
East African 2.47
Central African 1.79
North Caucasian 1.39
Italian 0.55

For me the conclusion is that Africans descended by archaic human ancestors in Eurasia as first wave out of Asia and got relatively isolated by the drying of the Sahara. Rest of humanity also originates in Asia and spread in different waves. The ancient Eurasian samples represent peoples with diverse ancestry that could later divide into today's Non-African populations, while archaic hominids represent a low genetic diversity like today's Sub Saharan Africans and could therefore be their main ancestors.

----------


## Doggerland

> Klasse! Thanks for checking the prediction up. So overall you think that the complexion of one individual could be determined with a certain probability unlike the other two? Right? Plus how reliable do find the HIrisPL phenotype analysis on these 3 Aeageans?



Ultimately one can only know how they may really looked, if all SNPs are present. I don’t know how accurate the analysis is, because for that one would need the incomplete and a complete sample of the same person. In this scenario accuracy can be checked like it is possible with Imputation and two different quality samples of the same person.

----------


## MOESAN

It's true we could expect more derived SNP's of the original core population, number favouring mutations; but it depends also of the evolution of the original population; it would be needed to know the different effective populations over time in different places because what is sure is that humans colonised other lands, and according to life/ecological conditions some of the "son" pop's could have been more numerous than the "mother" one... Climate changes could have played a big role.

----------


## adian808

> Yes I know, most people wouldn't agree with me, because Out of Africa is the most widely accepted theory today, it also has evidence. But from the data I have seen by myself I wouldn't agree to this theory. 
> 
> . Africans appear isolated on PCAs and populations that are believed to be first out of Africa like Aborigines or Negritos doesn't carry much African admixture and doesn't cluster with Africans, instead of Neanderthals and Denisovans, who cluster with today's Africans.
> 
> Eurogenes K36:
> 
> 
> Malawi Mesolithic:
> 
> ...


it's not the bodies of old humans in africa proved, there's no older bodies of humans in asia
About aborigines they have M haplogroup same way dravidians and australoids and M originate in african L3 and there's modern africans who share this L3 today* wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)*

----------


## Doggerland

> it's not the bodies of old humans in africa proved, there's no older bodies of humans in asia
> About aborigines they have M haplogroup same way dravidians and australoids and M originate in african L3 and there's modern africans who share this L3 today* wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)*


No it is not proved, it is a wide accepted theory. There are hominids and/or primates that where found everywhere from Europe to Asia, Americas and Africa. There are many African archaic hominid fossils but that doesn't proof that modern humans originate there. 
There is no ancient genetic African sample older then Mesolithic till today and also some African states block scientists from taking DNA samples from ancient human remains, because they don’t want Europeans to analyze it. For example the Hofmeyr skull. 

The only evidence is of fossil record and that is challenged by other fossil records from Eurasia and Americas:

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/oldest-primates-north-america/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083548.htm

https://www.oldest.org/culture/human-fossils/

https://www.oldest.org/people/human-remains/

The prediction when and from where a haplogorup has risen is predicted by hypothetical mathematical calculation. You can read in the article you posted yourself, that scientist don’t know where it really originates, Asia or Africa.
This can only be determined if ancient samples are present and there is no African sample that is older then Mesolithic till today.
Even L3 is hypothetical Asia or Africa. And like I said, these are ancient Archaic Hominid haplogorups, not modern human ones in my opinion.
The ancestor L1 seems to be present in European Homo Heidelbergensis remains from Sima de Los Huesos in Europe.

In my opinion the so called African haplogorups are that of archaic humans like Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo Erectus/Heidelbergensis from Asia.
That also fits with their strong Pygmy ancestry component and the distribution of mtDNA L1 today:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplog...roup_total.png

EurogenesK36

Modern Pygmy from Africa

Pygmy 77.35
West African 18.99
Central African 2.65
East African 0.94

Malawi Mesolithic oldest African genetic sample today:

Pygmy 55.94
East African 17.83
West African 11.68
Omotic 11.56
Basque 1.85
French 1.04

Denisova Cave Child archaic hominid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_Cave

Pygmy 67.74
West African 11.44
Omotic 5.68
Basque 3.65
North Sea 3.62
Eastern Euro 2.11
French 1.18
North Atlantic 1.23
Fennoscandian 0.72
East Central Euro 1
West Med 0.95

Denisova archaic hominid

Pygmy 87.19
West African 5.89
Omotic 2.52
Oceanian 2.31
Siberian 0.65
East Central Euro 0.57
Indo Chinese 0.52
Volga Ural 0.18
Amerindian 0.18

Neanderthal from Mezmaiskaya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezmaiskaya_cave

Pygmy 84.04
West African 5.4
North Atlantic 2.41
Omotic 1.3
Basque 1.25
East Central Euro 1.01
Arabian 0.92
Eas tAfrican 0.84
Armenian 0.72

Neanderthal of Forbes Quarry Gibraltar 30-50.000 years old:

Pygmy 71.38
North Atlantic 10
Italian 8.18
Iberian 4.22
East African 3.25
French 1.46
Oceanian 0.96

Oldest “Living Fossil Primate” Chimpanzee https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/SAMEA2421546

Pygmy 78.76
West African 8.57
Omotic 7.64
Oceanian 1.57
South Chinese 1.24
North Atlantic 0.73

Tianyuan1 from near Beijing 40.000 years old Asian: 

South Asian 35.18
East Asian 20.62
Oceanian 9.04
Siberian 8.82
Fennoscandian 6.88 
Malayan 5.89 
Amerindian 4.93 
Central African 3.84 
Basque 3.15 
Omotic 1.64 
South Chinese 0.02

It is may be true that archaic hominids lived a long time also in Africa, but I don’t think that the main ancestor of modern Eurasians and Africans came from there. And that is because of low haplogorupdiversity in Africa, low genetic variation in traits and ancestry components and the missing large African ancestry components in pre-LGM Eurasian populations and so called “First out of Africa ”populations like Australians.

But this is the last statement I give, I wont waste my time, if my discussion partner is posting only links and Youtube videos and does not have an own opinion or describes his viewpoint detailed.

Or can you explain why archaic hominids and oldest African Populations match really good but don’t match with pre LGM Eurasians of the same age? The missing link from Africa is still missing.

The only possible “Out of Africa” explanation that is supported by the data I have posted would be that: Modern Eurasians are acompletely different Branch of humans and descended from archaic hominids in Asia. Africans evolved independent from them from archaic hominids in Africa. But I don’t think so.

----------


## kingjohn

> Anatolia HGs nose had an average long nose bridge and a down tuned nose tip. Other SNPs for nose are missing.
> 
> I once posted about the Natufians in another thread. Here are the similarities to modern populations again:
> 
> Middle East 75%
> Swede 70%
> Estonian 67% European 67% Ashkenazi Jewish 67% Northern South Asian 67%
> Netherlands 65% United Kingdom 65%
> Danish 61% Pygmy 61% African 61%
> ...



these are mine 
( your thoght is welcome i think my nostrils are wide and my nose upturned) :Thinking: 
*
MINE ( from ftdna raw data)
rs4787778 GG (nosebridge angle)
rs2058742 TG (Nose tip position)
rs17640804 CC(Breadth of nostrils)
rs3751074 GG (nose bridge length )
rs3920540 TG
rs2045323 GG 


*

----------


## Doggerland

rs4787778 GG is upturned nose bridge angle. TT would be hooked

rs2058742 TG is straight nose tip

rs3751074 GG is long nose bridge

But you have to consider that man wont get a very upturned nose bridge ingeneral, because the influence of testosterone on the bone physiology.
And there may be other SNPs influencing this traits. For example the thickness and structure of the skin which can make a noselook much larger or broader. Or the breadth of the face in general.
For a very exact analysis we would need whole genome sequencing data of living people and ancient samples without damaged DNA.This is in most cases not available.

And another thing has to be considered. The SNPs I am using are selected to be the most relevant on GWAS studies and if they where present in ancient samples.
But none of those SNPS reach a 100% value of effect. That means for example that 71% of the peoples in the study with rs12345 TT have hooked nose bridge, but 29% with rs12345 TT didn’t have.

----------


## kingjohn

Thanks for answere :Good Job: 
Thats fascinating how dna 
Effect our facial features
Do you have an examples or
Images of
Upturned nose bridge angel ? 
Maybe this lady 
Carey Mulligan

Or this sicilian dude
http://isabelle.theviot.free.fr/pagim/joe.htm

P.s
I think upturned nose bridge angel is rare no 
Maybe more common in east asian

----------


## adian808

> No it is not proved, it is a wide accepted theory. .


This map qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3 preoves it : 
50000 years ago blacks from L3 haplogroup migrate in asia and were of the M haplogroup this prove genes can mute
first people of asia were blacks ( dravidians and australoid peoples)
first people of europe as cheddar man were blacks of M haplogroup which mute and later mute to become white
first humans were from african even the sinanthropus is a mutant coming from africa wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

----------


## Doggerland

> Thanks for answere
> 
> I think upturned nose bridge angel is rare no 
> Maybe more common in east asian


NCBI says concave nose bridge is most common in Africans and Afro Americans, most uncommon in Caucasus, South Asians, Siberians and East Asians.
Maybe the straight or hooked nose bridge is not so prominent in East Asians, because they have a generally more pedomorphic facial bone physiology. But there are also East Asian people which have a little hook or their nose bridge.

https://1.soompi.io/wp-content/uploa...743/439743.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f1/31...90306504f2.jpg

----------


## Doggerland

> This map qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3 preoves it : 
> 50000 years ago blacks from L3 haplogroup migrate in asia and were of the M haplogroup this prove genes can mute
> first people of asia were blacks ( dravidians and australoid peoples)
> first people of europe as cheddar man were blacks of M haplogroup which mute and later mute to become white
> first humans were from african even the sinanthropus is a mutant coming from africa wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus


The term “Black” is not a modern population genetic therm and has no support in modern sciences. It is an outdated concept like “White Race” or “Aryan” in Third Reich Germany.
“Black” is a social empowerment terminology today based on primitive human eye recognition of someones skin color, based on social liberation ideas or racist mythology, but not on genetic science.

Australian Aboriginals and ancient Iranians are genetically very distant from today's Africans.
Cheddar Man is a typical Mesolithic European and not African in any way. See his Eurogenes K36 results:

32.26% Fennoscandian
24.48% North_Sea
16.45% East_Central_Euro
10.70% Eastern_Euro
9.41% North_Atlantic
6.69% Basque

Cheddar Mans Y Haplogroup was I2a2 and mtDNA U5b1 not M.

The nearest ancient populations that cluster with today's Africans are Neanderthals, Denisovans and the living Primates. I have posted you all the Eurogenes K36 results before. 

The map you linked says nothing, not what program was used to generate it, nor if it is just someones imagination of how he liked it to be. There is no paleolithic sample from the region you posted and no proof for a “Proto Caucasoid/Veddoid” in this region.

Veddoid/Dravidian peoples are of Eurasian descent, cluster with other Indian Ethnicities and are in a triangle between Tianyuan 1, Vietnam HG and Ust Ishim. No connection to Sub Saharan Africa in the last 45.000years.

There is no such thing as a white race, because depigmentation causing skin, hair and eye alleles evolved independently in Eurasia and there are not only one, but many paleolithic sources of them: Scandinavia, Siberia, Anatolia for example.
There is no single population that was the ancestor of all Europeans. Its a myth with the same harmful social consequences as the myth of a global black race.

Albinism is not the source of fair skin in Europe and Asia, the mutations that cause the so called “Albino Dravidians” from the Black Supermacy internet sites are not on the same SNPs as the ones for today's fair skin.
The blue eyed Africans you can find on google do not posses the same alleles as Eurasians, its a genetic disease called Waardenburg Syndrome and is not located on the same SNPs as Eurasian blue eyes.

----------


## kingjohn

> NCBI *says concave nose bridge is most common in Africans and Afro Americans, most uncommon in Caucasus, South Asians, Siberians and East Asians.*
> Maybe the straight or hooked nose bridge is not so prominent in East Asians, because they have a generally more pedomorphic facial bone physiology. But there are also East Asian people which have a little hook or their nose bridge.
> 
> https://1.soompi.io/wp-content/uploa...743/439743.jpg
> 
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f1/31...90306504f2.jpg


interesting from your anlaysis any ancient individual had *G/G values* like me in *rs4787778* ?

----------


## Doggerland

> interesting from your anlaysis any ancient individual had *G/G values* like me in *rs4787778* ?


Yes, many ones:

Ancient Roman, Balkan Neolithic, Celtic France, Eastern Bell Beaker, Ertebolle, Hittite, Hungarian Hunter Gatherer, Iberomaurusian, Iron Gates Hunter Gatherer, Karanovo, Kura Araxes, Mal Ta Buret, Megalithic Scotland, Sunghir

----------


## adian808

> The term “Black” is not a modern population genetic therm and has no support in modern sciences. It is an outdated concept like “White Race” or “Aryan” in Third Reich Germany.
> “Black” is a social empowerment terminology today based on primitive human eye recognition of someones skin color, based on social liberation ideas or racist mythology, but not on genetic science.
> 
> Australian Aboriginals and ancient Iranians are genetically very distant from today's Africans.
> Cheddar Man is a typical Mesolithic European and not African in any way. See his Eurogenes K36 results:
> 
> 32.26% Fennoscandian
> 24.48% North_Sea
> 16.45% East_Central_Euro
> ...


black people do exist !!! 
remember old greeks divide blacks in two categories : curly ones ( ancient efypt, koushites , puntites, ethiopia ethiopians , egyptian colonists in caucasus, homerites of himyar kingdom of yemen) and long haired ones ( dravidians, sumerians ( the cephenes met on euphrate by hellanicus), elamites , australoid Munda people )
Contrary to what you say dravidians , ausrealoid and aborigines come from africa as said Bernard Sergent of french CNRS * clio.fr/BIBLIOTHEQUE/l_origine_des_populations_de_l_inde_a_la_lumiere_d es_dernieres_decouvertes_archeologiques.asp*
, 
The map of ASI/AASI genetic presence is a real map recognised by all scientists and it shows irak, india , iran , east and south afghanistan to west burma and horn of africa was peoplesd by those kind of persons and they originate from horn of africa
*qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3
* Masaman and Bernaerd Sergent confirm this map
*youtube.com/watch?v=-Pru9nMTbc8&t=74s
( Masaman about dravidians origins )

youtube.com/watch?v=slTy8MvLQ4U
( Masaman about australoid origins: you can see the similarity of his AASI map wirh my AASI map and his source is harvard and wikipedia )

youtube.com/watch?v=Rd8y40xd1J4
( Masaman about adivasis a australoid people)

All of the ASI/AASI are M haplogroup and this map says they come from africa from L3
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Peopling_of_eurasia.jpg/220px-Peopling_of_eurasia.jpg
*
*Cheddar Man* has the genetic markers of skin pigmentation usually associated with sub-Saharan *Africa*. This discovery is consistent with a number of other Mesolithic human remains discovered throughout Europe *nhm.ac.uk/discover/cheddar-man-mesolithic-britain-blue-eyed-boy.html*

----------


## kingjohn

> Yes, many ones:
> 
> Ancient Roman, Balkan Neolithic, Celtic France, Eastern Bell Beaker, Ertebolle, Hittite, Hungarian Hunter Gatherer, Iberomaurusian, Iron Gates Hunter Gatherer, Karanovo, Kura Araxes, Mal Ta Buret, Megalithic Scotland, *Sunghir*

----------


## Doggerland

> black people do exist !!! 
> remember old greeks divide blacks in two categories : curly ones ( ancient efypt, koushites , puntites, ethiopia ethiopians , egyptian colonists in caucasus, homerites of himyar kingdom of yemen) and long haired ones ( dravidians, sumerians ( the cephenes met on euphrate by hellanicus), elamites , australoid Munda people )
> Contrary to what you say dravidians , ausrealoid and aborigines come from africa as said Bernard Sergent of french CNRS * clio.fr/BIBLIOTHEQUE/l_origine_des_populations_de_l_inde_a_la_lumiere_d es_dernieres_decouvertes_archeologiques.asp*
> , 
> The map of ASI/AASI genetic presence is a real map recognised by all scientists and it shows irak, india , iran , east and south afghanistan to west burma and horn of africa was peoplesd by those kind of persons and they originate from horn of africa
> *qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3
> * Masaman and Bernaerd Sergent confirm this map
> *youtube.com/watch?v=-Pru9nMTbc8&t=74s
> ( Masaman about dravidians origins )
> ...


Ancient Greeks where not modern scientists and could not perform genetic analysis. They recognized people based on their bias.

“Blacks” do exist as a social idea, but not as a genetic reality. Sub Saharan African can be seen as an ethnicity, because they share ancient ancestry. Sub Saharan Africans are genetically real. But Aboriginal Australians, Negritos, South Indians, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans are genetically very distant from them. They are not part of their genetic cluster, not part of their genetic ethnicity. 

The idea that people with a same trait like dark skin, blue eyes or blonde hair belong to the same “Race” or are somehow related, is an outdated idea that has no support in modern science.
It was the base for racial wars in the past and it seems that it will be in the future, because some(or many?) people are not interested in reality and place their bad claiming for vengeance over knowledge and wisdom.

If Cheddar Man is "black" because he has alleles for dark skin, I must be "black" too, because I have wild type alleles for dark eye and hair color, the same ones Archaic Humans and Sub Saharan Africans have. 

As the first human genomes where sequenced, scientists found out that most alleles in all humans are the same. So they had to find a method to differentiate populations and traits. They found out that some single SNPs determined traits that differ between populations, but that was not enough to make a clear differentiation. They searched for patterns of alleles in SNPs that where common for a population and based on this, ancestry can be determined.

Cheddar Man does not share a large amount of unique DNA with Sub Saharan Africans, but with Europeans:

Eurogenes K36 results:

32.26% Fennoscandian
24.48% North_Sea
16.45% East_Central_Euro
10.70% Eastern_Euro
9.41% North_Atlantic6.69% Basque

If he would be of ancient African ancestry, he must have at least 30% Pygmy component.

Population Oracles from Gedmatch for Cheddar Man:

MDLPK16

 *#*
*Population*
 *Percent*

 1
NorthEastEuropean
 72.46

 2
Neolithic
 25.2

 3
Steppe
 1.19

 4
Australian
 0.53

 5
Subsaharian
 0.44

 6
Oceanic
 0.15

 7
Ancestor
 0.03

 8
Amerindian
 0.01



 *#*
*Population (source)*
 *Distance*

 1
Finn (Finland)
 39.01

 2
Latvian (Latvia)
 39.33

 3
Latvian_Dobele (Dobele)
 39.45

 4
Estonian (Estonia)
 39.65

 5
Lithuanian (Lithuania)
 40.51

 6
Latvian_Cesis (Cesis)
 40.6

 7
Russian (Russia)
 41.27

 8
Vepsa (Russia)
 42.19

 9
Karelian (Karelia)
 42.31

 10
Saami_WGA (Lapland)
 42.39



DodecadK12b

 *#*
*Population*
 *Percent*

 1
North_European
 69.96

 2
Atlantic_Med
 29.74

 3
Sub_Saharan
 0.24

 4
East_African
 0.05



 *#*
*Population (source)*
 *Distance*

 1
Swedish (Dodecad)
 14.36

 2
Polish (Dodecad)
 15.06

 3
Norwegian (Dodecad)
 16.95

 4
FIN30 (1000Genomes)
 17.03

 5
Belorussian (Behar)
 17.55

 6
Lithuanian (Dodecad)
 17.7

 7
Finnish (Dodecad)
  17.82

 8
Lithuanians (Behar)
 17.85

 9
Mixed_Slav (Dodecad)
 18

 10
Russian (Dodecad)
 18.62



Much distance to any living population, but closest to Northeast Europeans.

But we can ignore the genetic components of Cheddar Man and just look what modern populations most matches his look in trait SNPs, not ancestry:

Swede 68% United Kingdom 68% European 68%
Aboriginal Australian 63% Ukrainian 63%
All Africans 61% 
Northern South Asian 60%
Dravidian 59% Middle East 59% 
San 58%
Khanty 56% Native American 56%
Bantu 55%
Papuan 53%
Han Chinese 48%

He doesn't resemble any living population in a large percentage.
Its the same case like with the Tarim Mummies, some people do hard in accepting that ancient individuals often don’t fit in today's categories build by social movements and the racial Ideas of the last century.

Cheddar Mans people may looked like this Aboriginal Australian + European mixed woman on the right side of the picture:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d8/f3/f9/d8f3f950ed05ce62dc7070e4a936c533.jpg

----------


## kingjohn

> i found the 
> *pre-pottery neolithic of upper mesoptamia paper abstract* 
> here :
> https://isba9.sciencesconf.org/data/...ISBA9_2022.pdf
> 
> 
> *First Genomic Insights into Pre-pottery Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia
> *Altınışık N. Ezgi (1) Aydoğan Ayça (1), Kazancı Duygu Deniz (1), Vural KıvılcımBaşak (2), Koptekin Dilek (2), Özkan Mustafa (2), Gemici Hasan Can (3),Karamurat Cansu (3), Erdal Ömür Dilek (4), Götherström Anders (5, 6), SürerElif (7), Atakuman Çiğdem (8), Erim Aslı (9), Özer Füsun (1), Somel Mehmet (2),Erdal Yılmaz Selim (1)1 - Human-G Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Hacettepe University, Ankara,Turkey (Turkey), 2 - Department of Biology, Middle East Technical University(METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 3 - Graduate School of Social Sciences, MiddleEast Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 4 - Husbiol Laboratory,Department of Anthropology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 5 -Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Stockholm University, Stockholm,Sweden (Sweden), 6 - Centre for Palaeogenetics, Stockholm, Sweden (Sweden), 7 -Department of Modeling and Simulation, Graduate School of Informatics, Middle EastTechnical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 8 - Institute of SocialSciences, Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey (Turkey), 9 -Department of Archaeology, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale 17100,Turkey (Turkey)
> 
> ...



I think davidski has a crystal ball
Or he saw this paper above 

His commnt on eurogenes :

@Luuk

*Based on what I've seen, Y-DNA G and J will be important in ancient Mesopotamia*.

Not sure about T. I can't remember seeing that in any upcoming samples from the region.

But it's already quite clear how the Steppe Maykop outlier T arrived on the steppe.

It came from contacts between Steppe Maykop and Caucasus Maykop, because obviously the Steppe Maykop outliers have Caucasus Maykop ancestry.

----------


## torzio

> I think davidski has a crystal ball
> Or he saw this paper above 
> His commnt on eurogenes :
> @Luuk
> *Based on what I've seen, Y-DNA G and J will be important in ancient Mesopotamia*.
> Not sure about T. I can't remember seeing that in any upcoming samples from the region.
> But it's already quite clear how the Steppe Maykop outlier T arrived on the steppe.
> It came from contacts between Steppe Maykop and Caucasus Maykop, because obviously the Steppe Maykop outliers have Caucasus Maykop ancestry.



Caucasus Maykop is basically North Caucasus .........

while......the fair skinned , blue eyes , basically states, areas in South Caucasus

*Blogger Andrzejewski said...

@Luuk @Genos “ Levant inherited genes for blue eyes from their Anatolian ancestors. The few Levant Chalcolithic samples are exceptionally fair in skin color and eye color genes. But it isn't enough samples to say much. It just demonstrates European-style fair pigmentation exists is native in the SW Asian variation.”

Levant and Anatolian, especially Pequi’in populations were light skinned. It’s the Kura Araxes, Hurrian, Jebusites (Mitanni migrants?)*

----------


## kingjohn

> Caucasus Maykop is basically North Caucasus .........
> while......the fair skinned , blue eyes , basically states, areas in South Caucasus
> *Blogger Andrzejewski said...
> @Luuk @Genos “ Levant inherited genes for blue eyes from their Anatolian ancestors. The few Levant Chalcolithic samples are exceptionally fair in skin color and eye color genes. But it isn't enough samples to say much. It just demonstrates European-style fair pigmentation exists is native in the SW Asian variation.”
> Levant and Anatolian, especially Pequi’in populations were light skinned. It’s the Kura Araxes, Hurrian, Jebusites (Mitanni migrants?)*


*Andrzejewski* probably 
spoke about this paper  as an example :
*which showed light eye allells in near eastern chalcolithic remains*
(side note they happen to have huge % of y haplogroup T
there was also 1 e-z830 individual in the cave probably natufian or ppnb survivor )
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6102297/

----------


## torzio

> *Andrzejewski* probably 
> spoke about this paper  as an example :
> *which showed light eye allells in near eastern chalcolithic remains*
> (side note they happen to have huge % of y haplogroup T
> there was also 1 e-z830 individual in the cave probably natufian or ppnb survivor )
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6102297/


they all have blue eyes ...........and the same snp but different mtdna

Peqi'in Cave ( 6150 yBP - Late Chalcolithic )

I1155
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: K1a
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 0.09
Other IDs: CHPK021 / S1155.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1160
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: N1a1b
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 308
Other IDs: CHPKL101B-005, CHPKL101B-011 / S1160.E1.L1, S1161.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1165
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: HV1a’b’c’
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 0.95
Other IDs: CHPKL104-004 / S1165.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1166
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: H
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 0.981
Other IDs: CHPKL104-014, CHPKL104-026 / S1166.E1.L1 / S1167.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1170
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: T1a2
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 0.67
Other IDs: CHPKL105-030 / S1170.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1172
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: K1a
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 0.12
Other IDs: CHPKL108B-024 / S1172.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1178
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: I6
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 2.56
Other IDs: CHPKL109L-015 / S1178.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1180
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: T
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 0.09
Other IDs: CHPKL109M-028 / S1180.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

I1187
Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
mtDNA: U6d
Sample: Petrous
Coverage: 0.12
Other IDs: CHPKL301N-001 / Library S1187.E1.L1
Other IDs: CHPKL109M-028 / S1180.E1.L1
Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM

*Peqi'in Cave atDNA notes: Northern origin. They also carry the WHG G allele for Blue eyes at Rs12913832.*

----------


## kingjohn

> *they all have blue eyes* ...........and the same snp but different mtdna
> Peqi'in Cave ( 6150 yBP - Late Chalcolithic )
> I1155
> Y-DNA: T1a1a1a-CTS2214 (xY15711,, Y21017, Y3782, Y9102, Z709)
> mtDNA: K1a
> Sample: Petrous
> Coverage: 0.09
> Other IDs: CHPK021 / S1155.E1.L1
> Files: FASTQ / FASTQ&BAM (galaxy) / BAM
> ...



the *e-z830* dude also ?
 I1171 - Peqi'in Cave
E-CTS10298 (E1b)
K
5950
Israel - Israel Chalcolith




p.s
they are dated earlier than 3100 bc they are 3900 bc
https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_...l&ybp=500000,0

----------


## MOESAN

> NCBI says concave nose bridge is most common in Africans and Afro Americans, most uncommon in Caucasus, South Asians, Siberians and East Asians.
> Maybe the straight or hooked nose bridge is not so prominent in East Asians, because they have a generally more pedomorphic facial bone physiology. But there are also East Asian people which have a little hook or their nose bridge.
> 
> https://1.soompi.io/wp-content/uploa...743/439743.jpg
> 
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f1/31...90306504f2.jpg


There are so numerous forms of noses that it is uneasy to put all them in only two bags. Not to say what you wrote is wrong.
It seems to me that the more southern East Asians have more often convave or seemingly concave noses bridges than the more northern ones, as a whole. What is sure is that the breadth of the nose hole on crania is not always linked to the bridge profile: our Paleo "europoids" had often broad _enough_ noses holes along with an agressive "bumpish" nose bridge under kind of a notch.

----------


## MOESAN

@Torzio
Interesting.
Were they all homozygotous for blue eyes?

----------


## torzio

> @Torzio
> Interesting.
> Were they all homozygotous for blue eyes?



snpedia states

https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs12913832

rs12913832 is a SNP near the OCA2 gene that may be functionally linked to blue or brown eye color, due to a lowering of promoter activity of the OCA2 gene. Blue eye color is associated with the rs12913832(G;G) genotype.[PMID 18172690, PMID 18252222]

----------


## MOESAN

@Doggerland post #103

I agree with the most of your post.

you say too:
_He doesn't resemble any living population in a large percentage.
Its the same case like with the Tarim Mummies, some people do hard in accepting that ancient individuals often don’t fit in today's categories build by social movements and the racial Ideas of the last century.

Cheddar Mans people may looked like this Aboriginal Australian + European mixed woman on the right side of the picture:


_I agree that our inherited classifications of phenotypes don't reflect allover genom reality, but is it correct to say they are based on nothing?
Raciation is a common phenomenon, always competing with crossings and osmosis; A lot of features unites "europoïds" or "africanoïds or "east-asianoïds" within their groups even if others are rather errative. We could say this big simplistic "bags" of types represents a very small divergence compared to the great allover unicity of Humans, and that they don't include all Humans, because left aside recent crossed pop's we have here and there other small pops whic'h cannot be put in any of these bags; it's the case of "sedimented" old pop's which often carry old features halfway (or rather in a no man's land) to our recent superficial groupings.
That said, the most of our clearly recognised groups shows some auDNA large clustering, proof of a at least recent common ancestry, compared one to another.
the Tarim Basin group could be one of those not clearly differentiated groups, having common ancestors with the two groups claiming them but withoutn having took part recently in one of both reent specialisation (new mutations + lost of certain different old mutations).
split of hairs!
Cheddar Man is surely far enough from Australoids at the cranial bones level, I think? spite I lack dense clues to say that.

----------


## Ailchu

> Ancient Greeks where not modern scientists and could not perform genetic analysis. They recognized people based on their bias.
> 
> “Blacks” do exist as a social idea, but not as a genetic reality. Sub Saharan African can be seen as an ethnicity, because they share ancient ancestry. Sub Saharan Africans are genetically real. But Aboriginal Australians, Negritos, South Indians, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans are genetically very distant from them. They are not part of their genetic cluster, not part of their genetic ethnicity. 
> 
> The idea that people with a same trait like dark skin, blue eyes or blonde hair belong to the same “Race” or are somehow related, is an outdated idea that has no support in modern science.
> It was the base for racial wars in the past and it seems that it will be in the future, because some(or many?) people are not interested in reality and place their bad claiming for vengeance over knowledge and wisdom.
> 
> If Cheddar Man is "black" because he has alleles for dark skin, I must be "black" too, because I have wild type alleles for dark eye and hair color, the same ones Archaic Humans and Sub Saharan Africans have. 
> 
> ...



you could argue that if the category "black" is a social construct based on phenotype then people who look like cheddar men would, if they were walking around today, probably be considered part of that group. WHG's are genetically very far away from modern westeurasians also far away from europeans, in fact for many europeans modern south asians are genetically about the same distance away. modern east asians aren't that much further away. hard to say how they would have looked in reality. Krause once said, if we met a WHG in the forest today we would probably think that he is african.

----------


## torzio

> snpedia states
> 
> https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs12913832
> 
> rs12913832 is a SNP near the OCA2 gene that may be functionally linked to blue or brown eye color, due to a lowering of promoter activity of the OCA2 gene. Blue eye color is associated with the rs12913832(G;G) genotype.[PMID 18172690, PMID 18252222]


I have the exact same RS for myself .........noted as blue eyes in 23andme and other sites .............but I have green eyes like my father, grandfather and greatgrandfather ..............this is because Green eyes come out of Blue eyed colour

----------


## Doggerland

No,I don’t think that intelligent people today would think that Cheddar man is an African. They would consider him strange, because he has almost European facial features, but is dark skinned. May be he would be viewed like Rachel Dolezal, Nuka Zeus or Martina Big, as a fraud to the Black Community:

https://aisvip-a.akamaihd.net/masters/1266138/martina-big-riesnrad.jpg

https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/MSNBC/Components/Video/150616/tdy_lauer_dolezal_150616.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-x4I5cjK8s

WHG are as far from modern Europeans as the samples and components where used. It depends also on the calculator that is used. But they are distant to today's Europeans, that's true. But they are in no way closer to Africans or Oceanians then to Europeans in terms of ancestry components. Northeastern Europeans got the most similarity of components to them.

I have not seen any calculator that is modeling South Asians and Europeans near when all other populations are also added. Between them are Middle East, Caucasus and also Native Americans and Siberians in some calculators. East Asians are the Population that is often most distant to Africans and also much distant to Europeans. 

https://www.harappadna.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ref1_pca_1_2.png

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8d80b3ef730bd4d26643c2c120812699

The divergence between modern ancestry calculators and isolated trait analysis is simple: The intention the people had that made the ancestry calculators was not to explain people how the ancient humans looked like. They where not interested in those traits. They wanted to find out how humanity evolved over time and who descended from another.
The gene regions where the traits are may differ strongly between the populations, so they had different components in calculators. But the specfic trait SNPs (Like blue eyes) had been environmental or socially selected, because they had been an advantage.
For example we find no traces of big Oceanian DNA components in Cheddarman, but his isolated traits indicate clearly a little similarity to Asutralian Aboriginals.
We know this from other WHG samples with dark skin and hair, but they appear Finnish on calculators, against some of their optical traits.

The same goes for the thing with the Tripillans. They appear Neolithic in ancestry components, but looked northern European/British. Why? That's evolution. These traits once entered the population from outside or where even present in them a long long time ago and they where selected positively over time.

I can only mention myself as an example for all of this. I am I1, appear Northern German in most calculators but I am not blue eyed, not blonde, not long faced, brachycephalic.
Here are for example my highest matches in trait SNPs:

Yamnaya (73%) Linear Pottery Alföld (73%)
Hittite (70%) Anatolia HG (70%) Iron Gates HG (70%)
Linear Pottery Germany (69%) Bell Beaker CE (69%) Ancient Turk (69%)
Anatolia Neolithic (68%) Maglemose (68%) Germanic (68%) Lengynel (68%) Vikings Iceland (68%) Guanches (68%) Megalithic Scotland (68%) BattleAxe Sweden (68%)

Doesn't sound much Northern German.

----------


## MOESAN

> Thanks for answere
> Thats fascinating how dna 
> Effect our facial features
> Do you have an examples or
> Images of
> Upturned nose bridge angel ? 
> Maybe this lady 
> Carey Mulligan
> 
> ...



We are focalising on one aspect of this topic but it's interesting.
To split hairs as often (if I have understood well your thought), I 'll say "upturned nose bridge" is not a so accurate terminology : 
we can have upturned nose tip with a not-concave but convex nose bridge: it was the case, I think, of most of Paleo and Mesolithic people of western Europe and surely northern Eurasia (so sinuous noses concerning profile of the bridge).

----------


## MOESAN

> snpedia states
> https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs12913832
> rs12913832 is a SNP near the OCA2 gene that may be functionally linked to blue or brown eye color, due to a lowering of promoter activity of the OCA2 gene. Blue eye color is associated with the rs12913832(G;G) genotype.[PMID 18172690, PMID 18252222]


Thanks.
But my question was to be precise: have all these individuals we speak about G;G at this SNP, or someones have a mix A;G ?

----------


## MOESAN

> you could argue that if the category "black" is a social construct based on phenotype then people who look like cheddar men would, if they were walking around today, probably be considered part of that group. WHG's are genetically very far away from modern westeurasians also far away from europeans, in fact for many europeans modern south asians are genetically about the same distance away. modern east asians aren't that much further away. hard to say how they would have looked in reality. Krause once said, if we met a WHG in the forest today we would probably think that he is african.


The question is, we cannot put in the same bag all the people with MORE OR LESS black skin, when they have a lot of skeletal and autosomal differences and are living in different periods of history, even if they could be on a ancient "trail" of human emigration, just because they are "black"; "black" alone is not a strong marker of ethnicity or common origin.
Even if things could have changed more than a time, with this kind of reasoning, we may say Humanity is maid of "Blacks": what value of discrimination?
Concerning autosomal distances, I have some doubts about your personal affirmations here.

----------


## Ailchu

> No,I don’t think that intelligent people today would think that Cheddar man is an African. They would consider him strange, because he has almost European facial features, but is dark skinned. May be he would be viewed like Rachel Dolezal, Nuka Zeus or Martina Big, as a fraud to the Black Community:
> 
> https://aisvip-a.akamaihd.net/masters/1266138/martina-big-riesnrad.jpg
> 
> https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/MSNBC/Components/Video/150616/tdy_lauer_dolezal_150616.jpg
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-x4I5cjK8s
> 
> WHG are as far from modern Europeans as the samples and components where used. It depends also on the calculator that is used. But they are distant to today's Europeans, that's true. But they are in no way closer to Africans or Oceanians then to Europeans in terms of ancestry components. Northeastern Europeans got the most similarity of components to them.
> ...


where do you get from that WHG would have almost european features? if we look at snp sharing then WHG are as distant to many europeans as modern south asians are. even those europeans who are closest to them do not really score much closer values relatively speaking. for example in this table from this study a lot of europeans are equidistant to Kharia people:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...ntary-material 


hard to say imo if WHG would have looked that similar to modern europeans. also something to consider is that WHG/ANF/CHG/EHG were all quite distant to each other. there is more snp sharing between modern europeans and modern south asians. we have values almost similar or even bigger than those between modern euroepans and modern east asians.

----------


## Doggerland

> where do you get from that WHG would have almost european features?


From my own data of WHGs like Loschbour, La Brana, Cheddar Man, Ranchot. But we only had Cheddar Man last time. Everybody can download the Data from European Nucleotide Archive.
Lets take a look at WHG trait SNP data merged from all WHG labled samples I have in my database:

Swede 82%
European 79%
Dravidian 76%
Basque 75%
Middle East 73% Northern South Asian 73%
Khanty 72%
Aboriginal Australian 68% Papuan 68%
Iberian 64%
East Asian 63%
Native American 62%
Bantu 60%
Bedouin 51%

The problem with ancient and modern DNA data is till today the often low quality of samples. Many of the datasets used for those expert or hobby analysis are not based on whole genome sequencing data. Many samples are lacking significant trait SNPs to determine their look for example too.
But whole genome sequencing is mostly not really the whole genome, often people find that in their whole genome sequencing data SNPs are missing.

The question is what data is used for an analysis, which algorithm.

I also read 5 years ago as I started with the hobby a critical book about population genomics and all the strange things that happened at the beginning of commercial analysis and wrong results that where brought to the customers. It was also a critical book about Haplogroups and the psychological effect they often have on people and their identity.
Multiple cases where demonstrated where DNA analysis created more uncertainty then before.

I am personally always septic about any big analysis and deep down I know that many things that we believe about this topic can be wrong. This is because the data we have is limited and the technology we are using is designed to get the results we are awaiting. 

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1....439381v4.full

Just think about all the calculators on Gedmatch and what kind of strange different results they can create in terms of components of ancient populations. One calculator says that you are of over 40% WHG ancestry, the other one only 20%? Is this really realistic? I think not. It is only true in the sense of which samples where used and which algorithm and from what company you imported your data.

There will be also always questions that cannot be answered by population genetics, because of the “simple” nature of human genetics in general. And there is also a limit of time. It is unlikely that fossils 100.000 years old will have a large amount of intact DNA. So topics like out Of Africa or what was the real ancestor of modern humans will maybe never be answered and stay a field of discussion forever.
Fossils and skull metrics may be nice ideas, but they can also be totally wrong and lead to a false direction of interpretation, because all other data is missing. 

The problem is that ancestry is for many people a fundamental term to their identity. For example Cheddar Man is a social nuke and created much controversy. There are different social movements that want to claim him to demonstrate a kind of ancestral right to live where he now lives.

Some weeks ago I was in a conversation with people and someone said that a politician that is against migration should note that Europe was dark skinned 8000 years ago. I told him that this is not true and that Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers also had alleles for light skin and blue eyes and that they where also present in Anatolian Farmers. The answer of this person was: “We should stop talking about history!”

People are using this data to create or heat up social conflicts and build expectations. But it is nothing new, it has also happened in the ancient past. May be there is no way to stop this. But in this conflict, the truth will die. Just for the benefit of one of the counter parties.

----------


## Ailchu

> From my own data of WHGs like Loschbour, La Brana, Cheddar Man, Ranchot. But we only had Cheddar Man last time. Everybody can download the Data from European Nucleotide Archive.
> Lets take a look at WHG trait SNP data merged from all WHG labled samples I have in my database:
> 
> Swede 82%
> European 79%
> Dravidian 76%
> Basque 75%
> Middle East 73% Northern South Asian 73%
> Khanty 72%
> ...




i'm not really convinced of your data to be honest. but if your data is true, you give distances for WHG and certain modern europeans that are even bigger than those between dravidians or aboriginal australians and WHG. so it is not really clear if those WHG's were looking that european even based on your data. 

what are the %-values for modern populations if you use swedes or european as a target instead of WHG?

----------


## Doggerland

You did not understand what I am doing in my analysis. This is not a PCA or ancestry calculation.
I directly compare the SNPs of two samples (For example Swede and WHG or Northern Sout Asian and WHG) for eye, hair and skin color, the facial morphology for nose, facial breadth, forehead, eye distance, eye socket form, ear morphology, and some more things.
The SNPs I am using are the ones from the no more available gedmatch eye color prediction, studies on the internet about facial morphology and the ones that can by found in studies about facial morphology on the GWAS catalog.
The SNPs where selected to be the ones that got the highest accuracy scoring on GWAS and availability in ancient and modern samples.

I will give you a short cutout from my SNPs list as an example. These SNPs are for nose, mouth position, lips and some are also for chin morphology:

Swede

rs7325564 CC 
rs4787778 AG 
rs2058742 GT 
rs2045323 GG 
rs17640804 TT 
rs3751074 GG 
rs3920540 TT 
rs6414928 GG 
*rs1404872* GG 
rs9567488 CC
rs1027479 TC
rs3827760 AA 

Northern Sout Asian

rs7325564 CC
rs4787778 AG
rs2058742 GG
rs2045323 GG 
rs17640804 TT
rs3751074 GG
rs3920540 TT
rs6414928 GG
*rs1404872* GG
rs9567488 CC
rs1027479 TT
rs3827760 AA

WHG (Merged from Loschbour, Ranchot, La Brana and Cheddar Man)

rs7325564 TC 
rs4787778 AA 
rs2058742 GT 
rs2045323 GG 
rs17640804 TT 
rs3751074 TG
rs3920540 TG 
rs6414928 GG 
*rs1404872* GG
rs9567488 CT
rs1027479 TC
rs3827760 AA 

And now you can compare how many alleles are matching between the populations.

Northern South Asian + WHG 17/24

Swede WHG + 19/24

If you have done this for all traits, you can calculate the percentage of matching between the two samples.
This is not a method that is made to create a PCA, but to find out how people looked and how similar they are in their optical traits.
And you are right in one thing, modern populations of people are often (Not always) matching much more in traits then ancient ones and modern ones.

I will post some examples of modern ones:

All Africans + Swede 71%
All Africans + Middle East 80%
All Africans + All Asians 73%
All Africans + Andaman 65%

Andaman + Aboriginal Australian 72%
Andaman + Indian 72%
Andaman + Bantu 62%

All Asians + Swede 70%
All Asian + Middle East 73%

Ashkenazi + African 73%
Ashkenazi + Middle East 90%

NorthernSouth Asian + African 74%
Northern South Asian + Middle East 88%
Northern South Asian + Andaman 64%
Northern South Asian + Aboriginal Australian 70%
Northern South Asian + All Asians 76%

These are my own highest modern populations:

Ukrainian (74%)
United Kingdom (73%) Middle East (73%)

My wife:

Swede (82%)
Netherlands (81%) United Kingdom (81%)

I hope that people now understand how the percentages where generated and why they seem strange for many.

----------


## MOESAN

To make comparisons we would need a more complete set of features markers ; and a global average of the %'s of sharing of all those traits is meaningless. It's the peculiar combinations of these traits that make differences and similarities between people, and not a mean.
Since long ago all our human groups show internal variety, and crossings (so recombinations) create at the same time some mean features among a big part of the pop and extremely divergent features in some individuals of the same global mixed stock.
Apparently, spite not homogenous, a lot of our paleo-mesolithic ancestors showed some ancestral features that put them closer to other not "europoid" pop's, as primitive southern Asia ones, in some part; but there were/is no identity; 
are we even sure that same features are always ruled by the very same markers?
&: ASI pop of today is very multiform for phenotypes, BTW; someones show very europeanlike features in the sense of gracilised europoid (except partly pigmentation) when other stayed in a very old phenotypical stage.

----------


## Doggerland

If you think it is so, make a better calculator for this. I think my way is better then just speculating and using simple human eye for trait prediction like the in my own view not very intelligent people, that think that Andaman Islanders and Sub Saharan Africans for example share the same traits, which has no support in the comparsion of features based on SNPs.

I continue to post data for ancient samples, if the mods like Angela dont like it, they can block me.

----------


## real expert

> If you think it is so, make a better calculator for this. I think my way is better then just speculating and using simple human eye for trait prediction like the in my own view not very intelligent people, that think that Andaman Islanders and Sub Saharan Africans for example share the same traits, which has no support in the comparsion of features based on SNPs.
> 
> I continue to post data for ancient samples, if the mods like Angela dont like it, they can block me.


I personally appreciate your effort to show us your phenotype analysis of ancient people. It's actually good to have a comparison between phenotype predictions from geneticists and amateurs.

By the way, here's a modern European man that resembles pretty much the Cheddar man. 



These guys look rather like La Brana.



So, the WHG-looks still show up in some Europeans.

----------


## Ailchu

> If you think it is so, make a better calculator for this. I think my way is better then just speculating and using simple human eye for trait prediction like the in my own view not very intelligent people, that think that Andaman Islanders and Sub Saharan Africans for example share the same traits, which has no support in the comparsion of features based on SNPs.
> 
> I continue to post data for ancient samples, if the mods like Angela dont like it, they can block me.


well your data has obvious flaws that you do not take into account yourself though. or how can you get that iberians are phenotypically further away from WHG than aboriginal australians and still consider WHG's as almost european looking? you also have almost the same distance between africans/swedes and you/English.

would be nice to see europeans compared to other populations, there seem to be massive differences in your calculator depending on which populations you take even if they live relatively close. would also be interesting what the values between CHG/ANF/WHG/EEF are.

----------


## kingjohn

posted by user *(adamm)* from anthrogenica :

interesting to see* facial reconstruction of those ancients*  :Wink: 

https://ancestralwhispers.org/reconstructions

----------


## Angela

Yes, I saw that. I'm suspicious. There's no way, for example, that British Mesolithic looked so much like modern people from the British Isles. Their percentage in modern Brits is very small.

This is what most people do when "reconstructing" appearance from skulls; they are influenced by the appearance of modern people from the era.

The only ones I give much credence to are the ones which are based on contemporaneous paintings and/or sculptures, or death masks etc.

----------


## Angela

> well your data has obvious flaws that you do not take into account yourself though. or how can you get that iberians are phenotypically further away from WHG than aboriginal australians and still consider WHG's as almost european looking? you also have almost the same distance between africans/swedes and you/English.
> 
> would be nice to see europeans compared to other populations, there seem to be massive differences in your calculator depending on which populations you take even if they live relatively close. would also be interesting what the values between CHG/ANF/WHG/EEF are.


I think this is the second time I've agreed with you. I should mark it on a calendar. :)

----------


## Angela

> I think davidski has a crystal ball
> Or he saw this paper above 
> His commnt on eurogenes :
> @Luuk
> *Based on what I've seen, Y-DNA G and J will be important in ancient Mesopotamia*.
> Not sure about T. I can't remember seeing that in any upcoming samples from the region.
> But it's already quite clear how the Steppe Maykop outlier T arrived on the steppe.
> It came from contacts between Steppe Maykop and Caucasus Maykop, because obviously the Steppe Maykop outliers have Caucasus Maykop ancestry.


Oh, please. What else would they be???

We've been saying this for 10 years.

----------


## kingjohn

> Oh, please. What else would they be???
> 
> We've been saying this for 10 years.


so you say it pretty predictable 
what *y haplogroups* he say he saw ?
i understand 
i still want to share it 
*because i do believe he has connection to someone in those labs
who leak information to him* 
so time will tell  :Thinking:

----------


## Angela

> To make comparisons we would need a more complete set of features markers ; and *a global average of the %'s of sharing of all those traits is meaningless. It's the peculiar combinations of these traits that make differences and similarities between people, and not a mean.
> Since long ago all our human groups show internal variety, and crossings (so recombinations) create at the same time some mean features among a big part of the pop and extremely divergent features in some individuals of the same global mixed stock.*
> Apparently, spite not homogenous, a lot of our paleo-mesolithic ancestors showed some ancestral features that put them closer to other not "europoid" pop's, as primitive southern Asia ones, in some part; but there were/is no identity; 
> are we even sure that same features are always ruled by the very same markers?
> &: ASI pop of today is very multiform for phenotypes, BTW; someones show very europeanlike features in the sense of gracilised europoid (except partly pigmentation) when other stayed in a very old phenotypical stage.


I keep on saying it, but it never seems to register; these traits are determined by multiple snps working together. It is cumulative. I doubt we have identified all the snps for even one trait yet.

Analyses like these can lead to the conclusion that a population 80% Anatolian Neolithic and 20% WHG, with a description which is basically that of Alpine people, could be found most commonly in the British Isles. 

It's not a question of building a better calculator. The method and the assumptions which underlie it are faulty.

More importantly, as you state: "*a global average of the %'s of sharing of all those traits is meaningless. It's the peculiar combinations of these traits that make differences and similarities between people, and not a mean.
Since long ago all our human groups show internal variety, and crossings (so recombinations) create at the same time some mean features among a big part of the pop and extremely divergent features in some individuals of the same global mixed stock."*

----------


## Doggerland

> well your data has obvious flaws that you do not take into account yourself though. or how can you get that iberians are phenotypically further away from WHG than aboriginal australians and still consider WHG's as almost european looking? you also have almost the same distance between africans/swedes and you/English.


Ancestry calculators use patterns of SNPs for prediction of components.
But this is ignoring many traits. Single trait SNPs are not the target of the creators of ancestry calculators and this would not make a sense, because they cannot predict ancestry (Dark skin doesent make you African, blue eyes not a Swede)

For example WHG gets high results for Finnish, Swedes or Blatic ethnicities in modern calculators. But how can that be, if they appear some part ASI/Aboriginal Asutralian/Dravidian? They where dark skinned, no Scandinavian is this today.

Why doesn't Angela asks the creators of this calculators for pictures of Dark Skinned Finns with curly hair?

Then I must argue the same way you did and say this calculators on Gedmatch are all a flaw, how can be someone with Scandinavian ancestry like WHGs be dark skinned? Why don’t Oceanian components appear, ah, those scammers!
But it is nonsense to say such things, because they are not made to predict traits, only ancestry components.

Why are WHG far away from Iberians but close to Europeans and Aboriginal Australians based on my prediction?

Simple answer: WHG shares more of the selected traits with Swedes and Aboriginal Australians, as with Iberians.

But that does not mean all traits in whole.

I will take a rough look for this at Cheddar Man:

Similar traits to Aboriginal Australians:
Eye distance, some lip morphology, eye lids, some nose morphology, chin morphology, some ear, some skull, all skin color, hair color, hair structure, spine, hands, arms.

Similar traits to Europeans:
Eye to nose distance, lip morphology, forehead, facial breadth, chin morphology, some nasal morphology, mouth position, some ear morphology, many for eye color, half of the ones for skin color, hands and arms.

Similar traits to Iberians:
Nose to lip distance, some for lip morphology, some skull morphology, some eye color, some teeth, some hair color.

Europeans share a common ancestry, but that doesn't mean that they share the same traits in eye color, hair structure, facial features and so on.

----------


## MOESAN

> If you think it is so, make a better calculator for this. I think my way is better then just speculating and using simple human eye for trait prediction like the in my own view not very intelligent people, that think that Andaman Islanders and Sub Saharan Africans for example share the same traits, which has no support in the comparsion of features based on SNPs.
> 
> I continue to post data for ancient samples, if the mods like Angela dont like it, they can block me.


Don't take my post as a personal critic of your tries. It's just that it's difficult to be completely accurate in the representation of genetical distances based on pheno/genotypical markers, as yourself wrote in some way, concerning incomplete data. Your work deserves respect.
ATW the results, even if accurate, doesn't check the allover genetic distances and doesn't reveal the pathes taken by our diverse ancestral groups, when taken at the averages levels. I'm interested in what you do here, don't feal offenced.

----------


## Doggerland

Honestly the discussion here brought me some new ideas. Instead of comparing the whole sample list of trait SNPs, it would be more useful to compare specific kinds of optical traits, for example the nose morphology, the eye color, the skin color, forehead and so on separately.

For example a description could be then similar to this:

The eye color matches Swedes and Danes.

The skin color matches Aboriginal Australians, South Indians.

The forehead matches Middle East, Northern South Asians and Europeans.

The hair structure matches Aboriginal Australians.

The mouth morphology mostly matches Europeans.

And so on. This would be easier to imagine and would need no percentages.
But the problem with this will be that some samples, modern and ancient ones, will not be usable for this, because some SNPs are missing. And some samples will likely have no matches in some or many traits.
This would lead to fewer samples, but better accuracy.

----------


## Doggerland

After experimenting around I come to the conclusion that it is not a good idea to search for population specific trait patterns to compare single optical traits. The reason for this is following: For example there is a specific pattern for eye color in the population of Swedes. But that doesn't mean that this predict the color. It only says that Swedes share a specific pattern of eye color alleles. But traits that where often caused by single SNPs like blue eyes or red hair, vary and are not the same in every individual of the population.

When you compare the eye color SNPs to search for a matching population to an ancient sample and finally you say: “The eye color matches mostly Swedes” most people will think that they had blue eyes, but you have to look also at the SNPs for blue eyes to see if this is true.
Blue eyes doesn't make you Swede, but being Swede also doesn't make you blue eyed.

For example WHG doesn't display the pattern for Scandinavian eye color heritage, but has the blue eye alleles.

Another problem is for example nose shapes. When you look at the single specific nose shape SNPs you can make a prognosis how the nose might be shaped. But when you use population patters and comparing two samples, you will get a message like this: “The nose matches Middle Eastern” Ah ok, but what Middle Eastern nose? There are different types of noses, even in the Middle East. So it is useless to look for population specific patterns, because they cannot predict single traits, only shared trait ancestry.
To clear this specific question you would need data from a genetic study about different nose shapes of the Middle East.

To differentiate traits between populations you would need much more SNPs for traits, but to find these, the population specific studies first had to be done. After that those SNPs must be tested regularly in consumer and academic DNA test too.

If one wants to know how an ancient individual may looked like, searching for single trait SNPs and making a prognosis is a better way.
This would change, if much more SNPs for complex traits like facial features would be known and are available in DNA samples.

But I will post a graph that shows trait SNP related allele sharing of modern populations, compared to Pygmy:

https://ibb.co/8zNWjBR

I find it interesting, that Han Chinese is near the Africans. The reason for this is on the one side that they are a very inbreed population and almost homomozygote, but also share this homozygote alleles with them.
I personally would speculate if this traits where introduced to Africa by an early migration wave from Asia. There is also this story about Chinese seafarers but I don’t think that they had such a big impact and can be accounted for this.
“Out of Africa” would be also an answer for those, who think that it is the right theory of modern human origin. Maybe it is shared Archaic Human ancestry.
I checked all my Han Chinese files for a mistake, but they all had typical admixture, no outliers. East Asians as a whole population, do not share so much trait alleles with Pygmy, its only the Han.

And a graph for ancient populations and trait allele sharing with Neanderthals. I also included the Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic, that was discussed in this thread as an ancestor of the Sumerians (Crescent Neol.):

https://ibb.co/d5cGjQ4

----------


## kingjohn

> After experimenting around I come to the conclusion that it is not a good idea to search for population specific trait patterns to compare single optical traits. The reason for this is following: For example there is a specific pattern for eye color in the population of Swedes. But that doesn't mean that this predict the color. It only says that Swedes share a specific pattern of eye color alleles. But traits that where often caused by single SNPs like blue eyes or red hair, vary and are not the same in every individual of the population.
> 
> When you compare the eye color SNPs to search for a matching population to an ancient sample and finally you say: “The eye color matches mostly Swedes” most people will think that they had blue eyes, but you have to look also at the SNPs for blue eyes to see if this is true.
> Blue eyes doesn't make you Swede, but being Swede also doesn't make you blue eyed.
> 
> For example WHG doesn't display the pattern for Scandinavian eye color heritage, but has the blue eye alleles.
> 
> Another problem is for example nose shapes. When you look at the single specific nose shape SNPs you can make a prognosis how the nose might be shaped. But when you use population patters and comparing two samples, you will get a message like this: “The nose matches Middle Eastern” Ah ok, but what Middle Eastern nose? There are different types of noses, even in the Middle East. So it is useless to look for population specific patterns, because they cannot predict single traits, only shared trait ancestry.
> To clear this specific question you would need data from a genetic study about different nose shapes of the Middle East.
> ...


still appreciate your work :Great: 
*can you have a look on individual I2085 he belonged to haplogroup e1b1b1 from this paper
*https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/vi...466?show=reads*
i mean what were his facial features 
nose , face shape , forhead ?
hair color, skin coulour ?

*p.s
i do wonder 
*did he was like the natufians in his facial features 
or he had the phenotype more simlar to the iranian farmers 
hawk nose and stuff ?*  :Thinking:

----------


## adian808

HI people
you can' t understand the fact that african and australoid and dravidian peoples and sumerian peoples have different genes but come from a same family because you don' t take them as member of same family : you know in a same family the brothers have not the same genes but they have genes in common or come from the same family
that's that about sumerians , dravidians, australoids and africans

it is proved dravidians and australoids have M haplogroup and come from L4 haplogroup from Africa
*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)
*and we know australoid/ dravidian people are the first people of middle east and india as show this map of australoid/dravidian/veddoid presence 50000 years ago
*qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3
*and sothe ancestors of ubaidians were australoid/veddoid/ dravidian folks and the sumerians were so australoid/veddoid/ dravidian people
even bible can certify it because the first people of irak region was Nimrod people
Hellanicus also saw long haired blacks called cephenes by the greeks on the euphrates , so he was not wrong

We can also call those people arabian veddoid 
About them we know this:
Ancient Vedda-like type of the Arabian Peninsula and South Iran, often heavily mixed. Found in the Mehri of South Oman, around Hadramaut in Yemen, Iranians of Susa, Makran, and Socotrans. Sometimes in Mesopotamia and even Nubia. This type could be linked to the ancestral Arabian population as well as the Dravidians of India. *Physical Traits:*

Dark brown skin, curly (ringlet) black hair, rather short, macroskelic, endomorph to ectomorph. Meso- brachycephalic, very small-headed, mildly hypsicranic with a mildly leptorrhine and low nose. Deep set eyes, beard strong, and prognathism only mild. 
*Literature:*

Coon *humanphenotypes.net/links.html#C39*, who named the type, linked it to Veddoids of Sri Lanka.Wissman* humanphenotypes.net/links.html#W41* and Grohmann *humanphenotypes.net/links.html#G63* called it South Arabian race, based on material of H. Pöch. Lundman *humanphenotypes.net/links.html#l67*  reports it in ancient Elamites.Field *humanphenotypes.net/links.html#F49* recognized it in Iraq, Eicksted *humanphenotypes.net/links.html#E34* * humanphenotypes.net/links.html#E52* in South Iran and Hadramaut. Biasutti *humanphenotypes.net/links.html#B67* mentioned a "Dravidoid" type from Hadramaut. 

one interesting case; *joshuaproject.net/people_groups/10380/ym
*
_The Akhdam are a marginalized group in Yemen. In fact, though their name means "servant", they prefer to call themselves "Al-Muhamasheen" -- "the marginalized ones." 

The people are shorter and darker than typical Yemenis. A study found they were more apt to have sickle-cell anemia, a characteristic attributed also to the Veddoids of South Asia._

----------


## Doggerland

> HI people
> you can' t understand the fact that african and australoid and dravidian peoples and sumerian peoples have different genes but come from a same family because you don' t take them as member of same family : you know in a same family the brothers have not the same genes but they have genes in common or come from the same family
> that's that about sumerians , dravidians, australoids and africans


When people are brothers or sisters, they would share the same kind of genetic patterns that mark them as “siblings”
For example the people of the northern hemisphere like Nenets or Chuckchi. Another example would be Polynesian people.
But I think you mean that in a more religious/social/political way.

I can understand that people search for communion and we live in a time where many people lost the connection to their families and also their cultural and biological heritage.
But I don’t think that it has a positive intention to unite people, that are not really related and create an origin story, that has no support in reality. 

You can find always similarities with people because you have a shared social or religious intention, but that doesn't mean that you must be of the same biological kind.

In the past ideas like white, red, black and yellow race where spread, but this ideas where build on social ideas, not science.
And humans tend to search for their social ideas in science, not the other way round. 
With the anthropology of the last century, the diversification of racial classification took place and finally lead to the complex systems of today, that can differentiate more accurate.
The stuff Coon did, is outdated today and no more really accurate. This is like doing planting crops today with the technology of the middle ages.

There are many Indians, Australians and Middle Easterns who would disagree with your idea that they are all part of the “Black” movement.
But there are also people that would agree, because they hope for asocial advantage because of a unity of people who share the same skin color. Or they are like you and believe in the mythology of the idea of an ancient black world.

In many parts of the world people still believe that they are all descended from two people in the middle east, also a weird idea in my opinion, but it is an emotional thing, in my country such ideas are protected by law. But that doesn't make them real.

When I would have to say what are the brothers and sisters of the ancient Sub Saharan Africans, I would say the archaic humans of Eurasia. They have the ancestral African ancestry components, they looked similar to them in many traits from what can be seen in the DNA data. They where also Hunter Gatherers, but we don’t know how exactly their culture was like.
In that sense Europe and whole Eurasia was once black, because it was populated by those archaic people. 

Indians or Australians are in my view based on the data I have seen, different people to the Sub Saharan Africans. They don’t share large amounts of genetic components, so they are not their brothers and sisters. They where a long time isolated from them, like many other ethnic groups and have their own history.
Haplogroups and mtDNA are an indicator for kinship, when they are of the same subclade, but often are just traces of male dominance and conquest, or a relic of early migration. The autosomal DNA, that defines how you look, that also can be used for kinship detection, can differ from the population that once brought the Haplogroups into the population, or founded it. The most haplogroups can be found in different ethnicities and are not limited to only one kind of people.

For example many people of African origin in the US have European Haplogroups. Does that make them white in the view of the social ideas of the USA?

But I don’t think that we discuss anymore about genetics. We discuss here about a social idea, a kind of mythology, an idea that once divided people into 4 races and now into two (White VS POC) and wants to create a worldwide social conflict. Everything that challenges this view of dividing people into 2 categories, must be eliminated, because it challenges the idea of “White VS POC”, it makes the whole conflict obsolete.
This has nothing to do with brotherhood, not with science, but with hate.
While the scientific view of ethnicity has diversified, the social and political views are impoverished.

I am personally cautious when someone calls me brother, often people do this, because they have an agenda and want to instrumentalize you.

You always repeat what you did I the 3 posting before, I always try to show you facts that Sub Saharan Africans and Sout Asians are not the same ethnicity, but you stay at your view point, they are ancient brothers. I stay at mine, they are not. There's no need to discuss anymore, because this will lead to nothing.

----------


## Doggerland

> still appreciate your work
> *can you have a look on individual I2085 he belonged to haplogroup e1b1b1 from this paper
> *https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/vi...466?show=reads*
> i mean what were his facial features 
> nose , face shape , forhead ?
> hair color, skin coulour ?
> *


Sadly the sample is too small in size to carry enough data for comparing traits. Only admixture can be determined. Its only 28MB. 250MB or more, at best 40GB would be needed to find the relevant SNPs.

----------


## kingjohn

> Sadly the sample is too small in size to carry enough data for comparing traits. Only admixture can be determined. Its only 28MB. 250MB or more, at best 40GB would be needed to find the relevant SNPs.


Bummer 
Maybe one of those can fit for anlaysis ? :Thinking: 
(They fall on rare branch under e-m123* 
They are indo-aryan or indo-iranian from north pakistan iron age )

I1799, I1985, I3262, I6197, I6899, I6900; ~1500-800 BC; Udegram, Swat Valley, Pakistan; SPGT; E-Y31991>FT179548>FT377116

They are all in the same paper from the same link above

----------


## adian808

> When people are brothers or sisters, they would share the same kind of genetic patterns that mark them as “siblings”
> For example the people of the northern hemisphere like Nenets or Chuckchi. Another example would be Polynesian people.
> But I think you mean that in a more religious/social/political way.
> 
> I can understand that people search for communion and we live in a time where many people lost the connection to their families and also their cultural and biological heritage.
> But I don’t think that it has a positive intention to unite people, that are not really related and create an origin story, that has no support in reality. 
> 
> You can find always similarities with people because you have a shared social or religious intention, but that doesn't mean that you must be of the same biological kind.
> 
> ...


 it is not a mythology , it's a reality as said in this site *worldatlas.com/articles/who-are-the-australoid-race.html* and in this Masaman video* youtube.com/watch?v=slTy8MvLQ4U* which says australoid come from africa ,and by Bernard sERGENT of french CNRS * clio.fr/bibliotheque/l_origine_des_populations_de_l_inde_a_la_lumiere_d es_dernieres_decouvertes_archeologiques.asp
* which says australoid and dravidians comes from africa
and this site *cosmosmagazine.com/history/archaeology/dna-confirms-aboriginal-australian-origins/* which says aboriginals come from africa
also the phenotype of veddas people the veddoid phenotype is found in arabs from yemen to irak and in vedda people , dravidians and india's australoid meaning an ausrtraloid people like veddas known to be blacks predate arabs in irak , bahrein and qatar
and we know australoid genes people were the first people of irak 50000 years ago as show this map and that 50000 years ago blacks of M haplogroup out from L3 haplogroup to occupy coastal arabia, irak , iran and india and we know tamils and australoids were of M haplogroup, so the ubaidians the ancestors of sumerians which were the first to occupy irak were of australoid genes same as dravidians and australoids, so they were blacks !!!!!!!
Greejs already know this truth: haven' t they said there's two kind of blacks the curly and the long haired ones respectively in africa and asia ?
hasn' t Hellanicus a greek met blacks along Euphrates in today's modern irak ?
Remember sumerians call themselves sag gig ga which is fakely translated as black haired when we know word for hair in sumerian is kezer , and top of head is ugudili meaning sumerians doesn' t talk about their top of heads' but of their whole head and we also know sag means head and person as in sumerian dictionary * psd.museum.upenn.edu/nepsd-frame.htm*l* saĝ [HEAD] wr. saĝ "head; person; capital" Akk. qaqqadu; rēšu*
and we know to make a people to be born is sagdu in sumerian which literrally means produce a head/person and we know the colour of the head of the baby is the color of the whole baby so we can guess when sumerians say they are sag gig ga they are black heads meaning they are black people and we also know the translation of sag gig ga is zalmat qaqadu which means in akkadian the translation of the black race the adamu race of the sumerians the first race created by annunakis, and kings of the other peoples kings like Sargon, Assourbanipal, Nabuchodonosor and Cyrus always call sumerians by this name( see *persee.fr/doc/bmsap_0301-8644_1902_num_3_1_6078 )*so sumerians were blacks , australoid people, long haired blacks of greek authors !!!!!!!!!

----------


## Doggerland

> Bummer 
> Maybe one of those can fit for anlaysis ?
> (They fall on rare branch under e-m123* 
> They are indo-aryan or indo-iranian from north pakistan iron age )
> I1799, I1985, I3262, I6197, I6899, I6900; ~1500-800 BC; Udegram, Swat Valley, Pakistan; SPGT; E-Y31991>FT179548>FT377116
> They are all in the same paper from the same link above


I1985

More round faced, narrow forehead, no Asian eyelids.
A long, slim nose with hooked nose bridge.
Small mouth, thin lips.
Likely brown eyes.
Dark Hair, Dark Brown or Black, curly or wavy.
Light brown skin.

Fertile Crescent Neolithic 54%
Natufian 66%
Iran Neolithic 78%

I3262

More round face, narrow forehead, no Asian eyelids.
Long, slim, hooked nose with downtuned nosetip.
Small mouth.
Brown Eyes.
Light brown skin.
Brown, wavy Hair.

Fertile Crescent Neolithic 58%
Natufian 67%
Iran Neolithic 94%

I6900

Medium face lenght, broad forehead.
Long, slim nose.
Large mouth.
Heterozygote for the EDAR gene variant that is associated with Asian teeth and hair structure.
Too few eye color SNPs, but the present ones suggest mixed eye color, maybe hazel/green.
Brown skin.
Black, straight or wavy hair.

Fertile Crescent Neolithic 60%
Natufian 68%
Iran Neolithic 62%

I would suggest I6900 had a Siberian/ANE related ancestry in the past, because he does not match with the Iranian farmers and has the EDAR variant. But this is not supported by admixture. (Only 2.8% Volga-Ural)

----------


## kingjohn

> I1985
> 
> More round faced, narrow forehead, no Asian eyelids.
> A long, slim nose with hooked nose bridge.
> Small mouth, thin lips.
> Likely brown eyes.
> Dark Hair, Dark Brown or Black, curly or wavy.
> Light brown skin.
> 
> ...



kudos
amazing works :Good Job: 
*so most of them have features that resemble more 
the iranian farmers* 
cool 
yes could be ...
i agree *i6900* could aquire the edar allells in the steppe 

p.s
i myself have large mouth :Laughing: 
by the way
*in the verteba last paper* i saw *1 of the remains had the edar derived allels*
so he had east asian influence

----------


## johen

> i agree *i6900* could aquire the *edar allells in the steppe* 
> 
> p.s
> i myself have large mouth
> by the way


Ya, large mouth

----------


## kingjohn

> Ya, large mouth



nice 
who is this lady or it is a male ?

----------


## johen

> nice
> who is this lady or it is a male ?


https://siberiantimes.com/science/ca...emale-warrior/

P.s
It seems to me that ancient altai people has a large-mouth patent.:
*Okunevo
*

----------


## adian808

people can be brothers and have different genes

_The people of Melanesia have a distinctive ancestry. Along with the aboriginal inhabitants of Australia, they are believed to derive from the Proto-Australoids who emigrated from Africa between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago and dispersed along the southern edge of Asia, giving rise to Australoid populations in various places, including South India, Sri Lanka, the Andaman Islands, the Philippines, and others. The limit of this ancient migration was Sahul, the continent formed when Australia and New Guinea were united by a land bridge as a result of low sea levels. The first migration into Sahul came over 40,000 years ago. A further expansion into the eastern islands of Melanesia came much later, probably between 4000 B.C. and 3000 B.C ( wikipedia)

humanphenotype adds besides of this that veddoids/australoids were the first people of middle east and india_*Description:*

Ancient South Asian type that probably split off early and long dominated large parts of South Asia from Arabia to the Sunda Islands. Was pushed back by later migrations and became restricted to hunter-gatherers and forest populations. The skin is medium to dark brown, the hair wavy to curly. Skulls are often long and small, stature rather short, the face low, brow ridges significant, forehead and chin receding, mild prognathy common. The most typical variety is the Vedda type that survives in small numbers in Sri Lankan forests. More common are the Gondids in tribal populations of India Malids of South India show some Negritoid traits. Toalids of Indonesia are shorter-skulled. Other varieties include Senoids of Indochina and Arabian veddoids ( veddoids from arabia region) *Names:*
Weddid (Eickstedt, 1952; Lundman, 1967, Vogel, 1974, Knussmann, 1996), Veddid (Lundman, 1988), Veddoid (Cole, 1965; Debets, 1974), Vedda (Vallois, 1968), Veddidi (Biasutti, 1967), Ceylonesian-Sundanesian (Cheboksarov, 1951, ) Australoid (Hooton, 1946), Homo veddalis (Haeckel, 1898)






See also:
*ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2211537/
*_All non-African regions including Melanesia shared the most alleles with Africa, indicating they were primarily subsets of African diversity 
_*cam.ac.uk/news/dna-links-aborigines-to-african-walkabout*_
The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa_* 

AND WE KNOW africans, melnesians and aborigines , veddoid peoples ( which means people similar to Veddas who are blacks ) and dravidians have the same brown skin so they are brothers*

----------


## MOESAN

> people can be brothers and have different genes
> 
> _The people of Melanesia have a distinctive ancestry. Along with the aboriginal inhabitants of Australia, they are believed to derive from the Proto-Australoids who emigrated from Africa between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago and dispersed along the southern edge of Asia, giving rise to Australoid populations in various places, including South India, Sri Lanka, the Andaman Islands, the Philippines, and others. The limit of this ancient migration was Sahul, the continent formed when Australia and New Guinea were united by a land bridge as a result of low sea levels. The first migration into Sahul came over 40,000 years ago. A further expansion into the eastern islands of Melanesia came much later, probably between 4000 B.C. and 3000 B.C ( wikipedia)
> 
> humanphenotype adds besides of this that veddoids/australoids were the first people of middle east and india_*Description:*
> 
> Ancient South Asian type that probably split off early and long dominated large parts of South Asia from Arabia to the Sunda Islands. Was pushed back by later migrations and became restricted to hunter-gatherers and forest populations. The skin is medium to dark brown, the hair wavy to curly. Skulls are often long and small, stature rather short, the face low, brow ridges significant, forehead and chin receding, mild prognathy common. The most typical variety is the Vedda type that survives in small numbers in Sri Lankan forests. More common are the Gondids in tribal populations of India Malids of South India show some Negritoid traits. Toalids of Indonesia are shorter-skulled. Other varieties include Senoids of Indochina and Arabian veddoids ( veddoids from arabia region) *Names:*
> Weddid (Eickstedt, 1952; Lundman, 1967, Vogel, 1974, Knussmann, 1996), Veddid (Lundman, 1988), Veddoid (Cole, 1965; Debets, 1974), Vedda (Vallois, 1968), Veddidi (Biasutti, 1967), Ceylonesian-Sundanesian (Cheboksarov, 1951, ) Australoid (Hooton, 1946), Homo veddalis (Haeckel, 1898)
> 
> ...



Adian808
I'm afraid you have hard work to understand some things.
1) pops situated on a track of colonisations are not by force the descendants of the first colonisers.
2) today Black Africans = SSA people (better received) are far to be all the same people that first colonised southern Eurasia. They stayed there but evolved an other way, a lot of them. They are not all of them the very descendants of the ones who took the route eastwards. SSA are not by force so closer to this first colonisers than today "white" Europoids or "yellow' Eat-Asians.
3) brown skin is not black skin and all the way it doesn't matter; it's a too focalised adaptative condition to prove any long term general genetic connection.

----------


## MOESAN

> nice 
> who is this lady or it is a male ?


I am not sure, I think in a female of Nolithical Sicily I saw in another thread?
BTW I found very curious this mouth and the length of the face compared to the skull, but ...?

----------


## Doggerland

> people can be brothers and have different genes


This evening I wanna have some fun and post interesting things, so I answer to you:

Lets compare the Aboriginal Australians in every single SNP allele that is available in some interesting samples and see if they match/are similar:

AboriginalAustralian / Papuan 85,37%
AboriginalAustralian / Han Chinese 84,21%
AboriginalAustralian / Melanesian 82,58%
AboriginalAustralian / Iberian 76,57%
AboriginalAustralian / Cheddar Man 75,43%
AboriginalAustralian / Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic 69,47%
AboriginalAustralian / Khomani San / 68,32
AboriginalAustralian / Dravidian 67,36%
AboriginalAustralian / Modern German 65,45%
AboriginalAustralian / Denisova 65,14%
AboriginalAustralian / Chimpanzee 64,30
AboriginalAustralian / Neanderthal 64,06%
AboriginalAustralian / Pygmy: 62,70%
AboriginalAustralian / Bantu 61,72%
AboriginalAustralian / Andaman 60,03%
AboriginalAustralian / Bedouin 42,63%

CheddarMan: 

CheddarMan / Han Chinese 82,59%
CheddarMan / Melanesian 81,31%
CheddarMan / Viking from Sweden 77,56%
CheddarMan / Papuan 77,30%
CheddarMan / Iberian 77,27%
CheddarMan / British Viking 76,69 %
CheddarMan / Aboriginal Australian 75,43%
CheddarMan / Viking from Denmark 69,82%
CheddarMan / Modern German 69,71%
CheddarMan / Sami 66,55%
CheddarMan / Dravidian 65,20%
CheddarMan / Khomani San 65,19%
CheddarMan / Pygmy 59,46%
CheddarMan / Bantu 58,43%
CheddarMan / Bedouin 43,64%

Lets see who modern day West Africans matches most:

Bantu/ Melanesian 67,68%
Bantu/ Han Chinese 66,93%
Bantu/ Mamanwa 64,98%
Bantu/ Pygmy 64,88%
Bantu/ Denisovan 63,95%
Bantu/ Malawi Mesolithic 63,63%
Bantu/ Chimpanzee 63,02%
Bantu/ Neanderthal 63,01%
Bantu/ Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic 62,91%
Bantu/ Papuan 61,81%
Bantu/ Aboriginal Australian 61,72%
Bantu/ Khomani San 61,53%
Bantu/ Zlaty Kun 60,42%
Bantu/ Dzuzuana 60,15%
Bantu/ Iberian 58,89%
Bantu/ Egyptian Mummy 59,74%
Bantu/ Cheddar Man 58,43%
Bantu/ Modern German 56,31%
Bantu/ Andaman 54,79%
Bantu/ Saharawi 54,63%
Bantu/ Yana Siberia 52,98%
Bantu/ Bedouin 42%

Have fun with the data and tell your story. My story is that humanity including Africans originate in the largest part in Asia.
Han Chinese are a good model for a descendant of a prototype modern human, because they share many alleles with very ancient ethnicities in general and are very inbreed, like many species in the wild or Neanderthals.

My personal overall allele match with Han Chinese is only 59,92% because I am not much related to archaic humans in general and not related to East Asians.
I have over 250 samples on my hard disc and tested every single in total allele comparison to me, and I think the method is not a bad one, because those are my highest results:

Me/ Single Grave Culture 62,95%
Me/ Hittite 60,74 %
Me/ Linear Pottery Hungary 60,73 %
Me/ Maglemose 60,64%

One should notice that total allele compare is not the same as ancestry informative markers or comparing physical trait related SNPs.

----------


## Doggerland

Who is more ancient/archaic? Han Chinese or Khomani San?

KhomaniSan / Salkhit 68,72%
KhomaniSan / Dzuzuana 68,51%
KhomaniSan / Dolni Vestonice 67,17%
KhomaniSan / Mesolithic South Africa 66,58%
KhomaniSan / Devils Gate 65,99%
KhomaniSan / Sunghir 65,92%
KhomaniSan / Malawi Mesolithic 64,60%
KhomaniSan / Sima de los Huesos (Homo Heidelbergensis) 64,47%
KhomaniSan / Denisova 64,37%
KhomaniSan / Gorilla 63,64%
KhomaniSan / Altai Neanderthal 63,42%
KhomaniSan / Chimpanzee 63,20%
KhomaniSan / Azilian 62,70%
KhomaniSan / Tianyuan 62,59%
KhomaniSan / Yana Siberia 62,14%
KhomaniSan / Oase 1 61,41%
KhomaniSan / Pestera Muierii 60,98%
KhomaniSan / CHG 60,41%
KhomaniSan / Zlaty Kun 57,67%
KhomaniSan / Mal Ta Buret 57,21%
KhomaniSan / Caspian Sea Mesolithic 56,94%
KhomaniSan / EHG 56,50%
KhomaniSan / Mesolithic Andes 56,33%
KhomaniSan / Anatolia HG 56.18%
KhomaniSan / Magdalenian 56,12%
KhomaniSan / Iberomaurusian 56,06%
KhomaniSan / Aurignacian 55,86%
KhomaniSan / Gravettian 55,29%
KhomaniSan / Natufian 55,16%
KhomaniSan / Ust Ishim 51,47%
KhomaniSan / Clovis Culture 48,68%

HanChinese / Sima de los Huesos (Homo Heidelbergensis) 95,31%
HanChinese / Oase 1 91.82%
HanChinese / Natufian 86,36%
HanChinese / CHG 86,26%
HanChinese / Mesolithic South Africa 84,67%
HanChinese / Devils Gate 84,62% 
HanChinese / Dzuzuana 84,62%
HanChinese / Dolni Vestonice 84,51%
HanChinese / Salkhit 83,53%
HanChinese / Sunghir 82,17%
HanChinese / Mal Ta Buret 78,96%
HanChinese / Tianyuan 78,95%
HanChinese / Caspian Sea Mesolithic 76,84%
HanChinese / Zlaty Kun 76,59%
HanChinese / Gravettian 75,60%
HanChinese / Azilian 75,53%
HanChinese / Mesolithic Andes 74,99%
HanChinese / Magdalenian 74,69%
HanChinese / Yana Siberia 74,04%
HanChinese / Malawi Mesolithic 73,48%
HanChinese / Aurignacian 73,24%
HanChinese / Anatolia HG 73,08%
HanChinese / Gorilla 72,77%
HanChinese / EHG 71,71%
HanChinese / Denisova 70,93%
HanChinese / Pestera Muierii 70,83%
HanChinese / Iberomaurusian 70,25%
HanChinese / Chimpanzee 69,95%
HanChinese / Altai Neanderthal 69,94%
HanChinese / Clovis Culture 65,25%
HanChinese / Ust Ishim 60,74%

Looks like the Asian Han are more similar in alleles to archaic humans then the African San. Or is this a wink to a more archaic separation of human ancestors long before the appearance of modern human traits? This would support the Multiregional Origin theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Bfa4d4mv4

----------


## Doggerland

Lets get back to Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic, maybe an Ancestor of the Sumerians. Total allele similarity:

EFCN/ Han Chinese 83,36%
EFCN/ Burusho 83,20%
EFCN/ Melanesian 83,20%
EFCN/ Mamanwa 81,31%
EFCN/ Papuan 78,70%
EFCN/ Celtic GB 77,62%
EFCN/ Celtic France 77,39%
EFCN/ Hittite 77.32%
EFCN/ Corded Ware Poland 77,12%
EFCN/ Iberian 76,90%
EFCN/ Viking from Sweden 76,65%
EFCN/ Tarim Mummy 76,59%
EFCN/ Aboriginal Australian 76,58%
EFCN/ Pict 76,34%
EFCN/ Neolithic Greek 76,33%
EFCN/ Baikal Bronze Age 76,11%
EFCN/ Guanches 75,74%
EFCN/ Germanic Rus 75,44%
EFCN/ Hunnic 75,12%
EFCN/ Ancient Greek 74,54%
EFCN/ Modern Native American 74,19%
EFCN/ Ancient Turk 73,11%
EFCN/ Ancient Aegean 72,12%
EFCN/ Iran Neolithic 72,09%
EFCN/ Maikop 69,89%
EFCN/ Battle Axe Sweden 68,93%
EFCN/ Egyptian Mummy 68,22%
EFCN/ Iran HG 67,71%
EFCN/ Modern German 67,66%
EFCN/ Kura Araxes 67,10%
EFCN/ Malawi Mesolithic 66,80%
EFCN/ Khomani San 66,57%
EFCN/ Dravidian 66,44%
EFCN/ Yamnaya 66,12%
EFCN/ Modern Greek 65,99%
EFCN/ Pre-Pottery Brazil 65,56%
EFCN/ Khanty 65,44%
EFCN/ Canaanite 65,21%
EFCN/ Hattian 64,41%
EFCN/ Pygmy 60,79%
EFCN/ Bantu 59,75%
EFCN/ Andaman 58,81%
EFCN/ Clovis Culture 56,95%
EFCN/ Basque 45,12%
EFCN/ Italian 44,68%
EFCN/ French 44,65%


They appear somewhat Ancient Eurasian/Asian + Indo-European, but not African when it comes to total allele sharing. Like i said about the trait allele sharing: They where dark skinned, but not brothers of modern Africans, they had a special kind of archaic Eurasian/Asian ancestry.

----------


## Mmiikkii

Mmmm... The Sumerians and the Native Americans related??The Native Americans have a mixture of Southern Chinese women and an ancestral Siberian/North Eurasian component on the male side with a now distant relation to European men.They're a Paleolithic East Asian population. We guess already differentiated from West Asians and Europeans.

----------


## Doggerland

The problem is that many people don’t understand that genetics are notable to give a simple and clear answer that people want to hear.

Ancestry informative markers don’t say something about how someone is looking, behaving or anything else. They make only up to 0.4% of the whole DNA.
They can predict who is related to someone. But being related does notmean being similar, because after 12 generations ethnicity specific alleles can be completely gone, if the parents are not from the same ethnicity/not related.
Native Americans are related to East Asians, but that does not mean that they must share much allele similarity with them, because they where isolated and got other ancestors from Siberia and in the southern part also from Polynesians (Botocudo)

A total allele compare can show who shares the most alleles. The problem with this is that it does not show who is related. The similarity can be based on the fact that many populations of the world, especially the ones that are believed to be very ancient, don’t have much mutated over time. Their ancestry informative markers differ, but not their overall alleles.

And then there are alleles that are related to physical abilities, how someone is looking, diseases, psychological traits. Those alleles where under strong pressure and selection in many ethnicites, because they lived in a special environment, other to archaic humans and had a more complex social structure.
When you compare those alleles, you will also get different results that may not match with total allele sharing or ancestry informative markers.

Haplogroups are the least markers that can determine race, because they have no effects on how someone is looking, behaving or anything else. They are simple lineage markers. African Americans that have 100% African Ancestry can have I1 or R1b haplogroups from slave owners, many Southern American Natives have European Y-DNA.
They are just an event marker, nothing more.

But people want clear answers, because they believe determining ancestry or race is as simple as comparing wood pound pegs. 

If you are interested in ancestry, who is related to who, ancestry informative markers/ancestry components/admixture PCA is the best answer.

If you wanna know about someones physical look or psychological traits, looking for a bunch of single trait related SNPs is the best way.

If you are interested in human migration, war and population changes, haplogroups and mtDNA are the best predictors.

If you wanna know how genetically similar two people are, total allele compare.

All those methods have limitations and are also dependent on sample quality and quantity.

Such claims like “In Britain 90% of DNA was replaced by Bell Beakers” are in the bigger sense completely nonsense. Human genomes are over 90% similar, so there cannot be a 90% replacement. Who knows what the guys measured there, ancestry informative markers or some specific SNPs they are using for their studies.

Back to the Native Americans:

It depends what your question is and what kind of calculator you are using.
They are related to Han in terms of ancestry components. For example in Eurogenes K15 they are relatively far away from Han Chinese and between Sami and Chukchi.
In Eurogones K36 they are between Han, Tatar and Adygei.

Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic is placed near Balochi in Eurogenes K15and in K36 between Pathan, Bosnian, Iranians and Makarani.

Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic and Native Americans are not related in terms of ancestry components.

----------


## MOESAN

Doggerland, I find very confused your way of thinking. What differences between "similarity" genes and other genes, concerning shared ancestry? What could have weight would be which among our all inherited genes are the ones showing a more recent common heritage.
Your EFCN percentages don't say anything to me, sorry.

----------


## Doggerland

I personally don’t understand why people lay so much weight on ancestry markers. They are almost not alleles that have a known function or predict our physical look or abilities. In our everyday life we cannot see ancestry markers, we look for similarity.

I see a huge focusing on physical traits in the discussion about the race/ethnicity of people in Anthro-Forums, but the majority of people try to answer this with SNPs that are not related to physical traits. Ancestry markers or haplogroups. They don’t influence our look at all.

This is in my opinion the wrong way to answer questions about peoples physical apperance.

For example many calculators give modern Europeans high percentages of WHG ancestry, but when it comes to physical trait related SNPs, they don’t match as much as with neolithic samples in most cases. They have WHG related ancestry markers, but the physical and metabolic traits where not favored by evolution, because they are a huge disadvantage in a modern society. So the people of today don’t look so much like WHG anymore, despite of their ancestry markers. SHG is another thing but i will try to make this post as short as possible.

Lets get back to the widely used admixture calculators and ancestry markers:
For example things like this:https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig5_346952053
Those percentages are very unrealistic, because they only use very few selected samples. People think: “Ah, yes, everybody is somehow descended from that ancient people” But that is wrong. This is all based on data selection. But selection is the only way to get clear and simple results like this when it comes to human genetics.
You could produce graphics like this with almost every population on earth. We could use Maori, Neanderthal and Tianyuan and also create a 100% percentage graph where everybody will get percentages of Maori, Neanderthal and Tianyuan.
Have you ever wondered why every ethnicity like Poles, Germans, Russian ,Maris etc. on the graph get all 100%? It is highly unrealistic, that those 3 samples, Nganasan, Yamnaya, Anatolia explain the whole ancestry of those people.
The same comes to the widely used calculators on the hobby. They always produce a 100% result with the tested sample, but that is highly unlikely:https://whoareyoumadeof.com/wp-conte...k6-results.jpg

How “wrong” those calculators are if selected by specific samples, I will demonstrate. I use myself in Dodecad Africa:

68,21%Europe
23,74%SW_Asian
7,08%NW-African
0,56%S_Africa
0,42%E_African

Yeah,I am 30% Non-European and therefore a POC.

Using1 populations approximation
1100% North_Italian @ 7,010

MixedMode:
191,02% North_Italian + 8,98% Morocco_N @ 0,650

Was born in the wrong family.

Or another good example is Tolan K16 Neolithic:

98,25%European_EHG
1,75%Caucasus
-
Modern:

87,20%Russian
12,00%Mordovians
0,60%Pole
0,20%Abhkasians

If the calculators would be realistic, it should address me a large percentage of “ERROR” or “Unknown”
But those things are not build for this, they show the most similarity in ancestry markers to the selected samples, even if they are very distant.

Admixture calculators cannot differentiate between Apes, Monkeys, Nanderthals and Sub Saharan Africans:

Gorilla
Using1 populations approximation
1100% Biaka_Pygmy @ 3,334
2100% Luhya @ 4,570
3100% Bantu_N.E. @ 5,755

Chimp
Using1 populations approximation
1100% Luhya @ 3,568
2100% Biaka_Pygmy @ 3,885
3100% Bantu_N.E. @ 4,810

Neanderthal
Using1 populations approximation
1100% Biaka_Pygmy @ 3,623
2100% Bantu_S.E. @ 6,236
3100% Bantu_S.W. @ 8,484

Rhesus Monkey
Using1 populations approximation
1100% Bantu_N.E. @ 7,889
2100% Luhya @ 8,702
3100% Mbuti_Pygmy @ 11,610

So if admixture defines who is brother or not, Apes, Monkeys, Africans and Neanderthals are all black brothers.
All those calculators have their limitations and the method of using ancestry markers in general.

And because of this I prefer direct SNP compare or total allele compare instead of ancestry markers when it comes to similarity(not ancestry) of people/samples. If there is no match, the answer is just “0”zero, and not a forced percentage of some of the samples to reach a 100% answer.

----------


## Nicu

> Mmmm... The Sumerians and the Native Americans related??The Native Americans have a mixture of Southern Chinese women and an ancestral Siberian/North Eurasian component on the male side with a now distant relation to European men.They're a Paleolithic East Asian population. We guess already differentiated from West Asians and Europeans.


Wait, Southern Chinese?? Is that some new finding? I thought Native Americans derived from a Central-East Siberian/North Asian population which in the past had absorbed some ancient West Eurasian/Proto-Caucasian before moving across the Bering Strait to the Americas thousands of years ago? If anything they'd be closer to the paleo-Siberians, Ket people (with whom some in the NaDene family have linguistic links), Chukchi, Inuits, etc, and after that maybe Tungusic peoples, even Mongols and Turkics and maybe Ainus before straight up Chinese. The occasional superficial resemblance of Native American types with some Southeast Asians is more coincidental, and I thought a northeast Asian link would be more probable.

----------


## adian808

> Ancient Greeks where not modern scientists and could not perform genetic analysis. They recognized people based on their bias.
> 
> “Blacks” do exist as a social idea, but not as a genetic reality. Sub Saharan African can be seen as an ethnicity, because they share ancient ancestry. Sub Saharan Africans are genetically real. But Aboriginal Australians, Negritos, South Indians, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans are genetically very distant from them. They are not part of their genetic cluster, not part of their genetic ethnicity. 
> 
> The idea that people with a same trait like dark skin, blue eyes or blonde hair belong to the same “Race” or are somehow related, is an outdated idea that has no support in modern science.
> It was the base for racial wars in the past and it seems that it will be in the future, because some(or many?) people are not interested in reality and place their bad claiming for vengeance over knowledge and wisdom.
> 
> If Cheddar Man is "black" because he has alleles for dark skin, I must be "black" too, because I have wild type alleles for dark eye and hair color, the same ones Archaic Humans and Sub Saharan Africans have. 
> 
> ...


you forget one thing
cheddar man , dravidians and australians originate from africa where peoples are brown skinned and they are brown skinned too so we can guess they inherit brown/black skin genes from black africans ( i dont say subsaharans cause toubous and nubians live in plain sahara and bejas live in eastern egypt so they are not subsaharan people )
so even if they got different genes they share some continuous genes with africans so knowing their haplogroup Mis son of african wide haplogroup L3 they are sons of black africans so they are black too what noticed greeks and greeks were not saying bullshits , they say blacks, curly or long haired ones come from ethiopia and yves coppens show this true , so dravidians , veddoids , aboriginals and cheddar men are africans that's the truth 

y

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> you forget one thing
> cheddar man , dravidians and australians originate from africa where peoples are brown skinned and they are brown skinned too so we can guess they inherit brown/black skin genes from black africans ( i dont say subsaharans cause toubous and nubians live in plain sahara and bejas live in eastern egypt so they are not subsaharan people )
> so even if they got different genes they share some continuous genes with africans so knowing their haplogroup Mis son of african wide haplogroup L3 they are sons of black africans so they are black too what noticed greeks and greeks were not saying bullshits , they say blacks, curly or long haired ones come from ethiopia and yves coppens show this true , so dravidians , veddoids , aboriginals and cheddar men are africans that's the truth 
> 
> y


I don't agree with your take on what the extant Greek writers wrote. They did compare populations in India with those of Africa south of Egypt (i.e. Ethiopians below the first Cataract of the Nile). Greeks (Herodotus, Alexander the Great) did indicate or describe Indians from South of Ganges River were similar in tone to Ethiopians or were dark or black but not all of them to the extent of Ethiopians; i.e. Africans from regions South of the First Cataract of the Nile. However, the Greeks were very clear to point out that the Indians from the South of the Ganges while being similar in skin tone to African Ethiopians, they had straight hair and different nose phenotypes than Ethiopians from Africa. Those same Greek writers noted that populations in North India resembled Egyptians in terms of phenotypes. So descriptions are sometimes vague as to who is being referred but by the time of Xenophanes (570 BC to 478 BC), Greeks had encountered enough different peoples to provide phenotype descriptions of peoples they encountered other than skin tone (e.g., hair, nose, etc).

With that said, the ancient Greek and Roman writers are great to read but they got some things wrong and some right. Herodotus, for example, was wrong about his theory regarding the Estruscans. So always good to read as many different sources and cross-check them (e.g. Herodotus had his detractors in his own time). On the other hand, the ancient writer Philostratus (circa 170 to 250AD) noted that once you got past the Egyptian border just pass the first cataract, there were peoples darker than Egyptians but lighter than Ethiopians say from the regions near the ancient city of Meroe. 

With the explosion of ancient DNA in the last 12 years, DNA research is now clearly clearing up much of what people argue about regarding who was who in antiquity, etc. Such people try fit modern ideologies about racial/ethnic differences and thus their identifies back into ancient peoples for their own political ideologies. The Posth et al 2021 paper "The origin and legacy ofthe Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect" analyzes some 48 Estruscan samples, 40 are local origin (from Central to North Italy) similar to the Latins from the Antonio et al 2019 paper on ancient Rome, 8 were outliers, a few clustering with Central Europeans and some with Punics/North Africans. So Herodotus's Anatolian or Trojan origin theory of the Etruscans was not true.

Sirak et als 2021 "Social stratification without genetic differentiationat the site of Kulubnarti in Christian Period Nubia" documents evidence supporting what Philostratus reported some 400 years earlier, that is these Christian Nubians from circa 600-800AD (in area near 2nd cataract) were in terms of admixture 57% Eurasian and 43% Nilotic (African) and that the Eurasian admixture dates back at least the the Levant Bronze Age and came down from Egypt into Nubia. 

So not looking to get into an argument but citing the ancient Greek and Roman writers is always something that I personally think should be done carefully in context and not taken as "Gospel". In my view, it is always a good idea to see what other ancient writers said about something. In my experience if one writer says X, often times another says Y. Furthermore, many of the accounts written down by Historians such as Herodotus were based on folklores, sailor tales, wives tales, oral traditions of peoples, etc and thus questionable at times (think of the giant ants he wrote about, based on probably sailors tales of Greeks who went to Egypt and went into areas and reported back with exaggeration what they saw).


Now with respect to Cheddar Man, he was not genetically related to peoples of sub-saharan Africa or even Horn Africans if you want to distinguish them from Western, Central, Southern and other Eastern Africans given their unique genetic history of back migration from West Asia to the Horn. He is not exactly like any modern population today, but closest to NW Europeans (British isles and Northern Europeans (Scandinavians) due to him being a European HG. His Y DNA was I2, common among Mesolithic Western European HG and is maternal was U5, very common in Western Eurasia and also found in North Africa. His skin tone was likely darker probably due to not having the snps for lighter skin tone on SLC24A5 and SLC45A2; however someone more up to date on Cheddar might have definitive information on that one. However, in 2018 additional work was done and it was suggested his skin tone could have been more intermediate. Regardless of what his skin tone was or was not, skin tone is a "phenotype" not something that can be used to categorize Cheddar into Population A vs. B vs. C, etc.

Regards.

----------


## real expert

> you forget one thing
> cheddar man , dravidians and australians originate from africa where peoples are brown skinned and they are brown skinned too so we can guess they inherit brown/black skin genes from black africans ( i dont say subsaharans cause toubous and nubians live in plain sahara and bejas live in eastern egypt so they are not subsaharan people )
> so even if they got different genes they share some continuous genes with africans so knowing their haplogroup Mis son of african wide haplogroup L3 they are sons of black africans so they are black too what noticed greeks and greeks were not saying bullshits , they say blacks, curly or long haired ones come from ethiopia and yves coppens show this true , so dravidians , veddoids , aboriginals and cheddar men are africans that's the truth 
> 
> y








Stop spreading misinformation. You display poor scholarship and you seem to be scientifically not very literate. Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), such as the Cheddar Man and La Brana were descended from the earlier, genetically homogeneous Cro-Magnon population. That said, the WHGs diverged from the Cro-Magnons during the Last Glacial Maximum in the refugia of Europe. All Eurasians alive today who don't have recent African ancestry are descendants of a migration out of Africa that happened between 100,000 and 70- 65,000 years ago. The ancestors of WHGs exited Africa into Eurasia which means that the WHGs are "descend" from an early population from Eurasia, who developed outside of Africa. Besides, according to one genetic study, the divergence time estimates among the major population groups suggest that Eurasian populations diverged from Africans during the same time frame (approximately 90 to 110 thousand years ago). The divergence among different Eurasian populations occurred more than 40,000 years after their divergence with Africans. So, after a small group of people left the African continent around 70.000 years ago, all humans spread throughout the globe - creating new populations wherever they went. These populations were often separated from each other, and they encountered different environments that could drive evolutionary processes, mutations. Nevertheless, the fact that if you go far back in times all humans came ultimately from Africa doesn't translate into all humans directly descending from indigenous Africans.

Furthermore, although is likely that the Cheddar Man was dark-skinned that doesn't indicate kinship with Africans. On the contrary, WHGs like the Cheddar Man and La Brana are genetically one of the most distinct populations from indigenous Africans. Furthermore, their closest living relatives are the very pale Baltic, Scandinavians, Finnish people.

----------


## MOESAN

> you forget one thing
> cheddar man , dravidians and australians originate from africa where peoples are brown skinned and they are brown skinned too so we can guess they inherit brown/black skin genes from black africans ( i dont say subsaharans cause toubous and nubians live in plain sahara and bejas live in eastern egypt so they are not subsaharan people )
> so even if they got different genes they share some continuous genes with africans so knowing their haplogroup Mis son of african wide haplogroup L3 they are sons of black africans so they are black too what noticed greeks and greeks were not saying bullshits , they say blacks, curly or long haired ones come from ethiopia and yves coppens show this true , so dravidians , veddoids , aboriginals and cheddar men are africans that's the truth 
> 
> y



I fear you shall never understand some things!
We are all of us (based on current knowledge) 'black africans' since our ancestors came seemingly from Africa!
In fact we don't know all, and you even lesser: We don't know HOW "black" was Cheddar man because we have not studied every potential pigmentation SNP. We can suppose his pigmentation genetic making was *for a part* the same (so called, arbitraty, "ancestral" genes), but he had certainly some unkown variants not proper to first African ancestors. Even in "black" SSA Africa, the allover composition of the DNA linked to pigmentation is not the same in every individual and pop', and it seems that in SSA the mutated DNA doesn't concern only DEpigmentation but also OVERpigmentation. POp's are evolving, and the external traits (often selected by prejudice) are not always the best ones to establish more or less global proximity of pop's and people.
But you can and may stick on to your believings if they are good to your feelings.

----------


## adian808

> Stop spreading misinformation. You display poor scholarship and you seem to be scientifically not very literate. Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), such as the Cheddar Man and La Brana were descended from the earlier, genetically homogeneous Cro-Magnon population. That said, the WHGs diverged from the Cro-Magnons during the Last Glacial Maximum in the refugia of Europe. All Eurasians alive today who don't have recent African ancestry are descendants of a migration out of Africa that happened between 100,000 and 70- 65,000 years ago. The ancestors of WHGs exited Africa into Eurasia which means that the WHGs are "descend" from an early population from Eurasia, who developed outside of Africa. Besides, according to one genetic study, the divergence time estimates among the major population groups suggest that Eurasian populations diverged from Africans during the same time frame (approximately 90 to 110 thousand years ago). The divergence among different Eurasian populations occurred more than 40,000 years after their divergence with Africans. So, after a small group of people left the African continent around 70.000 years ago, all humans spread throughout the globe - creating new populations wherever they went. These populations were often separated from each other, and they encountered different environments that could drive evolutionary processes, mutations. Nevertheless, the fact that if you go far back in times all humans came ultimately from Africa doesn't translate into all humans directly descending from indigenous Africans.
> 
> Furthermore, although is likely that the Cheddar Man was dark-skinned that doesn't indicate kinship with Africans. On the contrary, WHGs like the Cheddar Man and La Brana are genetically one of the most distinct populations from indigenous Africans. Furthermore, their closest living relatives are the very pale Baltic, Scandinavians, Finnish people.


i don' t spread any misinformation
african L3 is mother of black veddoids and dravidians and aborigines M haplogroup and of modern europeans *fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroupe_M_(ADNmt)#/media/Fichier:Peopling_of_eurasia.jpg*
and you said yourself cheddar man come from africa and we know europeans became white from 8000 BC when they oit africa 50000 years ago AS SAID HERE *lenouvelliste.ch/sante/cela-ne-fait-que-8000-ans-que-les-europeens-ont-la-peau-blanche-375234...*

----------


## adian808

> I don't agree with your take on what the extant Greek writers wrote. They did compare populations in India with those of Africa south of Egypt (i.e. Ethiopians below the first Cataract of the Nile). Greeks (Herodotus, Alexander the Great) did indicate or describe Indians from South of Ganges River were similar in tone to Ethiopians or were dark or black but not all of them to the extent of Ethiopians; i.e. Africans from regions South of the First Cataract of the Nile. However, the Greeks were very clear to point out that the Indians from the South of the Ganges while being similar in skin tone to African Ethiopians, they had straight hair and different nose phenotypes than Ethiopians from Africa. Those same Greek writers noted that populations in North India resembled Egyptians in terms of phenotypes. So descriptions are sometimes vague as to who is being referred but by the time of Xenophanes (570 BC to 478 BC), Greeks had encountered enough different peoples to provide phenotype descriptions of peoples they encountered other than skin tone (e.g., hair, nose, etc).
> 
> With that said, the ancient Greek and Roman writers are great to read but they got some things wrong and some right. Herodotus, for example, was wrong about his theory regarding the Estruscans. So always good to read as many different sources and cross-check them (e.g. Herodotus had his detractors in his own time). On the other hand, the ancient writer Philostratus (circa 170 to 250AD) noted that once you got past the Egyptian border just pass the first cataract, there were peoples darker than Egyptians but lighter than Ethiopians say from the regions near the ancient city of Meroe. 
> 
> With the explosion of ancient DNA in the last 12 years, DNA research is now clearly clearing up much of what people argue about regarding who was who in antiquity, etc. Such people try fit modern ideologies about racial/ethnic differences and thus their identifies back into ancient peoples for their own political ideologies. The Posth et al 2021 paper "The origin and legacy ofthe Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect" analyzes some 48 Estruscan samples, 40 are local origin (from Central to North Italy) similar to the Latins from the Antonio et al 2019 paper on ancient Rome, 8 were outliers, a few clustering with Central Europeans and some with Punics/North Africans. So Herodotus's Anatolian or Trojan origin theory of the Etruscans was not true.
> 
> Sirak et als 2021 "Social stratification without genetic differentiationat the site of Kulubnarti in Christian Period Nubia" documents evidence supporting what Philostratus reported some 400 years earlier, that is these Christian Nubians from circa 600-800AD (in area near 2nd cataract) were in terms of admixture 57% Eurasian and 43% Nilotic (African) and that the Eurasian admixture dates back at least the the Levant Bronze Age and came down from Egypt into Nubia. 
> 
> So not looking to get into an argument but citing the ancient Greek and Roman writers is always something that I personally think should be done carefully in context and not taken as "Gospel". In my view, it is always a good idea to see what other ancient writers said about something. In my experience if one writer says X, often times another says Y. Furthermore, many of the accounts written down by Historians such as Herodotus were based on folklores, sailor tales, wives tales, oral traditions of peoples, etc and thus questionable at times (think of the giant ants he wrote about, based on probably sailors tales of Greeks who went to Egypt and went into areas and reported back with exaggeration what they saw).
> Regards.


Great error ! Pre roman greeks NEVER called only nubians ethiopians and say ancient egyptians was an ethiopian colony the same way they say Caucasus was occupied by ethiopian colonists too ( what is also said inthis map of Bible *upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Table_of_Nations.jpg/301px-Table_of_Nations.jpg* )
Ancient egyptians themselves said they come from Pount in northern Somalia
*histoire-secrete.fr/265475300 and* portrayed pountites the same color ancient egyptians: brown color the typical color of Blacks :
*i.pinimg.com/564x/fd/38/ed/fd38edbdd524b90f0894421d386bec4e.jpg* 
ancient egyptians dancing
*2.bp.blogspot.com/-YqGHA0EFdiM/Wf8OtKpirPI/AAAAAAAABNA/hiT3f7qYBLs2QMlZLWgA33bF5SCGJLU3QCLcBGAs/s1600/punt.jpg 
*pountites shown by ancient egyptians

Notice BEJA people girls has the same color and same hairstyle ancient egyptian girls and puntites girls and puntite boys* i.pinimg.com/474x/09/30/c3/0930c39ddd4b08024c069993ae526433.jpg* and BEjas are historically first people of egypt since prehistory and come from horn of africa too ...
*qr.ae/pGEFsq
*AND GENETICALLY ancient egyptians come from HORN OF AFRICA and have same genes Bejas , somalis , afars ( who are not mixed with semites ) and darfuris according to Tillmar *flickr.com/photos/anbessa2011/6284194929* and this ev32 gene is not linked to arabs or semites but to indigenous black populations of horn of africa and east of africa and northeast of africa

----------


## Palermo Trapani

No they did not. All that stuff you are citing is not relevant. Provide the cite from any Greek writer Pre-Roman that said what you are saying they said. Furthermore, if you want to be taken serious, I suggest you find citations from legitimate scholarly research published in academic journals in the fields of archeology and history and genetics/DNA rather than the what you are presenting here when you post.

----------


## adian808

> I don't agree with your take on what the extant Greek writers wrote. They did compare populations in India with those of Africa south of Egypt (i.e. Ethiopians below the first Cataract of the Nile). Greeks (Herodotus, Alexander the Great) did indicate or describe Indians from South of Ganges River were similar in tone to Ethiopians or were dark or black but not all of them to the extent of Ethiopians; i.e. Africans from regions South of the First Cataract of the Nile. However, the Greeks were very clear to point out that the Indians from the South of the Ganges while being similar in skin tone to African Ethiopians, they had straight hair and different nose phenotypes than Ethiopians from Africa. Those same Greek writers noted that populations in North India resembled Egyptians in terms of phenotypes. So descriptions are sometimes vague as to who is being referred but by the time of Xenophanes (570 BC to 478 BC), Greeks had encountered enough different peoples to provide phenotype descriptions of peoples they encountered other than skin tone (e.g., hair, nose, etc).
> 
> With that said, the ancient Greek and Roman writers are great to read but they got some things wrong and some right. Herodotus, for example, was wrong about his theory regarding the Estruscans. So always good to read as many different sources and cross-check them (e.g. Herodotus had his detractors in his own time). On the other hand, the ancient writer Philostratus (circa 170 to 250AD) noted that once you got past the Egyptian border just pass the first cataract, there were peoples darker than Egyptians but lighter than Ethiopians say from the regions near the ancient city of Meroe. 
> 
> With the explosion of ancient DNA in the last 12 years, DNA research is now clearly clearing up much of what people argue about regarding who was who in antiquity, etc. Such people try fit modern ideologies about racial/ethnic differences and thus their identifies back into ancient peoples for their own political ideologies. The Posth et al 2021 paper "The origin and legacy ofthe Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect" analyzes some 48 Estruscan samples, 40 are local origin (from Central to North Italy) similar to the Latins from the Antonio et al 2019 paper on ancient Rome, 8 were outliers, a few clustering with Central Europeans and some with Punics/North Africans. So Herodotus's Anatolian or Trojan origin theory of the Etruscans was not true.
> 
> Sirak et als 2021 "Social stratification without genetic differentiationat the site of Kulubnarti in Christian Period Nubia" documents evidence supporting what Philostratus reported some 400 years earlier, that is these Christian Nubians from circa 600-800AD (in area near 2nd cataract) were in terms of admixture 57% Eurasian and 43% Nilotic (African) and that the Eurasian admixture dates back at least the the Levant Bronze Age and came down from Egypt into Nubia. 
> 
> So not looking to get into an argument but citing the ancient Greek and Roman writers is always something that I personally think should be done carefully in context and not taken as "Gospel". In my view, it is always a good idea to see what other ancient writers said about something. In my experience if one writer says X, often times another says Y. Furthermore, many of the accounts written down by Historians such as Herodotus were based on folklores, sailor tales, wives tales, oral traditions of peoples, etc and thus questionable at times (think of the giant ants he wrote about, based on probably sailors tales of Greeks who went to Egypt and went into areas and reported back with exaggeration what they saw).
> ...


You commit an error about ancient greeks !!!!!!!!

GREEKS were right about etruscans too and never said they are troyns but lydians
and lydians , pelasgians , lemnos people ( who are pelasgians) were recognised to be of the same stock etruscans genetically *futura-sciences.com/sciences/actualites/archeologie-fin-mystere-origine-descendance-etrusques-12132/* and linguistically ( lemnian cognate etruscans) lemnian speakers being pelasgians ( notice also pelasgians being ancestors of albanians before aryan illyrians come and coming from anatolia the same way lydians the ancestors of etruscans according to herodotus, albanians too are related etruscans ... )

----------


## Palermo Trapani

No I am not in error. I suggest you read more. And No they were wrong about the Etruscans. A recent DNA paper refutes Herodotus's theory. I suggest you go read the paper.

Posth et al. 2021


https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

Science Alert article summarizing the paper. Herodotus theory is not supported. 

https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-has...ient-etruscans

Archeology magazine summary of the paper: Again Herodotus theory is not supported.


https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/...ery-1.10236713

The fact that the Etruscans had significant Neolithic ancestry from Anatolia (Early European Farmer) ancestry is not surprising as that ancestral source population was in Central Italy, and all of what is modern Italy today (Sicily and Sardinia) dating back 8,000 years ago.

Now where there Greek settlements in Italy and Sicily in the Iron age, yes? but those did not start till circa 8th century BC. The Etruscan civilization pre dates Greek settlements in Southern Italy and Sicily that over time could have impacted the genetic profile of peoples say in Lazio at least given Greek Settlements were in what is modern Campania who scholars based on archeological and historical records credit with the founding of the city of Naples.

----------


## adian808

> No they did not. All that stuff you are citing is not relevant. Provide the cite from any Greek writer Pre-Roman that said what you are saying they said. Furthermore, if you want to be taken serious, I suggest you find citations from legitimate scholarly research published in academic journals in the fields of archeology and history and genetics/DNA rather than the what you are presenting here when you post.


Are you saying Beja who is attested by ancient egyptians scriptures are not indigenous of east egypt ? 
Are you saying a native semite egyptian can' t say the truth about ancient egyptians if he says bejas are modern still desendants of ancient egyptian population as in this link *qr.ae/pGEFsq* even if he proves it with a museum inscription in Egypt *qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-af18d0516fa6193040224d48feeb6825-lq* ?

Are you saying Tillmar is not a scholar ? because he said ancient egyptians and nubians and bejas and oromos and darfuris and somalis have the same ev 32 haplogroup ?

Are you saying ancient egyptians didn' t say Pount is the origin of their culture , Ta netjeri in their langage , the land of god in their langage ? do you think historian Brian Brown _("La Sagesse des égyptiens" New York 1923 .)_ is a liar ? or Richard Pankhurst_ ( "Les frontières de l’Éthiopie » 1997 )_ ?
Are you saying ancient depiction of pountites as being brown like ancient egyptians and common blacks is not true without having proof ?

Anout Diodore of Sicily he said this :
_It is maintained that the Ethiopians are the first of all men, and that the proofs of this are evident. First of all, everyone being more or less in agreement that they did not come from abroad, and that they were born in the country itself, we can rightly call them Autochthones; then it seems obvious to everyone that the men who inhabit the South were probably the first to come out of the bosom of the earth. For the heat of the sun drying the moist earth and rendering it suitable for the generation of animals, it is probable that the region nearest to the sun was the first populated by living beings. It is also claimed that the Ethiopians were the first to teach men to venerate the gods, to offer them sacrifices, to perform pumps, sacred solemnities and other ceremonies, by which men practice divine worship. They are therefore everywhere famous for their piety; and their sacrifices appear to be the most pleasing to the divinity. In support of this we have the testimony of the almost oldest and most admired poet of the Greeks, who represents to us, in his Iliad, Jupiter and the other immortals going to Ethiopia to receive the offerings and the feasts which the Ethiopians offer them every year: "Jupiter crossed the ocean yesterday to go to the brave Ethiopians who were preparing a feast for him. All the gods followed him. We note that the Ethiopians have received, from the gods, the reward of their piety, never having suffered the yoke of any foreign despot. Indeed, they have always preserved their freedom; and, thanks to their union, they were never subjugated by the sovereigns who marched against them, and none of whom succeeded in his enterprise. I The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians descend from one of their colonies, which was led into Egypt by Osiris; and they add that this country was, at the beginning of the world, only a sea; but then the Nile, carrying in its floods the silt brought from Ethiopia, gradually formed landfills. Based on what happens at the mouths of the Nile, they clearly demonstrate that all of Egypt is the work of this river: every year the ground is raised by the contribution of silt, and the soil expands at the expense of the sea. They say, moreover, that most Egyptian customs are of Ethiopian origin, as the colonies preserve the traditions of the metropolis; that respect for kings, considered as gods, the rite of funerals and many other customs, are Ethiopian institutions; finally, that the types of sculpture and the characters of writing are also borrowed from the Ethiopians. The Egyptians have in fact two kinds of particular writings, one, called vulgar, which is learned by everyone; the other, called sacred, known to priests alone, and which is taught to them from father to son, among the secret things. Now, the Ethiopians use both scripts indiscriminately. The order of priests is, in the two nations, established on the same bases. Those who are dedicated to the worship of the gods perform the same purifications; they shave and dress alike, and they all carry a plow-like scepter._
Herodotus himself saw ancient egyptians as having black skin and woolly hair (Herodotus, 2.104)
herodotus said about Egypt this "It is certain that the natives of the country are black with the heat. ..." {endnote 1: The History of Herododus, translated by George Rawlinson. New York. Tudor, 1928, p. 88.} 
To demonstrate that the Greek oracle is of Egyptian origin, Herodotus advances another argument: "Lastly, by calling the dove black, they [the Dodonaeans] indicated that the woman was Egyptian. ..." {endnote 2: Ibid., p. 101.} The doves in question symbolize two Egyptian women allegedly kidnapped from Thebes to found the oracles of Dodona and Libya.

----------


## adian808

> No I am not in error. I suggest you read more. And No they were wrong about the Etruscans. A recent DNA paper refutes Herodotus's theory. I suggest you go read the paper.
> 
> Posth et al. 2021
> 
> 
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673
> 
> Science Alert article summarizing the paper. Herodotus theory is not supported. 
> 
> ...


you comitted errors again !
i Never told about greek settlements in central italy ( greeks settle in sicily not in central italy ) but about pelasgians which are genetically and linguistically linked to lemnians which are linked to lydians genetically and to etruscans linguistically 

Futura science is a reasonable site ruled by french scientists , it is better than your sources saying etruscans are from the steppe of russia !

----------


## Palermo Trapani

No I did not commit and error. Herodotus was incorrect. The Etruscans were not from Anatolia. Get over it. And Herodotus did not say the Egyptians were "black skin" he said darker skinned. And in addition, Greek writers never called them Aethiopes. However, they were not as dark as the peoples how lived on the border between Egypt and Nubia (first cataract) and the peoples on the border region were lighter than the peoples in Ancient Kush whose kingdom was near the ancient city of Meroe (near 4th cataract). When Herodotus is describing Ethiopians (Black Africans) he is describing peoples South of first cataract. As I noted before, the ancient Greek writers starting with Xenophanes, who actually lived before Herodotus, Greeks were describing Ethiopians with anthropological descriptions other than just skin tone. He was the first to point out the flat-noses of Black Ethiopians. Petronius, a Roman writer pointed out that a non Ethiopian could not pass for an Ethiopian by merely painting is body with black paint/color. An Ethiopian not only has black skin and flat nose, but other facial phenotypes like an Ethiopian (lips, head shape, etc). To make this point, ancient Greek and Roman writers who new of peoples in India pointed out that while Indians South of the Ganges had dark skin tones similar to African Ethiopians, there noses and hair differed.

The most complete review of all the extant Greek and Roman texts of Black Africans that the ancient Greeks and Romans encountered is a work by Professor Frank Snowden Jr.. A black American scholar who studied ancient Greek and Latin and was a Dean at Howard University, a leading HBCU in the USA. His work "Blacks in Antiquity" published by Harvard University Press in 1970 is the most complete review of all the extant Greek and Roman writers that totally examines all those extant texts regarding descriptions of "Aethiopes" relative to other ancient peoples they encountered. At no time were the Egyptians, who had darker skin tone yes than Europeans, described with the same phenotype descriptions (e.g., head, nose, hair, etc.) as Ethiopians (Black Africans). Yes, I am aware than Egypt for a time was ruled by Kings from ancient Nubia/Cush who were from the ancient city of Meroe. Those were indeed "Ethiopians".

My sources point out what the DNA of 48 Etruscans show, 40 of them were local from Central Italy and had source ancestry from Early European Farmers with some Steppe admixture. They were not Greek migrants from Anatolia. Period. And whatever the linguistic affinity of the Etruscan language to other languages, Language does not necessarily correlate with ancestry. The Etruscans and Latins were genetically similar, but spoke different languages. 

And the Greeks settled in Sicily, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania and Puglia for the record.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

And the last thing about the Egyptians in this thread that I am going to say. There are numerous DNA studies that have been published on ancient Egypt, with some samples going back to about 2,000 BC. None of them show these ancient samples were genetically related to peoples South of the First cataract of the Nile. Now, I am aware that there needs to be more studies from more regions of Egypt and from periods further back. But none of the DNA evidence today supports your points. As for that Historian, I am not saying he is a liar, I am saying he perhaps is wrong.

Just do a quick search on ancient DNA studies done on Egypt. After you have read them, then perhaps I will discuss them.

----------


## adian808

Pre roman greeks also said Meluhhans live all along Ganges which is in North india and were blacks ( asiatic ethiopians / long haired ethiopians ) and are same elamites ( which we know are ancestors of dravidians ) and sumerians ( Cephenes/blacks of euphrate and south irak met by Hellanicus )

Only Romans say later blacks were in south egypt only ( what is faked because Beja tribe live in east egypt from red sea gulf to Nubians far south region... ) and say blacks in india are only in south what is faked cause the Nishada / Munda live in east of india and in their langage human = black person ŋuri lu rüö, cek kulu rüök, Kurukh in Nepal are black dravidians too and Brahui are black dravidians of afghanistan / Pakistan region near BALOUCHISTAN and there were Nihali , Korku and Adivasi in north india

----------


## adian808

> No I did not commit and error. Herodotus was incorrect. The Etruscans were not from Anatolia. Get over it. And Herodotus did not say the Egyptians were "black skin" he said darker skinned. And in addition, Greek writers never called them Aethiopes. However, they were not as dark as the peoples how lived on the border between Egypt and Nubia (first cataract) and the peoples on the border region were lighter than the peoples in Ancient Kush whose kingdom was near the ancient city of Meroe (near 4th cataract). When Herodotus is describing Ethiopians (Black Africans) he is describing peoples South of first cataract. As I noted before, the ancient Greek writers starting with Xenophanes, who actually lived before Herodotus, Greeks were describing Ethiopians with anthropological descriptions other than just skin tone. He was the first to point out the flat-noses of Black Ethiopians. .


Fake herodotus said this : _For it is plain to see that Colchians are Egyptians; and this that I say I myself noted before I heard it from others. When I began to think on this matter, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; the Egyptians said that they held the Colchians to be part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it to be so, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed goes for nothing, seeing that other peoples, too, are such; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision_  saying egyptians are colchians ,colchians are dark skinned and wooly haired and colchians since practised circumcision the same ancient egyptians and ethiopians and we know arabs and berbers are not blacks and don' t practise circumcision until Mohamed came and only jews practise circumcision , and no one except them did it in semites tribes and sumerian tribes which are sons of ubaidians which in turn are first people of irak and qatar and bahrein except to no one the same way veddoids 50000 years ago as showed here in light pink and deep pink
and dravidians where some tribes still practised circumcision and australian aborigines who pratice it and have the same origin from africa as veddoids and dravidians and Mundas https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/jharkhand-mundas-may-be-ancestors-of-oz-aborigines/story-26TXdlmJjCScJgq3KNAciM.html 

https://cosmosmagazine.com/history/a...alian-origins/

https://web.archive.org/web/20210427...eologiques.asp

also look *genese de l' inde* (Paris, Payot, 1997) of Bernard Sergent

chapter (pp. 45-84) on dravidians and melano indians

----------


## adian808

> There is no Sumerian sample available today but early Neolithic samples from the eastern Fertile Crescent in the Zagros Mountains:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27417496/
> 
> It is likely that those people where a part of the Sumerian ancestry.
> 
> *They had a broad and also long face, flat, narrow forehead. A slim, long, hooked nose. They had broad lips, a large mouth. Brown eyes, brown skin, wavy to curly hair.*
> 
> .


How do you know it ?, a french student told this is not written in the site 
Can you talk us about it ? 
THANKS !

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Adian808: you have reading comprehension problems. I said Herodotus theory on the Etruscans was not correct. The DNA evidence on that is pretty clear. As for the Egyptians and the use of the word "melagochroes" does not mean "black" it means "dark". So in the context of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, I said nothing regarding whether he was wrong. It is that you are misquoting him.

Professor Frank Snowden who wrote the book I cited above "Blacks in Antiquity" published this paper in 1989 that points out that the "afro-centrist" translation of "melagochroes" as "black" is not correct. He as I stated cites all of Herodotus works regarding Egyptians and Ethiopians and all the other extant writers of ancient Greece. The Egyptians were darker than the Greeks themselves, that is true, but it is also clear that they were not as dark as Ethiopians. I suggest you read the article. I am not interested in aliens.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2630857...o_tab_contents


I also repeat, go read the ancient DNA studies on Egypt.

----------


## real expert

> Adian808: you have reading comprehension problems. I said Herodotus theory on the Etruscans was not correct. The DNA evidence on that is pretty clear. As for the Egyptians and the use of the word "melagochroes" does not mean "black" it means "dark". So in the context of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, I said nothing regarding whether he was wrong. It is that you are misquoting him.
> 
> Professor Frank Snowden who wrote the book I cited above "Blacks in Antiquity" published this paper in 1989 that points out that the "afro-centrist" translation of "melagochroes" as "black" is not correct. He as I stated cites all of Herodotus works regarding Egyptians and Ethiopians and all the other extant writers of ancient Greece. The Egyptians were darker than the Greeks themselves, that is true, but it is also clear that they were not as dark as Ethiopians. I suggest you read the article. I am not interested in aliens.
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/2630857...o_tab_contents
> 
> 
> I also repeat, go read the ancient DNA studies on Egypt.


Hi Palermo, you have the passion of an angel. You would make a great teacher. I hope you succeed in educating adian808 and correcting his misconception.

----------


## MOESAN

Is there any gain in answering to adian808?

----------


## adian808

> Adian808: you have reading comprehension problems. I said Herodotus theory on the Etruscans was not correct. The DNA evidence on that is pretty clear. As for the Egyptians and the use of the word "melagochroes" does not mean "black" it means "dark". So in the context of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, I said nothing regarding whether he was wrong. It is that you are misquoting him.
> 
> Professor Frank Snowden who wrote the book I cited above "Blacks in Antiquity" published this paper in 1989 that points out that the "afro-centrist" translation of "melagochroes" as "black" is not correct. He as I stated cites all of Herodotus works regarding Egyptians and Ethiopians and all the other extant writers of ancient Greece. The Egyptians were darker than the Greeks themselves, that is true, but it is also clear that they were not as dark as Ethiopians. I suggest you read the article. I am not interested in aliens.
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/2630857...o_tab_contents
> 
> 
> I also repeat, go read the ancient DNA studies on Egypt.


Frank Snowden committed an error because melanchroes really mean blacks , it's close to mela which means black, Old Greek: *karümnó- 'black': karümnón = mélan
k[ǟ]lás = kelai̯nó- = kēlḗnē = mélaina
Old Greek: mélās = mélan= mélai̯na = dark , black

so melanchroes (*μελάγχροες in greek )*= black ...

Read carefully herodotus ( original versions):


*μελάγχροες as we saw is black
*
*Oulotriches is curly / wooly 

and we must know this :
*
History and Etymology for ulotrichous (synonym of greek oulotriches )

New Latin Ulotrichi (plural) division of humankind having crisp or woolly hair (from Greek *oulotrich-, oulothrix having curly or woolly hair*, from oulos curly, woolly + trich-, thrix hair) + English -ous; akin to Greek eilein to roll, eilyein to roll, wrap.



*Ulotrichous Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster**
http://www.sacred-texts.com version:
*_“For the fact is as I soon came to realise myself, and then heard from others later, that the Colchians are obviously Egyptian. When the notion occurred to me, I asked both the Colchians and the Egyptians about it, and found that the Colchians had better recall of the Egyptians than the Egyptians did of them. Some Egyptians said that they thought the Colchians originated with Sesostris’ army, but I myself guessed their Egyptian origin not only because the Colchians are_ *dark–skinned and curly–haired*_ (which does not count for much by itself , because these features are common in others too) but more importantly because Colchians, Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only peoples in the world who practise circumcision and who have always done so._


*https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer...dotus/2b*.html version:
*
For it is plain to see that Colchians are Egyptians; and this that I say I myself noted before I heard it from others. When I began to think on this matter, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; the Egyptians said that they held the Colchians to be part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it to be so, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed goes for nothing, seeing that other peoples, too, are such; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine acknowledge of themselves that they learnt the custom from the Egyptians, and the Syrians of the valleys of the Thermodon and the Parthenius, as well as their neighbours the Macrones, say that they learnt it lately from the Colchians. These are the only nations that circumcise, and it is seen that they do even as the Egyptians. But as to the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, I cannot say which nation learnt it from the other; for it is manifestly a very ancient custom. That the others learnt it from intercourse with Egypt I hold to be clearly proved by this — that Phoenicians who hold intercourse with Hellas cease to imitate the Egyptians in this matter and do not circumcise their children. 

we can notice herodotus precised what he named colchians were egyptians meaning they were of the same stock and said they were oulotriches which means whooly /curly haired what arabs and berbers are not except those who have african black ancestry as people of Mauritania , some touaregs and arab sudaneses or yemenites ( who have ethiopians genes) and we know most arabs and berbers have long hairs ...
WE ALSO KNOW herodotus said colchians are egyptians because they have wooly hair and are black skinned and are companions of Sesostris which he said is an egyptian who ruled after the ethiopians kings of egypt and even the map of the bible shows there's peoples of Cham the ancestor of blacks in Georgia - abkhazia- adygea region ( _it also talks about Nimrod people Nimrod being ancestor of first mesopotamian people the sumerians which call themselves blacked headed people and have veddoid blacks genes genes of the first people of india_ _and OF arab coasts to india and very high in dravidians and of which the name Nim existing both in sumerian and dravidian has the same sense in both langages of "high"...
Saba in yemen is also mentioned when we know there's black himyarites in yemen vassals of Axoum in ethiopia meaning this map is truthful_ ...)
even the abkhazians certify there were blacks in Nart epos 
. An episode from Nart epic (several thousand years old), which deals in a peculiar manner with the appearance of black people on the East coast of the Black Sea, is interesting in this respect.

“The Narts, all the hundred brothers, once saddled their steeds and as usual started on their way in search of glory. They travelled for many days spending the night where it found them and on the morrow starting on their way again. Thus they travelled for 18 months. Once, at the close of the day, they pitched camp under the shady branches of a large tree, made a fire and stated to cook supper. The smoke from their camp fire rose to the sky, and some people living at a distance of half a day’s ride from the place noticed it. They were black-skinned people. They were so black, that even a brave horseman would get frightened on seeing them.

“The black-skinned people understood that the Narts would do them no harm. So they arranged a great feast. The Narts spent a whole month as the black-skinned people’s guests’ and when they decided to return home, the natives presented them with a large number of cattle, and one hundred of the best black-skinned horsemen went together with them to visit the famous Narts and see how they lived. The black-skinned people liked the Apani mountains very much, and when the time of parting of the black-skinned guests returned to their home, while the other decided to stay in these places forever.”
https://abkhazworld.com/aw/publications/archives/971-when-did-africans-get-to-soviet-union-1973

Herodotus also said what he named Colchians were ancient egyptians because being the only one with ancient egyptians and ethiopians to practise circumcision besides being people of Sesostris which was an egyptian king after the ethiopians reign who migrate to Caucasus and being oulotriches meaning wooly/curly haired and black skinned what is common in black africa where circumcision is practised since immemorial times when it was not present in asia and europe except in asia in sumerians ( black veddoids) and dravidians people before aryans come in india and was still practised by some dravidians community and that untouchables that are mostly black skinned and called sudras which also mean blacks are said in india to be old practitionners of too bloody sacrifices and circumcison hence their situation in india because aryans hate too bloodied sacrifices and circumcision because it make blood to flow when we know humans originates in africa and were all black skinned before 8000 years before Jesus Christ meaning blacks were the first people and were the first to do circumcision when we know ancient egyptians said they come from Pount in North SOMALIA next to ethiopia *http://www.histoire-secrete.fr/265475300* and diodore of sicily said the same way ancient egypt was an ethiopian colony led by Osiris , and told ancient egyptians told himself culture and culture of religion and royalty of egypt come from ethiopians and knowing somalis , ethiopians , darfouris and ancient egyptians have same EV32 haplogroup *https://www.flickr.com/photos/anbessa2011/6284194929*, we can said the colchians named by herodotus were blacks and the ancient egyptians were blacks
and we know ancient egyptians use the same brown color typical to blacks to describe themselves and pountites who have the same clothes ancient egyptians 


ancient egyptians girls dancing

Pountites walking ...

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

@adian808

μελάγχροες should be translated as 'dark' because it is a rather vague term and the translator imho should choose an equally vague term. Today we use the cognate word μελαγχρινός -η with a primary meaning brunet/ bunette.
Then we take into account the context, which shows that Colchians according to Herodotus were at least darker than the Greeks, they had curlier hair than the Greeks (who did not have straight hair either), had probably similar complexion to Egyptians and had some customs of likely East African origin. So I think a movement from (North?) East Africa is likely but I don't know what the scale and the timeframe was.

----------


## Diictodon

Well although we don't have Sumerian samples, it's safe to assume that Sumerians had considerable Iran_N admixture and Iran_N has a lot of ANE ancestry so we can can say that both Sumerians and Native Americans have common ANE/Yana/ANS roots in Eurasia. How ever direct linguistic relationship between Sumerians and Native Americans seems very remote. Also Turkic ancestry is associated with Hong-Kong millet farmers or Devil Gates ancestry which was mostly ENA. Tbh Mongolic, Tungustic and Turkic don't seem be ANE derived language groups, if anything, Proto IE and Uralic plus Yenesians seem to be language's derived from more ANE rich populations that may have ties in the wind swept tundra of Ice age Siberia, but that is stretching things to far back me thinks 🤔

----------


## Diictodon

> Frank Snowden committed an error because melanchroes really mean blacks , it's close to mela which means black, Old Greek: *karümnó- 'black': karümnón = mélan
> k[ǟ]lás = kelai̯nó- = kēlḗnē = mélaina
> Old Greek: mélās = mélan= mélai̯na = dark , black
> 
> so melanchroes (*μελάγχροες in greek )*= black ...
> 
> Read carefully herodotus ( original 
> 
> and we must know 
> ...



This map is so incorrect, I don't were to begin. 
Firstly, Lowland East Cushites have no AASI ancestry that I can think off. 
Secondly, aside from recent South Asian immigration, unmixed Yemeni/South Arabs don't have no where near that amount of AASI ancestry. Veddiod South Arabia is meme created by Athroforums that is based of Charlton Coons writings on Arabia. Real science AKA genetics, have shown that Maha/scoqortis to be mostly Natufian derived or Arabian Hunter Gather like with past 5,000 years of in-situ isolation causing increased selection for darker skin tone that may give off a pseudo-Weddiod look, with ultra dark skin, straight hair Caucasiod phenotype. Coupled this with actual Iran_N/CHG ancestry in them that could manifest phenotypically in some Maha individuals, such has hooked downturned noses and its no wonder that some Anthropological studies lumped them South Asians due that "Desi" look

----------


## Doggerland

Early Fertile Crescent Neolithic (Possible Sumerian ancestors), based on all available SNPs:

----------


## adian808

> Well although we don't have Sumerian samples, it's safe to assume that Sumerians had considerable Iran_N admixture and Iran_N has a lot of ANE ancestry so we can can say that both Sumerians and Native Americans have common ANE/Yana/ANS roots in Eurasia. How ever direct linguistic relationship between Sumerians and Native Americans seems very remote. Also Turkic ancestry is associated with Hong-Kong millet farmers or Devil Gates ancestry which was mostly ENA. Tbh Mongolic, Tungustic and Turkic don't seem be ANE derived language groups, if anything, Proto IE and Uralic plus Yenesians seem to be language's derived from more ANE rich populations that may have ties in the wind swept tundra of Ice age Siberia, but that is stretching things to far back me thinks ������


 FAKE 
sumerians are veddoids  , the sumerian langage , the dravidian langage, the ugrian langages, the turkic langages , the mongolic langages the korean langages , the altaic langages , the sino caucasian langages , the native american langages are all rooted in black veddoid ancient langage:

According to the genetic map of veddoids since 50000 years ago of historian youtuver Masaman ( that is reliable ) *h**ttps://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3* sumerians are veddoids the first people of middle east and india 50000 years ago ( see yourself the irak region of Sumer and Qatar and BAHREIN peopled first except to no one by ubaidians ancestors of sumerians were peopled except to no one by veddoids very long time before arabs and semites come According to sumerians their langage was the only one of asia and the world before the dispersal of langages in the enmerkar epos meaning their langage was the same the first people of asia ie the first blacks that out africa to go asia , precisely the veddoids that peopled first coasts of arabia , sumer region , elam , balochistan , india , pakistan , nepal east and south afghanistan and bangladesh and west burma ...
According to sumerians too their lmangage spread from Sumer to east ( towards East asia and central asia ) , to west ( Amorrites in palestine ) and to north in caucasus and in many caucasian langages there are same words sumerian:
Dainana in georgian is similar Inanna in sumerian and both are sub goddesses of fertility
An means sky in sumerian and chechen and ansar = god of the sky in chechen and An = god of the sky in sumerian and Antzva is god of the sky of abkhazians 
sag = people in sumerian , chehcen and abkhaz , cwa sag meaning each people in abkhazian 

Notice also north caucasian langages are related to chinese and yeniseian who are related in turn to native american
and number one cognate in sumerian , dravidian , north caucasian ,yeniseian and native american langages and austrinesian langages when we know austronesian paople were mongoloid people of sino tibetan stock who melt with australoids/veddoids
and yeniseian a sino caucasian langage is mother of native american langages and knowing according to sumerians sumerian langage spread to caucasus and knowing dravidians have a lot of veddoids genes the same way sumerians who have their whole genes as proved veddoid map of Masaman :
usum= first and foremost in sumerian , *Proto-Sino-Caucasian:**HVcǝ̆́ closed to *Proto-Yenisseian:**χu-sa*Sino-Caucasian etymology:* Sino-Caucasian etymology

*Meaning:* one
*Ket:* qūś (attr., inanim.), pred. quśǝm6
*Yug:* xus (attr., inanim.), pred. xusɛ6
*Kottish:* hūča; Ass. (Бол.) xanči-xit "one", huča (Кл.) "one"
*Arin:* khuzej (Ф., Срсл.) "one"; kuisa (Стр.) id.; qúsej (М., Сл., Кл., Ф.) id.; kusa in kusamančau (М., Сл., Срсл., Кл., Ф.) "nine"; (Лоск.) kus-ket "one"
*Pumpokol:* xúta (Сл., Срсл., Кл.) "one"
closed to as = first , one in native american when as /esda= one in sumerian and as = one , alone in tamil as in sumerian and ezh/ese = to rise in tamil and asit = one in Brahui dravidian and as = one in austronesian

also ala ,ila ,ela , ilam ,elam ,eelam , alam = land in tamil dravidian , ilim= land in sumerian , elamti = land in elamite, ala = land in ugrian korela /carelian , guatemaltec langage , alam = land in guatemaltec langage , el = land in turkic langages and ugrian Mari langage, eel = land in dravidian ...

----------


## adian808

> This map is so incorrect, I don't were to begin. 
> Firstly, Lowland East Cushites have no AASI ancestry that I can think off. 
> Secondly, aside from recent South Asian immigration, unmixed Yemeni/South Arabs don't have no where near that amount of AASI ancestry. Veddiod South Arabia is meme created by Athroforums that is based of Charlton Coons writings on Arabia. Real science AKA genetics, have shown that Maha/scoqortis to be mostly Natufian derived or Arabian Hunter Gather like with past 5,000 years of in-situ isolation causing increased selection for darker skin tone that may give off a pseudo-Weddiod look, with ultra dark skin, straight hair Caucasiod phenotype. Coupled this with actual Iran_N/CHG ancestry in them that could manifest phenotypically in some Maha individuals, such has hooked downturned noses and its no wonder that some Anthropological studies lumped them South Asians due that "Desi" look


First i never said Cushites has AASI ancestry but some may have AASI ancestry because AASI spread from east africa to egypt and sudan and from somalia in another wave in south arabia , socotra , coastal arabia to south irak sumer region to elam to balouchistan , to india to bangladesh and nepal and east and south afghanistan and tadjikistan and burma as we can see in this map of Masaman 
and in human phenotype map http://humanphenotypes.net/basic/Veddid.html 
Veddoids also have black african origin from african L3 mother of Mhaplogroup of veddoids , dravidians , australoids and aborigines
sECOND Veddoids have not been invented , as you can see Masaman talked about them and human phenotype too
they come from africa 50000 years ago and spread to middle east and india and from there to burma 





Not only Masaman noticed it but even yoshua tribe said Mahri people have a strong amount of veddoid genes and have genetic illness of black people and veddoids and dravidians : sickle cell anemia
https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/10380/y

Another one of Masaman

----------


## adian808

> Early Fertile Crescent Neolithic (Possible Sumerian ancestors), based on all available SNPs:


Fake 
sumerians are blacks , they are M haplogroup as the veddoids their ancestors and the dravidians !!!!!!

----------


## lynxbythetv

the schnoz's on those sumerian busts dont resemble southern indians.

J1 noses, thats the sumerians

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> @adian808
> 
> μελάγχροες should be translated as 'dark' because it is a rather vague term and the translator imho should choose an equally vague term. Today we use the cognate word μελαγχρινός -η with a primary meaning brunet/ bunette.
> Then we take into account the context, which shows that Colchians according to Herodotus were at least darker than the Greeks, they had curlier hair than the Greeks (who did not have straight hair either), had probably similar complexion to Egyptians and had some customs of likely East African origin. So I think a movement from (North?) East Africa is likely but I don't know what the scale and the timeframe was.


Thanks for that input on the meaning of the Greek word. So Prof. Frank Snowden made a mistake, I don't think so. It is true the Egyptians had skin tones darker than the Greeks, that was acknowledged by Greek writers early on. I cited Prof. Frank Snowden's Article on Herodotus and the Colchians. He also published, in my view, the most comprehensive review of all the extant Greek and Roman writers and their respective commentaries on what would be described in modern nomenclature as Black Africans in his work "Blacks in Antiquity" published by Harvard University Press in 1970. In this work Prof. Snowden examines all the texts regarding "Aethiopes" (i.e. Black Africans or more accurately population ethnic groups in sub-Saharan Africa) and compares those text to other ancient peoples they encountered. 

On page 2 of his book (Chapter 1: Textual evidence, the Physical Characteristics of Ethiopians) he writes that the color of the Ethiopians skin was uppermost in the Greek and Romans minds when describing Ethiopians they encountered. Ethiopians therefore were classified by the Greeks and Romans first starting with skin tone and were the yardstick those writers measured other peoples with darker skin tones. Prof. Snowden notes that Indians were dark or black in skin tone but not all of them to the same extent as Ethiopians, citing Herodotus he mentions some Indians resembled Ethiopians in skin tone. Alexander the Great, upon reaching India reported that Indians were darker than all of mankind save Ethiopians, but Alexander the Great provided more context. Indians south the Ganges river were described as browned/darkened by the sun, but not as much as Ethiopians, those Indians in the North of the Ganges resembled Egyptians in terms of skin tone.

And Snowden does not that Greek writers did notice that among Ethiopians they encountered, there was a variation in skin tone citing Ptolemy who noted the peoples who inhabited the areas around the City of Meroe were deeply black and pure Ethiopians. The Romans, more so than the Greeks, developed a variety of ways to express degrees of skin tone among Ethiopians. Roman writers used terms equivalent to intense darkness in describing some Ethiopians they encountered. On page 4, he goes on to state that ancient Greek and Roman writers not only looked at variations in color among all the ancient peoples they encountered, but what the changes were when a child had a parent who was Ethiopian and European using the term "discolor" or "decolor" which were terms also often used to describe peoples in India and the Roman province of Mauritania. So children of unions between Europeans and Ethiopians were neither black or white, but decolores which was equivalent to the modern term mulatto (more common in 1970 when Prof. Snowden published his work).

Snowden (p.5) after going through all the words used by ancient Greeks and Romans to describe Ethiopians relative to skin term, which was the feature most frequently used to describe Ethiopians, he notes as early as Xenophanes (578 to 470 BC), other phenotypes regarding Ethiopians were noticed, first of which was the shape of the nose. Agatharchides he noted stated that Ethiopians differ in their external appearances from Greeks. Petronious, a 1st century Roman writer said a Roman or lets say European trying to pass for an Ethiopian would not do so just painting his skin dark, it would require a total change in facial and hair phenotypes (lips and hair being 2 cited). 

On page 6, Snowden once again cites ancient writers who compared Ethiopians to Indians. Ethiopians were the darkest peoples the ancient Greeks encountered and Southern Indians resembled Ethiopians in terms of skin tone, but not in nose and hair phenotypes. This difference, Snowden writes, was documented as far back as Herodotus. It should be noted, as Snowden writes, that the ancient Greeks and Romans had no such terms or category similar to USA Jim Crow laws "Sociological Black citizens" and described multi-racial peoples as just that.

For example, the Greek-Roman writer Philostratus (170AD-250AD) noted that as one went up the Nile, the populations in terms of skin tone got darker. Those inhabiting the boundary between Egypt and Ethiopia (Nubia) at the 1st Cataract were bi-racial, darker than Egyptians but lighter than Ethiopians further up the Nile. In this context, the recent paper by Sirak et al 2021 "Social stratification without genetic differentiation at the site of Kulubnarti in Christian Period Nubia" documents what Philostratus wrote 350-400 years earlier. That is, Nubians living near the 2nd cataract of the Nile harbored on average 43% ancestry from a sub-Saharan African population, likely Nilotic related, and 57% West Eurasian, with its ultimate source being from Bronze Age Levant.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27356-8

So, there is lots of quoting of ancient Greek writers without any contextualization other than when certain people see a term that means darker, they automatically assume it means a population genetically similar to ethnic groups from the interior of Africa (sub-Saharan Africa). That is 100% false. It is clear that way way back, the ancient Greeks described both Ethiopians (sub-Saharan Africans) and Indians from the South of India (South-Asians) as having dark skin tones. However, it was also noted that the Indians had nose and hair phenotypes that were totally different than Ethiopians living south of the 1st cataract of the Nile.

So when I read bloggers, be they afro-centrist, nordic-centrist, or any-type of centrist, try and insert racial or ethnic backgrounds into ancient peoples to fit a political/social agenda, I 100% dismiss it, because most of these people do not read all of the textual evidence. Furthermore, as more and more ancient DNA is being analyzed, we (us today) can see who the ancients were and we can go back and look at ancient Writers and see who actually got things write and who got things wrong (i.e. Herodotus Etruscan theory has been proven wrong by recent DNA evidence).

----------


## Doggerland

> Fake 
> sumerians are blacks , they are M haplogroup as the veddoids their ancestors and the dravidians !!!!!!


Nope, they are Aryans and related to Iranians and Indians. Dravidians and Northern Indians are not a different race, it is a Myth.
The Aryans are the descendants of an Aboriginal Australian/Sahulid population or something related to them, but not the same. You can find them as EFCN and EFCN2 in the DNA tree:

https://i.ibb.co/RTQqWDR/Treewith-Apereduced.png 

This is how the Eastern Fertile Crescent people would may look as living persons:

https://iv1.lisimg.com/image/5359002...iona-singh.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3f/e9...554df7e5ca.png

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8c/4e...6234677c57.png

https://indianmalemodels.files.wordp...desh.jpg?w=683

And sorry, the reconstructions are based on the DNA, I don’t have any intention to fake anything. Their alleles also indicate that they had straight hair, not afro hair.

This is where Eastern Fertile Crescent Ancestry Components are mostly found today (Blue): 

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b1/3b/61/b...cents-maps.jpg

Iran, Pakistan, Hindukush, India...

Here you can see ancient Africans I have reconstructed and ancient People who mostly resemble Africans in many features:

----------


## Mmiikkii

> The Aryans are the descendants of an Aboriginal Australian/Sahulid population or something related to them, but not the same. You can find them as EFCN and EFCN2 in the DNA tree:
> 
> https://i.ibb.co/RTQqWDR/Treewith-Apereduced.png


 Interesting Doggerland, I also think this exact same thing.

I even made a post on it
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...from-Australia

----------


## Tamakore

> Interesting Doggerland, I also think this exact same thing.
> I even made a post on it
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...from-Australia


If Aryans come from Australia/Sahul, why don't they have the high levels of Denisovan admixture (up to 6%) that Sahulids have?

----------


## adian808

> If Aryans come from Australia/Sahul, why don't they have the high levels of Denisovan admixture (up to 6%) that Sahulids have?


Australian aborigines are not denisovans , they just meet some denisovans in asia and mixed with them , Denisovan genes dont' exceed 2 per cent
australian aborigines were primarily Mhaplogroup as dravidians and veddoids and sumerians ( veddoids) coming from L3 of Africa
i bet aborigines reach australia from africa through india and mix q lil bit with denisovans while ancestors of aryans migrate directly from africa to palestine to central asia and become light skinned

----------


## adian808

> Nope, they are Aryans and related to Iranians and Indians. Dravidians and Northern Indians are not a different race, it is a Myth.
> The Aryans are the descendants of an Aboriginal Australian/Sahulid population or something related to them, but not the same. You can find them as EFCN and EFCN2 in the DNA tree:
> 
> https://i.ibb.co/RTQqWDR/Treewith-Apereduced.png 
> 
> This is how the Eastern Fertile Crescent people would may look as living persons:
> 
> https://iv1.lisimg.com/image/5359002...iona-singh.jpg
> 
> ...


Dravidians and sumerians are not aryans , they are M haplogroup people as veddoids ( sumerian acestors) 
as show the genetic map of veddoid presence 
veddoids were present in Sumer region 50000 years ago and so are ancestors of ubaidians and so of sumerians
Notice ubaidians were on coasts of Qatar as sais wikipedia on Qatar while veddoids were there since 50000 years ago the same as in Sumer
Also read Genesis of India of Bernard Sergent , it says with probe that dravidians and veddoids come fromafrica and have the sameculture them

----------


## adian808

> Frank Snowden committed an error because melanchroes really mean blacks , it's close to mela which means black, Old Greek: *karümnó- 'black': karümnón = mélan
> k[ǟ]lás = kelai̯nó- = kēlḗnē = mélaina
> Old Greek: mélās = mélan= mélai̯na = dark , black
> 
> so melanchroes (*μελάγχροες in greek )*= black ...
> 
> Read carefully herodotus ( original versions):
> 
> 
> ...


GENETICALLY THEY COME FROM THE HORN OF AFRICA, and according to Dnatribes from East Africa DNA Tribes Digest for January 1, 2012: Last of the Amarna Pharaohs: King Tut and His Relatives
In 1993, craniometric analysis of fossils of predynastic Egyptians from the Nagada period showed that they were closely related to other Afro-Asian populations in the Horn of Africa . The analysis of the fossils of Egyptians of Upper Egypt of the predynastic period shows that they are more related to the current Somalis than to the samples of Egyptians of Lower Egypt of the last dynasties 173 .
In December 2012,Zahi Hawass and his colleagues, revealed that Ramesses III and his patrilineal lineage belonged to the Y - chromosome haplogroup E1b1a 174 , 175 gene typical of West Africa!!!!!!!!

----------


## adian808

> Thanks for that input on the meaning of the Greek word. So Prof. Frank Snowden made a mistake, I don't think so. It is true the Egyptians had skin tones darker than the Greeks, that was acknowledged by Greek writers early on. I cited Prof. Frank Snowden's Article on Herodotus and the Colchians. He also published, in my view, the most comprehensive review of all the extant Greek and Roman writers and their respective commentaries on what would be described in modern nomenclature as Black Africans in his work "Blacks in Antiquity" published by Harvard University Press in 1970. In this work Prof. Snowden examines all the texts regarding "Aethiopes" (i.e. Black Africans or more accurately population ethnic groups in sub-Saharan Africa) and compares those text to other ancient peoples they encountered. 
> 
> On page 2 of his book (Chapter 1: Textual evidence, the Physical Characteristics of Ethiopians) he writes that the color of the Ethiopians skin was uppermost in the Greek and Romans minds when describing Ethiopians they encountered. Ethiopians therefore were classified by the Greeks and Romans first starting with skin tone and were the yardstick those writers measured other peoples with darker skin tones. Prof. Snowden notes that Indians were dark or black in skin tone but not all of them to the same extent as Ethiopians, citing Herodotus he mentions some Indians resembled Ethiopians in skin tone. Alexander the Great, upon reaching India reported that Indians were darker than all of mankind save Ethiopians, but Alexander the Great provided more context. Indians south the Ganges river were described as browned/darkened by the sun, but not as much as Ethiopians, those Indians in the North of the Ganges resembled Egyptians in terms of skin tone.
> 
> And Snowden does not that Greek writers did notice that among Ethiopians they encountered, there was a variation in skin tone citing Ptolemy who noted the peoples who inhabited the areas around the City of Meroe were deeply black and pure Ethiopians. The Romans, more so than the Greeks, developed a variety of ways to express degrees of skin tone among Ethiopians. Roman writers used terms equivalent to intense darkness in describing some Ethiopians they encountered. On page 4, he goes on to state that ancient Greek and Roman writers not only looked at variations in color among all the ancient peoples they encountered, but what the changes were when a child had a parent who was Ethiopian and European using the term "discolor" or "decolor" which were terms also often used to describe peoples in India and the Roman province of Mauritania. So children of unions between Europeans and Ethiopians were neither black or white, but decolores which was equivalent to the modern term mulatto (more common in 1970 when Prof. Snowden published his work).
> 
> Snowden (p.5) after going through all the words used by ancient Greeks and Romans to describe Ethiopians relative to skin term, which was the feature most frequently used to describe Ethiopians, he notes as early as Xenophanes (578 to 470 BC), other phenotypes regarding Ethiopians were noticed, first of which was the shape of the nose. Agatharchides he noted stated that Ethiopians differ in their external appearances from Greeks. Petronious, a 1st century Roman writer said a Roman or lets say European trying to pass for an Ethiopian would not do so just painting his skin dark, it would require a total change in facial and hair phenotypes (lips and hair being 2 cited). 
> 
> On page 6, Snowden once again cites ancient writers who compared Ethiopians to Indians. Ethiopians were the darkest peoples the ancient Greeks encountered and Southern Indians resembled Ethiopians in terms of skin tone, but not in nose and hair phenotypes. This difference, Snowden writes, was documented as far back as Herodotus. It should be noted, as Snowden writes, that the ancient Greeks and Romans had no such terms or category similar to USA Jim Crow laws "Sociological Black citizens" and described multi-racial peoples as just that.
> ...


*Nature study is fake as proved Entropie of Passion histoire.net http://www.passion-histoire.net/view...40967&start=45*
This is what we discover when reading the study. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694 _the samples can be grouped into three time periods: Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman Period._ This study is therefore based on three periods : Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman. So we have nothing on: the Old, the Middle, and the New Kingdom. That is to say, the essential. Notwithstanding that it is based on a sample of upper caste, and no skeleton of the base population. I checked they don't explain anywhere why they selected a noble caste.
These are samples that were collected in a German museum. From this, the scientists deduced that since these mummies, of noble caste, of which only 4 predate Ptolemaic Egypt, had a DNA that was more near eastern than sub-Saharan, the present-day Egyptians who are closer to sub-Saharan than genetically close Easterners (which is also stipulated by the scientists of the study), are not the Egyptians of the time.

For once, it's an amazing tea towel.


the ancient Egyptians have the same dose of melanin than other black Africans and that this dose does not correspond to that of Europeans and Arabs and Berbers confirmed by genetics moreover a genetic analysis of the population of Gurna in Egypt shows that the inhabitants were grafted onto a population substrate native to East Africa dating back to prehistoric and predynastic and ancient Egyptian pharaonic times https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14748828/
Notice also DNA Tribes Digest for January 1, 2012: Last of the Amarna Pharaohs: King Tut and His Relatives
and Ramses family is black : In December 2012,Zahi Hawass and his colleagues, revealed that Ramesses III and his patrilineal lineage belonged to the Y - chromosome haplogroup E1b1a 174 , 175 gene typical of West Africa!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## Doggerland

Some data from the region, K12:




```
Distance to:	SwatValley1
7.84314988	Kalash_Pakistan
13.99498839	Punjabi_Indian
21.06713792	Iranian:Bandari
21.69682696	IranMeso
21.79689657	IndusValley_Merged
23.55949490	IndusValley5
26.09811296	Caspian_Sea_Mesolithic
29.24679299	Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Iran_(n=6)
30.44835299	Iranian:Khorasan
```



```
Distance to:	SwatValley2
8.25333872	Punjabi_Indian
10.69682663	Kalash_Pakistan
17.91285572	IndusValley_Merged
21.59539071	IndusValley5
26.18482385	Iranian:Bandari
28.94173112	IranMeso
29.51716789	Zlaty_Kun
29.81278585	South_Indian
33.34142468	IndusValley1
```



```
Distance to:	Aboriginal_Austraian
8.35758937	Andaman
11.47565684	Leang_Panninge
11.50321694	Ancient_Papuan
18.55692324	Ust_Ishim
19.54793339	Tianyuan
22.04543263	IndusValley2
23.47319748	IndusValley3
24.02264557	Zlaty_Kun
31.75024094	Salkhit_Paleolithic_Mongolia
```



```
Distance to:	Ancient_Papuan
11.50321694	Aboriginal_Austraian
14.23359758	Andaman
18.81612341	Leang_Panninge
23.19949784	Tianyuan
23.93714269	Ust_Ishim
26.13933817	IndusValley3
29.50790572	Zlaty_Kun
29.98896630	IndusValley2
31.23704371	Mamanwa_Negrito
```

Indus Valley Civilisazion was a cultural melting pod of the South Asian region and may had contact to Mesopotamia, but not Sub Sahara Africa.
Indus Valley also contained people with relation to Proto-Eurasians:




```
Distance to:	IndusValley1
12.14990535	South_Indian
23.21789396	IndusValley2
24.80412869	IndusValley_Merged
29.67233560	IndusValley5
31.70123026	Punjabi_Indian
```



```
Distance to:	IndusValley2
21.52073883	Leang_Panninge
22.04543263	Aboriginal_Austraian
22.34083257	Andaman
23.21789396	IndusValley1
24.67227797	Ust_Ishim
24.80176405	IndusValley3
26.88729812	Zlaty_Kun
29.98896630	Ancient_Papuan
30.70707085	IndusValley_Merged
```



```
Distance to:	IndusValley3
17.96891761	Ust_Ishim
19.28751669	Zlaty_Kun
21.13834667	Leang_Panninge
23.47319748	Aboriginal_Austraian
24.18431516	IndusValley_Merged
24.80176405	IndusValley2
26.13933817	Ancient_Papuan
27.84287880	Andaman
30.83075088	IndusValley5
```



```
Distance to:	IndusValley4
31.22027226	Morocco_Jews
31.58165923	Syrian:C
31.98121480	Palestinian
32.77759296	Syrian:A
32.85546530	Sephardic_Jews
```



```
Distance to:	IndusValley5
10.06909629	IndusValley_Merged
23.56614733	Punjabi_Indian
28.52507669	Kalash_Pakistan
29.67233560	IndusValley1
29.88711930	South_Indian
30.83075088	IndusValley3
```



```
Distance to:	IndusValley_Merged
10.06909629	IndusValley5
20.10920187	Punjabi_Indian
24.18431516	IndusValley3
24.80412869	IndusValley1
25.53704760	South_Indian
25.89051564	Zlaty_Kun
26.42991676	Kalash_Pakistan
29.81944835	Ust_Ishim
30.70707085	IndusValley2
```

Egyptian Mummies merged:




```
Distance to:	Egyptian_Mummies
9.14064002	Chalcolithic_Israel
9.18698536	Palestine
9.29635412	Bedouin
9.77836898	Chalcolithic_Israel
10.42395318	Early_Bronze_Age_Jordan_(n=3)
12.76712575	Jordanians
13.05808179	Bedouin
13.39613377	Egyptans
13.99954999	Samaritians
14.96782215	Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Levant_(n=15)
14.98009012	Canaanite
15.77556021	Natufian
15.84578177	Palestinian
17.05501393	Kuwait:1
17.32613921	Syrian:C
17.46629612	Lebanese
17.52702485	Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9)
18.43809914	Yemenese
20.36916297	Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=24)
20.44841070	Syrian:A
20.63223207	Druze
20.63891712	Saudi
21.41452544	Yemen_Jews
23.10484365	Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6)
23.58570966	Cypriot
```

Sumerian related:




```
Distance to:	Northern_Fertile_Crescent
7.88582272	Iranian:Iranians
8.20091458	Iranian:Mazandaran
9.53227150	Iranian
9.53227150	Iranian:Iranian
11.36681134	Iranian:Fars
11.49885212	Kurd:KAZ
13.55920352	Kurd:Sorani
14.49220135	Kurd:Kurmanji
15.97223842	Iranian:Khorasan
16.41538608	Azerbaijani:Azerbaijani_Iran
17.85382592	Iranian:Bandari
18.31608037	Azerbaijani:Azerbaijani
18.49108434	Azerbaijani:Azerbaijani_Turkey
18.94005808	Kura-Araxes_culture_(n=8)
19.14587945	Iraqi_Baghdad
20.44740326	Azeri_Jew
20.48147456	Epipaleolithic_Mesolithic_Caucasus_(CHG)_(n=2)
20.68029980	Azerbaijani:Azerbaijani_Dagestan
20.95621388	CHG_Satsurblia
21.34110588	CHG_Kotias
21.51510167	Iraqi_Jew
21.59995833	Iranian_Jews
21.71453661	Kurdish_Jew
22.27757168	Azerbaijan_Jews
22.35297072	Chalcolithic_Azerbaijan_(n=4)
```



```
Distance to:	Early_Eastern_Fertile_Crescent_Neolithic
6.27530876	Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Iran_(n=6)
7.22832622	Caspian_Sea_Mesolithic
18.42912369	Neolithic_Iran
28.07399687	IranMeso
35.40605174	Iranian:Bandari
```

Africans and Archaic Hominid related:




```
Distance to:	West_Bantu
13.83203890	Pygmy
16.21763855	Denisova_Altai
19.41080884	Neanderthal_Altai
22.52694165	Chagyrskaya7_Neanderthal
28.08530043	Shum_Laka
28.91966286	Denisova_Neanderthal_Child
37.83820820	Khomani_San
```



```
Distance to:	Pygmy
3.19604443	Denisova_Altai
7.78120813	Neanderthal_Altai
11.50672847	Chagyrskaya7_Neanderthal
13.83203890	West_Bantu
14.26668146	Shum_Laka
18.35898145	Denisova_Neanderthal_Child
24.00738845	Khomani_San
33.78139429	Ancient_Zambia
```



```
Distance to:	Khomani_San
9.79510592	Shum_Laka
10.03355869	Ancient_Zambia
19.37566257	Denisova_Neanderthal_Child
19.66642062	Chagyrskaya7_Neanderthal
20.46050097	Neanderthal_Altai
21.88292485	Denisova_Altai
24.00738845	Pygmy
24.55231354	Tanzania_Neolithic
26.12210558	Malawi_Mesolithic
30.48411390	Toubou
```



```
Distance to:	Saharawi
7.42140148	Moroccan:Moroccans
8.67842728	Algerian
9.97305369	Moroccan:Moroccan
12.95813644	Guanches
13.93697959	Maghrebi
35.55286908	Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6)
```

Ethiopian, 4500 years old, would fall into the 5th dynasty of Egypt:




```
Distance to:	Mota_Ethiopia
8.38065033	Tanzania_Neolithic
11.35961267	Malawi_Mesolithic
22.82426998	Ancient_Zambia
27.81763469	Toubou
32.51996617	Khomani_San
42.14902015	Shum_Laka
42.32397311	Kenia_Bronze_Age
46.53006447	Denisova_Neanderthal_Child
49.94087805	Chagyrskaya7_Neanderthal
51.88808052	Neanderthal_Altai
54.06267844	Denisova_Altai
56.39458041	Pygmy
62.10444187	Vestonice14
65.82852041	Cioclovina
67.52470659	Zlaty_Kun
68.38746303	Ust_Ishim
70.18345532	West_Bantu
70.88203722	Egyptans 
71.69688905	Salkhit_Paleolithic_Mongolia
71.70447127	Maghrebi
71.70914865	Saharawi
71.77855320	BerryAuBac
71.92348226	Yemenese
72.82066740	Kostenki12
73.37536644	Yana_Paleolithic
```

No relation to Egyptian Mummies or Modern Egyptians.


There is no significant Sub Saharan Ancestry in South Asians of the discussed era. African Ancestry is related to archaic hominids of Eurasia.
There where no "Blacks" in South Asia at this time to current evidence, because the last peopel with Sub Saharan ancestry (Denisovans, Neanderthals) had been already extinct.
What was present is Proto-Eurasian ancestry like it is found in Ust Ishim or Zlaty Kun. 


Something about Denisovans, Neanderthals and their alleged uniqueness in the popular science media:


The "Denisovan DNA" or "Neanderthal DNA" and its percentage that is published in the media, is related to rare allele variants, that are not present in most populations and gathered special scientific significance. It is not related to the whole DNA similarity.
No human being has only 5% DNA similar to Neanderthals or Denisovans.
But: The most of Denisova and Neandetrhal DNA is related and similar to Sub Saharan Africans, not other populations. This is because, those populations split very early from each other and did not changed so much over time.
For example, you can compare the similarity of alleles in consumer and researcher DNA files:


Me and Denisova:


>> Total equal genotypes (including NoCalls): 346773 (49,029%)


Han Chinese and Denisova:


>> Total equal genotypes (including NoCalls): 303605 (45,242%)


Pygmy and Denisova:


>> Total equal genotypes (including NoCalls): 536331 (66,768%)


San and Denisovan:


>> Total equal genotypes (including NoCalls): 595630 (64,37%)


Papuan and Denisova:


>> Total equal genotypes (including NoCalls): 579504 (63,748%)


Neanderthal and Denisova:


>> Total equal genotypes (including NoCalls): 760541 (85,829%)


So if a media article or DNA test says, that you only share 5% DNA with a Denisovan, it is a misinterpretation of data. These statements are related to rare allele variants that are only found in this populations and are of special interest. Those variants dont say something about whole allele similarity or whole ancestry.

----------


## traveller

Doggerland, can you compare to the genotypes of the chimpanzee?

----------


## Doggerland

> Doggerland, can you compare to the genotypes of the chimpanzee?


Han Chinese and Chimpanzee

>> Total equal genotypes (including NoCalls): 297919 (44,457%)
>>>> Equal genotypes (not including NoCalls): 297919 (44,457%)

Pygmy and Chimpanzee

>> Total equal genotypes (including NoCalls): 532086 (65,737%)
>>>> Equal genotypes (not including NoCalls): 532086 (65,737%)

San and Chimpanzee:

>> Total equal genotypes (including NoCalls): 589007 (63,202%)
>>>> Equal genotypes (not including NoCalls): 589007 (63,202%)

Papuan and Chimpanzee:

>> Total equal genotypes (including NoCalls): 575865 (62,817%)
>>>> Equal genotypes (not including NoCalls): 575865 (62,817%)

Neanderthal and Chimpanzee:

>> Total equal genotypes (including NoCalls): 742984 (80,119%)
>>>> Equal genotypes (not including NoCalls): 742984 (80,119%)

Denisovan and Chimpanzee:

>> Total equal genotypes (including NoCalls): 754613 (81,404%)
>>>> Equal genotypes (not including NoCalls): 754613 (81,404%)


What I should mention is, that there are not much significant differences in autosomal DNA test that can be found in chimpanzee and archaic hominids, when in comes to the available samples.
The differences known are different numbers of chromosomes and things like repeats in specific regions for the brain development and many other things related to physiology. There are many differences, also different retrovirus insertions.
But those are changes, that are not related to single alleles, so they dont appear in this % rating of DNA tests.
It is not possible to differentiate an ape from a Sub Saharan African human or Archaic hominid without focussing on chromosome count and repeats of DNA in specific regions.
For example, some years ago two SNPs had been identified that may be responsible for the difference in head shape of Neanderthals and Humans: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60982218314702 
But those SNPs are not tested in any ancient sample available from a human. 
Maybe humans like Salkhit or Ust Ishim had a neanderthal-like head shape, we dont know. Also this raises the question, if Neanderthal fossils are really of a different species than early humans. This question can only be answered in the future when more samples are available.

Chimp in K12b:



```
Distance to:    Chimpanzee
1.41223228    Gorilla
4.49563121    Denisova_Altai
4.54178379    Neanderthal_Altai
5.73703756    Orang_Utan
6.68963377    Chagyrskaya7_Neanderthal
7.28052196    Pygmy
7.80988476    Gibbon
7.99388516    Shum_Laka
10.28317072    Baboon
11.09776104    Rhesus_Monkey
12.68893219    Denisova_Neanderthal_Child
17.59471227    Khomani_San
20.68478426    West_Bantu
24.50100814    Spider_Monkey
27.14598681    Ancient_Zambia
31.96281746    Tarsier
32.60286030    Vaalkrans_Man
41.70900023    Toubou
41.88715794    Tanzania_Neolithic
42.19908648    Malawi_Mesolithic
49.62859559    Mota_Ethiopia
77.78799329    Zlaty_Kun
78.03284180    IndusValley3
78.71670979    BerryAuBac
79.10890026    Brillenhöhle
```

----------


## adian808

> Some data from the region, K12:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> Distance to:    SwatValley1
> 7.84314988    Kalash_Pakistan
> 13.99498839    Punjabi_Indian
> ...


*you committed a huge error !
veddoids and dravidians come from M haplogroup coming from african L3 and as Bernard Sergent of french CNRS said veddoids and dravidians have african origin
sumerians themselves are veddoids you can see it in the map of genetical presence of veddoids since 50000 years ago of popular youtuber Masaman
* *https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...64e0898d3-pjlq 
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/slTy8MvLQ4U/maxresdefault.jpg
*
*https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14748828/shows that ancient people of egypt was black ( analysis of people genes of Gurna an ancient city of ancient egypt today filled mainly by arabs )
Notice also DNA Tribes Digest for January 1, 2012: Last of the Amarna Pharaohs: King Tut and His Relatives shows Tuthankhamon , Akhenaton and Tiyi have east africans genes
and Ramses family is black : In December 2012,Zahi Hawass and his colleagues, revealed that Ramesses III and his patrilineal lineage belonged to the Y - chromosome haplogroup E1b1a who is typically west african 
Besides of this ancient egyptians depicted themselves as brown skinned the same way puntites ancestors of somalis who are said to be ancestors of ancient egyptians according to themselves and** in 1993, craniometric analysis of predynastic Egyptian fossils from the Nagada period showed that they were closely related to other Afro-Asiatic populations from the Horn of Africa. Analysis of fossils of Upper Egyptians from the predynastic period shows that they are more related to present-day Somalis than to samples of Lower Egyptians from later dynasties* *(*C. Loring Brace*, David P. Tracer, Lucia Allen Yaroch, John Robb, Kari Brandt, A. Russell Nelson, Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile « By the use of the discriminant function procedure, we reinforce the conclusions drawn from an examination of our dendrograms. The Predynastic sample from Upper Egypt differs less from the Somalis to the south than do the Late Dynastic people from Lower Egypt. » [archive] even wikipedia says it https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ %C3%89gypte_antique#cite_note-173 )

Are you saying Masaman and Zahi hawas and all those links are liars ?
notice also australoid who are M haplogroup come from african L3 haplogroup and you dodgerland said yourself bantu is similar to melanesian genes to 70 per cent !!!!!!!!!!!!
and you know australoids ( aborigines , melanesians) and veddoids who come from M haplogroup from african L3 have same color so called black africans ( brown skinned to graphite black skinned)
*

----------


## adian808

Some other In 1996, Lovell and Prowse reported the presence of individuals buried at Naqada in what they interpreted to be elite, high-status tombs, showing them to be an endogamous ruling or elite segment who were significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently nonelite cemeteries, and more closely related morphologically to populations in Northern Nubia than to neighbouring populations at Badari and Qena in southern Egypt. Specifically, the authors stated that the Naqada samples were "more similar to the Lower Nubian protodynastic sample than they are to the geographically more proximate Egyptian samples" in Qena and Badari
In 1999, Lovell summarised the findings of modern skeletal studies which had determined that "in general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas" but exhibited local variation in an African context 
In 2018, Godde assessed population relationships in the Nile Valley by comparing crania from 18 Egyptian and Nubian groups, spanning from Lower Egypt to Lower Nubia across 7,400 years. Overall, the results showed that the Mesolithic Nubian sample had a greater similarity with Naqada Egyptians. Similarly, Lower Nubian and Upper Egyptian samples clustered together. 

 In 2018, Godde assessed population relationships in the Nile Valley by comparing crania from 18 Egyptian and Nubian groups, spanning from Lower Egypt to Lower Nubia across 7,400 years. Overall, the results showed that the Mesolithic Nubian sample had a greater similarity with Naqada Egyptians. Similarly, Lower Nubian and Upper Egyptian samples clustered together. However, the Lower Egyptian samples formed a homogeneous unit, and there was a north-south gradient in the data set.[22]
In 2020, Godde analysed a series of crania, including two Egyptian (predynastic Badarian and Nagada series), a series of A-Group Nubians and a Bronze Age series from Lachish, Palestine. The two pre-dynastic series had strongest affinities, followed by closeness between the Nagada and the Nubian series. Further, the Nubian A-Group plotted nearer to the Egyptians and the Lachish sample placed more closely to Naqada than Badari. According to Godde the spatial-temporal model applied to the pattern of biological distances explains the more distant relationship of Badari to Lachish than Naqada to Lachish as gene flow will cause populations to become more similar over time. Overall, both Egyptian samples were more similar to the Nubian series than to the Lachish series.[23]

----------


## MOESAN

> *you committed a huge error !
> veddoids and dravidians come from M haplogroup coming from african L3 and as Bernard Sergent of french CNRS said veddoids and dravidians have african origin
> sumerians themselves are veddoids you can see it in the map of genetical presence of veddoids since 50000 years ago of popular youtuber Masaman
> * *https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...64e0898d3-pjlq 
> https://i.ytimg.com/vi/slTy8MvLQ4U/maxresdefault.jpg
> *
> *https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14748828/shows that ancient people of egypt was black ( analysis of people genes of Gurna an ancient city of ancient egypt today filled mainly by arabs )
> **
> *


Veddoids and Dravidians have African origins, just like every Human! Sure they seem closer by the fact they evolved less as a whole than other Eurasians. Less evolved concerning their allover auDNA doesn't mean they are by force less developped in intelligence... But it doesn't mean that they come recently from your tenacious "black" Africa. Other Eurasians are brothers or cousins of these Veddoids, just with more mutations compared to or common ancestors. Don't wring poor B. Sergent's words please. 
Concerning Sumerians, I hope your map is not covering a period of 5000 years, what would suppress any value to it! I suppose it concerns today pop's... And Sumerians of old times were not inhabiting only the most southern part of Mesopotamia.
And don't forget there was a gradient concerning types in ancient Egypt; Southern Egyptians were not exactly what were Northern Egyptians, concerning the basic pop. And we cannot put too much confidence into the pictures of ancient times which surely had some stereotypic bias. Also it would not be bad to abandon the word 'black' which doesn't signify a lot in itself.

----------

