Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Anthropology

Posts: 781
Joined: Mon, 03 Jun 2019, 19:53
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Anthropology

Postby Edgar » Tue, 24 Dec 2019, 20:27

Fascinating what they're discovering these days through DNA testing. For instance, we now know that more than half of human history was spent battling with other hominids for supremacy. This began as modern man ventured out of Africa approximately 100,000 years ago (estimates vary), and did not reach its conclusion until about 40,000 years ago.

Other hominid species had been living outside of Africa for almost 2 million years by the time homo sapiens showed up, though most of the earlier varieties were long extinct by then. Neanderthals had been settled in Europe for around 200,000 years. They are considered to have been stockier and less agile than homo sapiens, though equally intelligent.

Little is known of Denisovan man, with all DNA having been extracted from just a few fragments of bone. Evidently they did not bury their dead, as Neanderthals did. These hominids are considered to have been about ten times more closely related to humans than are chimpanzees and bonobos (aka pygmy chimps), making interbreeding possible, though offspring were rare.

Nonetheless, Europeans contain on average around 2.5% Neanderthal DNA, Asians, Amerindians and Austronesians a similar amount of Denisovan DNA, and Austronesians are also believed to possess additional admixture from an as yet unidentified hominid in Melanesia (not floresiensis, aka the hobbit man). In fact, Sub-Saharan Africans are the only 100% bona fide homo sapiens. The reason for this is that interbreeding occurred on the Eurasian super-continent after modern man had departed Africa.

Incidentally, the San (aka Bushmen) of southern Africa are not the same race as other Sub-Saharan Africans. They are considered a group isolate. Some Bushmen languages contain scores of consonants, clicking, sucking and whistling sounds, whereas some Polynesian languages are down to a dozen or less consonants and a few vowels, suggesting languages simplified the further we moved away from the birthplace of our species.

Austronesians were part of the first major wave of homo sapiens to leave Africa, settling in Australia long before later waves of homo sapiens managed to gain a foothold in Europe following interminable battles with Neanderthals. Not surprisingly, therefore, Austronesians are genetically the furthest removed of the major ethnic groups from Sub-Saharan Africans. They are also the most genetically diverse after the Sub-Saharan Africans.

The original inhabitants of South Asia were ethnically akin to Austronesians (Dravidian languages are distantly related to Aboriginal languages). It appears Europeans from the Caucasus region moved down into South Asia several thousand years ago, hybridizing with the native population, and thus giving rise to the Indo-European language family and the caste system. Iran takes its name from the invaders. This occurred after the demise of the Indus Valley Civilization.

South East Asia was inhabited solely by Austronesians until several thousand years ago when Asiatic peoples began to press down from the north (a process which continues to this day, leading to the crises in Timor & Papua), creating a hybrid race whose descendants would take to the seas and inhabit the Pacific Islands. They would also cross the Indian Ocean and discover Madagascar. This occurred approximately 2000 years ago before Arabs, Sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans reached the island in the Middle Ages.

User avatar
Posts: 2304
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Anthropology

Postby iul » Wed, 25 Dec 2019, 16:48

I read somewhere that 10k years ago the Europeans had 20% of their DNA from neanderthals. It seems that hybridisation with another species added a lot of new DNA most of which was later ditched through natural selection

Posts: 501
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Anthropology

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Wed, 25 Dec 2019, 18:33

Thank you Edgar. That is really interesting.

jul, that does not come as a surprise to me. Indigenous Europeans were replaced by Caucasian farmers. Modern Europeans have only a small percentage of DNA from indigenous Europeans, and some DNA from Neanderthals, so it follows that indigenous Europeans had quite a high percentage of Neanderthal DNA.

User avatar
Posts: 2304
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Anthropology

Postby iul » Wed, 25 Dec 2019, 19:40

I am not aware of any difference between these indigenous Europeans and Caucasians you are referring to. AFAIK they are the same thing.

Posts: 501
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Anthropology

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Wed, 25 Dec 2019, 19:52

The indigenous Europeans were Mesolithic hunter gathers. They were mostly replaced by Neolithic farmers who migrated from Western Asia.

Posts: 781
Joined: Mon, 03 Jun 2019, 19:53
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Anthropology

Postby Edgar » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 08:21

Chester-Donnelly wrote:The indigenous Europeans were Mesolithic hunter gathers. They were mostly replaced by Neolithic farmers who migrated from Western Asia.


What we do know is that several thousand years ago there was a surge in human migrations. This was undoubtedly due to the spread of agricultural techniques which allowed for 'colonization' of new lands, and possibly also to dramatic changes in climate. Legends of a great flood were ubiquitous throughout the ancient world.

Sanskrit-speaking Europeans from the Caucasus region not only migrated into South Asia but also into Europe, replacing the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, who may well have had a much greater percentage of Neanderthal DNA than modern Europeans.

English Spanish Sanskrit Hindi
one uno eka ek
two dos dvi do
three tres tri tiin
four cuatro catur charr
five cinco pancan panch
six seis sas chaii
seven siete sapta sath
eight ocho astan aath
nine nueve navan nau
ten diez dashan das

It was at about the same time that various Semitic-speaking tribes began to emerge from the Arabian Peninsula, mingling with Indo-Europeans in what is today Iraq, which led to the rise of the Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian empires, as well as Phoenicia (in Lebanon) and the Kingdom of Israel.

Semitic is a language family dominated by Arabic-speakers. The ancient Israelites were distinct for the adoption of a monotheistic religion at least partly based on Zoroastrianism. Judaism was the first of the Abrahamic religions, later followed by Christianity and Islam.

Further migrations occurred in South East Asia and Africa around the same period. Already mentioned was the movement of Asiatic people into Austronesian lands and subsequent migrations into the Pacific. Meanwhile, the Bantu of West and Central Africa expanded across to the East, then southward to the Cape, crossing the Zambezi around 300AD.

Posts: 501
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Anthropology

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 10:07

Thank you again Edgar. I am really enjoying your anthropology posts.
What you are saying already fits with my understanding of early human evolution and migration.
As you can see I am British. The part of prehistory we struggle to understand in these islands is the whole period from Britain being inhabited by Neolithic farmers, to just before Britain being conquered by the Romans, when Britain is populated by Britons or Celts and Picts. We know the Celts did not build Stonehenge. We know there were earlier people called Bell Beaker People. But I don't have a clear understanding of how we got from Neolithic farmers to Bell Beaker People to Celts, and how Stonehenge fits in with that.
I think part of the problem is that it gets political. The Welsh claim that as Celts they are the original people (presumably they think there is an unbroken line from Neolithic farmers to the Welsh). Scotland is probably the youngest and most diverse if the British countries, formed of Brythonic Britons, Picts, Scots from Ireland, Anglo-Saxons and Norse Vikings. For them it is politically important to create some sort of united narrative that they are Celts and not English, when reality they are just as English as they are Celtic.

User avatar
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed, 22 Jul 2015, 18:20
Location: Moscow
National Flag:
RussiaRussia

Re: Anthropology

Postby Vova12 » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 10:49

Image

User avatar
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed, 22 Jul 2015, 18:20
Location: Moscow
National Flag:
RussiaRussia

Re: Anthropology

Postby Vova12 » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 10:56

Image

User avatar
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed, 22 Jul 2015, 18:20
Location: Moscow
National Flag:
RussiaRussia

Re: Anthropology

Postby Vova12 » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 11:00

Image

Jim Carrey :lol:
Image

User avatar
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed, 22 Jul 2015, 18:20
Location: Moscow
National Flag:
RussiaRussia

Re: Anthropology

Postby Vova12 » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 11:06

Europeans were dark-skinned until 8,000 years ago: Pale complexions were brought to Europe from the Near East, study claims

The original migrants to Europe from Africa arrived 40,000 years ago
Up until 8,000 years ago, early hunter-gatherers largely had darker skin
When Near East farmers arrived, they carried with them light skin genes
Genomes of 83 people found 5 genes linked with diet and skin change

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... laims.html
Image

Posts: 501
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Anthropology

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 11:29

The British press and media in general is obsessed with skin colour. They are also very bad at reporting on science. The writers never seem to understand evolution or genetics. The western Hunter gathers may well have been dark skinned, but that can't be proven. There isn't a single dark skin gene.

User avatar
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed, 22 Jul 2015, 18:20
Location: Moscow
National Flag:
RussiaRussia

Re: Anthropology

Postby Vova12 » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 11:41

When analyzing a DNA skin color can be determined with a probability of 99%.

Bro, first Europeans were black and blue eyed.
Image

User avatar
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed, 22 Jul 2015, 18:20
Location: Moscow
National Flag:
RussiaRussia

Re: Anthropology

Postby Vova12 » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 11:44

This techniкue was invented in US. With her help police catches criminals.
Image

Posts: 501
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Anthropology

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 11:46


Posts: 501
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Anthropology

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 11:48


Posts: 501
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Anthropology

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 11:51

Vova12 wrote:When analyzing a DNA skin color can be determined with a probability of 99%.

Bro, first Europeans were black and blue eyed.


There is no way we can know that. No one today has ever seen a Western Hunter Gather. They are an extinct race.

User avatar
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed, 22 Jul 2015, 18:20
Location: Moscow
National Flag:
RussiaRussia

Re: Anthropology

Postby Vova12 » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 11:53

76% is a high probability.
Just this version is adhered to by modern science.
Image

User avatar
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed, 22 Jul 2015, 18:20
Location: Moscow
National Flag:
RussiaRussia

Re: Anthropology

Postby Vova12 » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 11:57

When hunters went to agriculture it has become a shortag of vitamin D.
Skin has become white to absorb sun light.

Sun light replaced meat for them.
Image

User avatar
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed, 22 Jul 2015, 18:20
Location: Moscow
National Flag:
RussiaRussia

Re: Anthropology

Postby Vova12 » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 12:03

Denisovans for example were dark skinned, dark haired and dark eyed.I not a professional in paleontology аng can only use conclusions of scientists.
Image

Posts: 501
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Anthropology

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 12:09

I'm not saying the western hunter gathers were not dark skinned. I'm pointing out that it is considered probable that they were based on current scientific knowledge. But it is not a fact. The scientists who came up with the theory themselves make it clear they have no way of knowing.

User avatar
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed, 22 Jul 2015, 18:20
Location: Moscow
National Flag:
RussiaRussia

Re: Anthropology

Postby Vova12 » Thu, 26 Dec 2019, 12:40

We successfully extracted and sequenced ancient DNA from a 5700-year-old piece of chewed birch pitch from southern Denmark. In addition to a complete ancient human genome (2.3×) and mitogenome (91×), we recovered plant and animal DNA, as well as microbial DNA from several oral taxa. Analysis of the human reads revealed that the individual whose genome we recovered was female and that she likely had dark skin, dark brown hair and blue eyes.

Image

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13549-9
Image

Posts: 781
Joined: Mon, 03 Jun 2019, 19:53
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Anthropology

Postby Edgar » Tue, 31 Dec 2019, 15:44

Vova12 wrote:We successfully extracted and sequenced ancient DNA from a 5700-year-old piece of chewed birch pitch from southern Denmark. In addition to a complete ancient human genome (2.3×) and mitogenome (91×), we recovered plant and animal DNA, as well as microbial DNA from several oral taxa. Analysis of the human reads revealed that the individual whose genome we recovered was female and that she likely had dark skin, dark brown hair and blue eyes.

Image

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13549-9


The blue eye mutation is believed to have occurred somewhere in the Black Sea region between six and ten thousand years ago; roughly the same region whence the Sanskrit-speaking invaders entered Europe and South Asia several thousand years ago. The white skin mutation apparently occurred much earlier and at least one widely-published report has placed this event in the Iberian Peninsula. Another dated it as far back as twenty to fifty thousand years ago, perhaps even as Homo Sapiens were still making their way out of Africa.

Btw, that picture Vova has posted above clearly bears a resemblance to South Asian and Austronesian peoples. If at all accurate, that might imply the first modern humans in Europe were part of the same early wave of homo sapiens out of Africa; those who fought interminable battles with Neanderthals before gaining a foothold on the continent. Just speculating, of course.

Interestingly, various studies have also dated the arrival of hominids in the Americas to more than a hundred thousand years in the past. Highly unlikely they would have been homo sapiens, in that case, as the first of the three major waves of homo sapiens into the Americas only occurred fifteen to twenty thousand years ago. If the findings are correct, therefore, Neanderthals or Denisovans would be the most likely culprits, though it may well have been another (unknown) hominid species entirely.

These migrations into the Americas crossed a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska which existed for millennia as sea levels dropped dramatically during the Ice Age. Wolves, bears and hoofed animals including horses entered Asia this way, while big cats entered the Americas, along with woolly elephants and rhinos - who didn't last long. Horses flourished in Asia and Africa, but also became extinct in the Americas (until the Spanish reintroduced them).

Something else I read recently is that Cro-Magnon is no longer regarded as a separate species to homo sapien. Modern DNA testing has detected no significant differences anatomically. They were just a little different in their behavior patterns, apparently. Cro-Magnon was with us until about ten thousand years ago.

& Chester, if you haven't already read it, Robert Graves' I, Claudius - based on the first century Roman Emperor's own memoirs, provides an excellent account of the invasion of Britain - then populated by highly superstitious Celt tribesmen who painted themselves for battle and were thus known as Pretanique (Painted People). They also existed along the Western coast of France, which is how we get both Britain and Brittany, I believe.

The Celts hadn't been in Britain very long, however; just a few centuries or so. They were of Central European origin, and also spread to other corners of Europe, including the Iberian Peninsula and Turkey. They were the first people to make Ankara (Angora) their regional capital, in fact. But as you mention, Britain was occupied well before the Celts showed up.

Return to Other subjects

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests