Sumerians and Native Americans could be related?

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.
 
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.
 
sumerians were ASI/AASI blacks originating in horn of africa

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
 
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).
 
sumerians were ASI/AASI blacks originating in horn of africa

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
 
thats interesting (y)
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




i found the
pre-pottery neolithic of upper mesoptamia paper abstract :sun:
here :
https://isba9.sciencesconf.org/data/pages/Abstract_Book_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/Çayönü
 
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.
 
i found the
pre-pottery neolithic of upper mesoptamia paper abstract :sun:
here :
https://isba9.sciencesconf.org/data/pages/Abstract_Book_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/Çayönü


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.
 
i found the
pre-pottery neolithic of upper mesoptamia paper abstract :sun:
here :
https://isba9.sciencesconf.org/data/pages/Abstract_Book_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/Çayönü

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?...
 
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 :unsure:
either way it is going to be cool samples ppnb remains from southeast turkey (y)
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 :unsure:
 
agree
it is a bummer i thought the samples will be from mesoptamia proper
not in actual south east turkey :unsure:
either way it is going to be cool samples ppnb remains from southeast turkey (y)
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 :unsure:

I second that.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
sumerians were ASI/AASI blacks originating in horn of africa and turkish fathers

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_des_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
 
sumerians were ASI/AASI blacks originating in horn of africa and turkish fathers

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.
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
 
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.
 
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_des_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
 

This thread has been viewed 57577 times.

Back
Top