R-V88 Among Europeans

I never "thought" anything. Don't put words in my mouth. I was mocking you; not myself - I'm not that dumb. And Australoids and Negroids must be relative in some way, don't they? Don't go off topic; changing the subject here...

No, the topic was whether or not Dravidians, Australian natives, and south Pacific folk are classified as Australoid, and, they are. I'm not sure why that otherwise valid map classed all of India as Caucasoid, probably just laziness since the situation in India is more complex, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_peoples

"The Elamo-Dravidians are said to be Neolithic settlers from modern-day south western Iran. They are assumed to be darker skinned Caucasian people with slender body and built and copper skin tone. They are usually lumped with the Mediterranean race. They must have taken the route from the erstwhile Elam region via Balochistan to the Indus region around 8000 to 7000 B.C., where they are often credited to have built the famed Harappan civilization. They eventually mixed with the local Austro-Asiatic peoples, who were of Proto-Australoid and Paleo-Mongoloid stock. The admixture was liberal, steady and stabilised. As a result, most modern day Dravidians have clear and dominant Australoid features."

That's modern anthropology talking.
First, you tried to claim that the Australoid designation didn't exist, or that it was obsolete(not sure which, because your posts are so incoherent, but, I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth!), then, faced with the fact that it does, you tried to use a pre-Piltdown man era map to suggest that Australian natives are Negroid, which of course they aren't. You seem to think that dark-skinned=Negroid, which is hilarious:LOL:

I also never said or even implied that the Negroid and Australoid types aren't related, since obviously all modern Humans are related, so, try taking your own advice(if you can) and stop putting words in people's mouths.
 
No, the topic was whether or not Dravidians, Australian natives, and south Pacific folk are classified as Australoid, and, they are. I'm not sure why that otherwise valid map classed all of India as Caucasoid, probably just laziness since the situation in India is more complex, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_peoples

"The Elamo-Dravidians are said to be Neolithic settlers from modern-day south western Iran. They are assumed to be darker skinned Caucasian people with slender body and built and copper skin tone. They are usually lumped with the Mediterranean race. They must have taken the route from the erstwhile Elam region via Balochistan to the Indus region around 8000 to 7000 B.C., where they are often credited to have built the famed Harappan civilization. They eventually mixed with the local Austro-Asiatic peoples, who were of Proto-Australoid and Paleo-Mongoloid stock. The admixture was liberal, steady and stabilised. As a result, most modern day Dravidians have clear and dominant Australoid features."

That's modern anthropology talking.
First, you tried to claim that the Australoid designation didn't exist, or that it was obsolete(not sure which, because your posts are so incoherent, but, I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth!), then, faced with the fact that it does, you tried to use a pre-Piltdown man era map to suggest that Australian natives are Negroid, which of course they aren't. You seem to think that dark-skinned=Negroid, which is hilarious:LOL:

I also never said or even implied that the Negroid and Australoid types aren't related, since obviously all modern Humans are related, so, try taking your own advice(if you can) and stop putting words in people's mouths.
Saying Australoid in terms of Anthropology is like saying "Europid" instead of Caucasian. lol! :LOL: Get it right, mister...You just shot yourself in the foot with that useless "rebuttal" argument...

"Australoid" has no official designation. Seems like someone here never studied Anthropology in College. Because you would know there are only three racial classifications: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid...
 
this thread was about V88 among Europeans, not about skin or appearance

nevertheless I want to point out :

R1b-V88 has, as far as I know no assaociated Eurasian mtDNA, it looks no wives accompanied them on their yourney, it seems they took indogenous wives

There is a lot of R1a in India originating from the steppe ; do these R1a Indians look like steppe people today? I don't think so, they look Indian.

But the issue/point is; some people don't realize that these R1a or R1b people probably weren't what they look liked back then; before these migrations. They could have been dark-skinned, Negroid type people who evolved and mutated into the races they are today.
 
When did I ever say that the original R1 people might not have been darker skinned than modern West Eurasians? Mal'ta had an "R" related lineage, and he had none of the modern European de-pigmentation snps.

That's right; you didn't say anything. You missed the logic in my arguement, though. The point was that R1 people and it's original descendants (R1a and R1b men) were probably; almost exclusively dark-skinned; probably just as much as the Mesolithic Europeans.



However, R1b V88 was thousands and thousands of years later. Once more, we know what people in the Levant looked like around 2,000 BC. If R1b V88 left the Levant around that time, or even a thousand or so years before that, it is highly unlikely that they looked like West Africans. That's all.

I hate to pull the moderator hat out, but this is a thread on V88 in Europeans. I've let it go off-topic to correct some misinformation, but I think it's time to get back to the topic at hand.
There are sources that suggest that there may have been migrations out of Central Asia as early as 10,000 BC. Didn't you notice them? They were posted by bicicleur.
 
Saying Australoid in terms of Anthropology is like saying "Europid" instead of Caucasian. lol! :LOL: Get it right, mister...You just shot yourself in the foot with that useless "rebuttal" argument...

"Australoid" has no official designation. Seems like someone here never studied Anthropology in College. Because you would know there are only three racial classifications: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid...

Actually, to the extent that anthropologists still use the concept of race, Australoid is one of the four or five major racial groups that they use. Australoids are considered to be the first group to leave Africa. However, subsequent population movements mixed Australoids with Caucasoids and Mongoloids in some parts of Asia to the extent that relying on external appearances to determine ancestry is of questionable value, especially now that we have DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid_race
 
Actually; men carrying G2a in the Neolithic are recorded to be the first Europeans to acquire fair-skin, so far.

Look up Otzi the Iceman.

plus all of these below , which are same age as oetzi .....all fair skin

 
plus all of these below , which are same age as oetzi .....all fair skin

But we must remember, that they do a long jouney to Saxony, and they bred during that journey whith other people.
Also, as we can see from the others results, local and surrounding territories were setteld by diffrent people, so they
all were - at least in some part - mixed. Much more interesting results would be of G2a people from the places where
they were from - and compare to these ones above.
 
To address the OP (aside from the point about V88 originating in Africa, which is obviously untrue and has been corrected), small amounts of V88 in European populations could have come from any number of sources and times. Northern African or Middle Eastern merchants, Roman soldiers, a particularly adventurous African explorer or unlucky fisherman, etc.

I don't need to prove that the original R1 (R1a and R1b) peoples were Negroids ... because they obviously were! All logic points to it. There is no other available explanation.

This is entirely silly, to put it nicely.
 
To address the OP (aside from the point about V88 originating in Africa, which is obviously untrue and has been corrected), small amounts of V88 in European populations could have come from any number of sources and times. Northern African or Middle Eastern merchants, Roman soldiers, a particularly adventurous African explorer or unlucky fisherman, etc.

Indeed, those are all possibilities. Some work is being done on clarifying the various subclades of V88 to get a better idea of different migration possibilities, but much remains to be done.

I think it's a big mistake to think in broad categories like G2a equals early Neolithic farmer, for example. In Italy, according to Boattini et al, there are numerous clusters of G2a, all with different dates and, most assuredly, associations with different specific migrations.

It would have been helpful to know if the upstream R1b Neolithic sample found in Iberia was tested for V88. It's possible that some V88 was in Atlantic and central Europe long before any of the migration possibilities you mentioned.
 
This is entirely silly, to put it nicely.
Um, no it isn't. Look at the ages of Y-DNA haplogroup IJ. And then look at all of the ages of the haplogroups that descend from haplogroup F.


I am an R1b individual myself. I am not claiming to know anything, I am just theorizing. But logically, it makes no sense for Mesolithic European I2 people to have dark-skin while R1a and R1b individuals in Mesolithic Central Asia have fair-skin. R1b and R1a are believed to have mutated in Asia descending from Y-DNA R1 during the Paleolithic; about the same time as I1 or I2 descended from haplogroup I in Europe...

My theory would better explain why Finnish people and Yakuts carry N1c but are of totally different ethnicities. It would also explain why E-V13 (a subclade of E1b1b) is almost exclusively found in Europe and not Africa; and almost all E-V13 individuals have fair-skin. While most other E1b1b individuals have darker skin; or are even black.

There are also Indians (from India, South Asia) who carry haplogroup R1a and R2, and R1b is probably a little more rare. And their skin is darker than a Europeans. This suggests that in the Mesolithic; the original R1 as well as R1a and R1b individuals were dark-skinned. So in theory, the original Indo-Europeans were not anything what Europeans look like today. They looked more similar like "Negroids" or, ahem so-called "Australoids". Dark-skinned humans.


Haplogroup I2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M438

Possible time of originprobably >15 kya (see subclade descriptions)


Haplogroup R1b:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)

Possible time of originless than 18,500 years BP


for those of you who don't know:

BP = Before Present (i.e. 15,000 BP)
kya = thousands of years ago (i.e. 15 kya)

So age of Y-DNA I2 = 15,000 years old

So, age of Y-DNA R1b = less than 18,000 years old

Take your pick, guys.
 
Actually, to the extent that anthropologists still use the concept of race, Australoid is one of the four or five major racial groups that they use. Australoids are considered to be the first group to leave Africa. However, subsequent population movements mixed Australoids with Caucasoids and Mongoloids in some parts of Asia to the extent that relying on external appearances to determine ancestry is of questionable value, especially now that we have DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid_race
Um, no sir. So, if you were trying to determine the race of a recently deceased victim of a murder, you would look for an "Australoid" skull in Forensics to determine the race??? No, you would look for a Caucasoid, a Mongoloid and a Negroid skull. Forensics is my job...There is no "Australoid".


Saying the Negroid skull is Australoid would be correct. Just like, in example, saying the Mongoloid skull is Native American:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid

Click on the Subraces tab in the article, and look at the table on your right.
 
Saying the Negroid skull is Australoid would be correct. Just like, in example, saying the Mongoloid skull is Native American.


You did here even bigger mistake, than earlier.
Even I, who am no specialist, can see a difference
between skulls of: mongoloid vs. amerind, and negroid vs. australoid.
Especialy this last one is very characteristic, and everyone who has eyes can see this.
Either in living man or in dead man.
 
plus all of these below , which are same age as oetzi .....all fair skin

Nice find. Alas, it seems some of the people here have not been paying attention;and are too ignorant to understand.
 
You did here even bigger mistake, than earlier.
Even I, who am no specialist, can see a difference
between skulls of: mongoloid vs. amerind, and negroid vs. australoid.
Especialy this last one is very characteristic, and everyone who has eyes can see this.
Either in living man or in dead man.
Did you not click the link that I referred to Aberdeen and everyone else about the classification of Negroids? Forensics is my job. I have made NO mistakes. Otherwise I would be fired right now. Lmao.
 
this thread was about V88 among Europeans, not about skin or appearance

nevertheless I want to point out :

R1b-V88 has, as far as I know no assaociated Eurasian mtDNA, it looks no wives accompanied them on their yourney, it seems they took indogenous wives

There is a lot of R1a in India originating from the steppe ; do these R1a Indians look like steppe people today? I don't think so, they look Indian.
I completely agree with you and never said anything contrary of the sort. Seems like some people here have uh, *hint* not been paying attention to what I have been insinuating.
 
We have no idea what was the original skin colour of (modern) humans . Early modern humans could have been as light as San Bushmen, or as dark as South Sudanese, or even similar to Amerindians (ie, intermediate between "light" and "dark"). We just don't know yet. Also, many experts believe dark skin has some correlation to the rates of polygyny in a population. For example, West Africans have one of the highest rates of polygyny in the world and are also one of the darkest populations in terms of skin colour. The opposite can be said of most European populations. This map may be of great help:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/70437468238909/
And to say the earliest modern humans looked " Negroid" is odd if we take into account the earliest "Negroid" remains which are only 7,000 years old (see Asselar Man). In fact, the Upper Paleolithic African specimens we have to date cluster with UP Eurasians and not with modern Africans (see Hofmeyr skull at 36,000 kya).
 
I am an R1b individual myself. I am not claiming to know anything, I am just theorizing.

Well, you did claim that "R1 peoples were Negroids" and that there's "no other available explanation." Just saying.

But logically, it makes no sense for Mesolithic European I2 people to have dark-skin while R1a and R1b individuals in Mesolithic Central Asia have fair-skin.

Having darker skin than modern Europeans doesn't equate to being "Negroid." Per your own source (Wiki): "As dark skin is also relatively common in human groups that have historically not been defined as 'Negroid', including many populations in both Africa and Asia, it is only when present with other typical Negroid physical traits such as broad facial features, Negroid cranial and dental characteristics, prognathism, afro-textured hair and neoteny, that it has been used in Negroid classification."

I don't know why you're so needlessly condescending.
 
I don't know why you're so needlessly condescending.
I am sorry, I am often very blunt and sharp. I am often involved in activities that require discipline and a tough-mind.
 
I am sorry, I am often very blunt and sharp. I am often involved in activities that require discipline and a tough-mind.

Well someone with such discipline and a tough-mind would not be making such bizarre and non-sensical claims as hg R1 being originally a "Negroid" haplogroup. BTW, I find it odd that you claim to be a forensic anthropologist and yet can not make a distinction between "Australoid" and "Negroid".
 
Well someone with such discipline and a tough-mind would not be making such bizarre and non-sensical claims as hg R1 being originally a "Negroid" haplogroup. BTW, I find it odd that you claim to be a forensic anthropologist and yet can not make a distinction between "Australoid" and "Negroid".
Not really claiming; I was hypothesizing. Unless you can find me a genome of an R1 man with fair-skin, then I might take this theory back. But Loschbur man was haplogroup I2 and had dark skin:

98fc5dde1f9e60dc8a751c2a86078f46.jpeg

Also, have you taken a look at the map of the haplogroups timeline here on Eupedia?

haplogroups-timeline.jpg


If you look at the timeline, you should notice that Asian Y-DNA R1 is slightly older than European Y-DNA I. So how did Loschbur man; who is haplogroup I2 and is 8,000 years old, have dark-skin as a Mesolithic European? Also...if you observe closely; theoretically, R1b and R1a broke off from R1 at a similar time as I1 and I2 from I.

Also sir, Australoid is merely a subrace of Negroid in the field of anthropology. We are meant to look for Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid skulls of the deceased. You do realize, that a Semitic Arab with darker skin than a European is considered a Caucasoid as well? Saying "Australoid" in terms of race is like saying "Europeanoid" or something similar.
 

This thread has been viewed 116922 times.

Back
Top