Jones et al , uses k means in this study. To understand what k means are Check out this video:
https://youtu.be/yR7k19YBqiw
Listens seriously to the expert. He says that "k means...you have training data..you already know what it is and you find the same thing again".
What this means is that researchers use k means to describe what they already believe.
In other words, Jones et al in this study used this procedure to say what they already believe about the roots of modern European not create new science. As a result the researchers found that:
quote:As you can see, Jones et al, believed that there was continuity between the populations and this phenomena is exactly what the researchers found.
We next explored the extent to which Bichon and CHG contributed to contemporary populations using outgroup f3(African; modern, ancient) statistics, which measure the shared genetic history between an ancient genome and a modern population since they diverged from an African outgroup. Bichon, like younger WHG, shows strongest affinity to northern Europeans (Supplementary Fig. 3), while contemporary southern Caucasus populations are the closest to CHG (Fig. 4a and Supplementary Fig. 3), thus implying a degree of continuity in both regions stretching back at least 13,000 years to the late Upper Palaeolithic. Continuity in the Caucasus is also supported by the mitochondrial and Y chromosomal haplogroups of Kotias (H13c and J2a, respectively) and Satsurblia (K3 and J), which are all found at high frequencies in Georgia today22,23,24 (Supplementary Note 8).
Jones et al (2015) made several observations, they wrote
quote:Next they noted:
EF share greater genetic affinity to populations from southern Europe than to those from northern Europe with an inverted pattern for WHG1,2,3,4,5. Surprisingly, we find that CHG influence is stronger in northern than Southern Europe (Fig. 4a and Supplementary Fig. 3A) despite the closer relationship between CHG and EF compared with WHG, suggesting an increase of CHG ancestry in Western Europeans subsequent to the early Neolithic period. We investigated this further using D-statistics of the form D(Yoruba, Kotias; EF, modern Western European population), which confirmed a significant introgression from CHG into modern northern European genomes after the early Neolithic period (Supplementary Fig. 4).
quote:The culture traits of the CHG : horseback riding , meyallurgy and etc., are of Kushite, not Indo-European in origin. The only problem with the theory Jones et al, is that the earliest rulers of the land where these culkture traits originated were Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke a non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).
We investigated the temporal stratigraphy of CHG influence by comparing these data to previously published ancient genomes. We find that CHG, or a population close to them, contributed to the genetic makeup of individuals from the Yamnaya culture, which have been implicated as vectors for the profound influx of Pontic steppe ancestry that spread westwards into Europe and east into central Asia with metallurgy, horseriding and probably Indo-European languages in the third millenium BC5,7. CHG ancestry in these groups is supported by ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 1b) and admixture f3-statistics14,25 (Fig. 5), which best describe the Yamnaya as a mix of CHG and Eastern European hunter-gatherers. The Yamnaya were semi-nomadic pastoralists, mainly dependent on stock-keeping but with some evidence for agriculture, including incorporation of a plow into one burial26
The Hattic people, may be related to the Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes. Many archaeologist believe that the Tehenu people were related to the C-Group people. The Hattic language is closely related to African and Dravidian languages for example:
- English Hattic Egyptian Malinke (Mande
language)
powerful ur wr'great,big' fara
protect $uh swh solo-
head tup tp tu 'strike the head'
up,upper tufa tp dya, tu 'raising ground'
to stretch put pd pe, bamba
to prosper falfat -- find'ya
pour duq --- du 'to
dispense'
child pin,pinu den
Mother na-a -- na
lord sa -- sa
place -ka -ka
This suggest that the CHG were Kushites, a view supported by the Hattic name for themselves: Kashka.
The I-E speaking Hittites adopted much of Hattic culture after 1400 BC. There were other languages spoken in Anatolia, including Palaic Luwian and Hurrian. Palaic and Luwian were probably languages spoken by whites. The languages of the Hittites: Nesa, was a lingua franca used by the Luwian and Palaic speakers. This was long after the Yamnaya culture/CHG had spread into Europe from Africa.
The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language. Formerly, linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods, chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian.
- Hurrian Sanscrit
Mi-it-ra Mitra
Aru-na Varuna
In-da-ra Indra
Researchers used the alleged Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians to support an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers. This theory held high regards until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, and not the other way around.
At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic. Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers.
Next Jones et al acknowledges that:
quote:Jones et al (2015), make it clear that ”Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia”. the African origin of these Levantines is supported by Holliday. Trenton W. Holliday (2000), tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday (2000) also found African fauna in the area. (See: Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1)) .
Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe. The separation of these populations is one that stretches back before the Holocene, as indicated by local continuity through the Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic boundary and deep coalescence estimates, which date to around the LGM and earlier. Several analyses show that CHG are distinct from another inferred minor ancestral population, ANE, making them a divergent fourth strand of European ancestry that expands the model of the human colonization of that continent.
The separation between CHG and both EF and WHG ended during the Early Bronze Age when a major ancestral component linked to CHG was carried west by migrating herders from the Eurasian Steppe. The foundation group for this seismic change was the Yamnaya, who we estimate to owe half of their ancestry to CHG-linked sources. These sources may be linked to the Maikop culture, which predated the Yamnaya and was located further south, closer to the Southern Caucasus. Through the Yamanya, the CHG ancestral strand contributed to most modern European populations, especially in the northern part of the continent.
As I have noted previously, the The Niger-Congo and Dravidian speakers were Kushites and belonged to the C-Group culture. The Kushites made corded ware and Red-and-black pottery.
.
.
By 3500 BC the Dravidian and Mande tribes began to migrate out of Africa. Dr. Menges was the first archaeologist to argue that some Dravidians landed in Iran and migrated into India and the Indus Valley.
These Kushites were the ancestors of the Yamnaya and CHG culture bearers. They were the people who practiced horseback riding and etc.
The movement of the Kushite group is supported by the spread of BRW from Nubia to the Indus Valley and the South Indian megalithic.; and the Dravidian substratum in the prakrit, puranas and other languages in Eurasia.
.
The Yamnaya and or CHG introduced the Agro-Pastoral traditions of the CHG. It was also the Kushites who introduced the R haplogroup carried by the CHG and the presence of V88 in early Europe.
The African origin of the CHG is supported by the following evidence:
1. The Kushites began to replace the Anu after the Great Flood, i.e., after 4000BC.
2. There is archaeological evidence of Kushites migrating into Eurasia from Middle Africa 6kya.The Kushites were the rounded headed cattle herders depicted in Saharan Rock art. They belonged to the C-Group . The C-Group was primarially composed of Niger-congo and Dravidian speakers.
'
'
3. there is no archaeological evidence for a back migration of Eurasians back into Africa.
4. Cattle domestication may have appeared first in the Neat East--but evidence for the first cattle herders appears in Middle African Rock art --not the Near East. These Africans took their Agro-Pastoral traditions into Eurasia.
5. Africans domesticated the horse before the I-E people as evident in the Saharan rock art.
6. Kushites introduced chariot riding and horseback riding to the world.
7. The Corded Ware pottery traditions began in Africa among the Kushites
8. The culture terms used by the I-E speakers are of Dravidian and Niger-Congo origin.
9. The I-E people were a bunch of nomads lacking any culture as supported by the so-called Proto- I.E., terms that are not of kushite origin. The I-E speakers remained isolated in Central Asia, until they attacked Kusite centers in Western Europe and Pakistan-India after 1400BC.
Laymen assume that everything they read in a genetics article is valid and reliable. They don't understand that geneticists prove what ever they already believe to be true when they write and publish a "peer reviewed' article. Jones et al , uses k means in this study. To understand what k means are Check out this video: https://youtu.be/yR7k19YBqiw Listens seriously to the expert. He says that "k means...you have training data..you already know what it is and you find the same thing again". What this means is that researchers use k means to describe what they already believe. | Eppie R. Jones et al (2015) ,Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians, provides a good discussion of some of the ancient Western Eurasians Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (CHG) and Early Farmers (EF). In this paper Jones et al, use k-statistic procedures discussed in the video cited above to explain their results. | , |
No comments:
Post a Comment