The New Multiregional Theory for the Origin of Anatomically Modern Humans Lacks congruence

Yuan et al (2017) has resurrected the multiregional theory for the origin of amh. They wrote that,“While the autosomes in our model are largely consistent with the multiregional hypothesis, the mtDNA and Y have a single origin in East Asia. We also identified Negritos and Aboriginal Australians as direct descendants of Neanderthals/Denisovans who were African migrants with Eurasian admixtures Yuan et al, 2017). “

As you can see, these researchers argued that anatomically modern humans (amh) probably originated in East Asia and spread from there into South Asia, Europe and Africa (Yuan et al,2017). The call their multiregional theory for the origin of man in East Asia the maximum genetic distance or diversity (MGD) hypothesis. 

Yuan et al (2017) claim that Heidelbergensis , Neanderthals and Denisovans were archaic Africans, and that the Andamanese were of African pygmy origin. Yuan et al (2017 wrote that “Denisovan was closer to Africans than Neanderthals were (Figure 4A). The high coverage genomes of Altai and Denisovan allowed their African affinity, especially Denisovan, apparent on a principle component analysis (PCA) plot (Figure 4B-C). In contrast to the 5 Neanderthals studied here who were mostly found in Europe and yet who were no closer to Europeans or the related Indians than other groups, their contemporary AMH Ust’-Ishim from Western Siberia was closest to SAS followed by EUR (Figure 4). These results suggest that Neanderthals and Denisovans were Africans who migrated into Eurasia and admixed with local non-Africans.”

Below is the ancestor of Neanderthals

,



.
Here is a picture of Neanderthal man



.
Yuan et al added that the “The Andamanese and the African pygmies seem obviously related in multiple aspects, including traits, Y relationship with the African megahaplogroup ABDE, and mtDNA haplotype M being closely related to African L. However, previous studies have found Andamanese to be even more genetically distant to Africans than other Eurasians (Mondal et al., 2016). Using the published genomes of 10 individuals from the Jarawa (JAR) and Onge (ONG) populations in the Andaman Islands (Mondal et al., 2016), we found that Andamanese are relatively closer to Africans or have lower AFR/SAS(-BEB) distance ratio than other nearby populations such as BEB, with ONG more so than JAR, consistent with the known less admixture in ONG relative to JAR (Figure 5A). PC analysis also showed Andamanese closer to Africans than all five populations of SAS (Figure 5B). Relative to the distance to SAS, ONG showed smaller distance to Mbuti than to San or other Africans examined except LWK (Figure 5C). The Mbuti group here consists of 4 published genomes from the Simons project (Mallick et al., 2016) and the San group consists of 2 published genomes (Schuster et al., 2010). Given that Andamanese were closer to Africans than other Indians were (Figure 5A) but Mbuti pygmies were not closer to Andamanese than some other Africans were, it can be inferred that Andamanese came from Mbuti rather than the opposite.”
In summary Yuan et al (2017) nnoted that “Our finding of Neanderthals and Denisovans as primarily Africans with Eurasian admixture is well supported by fossil data indicating H. heidelbergensis, present in both Africa and Europe, as ancestors of Neanderthals. The taurodont teeth are common in Neanderthals, Heidelbergensis and certain South African fossils (Shaw, 1928). The occipital bunning of Neanderthals are also common in modern Africans (Liu et al., 2003).”

Finally, Yuan et al (2017) observed that “Among all East Asians examined here, the genomes of Hunan people were found most enriched in Africans. Therefore, our model of modern human origins in East Asia, in particular Hunan Province in China, provides a satisfying account of all relevant data including the human specific trait of creativity and the related inventions.”
The new Multiregional Theory for the origin of man lacks Congruency 

Yuan et al (2017), made a critical error in the interpretation of their data concerning the relationship of East Asians and Africans. Because the Hunan population carry African gnomes, the authors assumed that an ancient Hunan population migrated from East Asia to China. This was a false conclusion because the first inhabitants of East Asia, were Sub-Saharan Africans or Negroes.
Rather than reading the archaeological evidence on their own Yuan et al (2017) based his MGD theory on the fact that the population of Hunan province carry genomes, that are also carried by Africans on the research of Liu et al ( 2003).

Liu et al (2003), argues that , “Our results show that even though some feature seem to characterize African humans, the expression patterns of most cranial features used in present study resemble those of East Asian humans very much, which may suggest the similar trends of the characteristics of modern humans”. This statement is clearly, contradictory. How can the earliest population East Asia have craniometrics features or characteristics of African negroes—and still be mongoloid East Asians. 

This view of Liu et al (2003), is not supported by the archaeology and cranial features of early man in East Asian which found that the earliest human remains were of Africans or negroes. Archaeological and cranial features research makes it clear that Negroids were very common to ancient China. F. Weidenreich ( 1939) noted that the one of the earliest skulls of anatomically modern humans (amh) from north China found in the Upper Cave of Zhoukoudian, were Oceanic or Melanesoid (Negro) skeletons (Chang, 1977; Weidenreich, 1939). The Melanesoid skeletons are dated between 24-27kya (Sanz, 2014). The individual in the Lower Cave was a Homo Erectus hominid (Sinanthropus pekinensis ) .

The archaeological evidence indicates that the cranial features of the Negro or Sub-Saharan African phenotype was the dominant group in South China. Kwang-chih Chang, writing in the 4th edition of Archaeology of ancient China (1986) wrote that:" by the beginning of the Recent (Holocene) period the population in North China and that in the southwest and in Indochina had become sufficiently differentiated to be designated as Mongoloid and OCEANIC NEGROID races respectively…."(p.64). By the Upper Pleistocene the Negroid type was typified by the Liu-chiang skulls from Yunnan (Chang, 1986, p.69). As a result, the mongoloid populations in East Asia only arrive in the region during the recent Holocene , while amh SSA had been in East Asia for over 27,000.

Negroid skeletons dating to the early periods of Southern Chinese history have been found in Shangdong, Jiantung, Sichuan, Yunnan, Pearl River delta and Jiangxi especially at the initial sites of Chingliengang and Mazhiabang phases ( Chang, 1977, p.76) . The Chingliengang culture is often referred to as the Dawenkou culture of North China.

The presence of Negroid skeletal remains at Dawenkou sites make it clear that Negroes were still in the Northern East Asia in addition to South China. The Dawenkou culture predates the Lung-shan culture which is associated with the Xia civilization.

As a result, the genomes of the Hunan people which Yuan et al (2017) claim are enriched in Africans, are in reality African genomes carried by the Negro Holocene population that formerly lived in East Asia before it was settled by the present mongoloid populations. This view is supported by Sanz (2014) and Weidenreich (1939) who have shown that the first anatomically modern humans in East Asia 24kya were Melanoid (i.e., Negroes), not mongoloids .


References:

Chang. K (1986). The archaeology of ancient China. New Haven, Yale University Press .

Chang. K (1977). The archaeology of ancient China. New Haven, Yale University Press .

Liu, W., Mbua, E., Wu, X., and Zhang, Y. (2003). Comparisons of cranial features between Chinese and African holocene humans and their implications. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 22, 89-104. http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/cbw/rlxxb/xbwzxz/201202/P020120221553624499119.pdf

Yuan, Dejian, Xiaoyun Lei, Yuanyuan Gui, Zuobin Zhu, Dapeng Wang, Jun Yu, and Shi Huang. "Modern human origins: multiregional evolution of autosomes and East Asia origin of Y and mtDNA." bioRxiv (2017): 101410.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/01/18/101410 

Sanz, Nuria . (2014). Human origin sites and the World Heritage Convention in Asia. UNESCO.

Weidenreich. F. 1939. On the earliest representative of modern mankind recovered on the soil of East Asia, Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13:161-173.

Winters,C. (2014b). AFRICAN AND DRAVIDIAN ORIGINS OF THE MELANESIANS. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences , 4(3):694-704. http://www.cibtech.org/J-LIFE-SCIENCES/PUBLICATIONS/2014/Vol-4-No-3/JLS-103-JLS-073-JUN-CLYDE-AFRICAN-MELANESIANS.pdf

A Review of H.L. Gates, Africa's Great Civilizations

H.L. Gates, Africa's Great Civilizations presented on PBS during Black History Month, is just another Eurocentric view of ancient African history. the series is interesting but it only reflects the European view that African history is the result of outside influences.

In the series he shows images of the Egyptians as Blacks, but by saying that after the 25th Dynasty took Egypt they became the "Black Rulers" of Egypt, Gates implies that the ancient Egyptians were non-Blacks.




Then he discusses the Berbers of Africa and implies that the Berbers who took over Spain were white Berbers instead of Black Berbers. For example, the Sanhaja Berbers were described as Blacks, but Gates shows white Berbers. We know from the pictures of the North African Moors that they were Black, not Berbers who are descendants of the Vandal.



In addition, he failed to discuss the fact that Ibn Yahsin, was mainly established in Senegal before his followers spread across North Africa and took Spain, or that the Moors of Spain were predominately Black. The white Arabs of Spain were the Saracens. The Moors ruled Spain from 711-1492.



Gates did not present anything new about ancient African civilization that is not already "accepted" by the Eurocentric Academe, except the fact that writing began in Egypt before Sumer.




The Africa's Great Civilization series presents none of the research relating to African civilizations that differ from Eurocentric view of ancient history that has been recorded since DuBois and Diop.

Sadly, Gates has not really presented a true history of ancient Africa.

Continuity between African and Ancient Native American DNA

There is continuity between the DNA carried by Paleoamericans and West Africans. Paleoamericans, like the Anzick child carried haplogroup D, which is the same as African M1, and R-M173. Both of these haplogroups are carried by West Africans.




There is no continuity between the Anzick man and contemporary mongoloid Native Americans. In A genomic view of the peopling of the Americas, by Pontus Skoglund, and David Reich:http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reichlab/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/SkoglundReich2016_Americas.pdf

the researchers noted that " The most surprising finding was that the Anzick individual is from a population more closely related to Central Americans and South Americans than to some northern North Americans (including all speakers of Algonquian languages studied to date), despite the apparent common ancestral origin of Native Americans across the continents. "

Look at how researchers make confusing statements,. If the Anzick man is not related to contemporary "northern North Americans (including all speakers of Algonquian languages studied to date)", there is in reality no "apparent common ancestral origin of Native Americans across the continents " .

Haplogroup M was a common Paleoamerican haplogroup. Most contemporary Native Americans carry mtDNA that belongs to the M macrohaplogroup, name A and B.

Given the fact that the other ancient Eurasians and Paleoamericans carried haplogroup M, e.g., the 5000 year old skeletons carrying haplogroup M from China Lake, British Columbia (Malhi et al., 2007), more than likely Naia of Mexico was D1 and Anzick child was D4.

The Anzick child and Naia carried the D haplogroup , which is the name for M1, in Asia. Haplotypes with HVSI transitions defining 16129-16223-16249-16278-16311-16362; and 16129-16223-16234-16249-16211-16362 have been found in Thailand and among the Han Chinese (Fucharoen et al, 2001; Yao et al, 2002) and these were originally thought to be members of Haplogroup M1. However, on the basis of currently available FGS sequences, carriers of these markers have been found to be in the D4a branch of Haplogroup D , the most widespread branch of M1 in East Asia (Fucharoen et al, 2001; Yao et al, 2002). The transitions 16129,16189,16249 and 16311 are known to be recurrent in various branches of Haplogroup M, especially M1 and D4.

The presence of SSA in North America suggests an African origin for the presence of y-DNA R-M173 among Native Americans. This results from the high frequency of haplogroup R1, among African populations across the African Continent, and especially in West Africa (Gonzalez et al., 2012; Winters, 2010, 2011b).


The pristine form of R1*M173 is found only in Africa (Cruciani et al., 2002, 2010). The frequency of Ychromosome R1*-M173 in Africa range between 7-95% and averages 39.5% (Coia et al., 2005). The R*- M173 (haplotype 117) chromosome is found frequently in Africa, but rare to extremely low frequencies in Eurasia. The Eurasian R haplogroup is characterized by R1b3-M269. The M269 derived allele has a M207/M173 background.

Y-chromosome V88 (R1b1a) has its highest frequency among Chadic speakers, while the carriers of V88 among Niger-Congo speakers (predominately Bantu people) range between 2-66% (Cruciani et al., 2010; Bernielle-Lee et al., 2009). Haplogroup V88 includes the mutations M18, V35 and V7. Cruciani et al., (2010) revealed that R-V88 is also carried by Eurasians including the distinctive mutations M18, V35 and V7. R1b1-P25 is found in Western Eurasia.

Haplogroup R1b1* is found in Africa at various frequencies. In Table 3, we present the frequencies of R-M269 in Sub-Saharan Africa. Berniell-Lee et al., (2009) found in their study that 5.2% of SSA carried Rb1*. The frequency of R1b1* among the Bantu ranged from 2-20. The bearers of R1b1* among the Pygmy populations ranged from 1- 25% (Berniell-Lee et al., 2009). The frequency of R1b1 among Guinea-Bissau populations was 12% (Carvalho et al., 2010).
Henn et al., (2011) was surprised by this revelation of R-M269 among this Khoisan population. As a result, he interviewed the carries of R1b1b2a1a, and learned that no members of their families had relations with Europeans.

The presence of R lineages among hunter-gatherer (HG) populations is not new. Wood et al., reported Khoisan carriers of R-M269 (Wood et al., 2005). Bernielle-Lee et al., (2009), in their study of the Baka and Bakola pygmies found the the R1b1* haplogroup (Bernielle-Lee et al., 2009). These researchers made it clear that the Baka samples clustered closely to Khoisan samples (Bernielle-Lee et al., 2009). The most common R haplogroup in Africa is V88. Given the interaction between hunter-gatherer (HG) groups and agro-pastoral groups they live in close proximity too, we would assume that African HG would carry the V88 lineage.

Yet, as pointed out above the HG populations carry R-M269 instead of V88 (Winters, 2011b). The implications of R-M269 among HG populations, and Henn et al., (2011) of shared African HG genome suggest that R-M269 may represent a HG genome thus an ancient African R lineage. The presence of R-M269 among HG human groupings fails to support a back migration of R-M269 from Europe.

In a recent article on the R1 clade, Gonzalez et al., (2012), argue that R1 probably spread across Europe from Iberia to the east given the distribution of R1 in Africa.


The M haplogroup was first introduced to the Americas by the Khoisan who introduced the Clovis and Solutrean tool kits in the Americas. The Khoisan carries the most ancient mtDNA and y-chromosome haplogroups in addition to haplogroups M and R1. This suggests that the paleoamericans were probably Khoisan as suggested by Coon (1962), Howells (1973, 1989) and Dixon (2001). These Paleoamericans introduced haplogroups M and R into the America.

The Khoisan people came to the Americas between 20-10kya. They began to settle Europe 44kya.


References:

Berniell-Lee G, Calafell F, Bosch E, Heyer E, Sica L, Mouguiama-Daouda P, Van der Veen L, Hombert JM, Quintana-Murci L and Comas D (2009). Genetic and Demographic Implications of the Bantu Expansion: Insights from Human Paternal Lineages. Molecular Biology and Evolution 26(7) 1581- 1589; Available: doi:10.1093/molbev/msp069.

Carvalho M, Brito P, Bento AM, Gomes V, Antunes H, Costa HA, Lopes V, Serra A, Balsa F, Andrade L, Anjos MJ, Corte-Real F and Gusmão L (2011). Paternal and maternal lineages in GuineaBissau population. Forensic Sciences International Genetic 5(2) 114-6.

Coia V, Destro-Bisol G, Verginelli F, Battaggia C, Boschi I, Cruciani F, Spedini G, Comas D and Calafell F (2005). Brief communication: mtDNA variation in North Cameroon: lack of Asian lineages and implications for back migration from Asia to sub-Saharan Africa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (electronically published May 13, 2005; accessed August 5, 2005). (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/110495269/PDFSTART


Cruciani F, Trombetta B, Sellitto D, Massaia A, destroy-Bisol G, Watson E and Colomb EB (2010). European Journal of Human Genetics (6 January 2010), Available: doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.231: 1-8

Cruciani F, Santolamazza P, Shen P, Macaulay V, Moral P and Olckers A (2002). A Back Migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa is supported by High-Resolution Analysis of Human Y-chromosome Haplotypes. American Journal of Human Genetics 70 1197-1214.

Coon CS (1962). The Origin of Races (New York: Knopf).

Dixon EJ (2001). Human colonization of the Americas: timing, chronology and process. Quaternary Science Review 20 277–99.

Fucharoen G, Fucharoen S, Horai S.(2001). Mitochondrial DNA polymorphism in Thailand. J Hum Genet , 46:115-125.

Gonzalez et al., (2012). The genetic landscape of Equatorial Guinea and the origin and migration routes of the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88. European Journal of Human Genetics, advance online publication 15 August 2012; Available: doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.167.

Gonder MK, Mortensen HM, Reed FA, de Sousa A, Tishkoff SA.(2006).: Whole mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages. Mol Biol Evol., Dec 28.

Howells WW (1973). Cranial Variation in Man: A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Difference among Recent Human Populations. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 67.

Howells WW (1989). Skull Shapes and the Map: Craniometric Analyses in the Dispersion of ModernHomo. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University 79.


Winters C (2011a). Comment: Genetic Evidence of Early Migrations into America. Retrived 2/18/2015:http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=18395

Winters C (2011b). Is Native American R Y-Chromosome of African Origin?. Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences 3(6) 555-558.

Winters C (2011c). The Gibraltar Out of Africa Exit for Anatomically Modern Humans. Webmed Central Biology 2(10) WMC002319, Available: http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/2319




Winters,C. (2015). THE PALEOAMERICANS CAME FROM AFRICA,jirr.htm2015 Vol. 3 (3) July-September, pp.71-83/Winter.https://www.academia.edu/17137182/THE_PALEOAMERICANS_CAME_FROM_AFRICA

Winters,C. (2015a). AFRICAN ORIGIN OF NATIVE AMERICAN R1-M173. International Journal of Innovative Research and Review , 3 (1):21-29. http://www.cibtech.org/J-Innovative-Research-Review/Publications/2015/Vol-3-No-1/04-JIRR-004-CLYDE-AFRICAN.pdf

_________HLA-B*35 IN MEXICAN AMERINDIANS AND
AFRICAN , https://www.academia.edu/11789004/HLA-B_35_IN_MEXICAN_AMERINDIANS_AND_AFRICAN_POPULATIONS

___________Inference of Ancient Black Mexican Tribes and DNA, http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/4856

_______________. AFRICAN ORIGINS PALEOAMERICAN DNA .https://www.academia.edu/12231300/AFRICAN_ORIGINS_PALEOAMERICAN_DNA



Yao YG, Kong QP, Bandelt HJ, Kivisild T, Zhang YP.(2002). Phylogeographic differentiation of mitochondrial DNA in Han chinese. Am J Hum Genet , 70:635-651.

Mark Lipson, David Reich , A working model of the deep relationships of diverse modern human genetic lineages outside of Africa, Molecular Biology and Evolution, is not a good model for the Out of Africa Exit

Mark Lipson, David Reich (2017), A working model of the deep relationship Humans genetic lineages outside of Africa  fails to live up to the hype associated with the new study. Articles about this study claim that it “the new model shows there was a major eastern-western population split once modern humans left Africa”. Read more: Here

In reality, the article does no such thing it fails to explain how Ust’-Ishim  can represent the western  ancestral Eurasian population, when this individual has no living descendants, and there appears to be two ancestral populations for the eastern Eurasians, since Tianyuan man is characterized by mtDNA B, while the Australasians mainly carry the mtDNA M clade.

As I pointed out elsewhere you can analyze genetic research papers via my  “ A PROTOCOL TO EVALUATE POPULATION GENETICS PAPERS”Here

The Protocol provide a framework for analyzing and int erpreting population genetics articles. Bayesian Statistics combines prior beliefs and sample DNA information to make inferences about the sample based on the researchers prior beliefs.

The authors claims that “Here, we report a model that provides a good statistical fit to allele-frequency correlation patterns among East Asians, Australasians, Native Americans, and ancient western and northern Eurasians, together with archaic human groups. The model features a primary eastern/western bifurcation dating to at least 45,000 years ago, with Australasians nested inside the eastern clade, and a parsimonious set of admixture events. “  These clades are represented by the Tianyuan individual (the eastern type) the  Malta individual (the western type) .The evidence in the paper does not support this conclusion.

The sample used in the study were the archaic humanoids: Altai Neanderthals, and the Denisova; the western Eurasian clade was represented by Mal’ta 1 and , Ust’-Ishim  individuals;  indigenous populations from , New Guinea, Australia,  Onge ( from the Andaman Islands), and the Ami (aboriginal Taiwanese) represented the eastern clade.

The basic error in this method is that the authors are comparing ancient and modern DNA, with the full knowledge that the ancient DNA, rarely corresponds to contemporary populations. In addition the authors use the date of the Ust’-Ishim individual as the terminal date for the separation of the eastern and western clades.

Granted, the authors acknowledge that the Ust’-Ishim individual shows no  admixture in Australasians . But this is not surprising , there are no living descendants of Ust’-Ishim. As a result, s/ he  can not represent the point when the eastern and western clades separated .

Interestingly, the Tianyuan DNA, belongs to the mtDNA R macrohaplogroup, namely haplogroup B, in addition a deletion of a 9-bp motif (5′-CCCCCTCTA-3′, revised Cambridge reference sequence positions 8,281–8,289). This haplogroup is not carried by the  indigenous populations from , New Guinea, Australia,  Onge ( from the Andaman Islands), and the Ami (aboriginal Taiwanese) that represented the eastern clade in this study.

The authors of this article failed to discuss the Tianyuan DNA which also dates to 40kya, while the eastern sample used in the study are all modern. The failure to adequately discuss the Tianyuan DNA, makes the conclusion of the paper suspect, since the authors are claiming that the Australasians, represent the eastern clade, eventhough the Tianyuan individual is 45ky old. Moreover, the presence of the 9-bp motif clearly indicates an African influence among the Tianyuan.


Reference:
Qiaomei Fu et al. DNA analysis of an early modern human from Tianyuan Cave, China. PNAS, published online before print January 22, 2013. http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2223.full

Review: Haber, Marc et al. (2016), Chad Genetic Diversity Reveals an African History Marked by Multiple Holocene Eurasian Migrations

 Haber, Marc et al. (2016), Chad Genetic Diversity Reveals an African History Marked by Multiple Holocene Eurasian Migrations, The American Journal of Human Genetics  , http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(16)30448-7

Haber at al speculate that there were several migrations of Eurasians rom Arabia,  into Chad beginning around 7200 ya, which led to the origin of R1b-V88, a major y-Chromosome in much of Africa.. These authors wrote:

“We detected the earliest Eurasian migrations to Africa in the Laal-speaking people, an isolated language group of fewer than 800 speakers who inhabit southern Chad. We estimate that mixture occurred 4,750–7,200 ya, thus after the Neolithic transition in the Near East, a period characterized by exponential growth in human population size. Environmental changes during this period (which possibly triggered the Neolithic transition) also facilitated human migrations. The African Humid Period, for example, was a humid phase across North Africa that peaked 6,000–9,000 ya37 and biogeographically connected Africa to Eurasia, facilitating human movement across these regions.38 In Chad, we found a Y chromosome lineage (R1b-V88) that we estimate emerged during the same period 5,700–7,300 ya (Figure 3B). The closest related Y chromosome groups today are widespread in Eurasia and have been previously associated with human expansions to Europe.39, 40 We estimate that the Eurasian R1b lineages initially diverged 7,300–9,400 ya, at the time of the Neolithic expansions. However, we found that the African and Eurasian R1b lineages diverged 17,900–23,000 ya, suggesting that genetic structure was already established between the groups who expanded to Europe and Africa. R1b-V88 was previously found in Central and West Africa and was associated with a mid-Holocene migration of Afro-asiatic speakers through the central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin.8 In the populations we examined, we found R1b in the Toubou and Sara, who speak Nilo-Saharan languages, and also in the Laal people, who speak an unclassified language. This suggests that R1b penetrated Africa independently of the Afro-asiatic language spread or passed to other groups through admixture.”

Thusly, according to Haber et al, “Chadian R1b emerged 5,700–7,300 ya, whereas most European R1b haplogroups emerged 7,300–9,400 ya. The African and Eurasian lineages coalesced 17,900–23,000 ya”. 

This statement is contradictory. How could Chadian R1b-V88 emerge 5,700 ya, and R1b-M269 emerge7,300 ya—but—“the African and Eurasian lineages coalesced 17,900–23,000 ya”.  The statement is contradictory because how could V-88 and M-269 coalesce 23,000 ya, when they did not  allegedly emerge  until 11-13,000 years after their proposed coalesce time.

In addition, to an incongruent coalesce time, there is no archaeological evidence for migration back into Africa 7,300 ya. we do see evidence of Africans migrating into the Levant. These Africans were Natufians.

By 13,000 BC, according to J.D. Clark said that the Natufians were collecting grasses which later became domesticated crops in Southwest Asia. In Palestine the Natufians established intensive grass collection. Ehret and  Wendorf,  have observed that  the Natufians used the Ibero-Maurusian tool industry and spread agriculture throughout Nubia into the Red Sea. 

   

The Natufians practiced evulsion of the incisors the same as Bantu people and inhabitants of the Saharan fringes. The modern civilizations of the Middle East were created by the Natufians. Since the Natufians came from Nubia, they can not be classified as Eurasians.

  

    Trenton W. Holliday, 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 Lavant, 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 also found African fauna in the area.

   

Holliday confirmed his hypothesis that the replacement of the Neanderthal people were Sub-Saharan Africans. This shows that there were no Eurasian types in the Middle East between 20,000-4,000ya, when Haber et al speculated Y-chromosomes R-V88 and R-M269  coalesced .

Moreover, we clearly see the continuity between African culture from Nubia to the Levant. This view is supported by the Natufians who originated in Africa, and took the Ibero-Maurusian tools into Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. 

Holliday wrote: "The current study demonstrates African-like affinities in the body shape of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This finding is consistent with craniofacial evidence (Brace 1996) and with zooarchaeological data indicating the presence of African fauna at Qafzeh (Rabinovich and Tchernov 1995; Tchernov 1988, 1992)" (p.64). The continuity in the spread of Sub-Saharan fauna, flora and physical type in the Levant between 4000-23,000 ya, means that  R1 more than likely originated in Africa,  instead of Eurasia. Haber et al (2016) is invalid and lacks archaeogenetic evidence to support their conclusions.

References:

J.D. Clark , "The origins of domestication in Ethiopia", Fifth Panafrican Congress of prehistory and quaternary Studies, Nairobi,1977

Christopher Ehret ( "On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia", Jour. Of African History 20, [1979], p.161)

Trenton W. Holliday. (2000) "Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1).

F. Wendorf, The History of Nubia, Dallas,1968, pp.941-46). 

Bantu in Mozambique carry R1 M269

Rowold , Perez-Benedico , Stojkovic , Garcia-Bertrand , Herrera . On the Bantu expansion. Gene. 2016 Nov 15;593(1):48-57. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111916305704 , report the discovery of Southeast African Bantu carriers of R1-M269

In West and Central Africa populations exhibit extremely high frequencies (61% to 95%) of R1b1-P25, or V88.  In contrast, two of the three Southeast African Bantu populations genotyped in this study, display  polymorphic levels of M269  in Central Mozambique 9% and Maputo 1%.

Rowold et al, speculate that M269 was introduced into Southeast Africa by Arabs or Western Europeans.

R1 originated in Africa and spread into Eurasia. I specifically stated the frequency of R1 among African populations throughout my 2011 paper.

Many Sub Saharan Africans carry R1b1b2. Wood et al (2009) found that Khoisan (2.2%) and Niger-Congo (0.4%) speakers carried the R-M269 y-chromosome. The Khoisan also carry RM343 (R1b) and M 198 (R1a1) (Naidoo et al., 2010) The Gonzalez et al article  found that 10 out of 19 subjects in the study carried R1b1-P25 or M269. This is highly significant because it indicates that 53% of the R1 carriers in this study were M269, this finding is further proof of the widespread nature of this so-called Eurasian genes in Africa among populations that have not mated with Europeans.

The Whiteout of Blacks in Ancient History

The white race is not monolithic. Often white populations that recently migrated into a region are passed off in history text as the original historic population that in reality were Blacks or Negroes.

History as written today is nothing but falsehood. For example, here is a Sumerian:
 

But instead of showing Sumerians in textbooks scholars provide pictures of Gutians from Lagash:

 

 

Without the concept of race the lie being taught that the Sumerians were non-Blacks--Gutians-- will exist forever, since text book publishers only publish what they want us to believe.You can continue to follow the Eurocentrists propaganda that erases Blacks from ancient history--I would rather stick to reality.

The Gutians were Southern whites. They did not look like the Sumerians, who were Blacks.
.






Gutians
'

.
To understand whites you have to realize that there are a number of white populations. The European whites can be divided into at least two groups the Northern and Southern Europeans. The Northern Europeans mated with the Black Europeans, but for the most part they were able to maintain a much lighter complexion.

The Southern Euopeans were less numerous so they retain a much darker complexions than the Northern Europeans. The Nordic whites, although they may have blond hair, retain big lips and wide noses and may represent some sort of Albino origin.


The second Sub- group of whites are the Syrians, Turks and Indo-Aryan speakers. The ancestors of these whites are the Gutians. They are Mountain people that originated in the Highlands of Central Asia and Mesopotamia. First mention of these whites go back to Sumerian and Akkadian times.

The Niger-Congo speakers introduced R1a and R1b to Europe during the Kushite expansion.
The Semitic speaking Africans followed the Kushites into Europe. First mention of these Semites are in Egyptian and Sumerian documents as Puntites and Meluhites. Another Semite tribe was the Akkadians of Mesopotamia. The Ethiopian Semites spread haplogroups G, I and J to Eurasia. 

I am beginning to believe that after the Hittites defeated the Hatti and Kaska and other
peoples belonging to the Hurrian and Mitanni kingdoms, these people were uprooted and forced into Iran.The lost of Anatolia to the Hittites, probably forced these people to become nomads.

In Iran they probably formed a significant portion of the Proto-Arya population. Here they may have met Indo-Iranian speaking people,who may have practiced a hunter-gatherer existence, that adopted aspects of their culture especially the religion and use of Mitanni religious terms and chariot culture.

Joining forces with the Mitannian-Hurrian exiles they probably attacked Dravidian and Austronesian speaking people who probably lived in walled cities. The Austronesian and Dravidian people probably came in intimate contact during the Xia and Shang periods of China.

I have to reject the Afghanistan origin for the Indo-Iranian speaking people because the cultures there in ancient times show no affinity to Indo-European civilization. Given the Austronesian and Dravidian elements in Sanskrit and etc., I would have to date the expansion of the Indo-Aryan people sometime after 800 BC, across Iran, India down into Afghanistan, since the Austronesia people probably did not begin to enter India until after the fall of the Anyang Shang Dynasty sometime after 1000 BC. 

This would explain why "the Vedic and Avestan mantras are not carbon copies of each other",they may have had a similar genesis, but they were nativised by different groups of Indic and Iranian speakers after the settlement of nomadic Hurrian and Mitanni people in Iran.