Monday, January 8, 2018

Population Genetics is a Social Science, not a Hard Science Field

I am very surprised Afrocentric researchers fail to realize that population genetics is a social science instead of a hard science. That is why it promotes the same Hamitic myths in relation to Africa, and its people, that were popularized by Anthropologist for the past 200 years.

Don't you see that the papers they publish are only descriptive papers, describing the haplogroups they put in their studies while they mask out any evidence of African origins of the genes. Or they rename lineages to mask the African origin of a clade, e.g., mtDNA D4, in Africa is really African M1.

Afro-Americans go into the biodiversity  forums expecting to contribute to the phylogeographical and population genetics discussion groups and they block you or delete your post. But like Negroes in the past with hat in hand they revisit these sites and are humiliated again and again, while you try to sit at the table with the deck stacked against you. The deck is stacked because Afro-Americans see population genetics as a new field, that can be helpful in understanding history when in reality it promotes white Supremacy. It is nothing but a subbranch of anthropology.

In the past researchers attempted to justify their claims via archaeogentics. That is, supporting their research with support of linguistics and archaeological research. This worked out fine until they wanted to study ancient DNA (aDNA). This was a disastrous move/ Immediately, they found that contemporary people living in Europe failed to carry genes that matched the ancient Europeans. As a result, researchers began to promote the idea that only Negroes lived in sub-Saharan Africa, especially West, east and South Africa. Blacks in Melanesia were no longer Negroes, while Northeast Africans were again "Hamites", i.e., "Black skinned whites". 

Everything was moving along fine in the promotion of White supremacy via population genetics research until 2009 when Cruciani tried to reclassify most African  R1b1 clades into V88. Geneticist were able to disguise the genetic evidence that Dravidians carried M1, and promote the idea that most M1 lineages only occurred outside Africa, epecially around the Mediterranean and white Berber North Africa. This allowed them to maintain the lie M1 is probably the result of a back migration even though they have no archaeological evidence to support this lie.

Cruciani renamed much of African R1b1 : V88. This upset the Eurocentrics because they found that the so-called basal Europeans , and European Hunter-Gatherers mainly carried R1b1 and the other clades associated with V88. 


Up to 2010, R1b1 was recognized as an African genome. After 2010, the name R1b1 carried by Africans , was changed to R-L278.

In 2010, R-V88 was originally named R1b1a and ; R-V8, was named R1b1a2. Today R-V88 is named R1b1a2, and R1b1a is renamed R-L754. Changing the name is a smokescreen , because R-L754 is still R1b1a.

Eurocentricts have no limit to their blatant and stealthily rewriting of history to "whiteout" Black and African people. The aDNA of the CHG and EF of Europe is R1b1a2. Although ISOGG 216 makes it clear this haplogroup is V88, in the research literature they are referring to this clade (R1b1a2) as R1b-P312/M269 , eventhough M269 is R1b1a1a2.

The presence of R1b1a2 in Europe is explained by the migration of the Kushites into Europe via Gibraltar and Anatolia. But, because Eurocentricswant to white Blacks out of Europe they have fooled people into believing R1b1 is a European clade, instead of V88.

Given the desire to support White Supremacy you will always be humiliated in so-called bioforums discussing population genetics because it is founded the racist concepts of the Hamitic myth.

Saturday, December 30, 2017

Who are the Kushites

Who are the Kushites? This is a great question because many nations and tribes called themselves
Kushites, that may have had different names for their own tribe and contemporary nations.

As early as 6000 BC the Kushites had already settled much of the Levant. These Kushites took millet cultivation and cattle from Nabta Playa  into Eurasia after 6000 BC.

Narmer was one the first ruler to expand the Kushites into the Levant and Anatolia. Narmer is attested in  Egypt and Canaan. Many serekhs of Narmer have been found Tel Erani, Arad, 'En Besor, Halif Terrace/Nahal Tillah .

We know that Narmer was probably a Kushite because of a Clay bulla (reg. no. G-67.95, Locus 102, B. 1308) from Nahal Tillah. The inscriptions on the  Clay bulla can be read as ḫЗts.t Kush,  ḫ "he who belongs to Kush" or Kushite.

Kushite was just a generic name applied to the people who belonged to "Kush". But it appears that the Kushites spoke related but different languages that's why they created lingua franca(s) so the people would have smooth and consistent means of communication. During the late Kushite Empire the Kushites in Africa spoke the lingua franca: Meroitic. In Anatolia the Kushite lingua franca was Nesite.And in Sumer the language of the Kushites  was Sumerian.

As a result, the ancient historians recognized that Kushites lived in Africa and Asia. Around 800 BC, the Greek poet Homer mentions the Aethiopians, or Kushites, in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Homer said that the Kushites were “the most just of men, the favorites of the Gods”.

To the Greeks and Romans there were two Kush empires, one in Africa and the other in Asia. Homer alluded to the two Kushite empires when he wrote in the Odyssey i.23: “a race divided, whom the sloping rays; the rising and the setting sun surveys”. In the Iliad. i.423, Homer wrote that Zeus went to Kush to banquet with the blameless Ethiopians .

In 64 BC, the Greek geographer and historian Strabo stated in Chapter 1 of Geography that there were two Kush empires - one in Asia and another in Africa. In addition to Kush in Nubia and Upper Egypt, some Greco-Roman authors considered their presence in southern Phoenicia up to Mount Amanus in Syria. Strabo adds that “if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients.”
The key to knowing who the Kushites were may be explained by Homer when he wrote in the Odyssey i.23: “a race divided, whom the sloping rays; the rising and the setting sun surveys”. This suggest that the Kushites recognized themselves as a “race”.

The Greek word for race is genea (  γενεά, ᾶς, ἡ  ): race, family, generation. Thusly, a Kushite was considered people who belong to same family--men of the same stock. The idea of the Kushites belonging to the same race implied that metaphorically, the Kushites in Africa and Asia were  like each other in character, endowments, and pursuits. They were especially identified as great “bowmen” and adventurers.

Ephorus a Greek historian wrote a general history of the known world. In his histories Ephorus wrote about the Kushites in 405 BC. Ephorus said that: “The Ethiopians were considered as occupying all the south coasts of both Asia and Africa,” and adds that “this is an ancient opinion of the of the Greeks.”

William Chambers, in Information for the People, wrote: “Ephorus ,too (405B.C.)seems to have had a great impression of the power of the Ethiopians, since he names in the east, the Indians—in the south the Ethiopians—in the west, the Celts—in the north, the Scythians, as the most mighty and numerous people of the known earth. Already in Strabo’s time, however, their ancient power had gone for an indefinite period, and the Negro states found themselves, after Meroe had ceased to be a religious capital …(p.66)”

Ephorus  made a Map of the Ethiopian [Kushite]  nations. The Ephorus map, the Classical authors and writers familiar with the Classics like Rawlinson saw the people living in Scythia and Ethiopia (lands below Egypt) as nations founded by Kushites.

As a result, when Strabo wrote:”The north[ern border of Ethiopia/Kush] extends to the remote confines of Scythia and Celtica, and the south to the remote confines of Ethiopia, and the difference between these two extremes is very great ... indeed, they are, in a sense, the antipodes of each other." He was using antipodes as a geographical descriptor, not anthropological identifier of ethnic groups. Strabo’s mention of Ephorus makes it clear he was talking about Kushites who belonged to the same ethnicity, not Black and White ethnic groups.

Strabo also wrote: "[Ephoros] says that if we divide the regions of the heavens and of the earth into four parts, the Indians will occupy that part from which Apeliotes blows, the Ethiopians the part from which Notos blows, the Celts the part on the west, and the Scythians the part from which the north wind blows”. This again alludes to the widespread nature of Kushites around the world in ancient times.

Ephorus’s map of the Kushite nations and dicussion of the Kushites indicates that while there was a geographical antipodes, the people belonged to the “same nationality”.



William Chambers,  Information for the People, lts&f=false

The ḫЗšt or Kushites in the Levant

The early hunter-gathers and farmers in Europe herded cattle,and cultivated millet.

Ancient DNA (aDNA) indicates that R1 clades were carried by European hunter-gathers (CHG) and European farmers (EF). Villabruna man lived 14kya in Italy and carried R1b1a. European hunter-gatherers carried R1b1 in Spain and Samara. Many European farmers also carried varied R1 clades. Although the lineages R1b1 and R1b1a were recognized as R-V88 clades (Cruciani et al, 2010), some researchers claim that Y-Chromosome R1 is of Eurasian origin, without any collateral evidence from archaeology to support this claim.

There is no archaeological evidence of the herding of Cattle and millet cultivation older than the Nabta Playa material.

At Nabta Playa the people herded cattle and cultivated crops. The Kushites cultivated pennisetum millet at Nabta Playa (c. 7950 BC ) and probably herded cattle (Miller, et al, 2010; Mitchell,2013).

A center of cattle worship was the Kiseiba -Nabta region in Middle Africa. At Nabta archaeologists have found the oldest megalithic site dating to 6000-6500 BC, which served as both a temple and calendar. This site was found by J. McKim Malville of the University of Colorado at Boulder and Fred Wendorf of Southern Methodist University.

As a result, we have in the archaeological literature the name Ounan-Harif point. This name was proposed for the tanged points at Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba .Harifian is a specialized regional cultural development of the Epipalaeolithic of the Negev Desert. Harifian has close connections with the late Mesolithic cultures of Fayyum and the Eastern Deserts of Egypt, whose tool assemblage resembles that of the Harifian.
Narmer was one the first ruler to expand the Kushites into the Levant and Anatolia. Narmer is attested in  Egypt and Canaan. Many serekhs of Narmer have been found Tel Erani, Arad, 'En Besor, Halif Terrace/Nahal Tillah .

We know that Narmer was probably a Kushite because of a Clay bulla (reg. no. G-67.95, Locus 102, B. 1308) from Nahal Tillah. The inscriptions on the  Clay bulla can be read as ḫЗts.t Kush,  ḫ "he who belongs to Kush" or Kushite..

Researchers make it clear that the European Neolithic was began by the Levantines. As noted earlier these early European farmers cultivated millet and herded cattle. It is clear these Neolithic "Europeans" were Africans who took the Nabta Playa cultural traditions into Europe. This is supported by the settlement of people from Nabta Playa who took the Ounan-Harifian cultural traditions into the Levant; and from there into Europe.


Brass, M. (2013). Revisiting a hoary chestnut: the nature of early cattle domestication in North-East Africa. Sahara (Segrate, Italy), 24, 65–70.

Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction at Nahal Tillah, Israel (ca. 4500-3000 B. C. E.): An Interim Report on the 1994-1995 Excavations. Available from: [accessed Dec 26 2017].

Mitchell P., Paul Lane (Ed.),(2013). The Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology. Oxford .

Miller N.F., Robert N Spengler, Michael Frachetti. (2010). Millet cultivation across Eurasia: Origins, spread, and the influence of seasonal climate, The Holocene , Vol. 26 10:1566-1575
Wengrow, D., Dee, M., Foster, S., Stevenson, A., & Ramsey, C. (2014). Cultural convergence in the Neolithic of the Nile Valley: A prehistoric perspective on Egypt's place in Africa. Antiquity, 88(339), 95-111.

Why Researchers found an error in, Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture in Eastern Africa , by M. GALLEGO LLORENTE

SCIENCE : 820-822. This was an important article because it maintained that there was extensive Eurasian admixture in Africa.

Error found in study of first ancient African genome
Finding that much of Africa has Eurasian ancestry was mistaken.

Ewen Callaway
29 January 2016
Article toolsRights & Permissions

Kathryn and John Arthur
This rocky area in Mota cave held bones that yielded the first ancient African genome.
An error has forced researchers to go back on their claim that humans across the whole of Africa carry DNA inherited from Eurasian immigrants.

This week the authors issued a note explaining the mistake in their October 2015 Science paper on the genome of a 4,500-year-old man from Ethiopia1 — the first complete ancient human genome from Africa. The man was named after Mota Cave, where his remains were found.

Although the first humans left Africa some 100,000 years ago, a study published in 2013 found that some came back again around 3,000 years ago; this reverse migration has left its trace in African genomes.

In the Science paper, researchers confirmed this finding. The paper also suggested that populations across the continent still harbour significant ancestry from the Middle Eastern farmers who were behind the back-migration. Populations in East Africa, including Ethiopian highlanders who live near Mota Cave, carried the highest levels of Eurasian ancestry. But the team also found vestiges of the ‘backflow’ migration in West Africans and in a pygmy group in Central Africa, the Mbuti.

Andrea Manica, a population geneticist at the University of Cambridge, UK, who co-led the study, says the team made a mistake in its conclusion that the backflow reached western and central Africa. “The movement 3,000 years ago, or thereabouts, was limited to eastern Africa,” he says.

Incompatible software
Manica says that the error occurred when his team compared genetic variants in the ancient Ethiopian man with those in the reference human genome.Incompatibility between the two software packages used caused some variants that the Ethiopian man shared with Europeans (whose DNA forms a large chunk of the human reference sequence) to be removed from the analysis. This made Mota man seem less closely related to modern European populations than he actually was — and in turn made contemporary African populations appear more closely related to Europeans. The researchers did have a script that they could have run to harmonize the two software packages, says Manica, but someone forgot to run it.

Pontus Skoglund, a population geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, says that he was surprised by the claim that as much as 6–7% of the ancestry of West and Central African groups came from the Eurasian migrants. But after obtaining the Mota man’s genome from Manica’s team, he and his colleague David Reich carried out their own comparison and found no evidence for that conclusion. They informed Manica’s team, who then discovered the processing error.

“Almost all of us agree there was some back-to-Africa gene flow, and it was a pretty big migration into East Africa,” says Skoglund. “But it did not reach West and Central Africa, at least not in a detectable way.” The error also undermines the paper’s original conclusion that many Africans carry Neanderthal DNA (inherited from Eurasians whose ancestors had interbred with the group).

Skoglund praised the paper — “the genome itself is just fantastic,” he says — and the researchers’ willingness to share their data and issue a speedy note about the error: they posted it online on 25 January. When asked to confirm whether and when it would publish the researchers' update, a representative for Science said the journal couldn't yet comment.

Manica is not yet sure if Science will change the title of the paper, ‘Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture throughout the African continent’. But if the team had caught the error earlier, he says, “I’m sure we would have phrased things differently”.


If you read the paper above we learn two things that made it necessary to dispute this paper.

Firstly, this paper made it clear that Mota man's evidence of Eurasian genes was deliberately blocked. As a result, it indicated that Ethiopians were carry Eurasian genes long before their is evidence of of Eurasians migrating into Africa.

Any researcher worth his salt, could flip the script and show that the so-called Eurasian genes found in Mota man prove the African origin of many so-called Middle Eastern caucasian haplogroups.

Secondly, the researchers of MOta man reported that he carried Neanderthal DNA. This finding could not be allowed to stand. Because it confirmed the finding of Prufer 2013 of a relationship between Altaic Neanderthals and Africans. The idea that Mota man was related to the Neanderthals had to be reversed, because this finding disputed the myth that only Eurasians carried Neanderthal genes, and that Eurasians were a unique AMH because Africans did not carry Neanderthal genes.

An exception to this norm are the Khoisan who share a phylogenic relationship with Altai Neanderthals (Prufer, et al, 2013). Many researchers claim that Africans have no relationship to the Neanderthals.But Prufer et al (2013) share more alleles with Altaic Neanderthal than Denisova.

In the Supplemental section of Prufer et al (2013) there is considerable discussion of the relationship between Neanderthal and Khoisan. In relation to the Altaic Neanderthal the non-Africans have a lower divergence rate than Africans between 10-20%. Prufer et al (2013) note little statistical difference between non-African and African divergence.

Researchers have observered a relationship between the Neanderthals, the Khoisan and Yoruba. Prufer et al (2013) detected a relationship between the Neanderthal and Mandekan. It is interesting to note that Yoruba traditions place them in Mande-speaking areas (Prufer et al,2013).

There is interesting information in Figure S7.1. In Figure S7.1 the maximum likelihood tree of bonobo, Denisova and Neanderthal, the closest present-day hmans are Africans, not Europeans. Reading the Tree Chart Graph, the neighbor joining tree of archaic and present day human individuals has the Khoisan following the Denisova.
These points were major reasons why the Mota paper had to be found in error. But the most important reason for the disavowal of the Mota article was the finding that as much as 6–7% of the ancestry of West and Central African groups came from the Eurasian migrants.

This finding had to be eliminated because there is no evidence that Eurasians made their way to West and Central Africa. Since Eurasians were not in West and Central Africa, the so-called Eurasian admixture among these groups reflected the fact that the Eurasian genome, is really West and Central African not Eurasian. 

The discovery of Eurasian "admixture" among West Africans is not a recent discovery. Pickrell et al (2014) found that the Mande people carry 2% Eurasian admixture. This supports the claim of the authors of the Mota article.


If it has been known since 2014 that West Africans were carrying Eurasian admixture the findings of, the authors of the Mota article that as much as 6–7% of the ancestry of West and Central African groups was "Eurasian" was not an error.

But like R1-V88, the "Eurasian" admixture, found among the West Africans in East, Central, West and South Africa is in reality African genomes passed onto the Eurasians when the Kushites migrated into Eurasia after the Great Flood. Other "Eurasian" genomes of African origin were deposited in Eurasia first by the Khoisan and later the Anu (Pygmies) that ruled Eurasia up to the Great Flood.

As you can see from the case of Mota man, analysis of aDNA from Africans can upset the status quo. It destroys the protocols of Structure and Admixture programs that maintain Africans and Eurasians only came in contact after 1492 due to the Atlantic slave trade.


Joseph K. Pickrell, Nick Patterson, Po-Ru Loh, Mark Lipson, Bonnie Berger, Mark Stoneking, Brigitte Pakendorf, and David Reich.(2014). Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa. PNAS 2014 111 (7) 2632-2637.

K. Prufer et al (2014).The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains.  2014 Jan 2;505(7481):43-9. doi: 10.1038/nature12886. Epub 2013 Dec 18.


The Hyksos were Kushites not Asians

Most researchers accept the contemporary meaning of Gardiner's N25 symbol as "Rulers of foreign lands" not Kush”. But this was not the first meaning assigned this sign. Breasted translated N25, as "Negroland".

If Gardiner's N25 symbol meant "Rulers of foreign lands" we would read the Weni inscription as the following “His majesty made war on the Asiatic Sand-dwellers and his majesty made an army of many ten thousands; in the entire South, southward to Elephantine, and northward to Aphroditopolis [Busiris]; in the Northland on both sides entire in the [stronghold], and in the midst of the [strongholds], among the Irthet Rulers of foreign lands , the Mazoi Rulers of foreign lands , the Yam Rulers of foreign lands , among the Wawat Rulers of foreign lands, among the Kau Rulers of foreign lands , and in the land of Temeh.”

Semantically reading N25 as "Rulers of foreign land" is unintelligent, for example “Wawat Rulers of foreign lands” , is incorrect, because Wawat was the name of a nation, not a king. As a result, ḫ3st, was used to identify the nationality of the Wawat, Kau and other Kushite = ḫ3st.

Thusly, the inscription of Weni reads: “His majesty made war on the Asiatic Sand-dwellers and his majesty made an army of many ten thousands; in the entire South, southward to Elephantine, and northward to Aphroditopolis [Busiris]; in the Northland on both sides entire in the [stronghold], and in the midst of the [strongholds], among the Irthet khas [Kusites], the Mazoi khas [Kushites], the Yam khas [Kushites], among the Wawat Khas [Kushites], among the Kau khas [Kushites], and in the land of Temeh.”

Researchers have made it clear that the Hyksos included many different nationalities. The hyksos according to John Bright, "A History of Israel". Westminster John Knox Press ( p.60 ); and Robert Drews, "The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East"( Princeton University Press [p.254] ) included Hurrians/Hattians, in addition to Canaanites. This means that the name Aamw, was a generic name for ‘Asians’, and did not denote a specific Asian tribe.

The Hyksos were called heqa khasut see:The World in Ancient Times: The ancient Egyptian world, by Oup Book. , not Habiru or Shepherd Kings.

The Hyksos ruled from 1650-1550. The New Kingdom lasted from 1549-1292. During the New Kingdom Egyptians used the name Aamw, as a generic name for the Asian, the term : Habiru, was ethnonym for one of the Asian tribes. It is clear that if the Habiru and Heqa Khasut were the same people, they would have had the same name given the fact the New Kingdom, began at the end of the Heqa Khasut Dynasty.

During the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (2563-2423), namely during the reign of Sahure there is mention of the Tehenu people. Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader “Hati Tehenu” . These Hatiu, correspond to the Hatti speaking people of Anatolia. The Hatti/Hurrian people often referred to themselves as Kashkas or Kaskas.

This means that During the Old Kingdom the term heqa khasut, did not mean "ruler(s) of the foreign countries", as assumed by most Egyptologist. The term meaning of heqa khasut, was really "ruler(s) of the Kushites". If heqa khasut, meant "ruler(s) of the foreign countries", it would have been applied to every foreign country, but foreign kings were usually referrewd to as wr ‘King’, instead of heqa which was reserved for Egyptian rulers as noted by Camille DiBiase Dyson in, Foreigners and Egyptians in the Late Egyptian Stories (Boston,2013).

It does not matter if Kamose called the Hyksos Aamw, the Hyksos rulers referred to themselves as Heqa "ruler", i.e. Heqa Khasut, "Ruler of the Khasut/Kushites. In the Egyptian text from Avaris Kings like Apophis, made it clear that they were  ,

Egyptian Khas corresponds to Kashkas or Kaska, the name for the Hattians. The Egyptian term Khasut has three different elements the ethononym Khas: Kas(ka)/Kush. Plus, the /-u/ which and the Egyptian plural marker, while the Egyptian /-t/ was a suffix that signified 'land, people'.

The Old Kingdom rulers of Egypt called the Kushites Heqa Khasut. Since the Hyksos were called Heqa Khasut, instead of Habiru, proves that they were given this title because they were Kushites like the Kushite people living at Kerma in Nubia.

There are Egyptian text where the Hyksos called themselves KhasKushite. The Egyptian textual evidence include The primary evidence includes the Turin Royal Canon where the Hyksos were styled : heqa khasut, the same name they called the other Kushites in Nubia, during the Old Kingdom. During the New Kingdom, the Kushites were still being called Kash, the same name the Hattians called themselves:i.e.Kashka. "Rulers of Kushites.

The first four rulers of the Hyksos called themselves heqa khasut on their seals and a monumental doorjamb from Avaris. This is primary  contemporaneous AEL literature epigraphic documentation evidence indicating that they called themselves Khas.The Hyksos worshiped Ra.

Hyksos Kings were proud of their Kushite origin. in the Hyksos seals, the Kings wrote their names followed by the "Heqa Khasut", i.e. “King of the Kushites”. These sealings are primary  contemporaneous AEL literature documentation ,indicating that the Hyksos used this name to illustrate their Kushite ancestry and relationship to the Nubian Kushites. See; A History of Ancient Egypt by Marc Van De Mieroop.

The meaning of Khas, has to be Kush, because why would Hyksos kings refer to themselves as ‘foreign kings’, when they were native to the land they ruled.

In summary meaning of ḫ3st (Khas) is Kushite). My interpretation of N25 ḫ3st, is supported by the Classical scholars, the inscriptions of Weni and Sahure, and the use of the term ḫ3st, on the Hyksos sealings and inscriptions generally.

Kushite Origin Yamnaya and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer Culture

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:

Listens seriously to the expert. He says that "k have training 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:

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).

As you can see, Jones et al, believed that there was continuity between the populations and this phenomena is exactly what the researchers found.

Jones et al (2015) made several observations, they wrote


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).

Next they noted:

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 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).
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

    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

    child pin,pinu den

    Mother na-a -- na

    lord sa -- sa

    place -ka -ka
The languages have similar syntax Hattic le fil 'his house'; Mande a falu 'his ]father's house'.

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:


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.

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)) .

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:

Listens seriously to the expert. He says that "k have training 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.

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Eurasians did not introduce SLC24A5 into Sub-Saharan Africa

There is a new paper on African skin pigmentation. This paper was published in Science. Below is the abstract.
Nicholas G. Crawford  et al .( 2017). Loci associated with skin pigmentation identified in African populations.


Despite the wide range of skin pigmentation in humans, little is known about its genetic basis in global populations. Examining ethnically diverse African genomes, we identify variants in or near SLC24A5, MFSD12, DDB1, TMEM138, OCA2 and HERC2 that are significantly associated with skin pigmentation. Genetic evidence indicates that the light pigmentation variant at SLC24A5 was introduced into East Africa by gene flow from non-Africans. At all other loci, variants associated with dark pigmentation in Africans are identical by descent in southern Asian and Australo-Melanesian populations. Functional analyses indicate that MFSD12 encodes a lysosomal protein that affects melanogenesis in zebrafish and mice, and that mutations in melanocyte-specific regulatory regions near DDB1/TMEM138 correlate with expression of UV response genes under selection in Eurasians.
Crawford  et al, 2017, claimed the research yielded the following results: 1) “The alleles associated with light pigmentation swept to near fixation outside of Africa due to positive selection, and we show that these lineages coalesce ~60 ka, corresponding with the time of migration of modern humans out of Africa”; and 2) “The most significantly associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms were at SLC24A5, a gene associated with pigmentation in Europeans. We show that SLC24A5 was introduced into East Africa >5 thousand years ago (ka) and has risen to high frequency.”
The results of this research are invalid. First of all, we know that Neanderthal and the first Europeans such as Bana man were dark skinned (Winters,2014).
The archaeological and craniometric evidence indicates that the pre-Indo-European people were probably highly pigmented (Winters,2014). There have been numerous “Negroid skeletons” found in Europe according to Boule and Vallois (1957). Diop (1991) discussed the Negroes of Europe in Civilization or Barbarism (pp. 25-68). Also W.E. B. DuBois, The World and Africa noted that “There was once a an “uninterrupted belt’ of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa” (p. 88).
Boule and Vallois (1957) reported the find of SSA skeletons at, Grotte des Enfants, Chamblandes in Switzerland, several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element.
Since the publication of Verneau’s memoir, discoveries of other Negroid skeletons in Neolithic levels in Illyria and the Balkans have been announced. The prehistoric statues, dating from the Copper Age, from Sultan Selo in Bulgaria are also thought to protray Negroids (Boule & Vallois, 1957).
In 1928 Rene Bailly found in one of the caverns of Moniat, near Dinant in Belgium, a human skeleton of whose age it is difficult to be certain, but seems definitely prehistoric. It is remarkable for its Negroid characters, which give it a resemblance to the skeletons from both Grimaldi and Asselar (Diop, 1991).
The ancestral alleles from La Bana and Luxemburg indicated that they were  dark skinned Europeans (Olalde et al., 2014). This make it clear early Europeans were not pale skinned as Tishkoff et al (2017) alleges. In Addition, Skoglund et al. (2014) investigated the pigmentation of ancient Europeans including skeletal remains from Ajvide 5, La Brana 1, and the Iceman. The analysis by Skoglund et al. (2014)determined that the pigmentation phenotype for these Europeans was dark skin.
The findings of Olalde et al, 2014 and Skoglund et al 2014 that the earliest Europeans were dark skin,  disputes Crawford   et al (2017), suggestion that as early as 60ka , “The alleles associated with light pigmentation swept to near fixation outside of Africa due to positive selection”. This genetic evidence for dark pigmented ancient Europeans was supported by the negro skeletons associated with ancient European sites (Boule & Vallois, 1957).
Crawford    et al (2017) maintains that the SLC24A5 alleles was introduced into East Africa from Europe 5kya. This probably did not happen because there is no archaeological evidence of a back migration of Eurasians in Africa.
Secondly, Crawford   et al (2017) argues that SLC24A5 alleles were deposited in East Africa by Eurasians, but this allele is found among African populations throughout Africa. The pigmentation center is SLC24A5. The ancestral gene for light skin rs1426L54 is “predominante” among sub-Saharan African (SSA) populations (Canfield et al., 2014). The derived allele from this coding polymerphism for light skin is A111T alleles (Canfield et al., 2014). The A111T pigmentation haplotype indicate high frequencies among “light skinned” populations in Europe and East Asia. The existence of the ancestral gene for light skin rs1426L54 , makes it clear Eurasians did not have to introduce  SLC24A5 because Sub-saharan Africans were already carrying the gene.
In conclusion, the findings of Crawford   et al (2017) are not supported either by archaeological or genetic evidence. As a result, this paper is unreliable and invalid..

Boule, M., & Vallois, H. V. (1957). Fossil Man. New York: Dryden Press.
Canfield, V. A., Berg, A., Peckins, S. et al. (2014). Molecular Phylogeography of a Human Autosomal Skin Color Locus under Natural Selection. G3, 3, 2059-2067.
Diop, A. (1991). Civilization or Barbarism. Brooklyn, NY: Lawrence Hill Books.
Olalde, I., Allentoft, M. E., Sanchez-Quinto, F., Santpere, G., Chiang, C. W. K., DeGiorgio, M. et al. (2014). Derived Immune and Ancestral Pigmentation Alleles in a 7,000-Year-Old Mesolithic European. Nature, 507, 225-228.

Winters, C. (2014). Were the First Europeans Pale or Dark Skinned?. Advances in Anthropology, 4, 124-132. doi: 10.4236/aa.2014.43016.