this work would seem a chink in the armor of the "southern wave beach-comber" hypothesis advanced by wells et. al.

The Horn of Africa played a role in the earlier Paleolithic dispersions according to the authors.

The Levant versus the Horn of Africa:
Evidence for Bi-directional Corridors of Human Migrations
American Journal of Human Genetics
74:2004

"A more recent dispersal out of Africa, represented by the E3b-M35 chromosomes, expanded northward during the Mesolithic (Underhill et al. 2001b). The East African origin of this lineage is supported by the much larger variance of the E3b-M35 males in Egypt versus Oman (0.5 versus 0.14; table 3)."

"Since E3b-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages."

Thought Writes:

Remember our debate regarding the Khosianoid origin of Fertile Crescent populations. (Smile).

>> Remember our debate regarding the Khosianoid origin of Fertile Crescent populations. (Smile).

If you want to make an argument, try putting it in words, and not in "(Smile)".

Thought Writes:

Well, lets make it simple. There now exists exidence from four major categories that Africans migrated out of Africa during the early Holocene, giving birth to the agricultural revolution in the so-called "middle-east".

1) Archeaological evidence (see O. bar-Yosef)
2) Genetic evidence, presented here.
3) Linguistic evidence of the Afro-Asiatic language expansion (see C. Ehret for example)
4) And the craniometric evidence (see L. Angel)

I notice that you didn't mention the Out-Of-Africa evidence in your post on this paper.

What do these Africans of the early Holocene have to do with "Khoisanids"? Are you referring to Angel's Bushman-like Basic Whites of the Near East?

I am also refering to the Khosianoid affinities found in Egytpian crani by Pinhasi and Semal in 2000:

J Hum Evol. 2000 Sep;39(3):269-88. Related Articles, Links

The position of the Nazlet Khater specimen among prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations.

Pinhasi R, Semal P.

Department of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ, U.K.

The morphometric affinities of the 33,000 year old skeleton from Nazlet Khater, Upper Egypt are examined using multivariate statistical procedures. In the first part, principal components analysis is performed on a dataset of mandible dimensions of 220 fossils, sub-fossils and modern specimens, ranging in time from the Late Pleistocene to recent and restricted in space to the African continent and Southern Levant. In the second part, mean measurements for various prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations are incorporated in the statistical analysis. Subsequently, differences between male and female means are examined for some of the modern and prehistoric populations. The results indicate a strong association between some of the sub-Saharan Middle Stone Age (MSA) specimens, and the Nazlet Khater mandible. Furthermore, the results suggest that variability between African populations during the Neolithic and Protohistoric periods was more pronounced than the range of variability observed among recent African and Levantine populations. Results also demonstrate a general reduction in the degree of sexual dimorphism during the Holocene. However, this pattern of reduction pattern varies by geographic location and is not uniform across the African continent. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.

Elaborate. The paper you cited deals with a 33,000 year old skeleton which is found to be "not closely related to modern Negro and Khoisan populations." How is that relevant to the problem of Holocene populations of Egypt and the Near East?

Really,

J Hum Evol. 2000 Sep;39(3):269-88

"However, the specimen is clearly closer to the Khoisan populations and differs from those population MAINLY IN SIZE."

"The Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population which is adescendent of a larger sub-Saharan stock, which extended as far north as p[resent day upper Egypt..."

"Under such circumstances, it is possible that the Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population of this proto-Khoisan Negro stock which extended as far north as Nazlet Khater..."

The Prehistory of Egypt
Beatrix Midant-Reynes
Pg. 82

On the Qarunian (Faiyum) Mesolithic Crania

"...being generally more gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern 'negroid' type."

So, I repeat, what does the 33,000 year old skull have to do with Holocene Near Eastern Basic Whites?

I notice you overlooked the "Negroid" remains found in Northern Egypt during the Mesolithic period. Why? There was continuity in NE Africa from the paleolithic period down to the Hyksos invasion which brought the first large scale migration of Eurasians into Africa.

I ignored your dishonest quote about the Qarunian Mesolithic crania which referred to a single 40-year-old woman as per your source.

The bottom line is you have not responded to the post I have made on the four lines of evidence indicating a out-of-africa mesolithic migration to the fertile crescent by groups that had affinities with sub-saharan africans. Let's deal with that. Yes, there was ONE cranial example from the period in northern egypt. Yet, you have produced NO evidence that this region was inhabited by any people other than africans. Is it just mere coincidence that Coon stated:

"...the wide, low vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face."

Of course Coon, being a man of his times (peak period of white supremacy) goes on to state that these Natufians were really white. These "whites" would have rode on the back of the bus during pre-civil rights era Mississippi.

The walls are closing in on your far fetched theories of Paleolithic East African "Whites". Get real!

Of your four lines of evidence, only #4 is relevant to the problem of anthropological affinities of the African migrants, but your source (Angel) clearly states that we are dealing with Bushman-like Basic Whites. A 33,000 skull and a Mesolithic woman bearing "some resemblance" to the 'negroid' type does not do much to advance your view that in the Holocene, the Near East received Negroids. Africans, yes, Negroids, no.

Biological Relations of Egyptians and Eastern Mediterranean Populations during pre-Dynastic and Dynastic Times

J. Lawrence Angel
Journal of Human Evolutiom
1972
1, Pg 307

"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....".

Pleistocene connections between Africa and Southwest Asia: an archaeological perspective
O. Bar-Yosef
African Archaeological Review
5 (1987) Pg 29

"The Mushabians moved into Sinai from the Nile Delta, bringing North African lithic chipping tecniques."

The Levant versus the Horn of Africa:
Evidence for Bi-directional Corridors of Human Migrations
American Journal of Human Genetics
74:2004
"A more recent dispersal out of Africa, represented by the E3b-M35 chromosomes, expanded northward during the Mesolithic (Underhill et al. 2001b). The East African origin of this lineage is supported by the much larger variance of the E3b-M35 males in Egypt versus Oman (0.5 versus 0.14; table 3)."
"Since E3b-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages."

Response to bernal and Snowden
SOY Keita
Arethusa
26 (1993) pg 329

"I was a student of Larry Angel and am in some postion to comment on his views, which I know from conversation, the literature and personal correspondnce."

"Angel also found evidence for a "black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1975 May;42(3):351-69. Related Articles, Links

New studies of post-Pleistocene human skeletal remains from the Rift Valley, Kenya.

Rightmire GP.

Prehistoric human crania from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, Makalia Burial Site, Nakuru, and other localities in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya are reassessed using measurements and a multivariate statistical approach. Materials available for comparison include series of Bushman and Hottentot crania. South and East African Negroes, and Egyptians. Up to 34 cranial measurements taken on these series are utilized to construct three multiple discriminant frameworks, each of which can assign modern individuals to a correct group with considerable accuracy. When the prehistoric crania are classified with the help of these discriminants, results indicate that several of the skulls are best grouped with modern Negroes. This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean" Caucasoids, as has been claimed. Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations.

J. L. Angel, The People of Lerna, p. 101:

"Although the first agricultural inhabitants of the belt from Syria-Israel-Jordan to North Africa were mainly rugged Mediterranean (A3 and some B, in varying preponderance) the eastern end of this belt (McGown, 1939; Vallois, 1936), shows some almost Bushmen-like Basic White (A4b) as well as lateral traits (E1 and C4 [DP: Mixed Alpine and Alpine] as at Jericho."

Hence the first agriculturalists were mainly Mediterranean and Basic White with some Alpine and some "Bushmen-like" [DP: Khoisan] Basic Whites only in the eastern part.

It seems as though you are glossing over Keita's comments. Why? Do you believe you have a better understanding of Angel's views than his own student? You go to great lengths to hang on to a outdated theory, inspite of overwhelming evidence.

>> Do you believe you have a better understanding of Angel's views than his own student?

Angel published his own work and does not need interpreters, especially post-mortem ones published in literature journals.

How very contrived. I have presented substantial evidence from Angel and his student on Angel's, yet you refuse to come out of the Carleton Coon era of physical anthropology. Why, because the truth does not match your desired outcome.

Of course Angel's "Bushman-Like Basic White" needs interpretation. Why do you ignore the clarification he gives in the Journal of Human Evolution:

J. Lawrence Angel
Journal of Human Evolutiom
1972
1, Pg 307

"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....".

Can it be any clearer than that!

I think any objective person redaing this debate can see you are not dealing with this matter objectively.

He is very clear about why they have these traits:

"probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....".

>> I have presented substantial evidence from Angel and his student on Angel's, yet you refuse to come out of the Carleton Coon era of physical anthropology.

Point me where I used "Carleton Coon" in this discussion. It's actually you who cited Coon. Are you having a conversation with yourself?

"Point me where I used "Carleton Coon" in this discussion. It's actually you who cited Coon. Are you having a conversation with yourself?"

The point is not that you used quotes from Carleton Coon, but that you use a similar methodology. You, like Coon do not recognize the natural and logical diversity that exists in Black Africa. You attribute greater diversity to Europeans than to Africans, even though humans have evolved in Africa twice as long as HUMANS have evolved in Europe. You postulate caucasians in East Africa at a time when Europeans still were adapting to a non-tropical environment. There exists no port of entry in NE Africa, as the archeaological, skeletal, genetic and linguistic evidence demonstrates movements OUT of Africa, not INTO Africa proir to the Hyksos period.

"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some looked more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by OBJECTIVE anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China."

The above is from:

African Exodus
Chris Stringer and Robin McKie

It is of interest that these spams have only occured on this link. Is this your way of getting out of the debate? ha, ha...