This is really hard to believe a black skinned people lived in the Caucasus, of course I think there could be some connections between some mysterious ancient sites in the west of Urmia lake and Africa, one of them is the ancient site of Hasanlu in Naqadeh (the name of Naqadeh is also very similar to ancient Naqada in Egypt!), some ancient objects have been found in Hasanlu that archaeologists say they show a connection between this region and Africa, for example a large number of ivories have been found in Hasanlu, it is interesting to read this book: The catalogue of ivories from Hasanlu, Iran By Oscar White Muscarella.

"Syrian elephants" was really a good mention, I didn't know about it but author of the book that I mentioned talks about African origin ivories in Hasanlu, however he says they could be also of Indian origin (page 214), maybe he, like me, didn't know about Syrian elephants!

I don't consider Austerloids to be part of the Black race.  Because DNA says they are very different from Africans even tho they share similar looks.  DNA says they more closer to Asians in the East and South then Africans.  

Originally posted by Cryptic Originally posted by Ince Because DNA says they are very different from Africans even tho they share similar looks.  DNA says they more closer to Asians in the East and South then Africans.     That does not surprise me.  Australoids left Africa in very early times and may have been the first humans to leave Africa.  The other contender for the first out of Africa is the ancient "negrito" race.  To my knowledge, there are only a few thousand Australoids left in Africa.  Most of these people are in Somalia.

Heres more info, they

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C_%28Y-DNA%29

They belong to the Haplogroup C, same as East and South asians

Originally posted by Cryptic Maybe Asians are descended from early Australoid groups.  At the time of the Australoid arrival, Asia was empty.  Africa, in contrast, was probably alreqady populated by Negroids along with far smaller numbers of "Negritos" and Hottenonts (sp) ("Bushmen" or click speakers).

My bet is the Bushmen.  Because they resemble Asians the most.  Also they share in common one weird thing, the Bushmen and Mongoloid kids are born with a birthmark on their backs which are the same.  It is also believed Europeans are also descended of the Bushmen, they found ancient wall paintings in caves in Europe that resemble ancient paintings of bushmen in south africa.   I saw this documantry on the BBC called the "The Incredible Human Journey" I recommend you check it out, it explores alot of the Out of africa theory.  Most likely they have it on youtube. 

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


Edited by Ince - 05-Feb-2010 at 04:56

Originally posted by Cryptic Originally posted by Ince My bet is the Bushmen.  Because they resemble Asians the most.  Also they share in common one weird thing, the Bushmen and Mongoloid kids are born with a birthmark on their backs which are the same.  That make alot of sense.  Australoids seem to have migrated Somalia- Yemen - Sri Lanka / South India and then to the Australian region.  With the the exceptions of the Ainu and the extinct Emeshi, there are no Australoids in the interior of Asia.   Originally posted by Ince   I saw this documantry on the BBC called the "The Incredible Human Journey" I recommend you check it out, it explores alot of the Out of africa theory.  Most likely they have it on youtube.     Thanks for the recomendation.  I am very interested in early human migration. I''ll try to track down a copy at my library. Sadly, my computer is antique and cant handle youtube.   One question....   Any chance of an Into Africa migration (San "Bushmen" descended from Asians and move from Asia to Africa and Europe)?  I cant help but notice that while there are small numbers of "Negritos" and Australoids in Asia, there are no "Bushmen". Originally posted by Ince  It is also believed Europeans are also descended of the Bushmen, they found ancient wall paintings in caves in Europe that resemble ancient paintings of bushmen in south africa. I can see the connection, but I would also like to see San groups in the high mountains of Morrocco and Algeria. Unless..... Berbers are related to San?  Perhaps the migration went South African San - present day Taureg - present day  Berber - present day European?

The only evidence of early Humans were found in ethiopia.  So most of the Evidence points to Out of Africa theory.  

I am not a expert on the field but it is believed that The austerloids and the Negritos, europeans,asians all descended of 1 tribe that left Africa some 100,000-70,000 years ago( http://en.wikivisual.com/images/b/b9/Human_mtDNA_migration.png ). (  Here is a great read that shows DNA evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_%28mtDNA%29 )

They might look different today do the the enviroment.  Again the bushmen are the most likely candidate for that tribe, as they have facial features that resemble Europeans to Asians some even have light skin. 

This is also interesting, if you look at this picture of Aborgines Kids.  One of them has nearly blond hair, which you don't find with mongoloids, mainly with caucasoids.  I my self was blond till I was 7 then my hair went Dark Brown/Black (I am Kurdish/Iranian).






The only back migration theory to africa I heard was the North Africans, they are believed to be caucasoids who traveled to north Africa.  Also Ethiopian are also believed to be early caucasoids migrated to africa who mixed with the natives. 


Edited by Ince - 05-Feb-2010 at 17:08

Good point regarding topicality by Kanas Krumesis.  Follow on discussion regarding Modern Iranian Shahs and their policies moved to:    http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28137    

Edited by Cryptic - 08-Feb-2010 at 13:36

Originally posted by Cryptic The presence of Blonde hair with Australian Aborigines seems to rule out the theory that blonde hair is the result of a rather recent (10,000 years before present?) mutation in what is now Iran.      If Blonde hair originated in Iran, it was probably very common in the region.  My personal theory is that historical Aryans brought Indo-European languages and blonde hair to Northren Europe.  Northren Europe was a very isolated part of the world at that time.  Any blond genes brought there were going to stay for a long time.   Meanwhile, the local population in what is now Iran was not isolated and had trade /  marriage contacts with dark haired peoples.  As a result, blonde hair slowly became less common.     As a side note, I ( European caucasian background) kept my blonde hair until about age 20. It then went to dark brown.

some of you got it wrong.Australoid did not leave africa. africans left africa.there is no Australoids in after and yes they are black but they are another black race.the san are africans,they are the same race has other africans,just a bit of a different look. in fact the othe races come from the san,folks from ethiopia and those from early sudan.
most ethiopians in ethiopia

Somalians are not mixed either.

did not mix with caucasian either.

Africoid peoples
A broad usage of the term, Africoid is used not only to describe peoples of African descent, but is also used to refer to other peoples who also often are also referred to as black, but whom some anthropologists have in the past termed Hamitic, Capoid, Australoid (also known as Veddoid when applied to Southeast Asians), and Sudroids or more inclusively Dravidians, because they exhibit certain craniofacial and other physical characteristics which are not commonly attributed to so-called "Negroid" peoples. Chief among these physical characteristics are limited or nonexistent alveolar prognathism[citation needed], a brachycephalic cranium (in the case of Capoid blacks), or hair which is relatively straight and finer in texture (in the case of, again, some "Caucasoid", Sudroid, Veddoid, and Australoid people). Polynesians  are sometimes considered pseudo-Africoid due to the admixture of Australoid and Mongoloid characteristics. The Africoid concept is expounded upon in the works of Afrocentric scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop,   and Chancellor Williams.  Those such as Keita however, see little value in overextending the term to include relationships among genetically distinct peoples, such as Africans and "Australoids", preferring to use the term in context with biohistorical African populations of recent African extraction.

Users of the term point to Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis    who exhibit phenotypical traits such as orthognathism, non-kinky hair texture,  and keen facial features  seen by some as being exclusive to Caucasoid peoples. They contend such variations are indigenous to these groups and cannot be attributed to invasions from outside Caucasoid peoples as suggested under the Dynastic Race Theory and in more recent biological studies.  Such phenotypical variations, they argue, often occur within nuclear family groups and are inherent to Africoid peoples, much as there are broad variations in physical stature and body proportions between the Pygmies of the Congo, who generally reach a height of 4.5 feet (1.4 m), and of the Dinka or Tutsi of Rwanda, whose average height is 6.5 feet (2.0 m) and who are described as "gracile", or gracefully slender. Similarly, they continue, African peoples commonly considered "Negroid" such as the Senegalese also may lack prognathism.

Critics of race categorization also dispute the notion of Caucasoid admixture in the case of the Wolof and other African peoples, holding that the differences found among the Africoid peoples are simply localized variations that do not rely on any mixture from an assortment of discrete races. Such concepts of admixture they hold, too often rely on stereotypical definitions of a "true negro" type, allowing reclassification of peoples like Somalis, Ethiopians,  etc to a "Caucasoid" grouping or mixed grouping with Caucasoids, sometimes using different labels like "Mediterranean" or "Middle Eastern."  Narrow naso-facial features for example are found among the oldest populations of East Africa, independently of any admixture with Caucasoid or Southwest Asiatic peoples.

They also dispute the notion that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than other tropical Africans. To the contrary, they maintain that the East African peoples are much more related to other African populations than Europeans and Asians, and that supporters of traditional race theories typically use misleading labeling (such as 'Middle Eastern') to classify African DNA data so as to decontextualize it. For example, Ethiopians are very closely related to one of the oldest African populations, the Khosian peoples or Bushmen and cluster likewise with Senegalese on several Y-chromosomal measures.  Chromosomal variants such as haplotype IV for example are found in high frequency in west, central, and sub-equatorial Africa in speakers of Niger-Congo, and to some extent among the Nubians. Another variant, Haplotype XI has its highest frequencies in the Horn and the Nile valley. Other types such as V and XI are found more heavily in Africa and the Nile Valley than among peoples such as Arabs, Turks or others. Haplotypes VII and VIII are most prevalent in the Near East, and XII and XV in Europe.

As regards reliance on the categories of forensic anthropology, they point out that the weight of forensic data shows Africoid peoples cannot be stereotyped as an extreme, or conceived of as mixes between idealized types, but vary widely in physical characteristics. For example:

    Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.

Supporters of the term Africoid claim that there has been bias in previous scholarship on African or Africoid peoples and that this pattern is demonstrative of the need for more accurate terminology in describing African populations. These scholars assert that variations of phenotype found in places like Northeast Africa(horn of african types they mean here) are simply examples of the natural biodiversity of indigenous populations, and that the definition of "African" should not be confined to a region south of the Sahara (Diop, Cheikh Anta, The African Origin of Civilization).   Among the points advanced:


# Bias seems to define Africoids as narrowly as possible while incorporating as much as possible in groupings labeled as Causacoid

# Shifting terminology and labeling of African peoples to downplay their diversity

Africoid as an approach to show population diversity

Modern re-analyses of previous studies shows a clear tendency to sometimes minimize variability within certain northeast African populations. This range of variation is the building block of the concept of Africoid populations, as opposed to their rigid separation into groupings like so-called "Caucasoid" and sub-Saharan Negroes. According to one recent re-evaluation of studies on the ancient Egyptians:


    An overview of the data from the studies suggests that the major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans. The range of indigenous tropical African phenotypes is great; and this range of variation must be considered in any discussion of the Nile Valley peoples. The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to an African descent group which gained some Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time. (Keita, S. O. Y, "A brief review of studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships")
In the classification of so-called "Negroid" peoples, traditional scholarship has established a baseline phenotype for a "true Negro" (generally a sub-Saharan type). Nonconforming characteristics in some Northeast African populations have been cause for incorporation of these peoples into a "Caucasoid" cluster. However, the same selective classification scheme is not applied to groups traditionally categorized as Negroid. Writers such as Carelton Coons report "Mediterranean" remains that seem to have "Negroid" traits, but do not mention the opposite. Nor do such scholars apply the same selective definition approach with populations of the Levant, Maghreb or those farther north. For example, scholars generally have made no similar attempt to define a "true white." [31]  Others surveys of African peoples in the Nile Valley, Sahara and Sudan confirm the cultural, skeletal and material links between them from the earliest times.

 Lumping of Africoid population data under labels such as 'Mediterranean'

Re-analyses of scholarship also show a tendency to sometimes lump certain types of data, such as skeletical remains under broad clusters or categories such as Mediterranean. Numerous studies of Egyptian crania have been undertaken, with many showing a range of types, and workers often describing substantially Negroid remains. Often this type has been lumped into a Caucasoid cluster, typically using the term "Mediterranean." A majority of these studies show the strong influence of Sudanic and Saharan elements in the predynastic populations and yet classification systems often incorporate them into the Mediterranean grouping.

        "Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been “lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers.. The majority of the work describes a Negroid element, especially in the southern population and sometimes as predominating in the predynastic period (Falkenburger, 1947)..

  Use of racial categories in modern DNA studies

Some supporters of the term Africoid point to modern DNA studies (Templeton, Lewotinin, et al.) that show a broad range of physical variation organic to African peoples, maintaining that classifications like Caucasoid, Mediterranean and 'true' sub-Saharan negroes are artificial and stereotypical, and involve presorting ahead of time, rather than letting the DNA data speak for themselves. This broad mix of African genetic variation shown by DNA analysis, it is asserted, calls for inclusive concepts like Africoid to capture the genetic complexity on the ground.

Other DNA studies in turn throw doubt on "classical" racial categories. The nuclear DNA work of researcher Ann Bowcock (1991, 1994) for example, suggests that such primary groupings as Europeans may be flawed, and that such peoples arose as a consequence of admixture between certain already differentiated African and Asian ancestral stocks. Under this approach to the DNA data, Caucasians are thus not a primary grouping as in the classical categories, but a secondary type or race, due to their supposedly hybrid origins.
Anthropologists such as Lieberman and Jackson (1995), also find numerous methodological and conceptual problems with using DNA sequencing and other phylogenetic methods to support concepts of race. They hold for example that: "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model explicitly use racial categories in their initial grouping of samples They suggest that the authors of these studies find support for racial distinctions only because they began assuming the validity of race (Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242)

Whatever the approach used, modern DNA studies have in many ways undermined traditional racial categories in favor of a population variant/gradient or continuum approach. This continuum/gradient approach is embraced by supporters of the term Africoid [39]  as more accurate and realistic than various models that allocate peoples like Ethiopians to "Caucasoid" groupings.

Africoid as a term incorporating Oceanic, Dravidian and Australoid peoples

Some people argue for the primacy of phenotypes in describing a broad cultural-genetic set of black peoples stretching from Africa to Australia to Asia.[40]  Other DNA data however, which details the genetic complexity of peoples, calls into question conceptions of a single, rigid black or "Africoid" type that cuts across broad areas including Asia and Australia. Physically there may be similarities (dark skin or curlier hair for example) but genetically the data are much more complex.

Indeed some supporters of the term Africoid (see Scholarly use  section below) note that DNA and serological (blood)analysis for example, places populations like Australian Aborigines, Dravidians of India and dark-skinned Pacific/Indian Ocean peoples closer to the populations of mainland East Asia than the stereotypical sub-Saharan Negroid phenotype.

Scholarly use of the term Africoid descriptive of local populations

Some mainstream scholars advocate a non-racial terminology more directly based on the local variability of the population data, and its changes over time, holding that this allows for a wide range of types and variation, and that continued use of racial definitions and concepts are problematic:

    "Much of the previous work focused on “racial” analysis. The concept of race is problematic, and (‘racial” terms have been inconsistently defined and used in African historiography as noted recently (MacGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Vercoutter, 1978).. There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual."


most ethiopians and

Somalians 

are not Caucasoid  .there features are native  to africa.




for more info see egyptsearchreloaded.com

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1237609&page=6


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=958


oh and check out skyscrapercity.com



that's all i have to say.i would be coming back to read any more comments. i just want to clear and correct some info here.
thank you.
peace and bye bye.


Edited by kenndo - 20-Oct-2010 at 00:30

Originally posted by Cryptic Originally posted by Ince My bet is the Bushmen.  Because they resemble Asians the most.  Also they share in common one weird thing, the Bushmen and Mongoloid kids are born with a birthmark on their backs which are the same.  That make alot of sense.  Australoids seem to have migrated Somalia- Yemen - Sri Lanka / South India and then to the Australian region.  With the the exceptions of the Ainu and the extinct Emeshi, there are no Australoids in the interior of Asia.   Originally posted by Ince   I saw this documantry on the BBC called the "The Incredible Human Journey" I recommend you check it out, it explores alot of the Out of africa theory.  Most likely they have it on youtube.     Thanks for the recomendation.  I am very interested in early human migration. I''ll try to track down a copy at my library. Sadly, my computer is antique and cant handle youtube.   One question....   Any chance of an Into Africa migration (San "Bushmen" descended from Asians and move from Asia to Africa and Europe)?  I cant help but notice that while there are small numbers of "Negritos" and Australoids in Asia, there are no "Bushmen". Originally posted by Ince  It is also believed Europeans are also descended of the Bushmen, they found ancient wall paintings in caves in Europe that resemble ancient paintings of bushmen in south africa. I can see the connection, but I would also like to see San groups in the high mountains of Morrocco and Algeria. Unless..... Berbers are related to San?  Perhaps the migration went South African San - present day Taureg - present day  Berber - present day European?