Apparently ancient Egyptians appreciated a "generous" female derriere...

The old school liked what it saw- voluptuous one....
Below is an ancient Egyptian poem, citing admiration for "generous" and alluring female curves. The steagpypic figurines below are from the ancient Badarians, a key people that laid the foundation for the dynastic civilization. Anthropological analyses of crania and limb data cluster them more with African popuations further south, than Europeans or Middle Easterners.

Source: Ancient Egyptian Literature—A Book of Readings, Volume II: The New Kingdom, translated by Miriam Lichtheim. The University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1976. pages 182-193.


'Sister Without Peer'


Look, she is like a star goddess arising
at the beginning of a happy new year;
brilliantly shining, bright skin;
with beautiful eyes for looking,
with sweet lips for speaking;
she has not one phrase too many.
With a long neck and shining breast,
her hair of genuine lapis lazuli;
her arm more brilliant than gold;
her fingers like lotus flowers,
with heavy buttocks and girt waist.


Her legs parade her beauty;
With graceful step she treads the ground,
Captures my heart by her movements.
She causes all men's necks
To turn about to see her;

Joy has he whom she embraces,
He is like the first of men!
When she steps outside she seems
Like that the Sun!


'How well She Knows to Cast the Noose'

How well she knows to cast the noose,
And yet not pay the cattle tax!
She casts the noose on me with her hair,
She captures me with her eye;
She curbs me with her necklace,
She brands me with her seal ring.
She smites me when she shakes her buttocks.

  ------------------------------------------------- -----------------------

  WHO WERE THE BADARIANS?  - LOOKING BACK AT THE ANCIENTS....  

The ancient Badarians were quite representative of ancient Egyptians as a whole and showed clear links with tropical Africans to the south. They have been sometimes excluded in studies of the ancient Egyptian population, which shows continuity in its history, not mass influxes of foreigners until the late periods.  Data from modern scholars- quote:

Drag mouse across picture for a larger view..


  "As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or \Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5).

Finally, the biological distinctiveness of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7). These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a \Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment.

--(Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)

and

"An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4).. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series."

--(S.O.Y. Keita. Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data. JoBlSt, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)

------------------------------- --------------------  

Um, 'generous proportions' do not depend on agriculture. Foragers can do quite well, as shown in Africa's ancient Nile Valley...    

  Drag mouse across picture for a more 'generous' view..

--

--

Playing the "Greek defence" - a review of Thornton

Overall the author's strong defense makes a valuable

counter to EXTREME anti-Greek positions, but in

turn he overstates his case, almost blowing the Greeks

up into virtual supermen who invented critical

thinking or "consciousness". On these counts, the

flattering pro-Greek picture in not as it seems.

March 10, 2005

Defending the Greeks, by Bruce S. Thornton
http://victorhanson.com/articles/thornton031005.html


Thornton:

[b]Thus, while all ancient societies kept slaves and viewed slavery as a natural, unexceptional practice, only the Greeks made slavery an object of thought. This thinking could lead to a theoretical justification of slavery, as in Aristotle's view of the "natural" slave, the person who by a deficiency of rational self-control could be justly owned and controlled by another. But thinking critically about slavery could also lead to questioning the justice of such an institution, as the early 4th century BC rhetorician Alcidamas did when he said, "The god gave freedom to all men, and nature created no one a slave." [/b]

All well and good, but if there was all this so-called
“critical thinking” about slavery, it did not lead the Greeks
to abolish slavery. To the contrary, they embraced slavery
and even the mighty Spartans kept the bulk of their population
the helots, in semi-slavery. The author is overstating his case.

He says: [i]“all ancient societies kept slaves and viewed slavery
as a natural, unexceptional practice..” [/i] Sure, but so did the Greeks. An obscure rhetorician saying men should be free means little. What counts is actual practice on the ground. In this, the Greeks are nothing special. They embraced slavery, and the domination of others. Trying to make them out as ancient “abolitionists” by insinuation is a dubious exercise.


Thornton:
[b]Or consider war. All ancient peoples made war on their neighbors, competing violently for territory and wealth and honor. So too the Greeks. But to an extent unthinkable for any other ancient people, they thought and wrote about war analytically, so to speak, pondering its meaning and consequences, its complexities and horrors. Nowhere else in the ancient world can one find a work of literature like Aeschylus's Persians, about the Battle of Salamis in 480 BC, when the mighty Persian invading armada was destroyed by the coalition of Greek city-states. Although performed a mere eight years later in the very city, Athens, burned by the invaders, in front of an audience of veterans and those who had lost friends and family, the play sympathetically depicts the effects of the defeat on the Persians.[/b]


Again, the case is overstated. The Greeks thought and wrote about war “analytically” but so did numerous other peoples, like the Chinese Sun Tsu, or the Byzantine generals in their military treatises. The author is creating a false Eurocentric standard- that in essence insinuates- if other peoples did not frame their writings
like the Greeks, then they were not really engaging in “critical thought” or “critical thinking.


Thornton:
[b]Not only could the Greeks be generous to an enemy, but they could examine critically their own wartime behavior. During the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, Euripides produced plays that sympathetically portrayed the disastrous effects of Athenian policies, and laid bare the suffering, moral corruption, and dehumanizing passions unleashed by war. A mere nine months after the Athenians massacred the males of the Greek island Melos and enslaved the women and children, Euripides staged The Trojan Women (415 BC). In that play he used the brutal aftermath of the mythic Trojan War and the suffering of the surviving women to comment on recent Athenian behavior[/b]

^Greek practice here is nothing special. How is this any different fundamentally from Chinese texts critically examining wartime behavior, or bewailing the disasters wrought by Mongol or other “Barbarian” invasions? How is it fundamentally different from the themes on war seen in Ancient Egyptian literature or the numerous stories, dialogs, themes and discourses, etc seen therein? They covered irony, lament, and a host of otther thing, as well as all the classic questions of life and death in religious writings.  Again, the Greeks are nothing special fundamentally on these matters.

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


Thornton:
[b]The princess Cassandra movingly describes this price of war—the sons never returning home, the children left orphaned, the wives bereft of protection and support—and with bitter irony finishes, "For such success as this congratulate the Greeks." How could any Athenian in the audience not think of the Melian wives and children they had sold into slavery less than a year earlier?[/b]

If the Greeks were so concerned about slavery, why did they continue slavery unabated throughout their “golden age”? In fact as one historian notes- the Greeks more than liked slavery particularly if OTHER people could be enslaved. Far from being proto “abolitionists” the Greeks had a clear sense of ethnic superiority that explicitly justified the enslavement of other peoples. Quote:

[i]"there was a widespread belief, probably originating in
the years following the defeat of the Persian expeditionary
force in the years 280-479 that Asiatic races in particularly
(but also more northerly peoples like the Thracians and the
Scythians) were intellectually and morally inferior to Greeks
and ideally suited to slavery." [/i]
-- J. Dillon 2004. Morality and custom in ancient Greece


According to passages within the Hippocratic treatise, (
Air, Water, Places, a Greek 5th century work:

[i]”The small variations of climate to which the Asiatics are subject, extremes both of heart and cold being avoided, account for mental flabbiness and cowardice as well. They are less warlike than and tamer of spirit, for they are not subject to those physical changes and the mental stimulation which sharpens, tempers and induces recklessness.. Instead they live under unvarying conditions." [/i]
-- Dillon 2004).


Such a statement is similar to the racist statements by not only 18, or 19th century Aryanists, but 20th /21st century ones as well including numerous "biodiversity" racists like JP Rushton. Critics of the Greeks who accuse them of setting the stage for Western racism can thus point to some strands of Greek thought and writing in partial support of this thesis. The author conveniently avoids this less than flattering information about the Greeks.



[b]These generous and self-critical attitudes—unprecedented in the ancient world—are a dividend of critical consciousness, the ability to step back from the passions and prejudices of the moment and look at events from a larger perspective that illuminates the common human condition, the way even an enemy suffers and grieves just as we do.[/b]


Again, dubious if based on cherry-picked quotes from ancient writings. Other quotes show the Greeks didn’t care much about others suffering and indeed welcomed the opportunity to enslave them.

Indeed as historians show- the Greek attitude towards slaves as shown in their theatrical productions were callous and unsympathetic, a far cry from the “proto-abolitionism” the author seems to insinuate: - quote:

[i]” "What is more relevant to our present purpose though,
is the remarkable callousness, from our point of view, which
characterizes the portrayal of slave existence and the slave
mentality in Greek comedy." [/i]
--Dillon 2004



[b]As the Greek examination of war and slavery shows, critical consciousness can lead to the improvement and reform of human institutions and behavior, for once the mind is liberated from the authority of tradition or the supernatural, it can criticize the ways things are done and consider alternatives.[/b]

^^Again dubious. Why didn’t this so called “critical
consciousness” lead to abolition of slavery, why did the
Spartan helots remain in miserable conditions, and why
don’t we hear about how much better enslaved people were
doing in Greece, versus eras supposedly lacking this “enlightened”
“critical consciousness”?



[b]In addition, the evidence of experience can then take on a greater importance, trumping the petrified dogmas sanctioned by mere authority or even sheer mental inertia, and so foster a scientific rather than a supernatural view of nature. [/b]

Again overstated. SOME Greek philosophers examined
modes of rational expression, for which they deserve credit.
Most however still cleaved to superstitions about gods,
goddesses, and other mythic elements. Even the so-called
"rationalists" sometimes mixed and matched both at the same time.


Thornton:
[b]This novel way of looking at the world, however, was creative of new improvements as well as being destructive of the old ways. The most obvious example of the improving power of critical consciousness when systematized into a science can be found in ancient Greek medicine. Numerous medical writings from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia do survive, but their detailed observations are subordinated to irrational superstition: they are, as historian of medicine Roy Porter puts it, "sorcery systematized," for all disease is thought to be caused by demons. The Greek medical writers, on the other hand, for the most part ignored supernatural explanations and focused instead on their own observations and the consistent patterns of nature. That's why our word "physician" derives from the Greek word for nature, phusis. The following statement, from a Hippocratic work called On the Sacred Disease, a treatise on epilepsy, is unique in the ancient world outside Greece. "It [epilepsy] is not," the author says, "in my opinion, any more divine or more sacred than other diseases, but has a natural cause, and its supposed divine origin is due to men's inexperience, and to their wonder at its peculiar character."[/b]

Actually the Greek defense is not telling readers the whole story here. Greek “rationality” is again overblown. Let’s consider their record as far as the medicinal arts according to another historian:

Quote:

[i]"Drugs were applied not because of a belief that they had natural healing properties, but following the tenets of primitive medicine, because they had magical powers. he Greek word pharmakon, usually translated as "drug: originally designated a substance with magic powers. These powers, however, did not need to be therapeutic, (a pharmakon could be a poison or could turn humans into animals) but were originally considered to me magic..

Supernaturalistic medicine is characterized by a multiplicity of powers that can heal and kill. Primitive Greek medicine was no exception and many Greek gods had healing functions: Apollo, the first deity invoked in the Hippocratic oath; Vulcan, worshipped in Lemnos, gave his healing powers to terra lemmnia, Juno, Jupiter's wife assisted women in childbirth.. In addition some of the gods could cause sudden death: for example, both Apollo and Diana could shoot lethal darts at humans.." [/i]
(--A history of medicine by Plinio Priorescho 2004)


[b]Critical consciousness defines the Greek achievement, and its most obvious manifestation is that uniquely Greek invention, philosophy, which can be defined as critical consciousness systematized. [/b]

^Dubious, for the reasons given above. One can make a case for unique Greek articulation of some things, but in terms of GREEK ARTICULATION. The Greeks invented THEIR own way of analyzing the issues. But “critical consciousness”, in a universal sense, is old news in other cultures. It was not “invented” by the Greeks.

Thornton:
[b]Of all the Greek philosophers, the spirit of critical consciousness is best embodied in the late 5th century BC philosopher Socrates, Plato's mentor, who was executed by Athens in 399 BC. Socrates's famous method was the "dialectic," from the Greek word that suggests both "discussion" and "analytical sorting." [/b]

^Fine. Socrates used a dialectical format. But his particular format does not fundamentally constitute or embody “critical consciousness” in humans, nor is it necessarily the "best."


Thornton:
[b] Most important, Socrates saw this activity of rational examination and pursuit of truth and virtue as the essence of what a human being is and the highest expression of human nature. That is why he chose to die rather than to give it up: "The unexamined life," he said in his defense speech, "is no life worth living for a human being."[/b]

^^Fine, and Socrates deserves credit for his insights. But when the author leaps to make a blanket claim that this represents some paragon of “critical consciousness” in humanity, then it is dubiously overblown. Socrates also hewed to several old beliefs about the gods too, and superstitious Greek religion that he did not cast off. He may have examined them, but he still cleaved to “superstitious” elements.

Thornton:
[b]The invention of philosophy formalized the Greek habit of critical consciousness. Such an achievement is remarkable enough. Yet true to their drive to question and criticize everything, the Greeks turned critical consciousness not just on nature and other peoples, but, as we've already seen in their willingness to scrutinize their own beliefs about slavery or their behavior in war, they criticized their own culture and even rationalism itself. [/b]

^^All well and good, but as shown above, such self-criticism is nothing new among Chinese, Egyptians, etc. And the Greeks did not "invent" philosophy. Such a claim is itself an invention of Western academics and writers.

One cardinal weakness of such claims is to confuse a particular Western version, "spin" or "take" on some universal process as if that were the fundamental process itself. The classic example is the inflated claim
sometimes seen in popular culture or the academy that "reason" was "invented" by "the West." One need only look at the end of the movie "300" which advances the laughable notion of Greek "rationality" versus Persian "superstition", as if somehow the Persians lacked rational thought. At the end of the movie, the noble Greeks charge forth in the name of "rationality" and "freedom" against "superstition" and "tyranny."

However, as the historical record shows, the Greeks themselves were highly "superstitious" - including people like Aristotle and Socrates who believed in mysterious "gods" and enjoyed inflicting plenty of tyranny both at home and abroad. A second weaknesses is the practice of "back-pacing" - reading into ancient Greece for example, things that are not significantly there as a way of demonstrating the ancient roots of some modern theme or agenda.

Thornton:
[b]This impulse to self-examination, however, can perhaps best be illustrated by the critical questions raised about two of the Greeks' most important inventions, rationalism and democratic freedom.[/b]

Dubious. The Greeks did not invent “Rationalism” nor did they invent democratic freedom. In Greece, the bulk of the population had no democratic freedom. Only a few did. They may have been defined as “citizens” but outside the “citizens” a bigger group of slaves and serfs without democratic rights toiled away. The Spartan helots and assorted slaves experienced very little so-called “democracy.”

And “Democracy” in terms of freely elected representatives of a defined polity is seen among various African tribes, before the coming of European colonialism. The Galla of East Africa for example, with their “gada” system, freely elected leaders based on age grades, producing a republican system of orderly rotating government and functioning, based on free elections and defined rights and responsibilities. Some may say the gada was tribally bound, but so was Greek "democracy." The "democracy" of Sparta for example did not extend to the bulk of the population, the helots. Of the vaunted Athenians, only about 10% of the population were eligible for any democratic privileges.

In nearby Rome, members of the Senate came from connected wealthy and noble families- they were rooted in the particular tribal customs or emphases of Roman culture. In short, ancient "democracy" was closely linked with the particular tribal background culture of its practitioners. Furthermore as in the gada, age and gender were also controlling factors on that "democracy."

And any notion of Greek democracy raises the question- "which Greek 'democracy' and why would said 'democracy' be considered the exemplar of what is defined as "Greek"? Sparta is one of the key polities of Greece. Is its "democracy" which was a system of domination of the majority of the population in semi-slavery the "correct" version of "democracy"? Why are virtuous Athenians the point of comparison, rather than the whole Greek picture? And in any event- as we see below iwith the Delian league, the virtuous Athenians were not all that virtuous when the bigger picture is scrutinized.

This is one of the key weaknesses of writers like Thornton and others pushing a "Western" model as some sort of paragon. As Kenneth Pomeranz notes in TheGreat Divergence (2000), a typical dodge is to compare modern Britain (the most developed part of Europe) at its height to say ALL of vast China, so as to make for an unfavorable comparison, when a more balanced procedure is to compare apples to apples- the most developed parts of China (like the Yangtze Valley) to Britain, at various development points in time. Then the comparison looks a lot different and often not in Britain's favor.
Defining “rationalism” in terms of what the Greeks did or the particular label claimed or made by Western academics of culture makers is attempting to impose a European vise on the concept. [i]Only we get to make the definitions, we get to set the parameters, and only we get to spin the results. [/i]  Sorry. It no longer works that way.

Thornton:
[b]At the moment in the mid-5th century BC when philosophy was being born and formalizing the rational pursuit of knowledge, the tragic poets were questioning the power of reason to acquire significant knowledge about the human condition. [/b]

Insight and writing on the human condition is an old theme and old news among other peoples, besides Greeks. They deserve credit for their own unique articulation of various concepts but other ancient peoples from Egypt, to Mesopotamia, to China had to lack of "philosophy" and other things.

Greeks borrowed heavily from their neighbors, a point often downplayed by exercises in glamorization. As some scholars note as to some Greek technology for example:

"These technical treatises exhibit one remarkable characteristic: they include little or nothing concerning the most vital basic techniqies- nothing about roofing, pottery, textiles, or agricultural work. The texts frequently describe apparatuses withut any practical, everyday use: automata for theater, complex toys, gear systems that are probably unworkable and entirely theoretical, distorting mirrors for the amusement of pricesses, stills for a chimerial transmutation of metals. The only apparatuses of any real importance in these texts are war machines: assault engines, tortoise-shell shields, watchtowers, mines and capatults."

--From: The Greek pursuit of knowledge. 2003 - Page 40

"Yet it remained true that Greek technology, however you measure its achievement, never explored and applied more than a small fraction of what Greek science might have made possible. It did not run machines, relieve labor of its burdens, increase man's productive capacity greatly, build a powerful industrial civilization. Why.. the heart of the matter is less in the failure of science to develop fully than in its failure to make the transition to technology. The thinking of the Greeks was done by free men and citizens; the work was done by foreigners and slaves.."
...Science, technology, and society 1997

Thornton:
[b]Critical consciousness is the precious legacy the West received from the Greeks, a way of looking at the world that generates the cultural, intellectual, and political ideas--free speech, rationalism, consensual government, individualism, human rights--we all cherish today.[/b]

Again overstated, and notice how this picture flows with sweetness and light, and all good things, courtesy of the Greeks. The record of history however gives an additional side. Racism, ethnocentrism, brutal military conquest, etc can also be said to be a legacy of the Greeks, if one is willing to go to the opposite end of the spectrum and interpret Greek writings and practice from that negative end. But it does not take modern criticism to establish this. Ancient people who lived in the time of Athens testify to a much less flattering picture. The touted Athenian democracy for example engaged in a ruthless imperialism- exploting several subject polities for the benefit of Athenian hegemons. As some scholars note:

"The Athenians, seeing no contradiction between imperialism and democracy, also manipulated the league for their own economic advantage. They believed that their freedom and prosperity required subduing, exploiting, and enslaving others, and they adhered to the princile that strong states had a natural right to dominate weaker ones. They relished the empire that gave them wealth, power and glory. Moreover, the Athenians claimed that other city-states benefited from Athenian hegemony. Athens forbade member states to withdraw [from the Delian League], crushed revolts, and stationed garrisons on the territory of  confederate states. It used both tribute from members and the league's treasury to finance public works in Athens.. As the Persian theat subsided, hatred for Athenian imperialism grew. In converting the Delian League into an instrument of Athenian imperialism, Athens may have lost an opportunity to perform a great 
creative act- forming a broad voluntary confederation that might have forestalled the intercity warfare that gravely weakened Hellenic civilization."

--Perry et al. 2009. Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society. p. 61

It is quite convenient to see only nice things as the legacy of the Greeks. What else could be expected from someone offering a Greek defence? All the nice things above are arguably PARTIALLY a legacy of the Greeks. But there are other important items in the picture, besides the hagiography above. One large portion missing is the influence of the Near Eastern strands, and Judaism and later on Christianity that played a key role in human rights, consensual government, etc. All the nice things mentioned above did not lead to the Greeks abolishing slavery for example, or extending the democratic ballot to serfs, slaves and all residents of their territories, nor did they prevent ruthless exploitation of others.

The central failing of the author's piece is glamorization of certain things Greek, and attempting to define things like “critical consciousness” according to a self-serving, flattering standard, that while fine in terms
of Greek ARTICULATION, do not necessarily apply to or represent other parts of humanity. Do some critics of the Greeks overstate their case, boiling down the details to simplistic screeds of “isms”? Of course, and they deserve correction. But let us not go to the other extreme of self-serving Greek glamorization.

I have no problem with the author pointing out various unique elements of the Greeks, as inherited and applied by other Western nations. It is clear that the Greeks, like others, have made their own unique
contribution to the world's culture. But the notion that the Greeks created "critical consciousness" (among
other things) is seriously open to question.

Italian DNA profiles- some small African elements detected

EXCERPT:
Uniparental Markers of Contemporary Italian Population: Reveals Details on Its Pre-Roman Heritage Brisighelli1, et al 2012.  PLoS ONE 7(12)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brisighelli F, Álvarez-Iglesias V, Fondevila M, Blanco-Verea A, Carracedo Á, et al. (2012) Uniparental Markers of Contemporary Italian Population Reveals Details on Its Pre-Roman Heritage. PLoS ONE 7(12)

-------------------------------------------------

Italy has historically been a convenient destination for human populations migrating from Africa, the Middle East and European locations, in part due to the geomorphological characteristics of the Italian Peninsula [1].

Sardinia, Sicily and Tuscany were among the first Italian territories to be occupied by humans due to their strategic location and the presence in their territories of important metal resources [5].

The record of all the populations that inhabited the Italian territory during (pre)-history is incomplete; many records were of uncertain location and/or ambiguous denomination [6].

At the time of the Roman Empire, at least two non-Indo- European populations still inhabited Italy, namely, the Ligures, in the northwestern area, and the Etruscans with settlements located in areas far from the Etruria (Tuscany and High Latium), such as the Po Plain and the coast of Campania. At the same time, Sardinia experienced the flourishing of a non-Indo-European Nuragic civilization and, then, the Phoenician colonization.

Materials and Methods

Samples

A total of individuals were sampled from along the Italian Peninsulapresenting 12 different populations (Figure 1), of them (Ladin and Grecani Salentini) being linguistic isolatesd the Lucera being a historical enclave of Arabs/Berbers coming from North Africa. A brief description of these latter three populations is given .


Phylogeography

The mtDNA haplogroup make-up of Italy as observed in our samples fits well with expectations in a typical European population. Thus, most of the Italian mtDNAs (,89%) could be attributed to European/African groups H (,40%), I (Ethiopian)(,3%), J (near East)(,9%), T(European) (,11%), U (European/African)(,20%; U minus U6), V(European) (,3%), X (African)(,2%) and W(Asian) (,1%); Figure 1. There are however important differences in haplogroup frequencies when examining them by main geographical

Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes of other African origin are mainly represented by haplogroups M1 (0.3%), U6 (0.8%) and L (1.2%); from here onwards, L will be used to refer to all mtDNA lineages, excluding the non-African branches N and M [60,61].

A total of 282 Y-chromosomes were analyzed for a set of Y-SNPs and were classified into 22 different haplogroups (Figure 3). Two haplogroups were not found, even though markers defining these clades were tested: N3 and R1a1. Five haplogroups represented 76.71% of the total chromosomes: R1b3, J2(near East), I(xI1b2), E3b1 and G. The frequencies averaged across populations were 26%, 21.2%, 10.2%, 9.9% and 9.2%, respectively. The remaining haplogroups sum to 23.2% in the total sample, and never above 4% in single population samples. 21.2%, 9.9% and 9.2%.(so `42% is either near East or African)


Autosomal ancestry in Italy

A panel of 52 AIMs was genotyped in 435 Italian individuals in order to estimate the proportion of ancestry from a three-way differentiation: sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and Asia. Structure analyses allowed us to infer membership proportions in population samples, and these proportions can be graphically displayed, as in Figure 2. This analysis indicated that Italians have a basal proportion of sub-Saharan ancestry that is higher (9.2%, on average) than other central or northern European populations (1.5%, on average). The amount of African ancestry in Italians is however more comparable to (but slightly higher than) the average in other Mediterranean countries (7.1%). Figure 2 shows in a triangle plot the relationships of Italians compared to other European, African and Asian populations

The North African historical legacy in South Italy

There are two mtDNA haplogroups, namely U6 and M1 that can be considered to be of North African origin and could therefore be used to signal the documented historical input of this African region into Lucera. In our full set of samples, we observed five U6 haplotypes belonging to sub-haplogroups U6a, U6a2, and U6a4. Only one of these haplotypes was observed in Lucera. However, the other three U6 haplotypes were observed in the vicinity of the population of South Apulia, and another at the tip of the Peninsula (Calabria). Regarding M1 haplotypes, we observed only two carriers in our samples sharing the same HVS-I haplotype; both were found in Trapani (West Sicily). Therefore, while South Italy shows evidence of having female introgression from North Africa, this African influence seems not to be particularly centered in the Lucera.

The sub-clade E3b1 (originating in eastern Africa) has a wide distribution in sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and Europe. This haplogroup reaches a frequency of 8% in the North and Center and slightly higher in the South of Italy, 11% (Figure 1). It has also been argued that the European distribution of E3b1 is compatible with the Neolithic demic diffusion of agriculture [15]; thus, two sub-clades, E3b1a- M78 and E3b1c- M123 present a higher occurrence in Anatolia, the Balkans and the Italian peninsula. Another sub-clade, E3b1b-M81 is associated ith the Berber populations and is commonly found in regions that have had historical gene flow FROM Northern Africa, such as the Iberian peninsula [74,75]–[76–78], including the Canary Islands [75], and Sicily [70,79]; the absence of microsatellite variation suggests a very recent arrival from North Africa [80]. If we assume that all E3b1 represents the only Y-chromosome continental African contribution to Italy and L and U6 lineages the continental African mtDNA component, the African component in Italy is higher for the Y-chromosome (8–11%) than for mtDNA (1–2%).

The origin of sub-Saharan African mtDNAs in Europe (including Italian samples) has been recently investigated by Cerezo et al. [81]; the results indicate that a significant proportion of these lineages could have arrived in Italy more than 10,000 years ago; therefore, their presence in Europe does not necessarily date to the time of the Roman Empire, the Atlantic slave trade or to modern migration. In addition, the Northern African influence in the Italian Peninsula is evidenced by the presence of Northern African Y chromosome haplogroups (E1-M78) in three geographically close samples across the southern Apennine mountains: East Campania

Finally, in agreement with uniparental markers, analysis of AIMs/SNPs as carried out in the present study indicated that Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component that is, however, slightly higher than non-Mediterranean Europe. This agrees with the recent findings of Cerezo et al. [82] based on the analysis of entire mtDNA genomes pointing to the arrival in ancient and historical times of sub-Saharan African people to the Mediterranean Europe, followed by admixture. THE PRESENT STUDY REPRESENTS THE LARGEST META-ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT TO DATE FOR THE ITALIAN PENINSULA.(DEC2012)

It is difficult to infer what proportion of these differences can be attributed not only exclusively to gender demographic differences, but also to the fact that both markers were analyzed to different levels of molecular resolution. Italy shows clines of variation attributable to the demographic movements of the first Paleolithic settlements, posteriorly modeled by the Mesolithic and, to a lesser.

New CAT Scan data sheds light on death of Egyptian pharaoh Rameses III and his sub-Saharan African DNA profile

 No more cruises on the royal barge..

 From NY Times, December 18, 2012


The pharaoh Ramses III, who ruled Egypt in the 12th century B.C., had a scheming wife who was intent on murdering him to bring their son to the throne. The plot is documented in an ancient papyrus, but the exact circumstances of Ramses’ death have been unclear. Now, researchers have used CT scans of the pharaoh’s mummy to reveal that his throat was slit. “The big cut is in his throat and it was very deep and large,” said Albert Zink, an anthropologist at the European Academy, who was involved in the research. “It would have killed him immediately.” Dr. Zink, along with colleagues from Egypt, Italy and Germany, publish their findings about Ramses (sometimes spelled Ramesses) in the British medical journal BMJ.

NYTimes report:  
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/science/ramses-iii-had-his-throat-slashed-new-study-suggests.html?_r=0

The Report in the British Medical Journal also shows Rameses' genetic profile included Haplogroup E1b1a, a sub-Saharan African DNA haplogroup.
QUOTE:


"Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1?); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a. The testing of polymorphic autosomal microsatellite loci provided similar results in at least one allele of each marker (table 2?)."

--Hawass et al 2012. Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III. British Medical Journal, BMJ2012;345:e8268

and

Haplogroup E1b1a (now known as E-M2) is an African DNA group, most commonly found in sub-Saharan Africa-- QUOTE:

"Haplogroup E1b1 now contains two basal branches, E-V38 (E1b1a) and E-M215 (E1b1b), with V38/V100 joining the two previously separated lineages E-M2 (former E1b1a) and E-M329 (former E1b1c). Each of these two lineages has a peculiar geographic distribution. E-M2 is the most common haplogroup in sub-Saharan Africa, with frequency peaks in western (about 80%) and central Africa (about 60%)."

--Trombetta et al 2011. A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) PLoS ONE 6(1): e16073.

Skeletal analyses show that several pharaohs had tropical African affinities, long before the 25th Dynasty. Rameses' "profile on the Nile" is unsurprising. Note scientific studies below:

Race debunked 1- Sarich and Miele debunked- excerpt

Review of Alondra Oubre's review of Sarich and Miele claims about "racial reality."

Oubre raises three good points: (a) the way Sarich and Miele duck or avoid data that contradicts their thesis, (b) their labeling of geographical groups "races" when in fact there is much more variation within said groups than between major continental bodies, (c) shaky claims about "evolutionary based race behavior" that conveniently skips over many relevant environmental influences and (d) weaknesses in the notion of "natural selection" as the main driver of life-histories, when in fact genetic drift may play an equal or greater role.

Oubre is not alone in the tendency of some race scholars to try to squeeze many things into an adaptationist pigeonhole. I mean if a black guy rudely cuts you off in traffic, is that because evolution "selected" for rude black people circa 60,000 years ago, via "disproportionate" levels of testosterone, "selected" for by "evolution" before the last ice age? This is what the ludricrous logic used by some race-mongers seen on the web boils down to. Predictably, said race mongers do not attribute things like the mass murder of the Holocaust to "selection" for violence in the "evolution" of "lower" testosterone white people. You see, the negative "selection science" too often conveniently only runs one way -- where black bogeymen, strawmen and scapegoats can be invidiously contrasted with reputed "role models" of paler perfection. The reality of history however is a lot less flattering for self-styled "role models."  As one conservative researcher on Europe says about obsessions with "selecting" for this and "selecting" for that in general scholarship, the literature is filled with "just-so stories": QUOTE:

"Organisms have often been sub-divided into a collection of traits, and adaptive explanations concocted for each trait. The literature abounds with "just-so stories," which ignore the possibility that organisms reflect not only selection for adaptive characters, but other effects (e.g., drift, pleiotropy), and that selection can favor nonadaptive characters (Gould and Lewontin 1979). Adaptation should be invoked as an explanation "only where it is necessary" (i.e. when all other plausible explanations have been exhausted) (Williams 1966, 4). Nonadaptive characters are almost certainly present among both archaic and modern humans in northern Eurasia (Howell 1957; Hublin 1988; Holliday 1999)."
FROM: --John F. Hoffecker 2002. Desolate Landscapes: Ice-Age Settlement in Eastern Europe. p. 4


Oubre spends a large bloc of text on the "selection" question and its distortions and weaknesses in "race" research. She does not mention it but also of note is the all too frequent tendency of race-mongers to claim "political correctness" when their claims are challenged on the hard scientific and data merits. "Political correctness" charges all too often become a convenient excuse to hide sloppy science and lousy logic. Overall Oubre's review is balanced and fair. An excerpt is shown below.


EXCERPT
The Adaptionist Yardstick: Rethinking the Social Implications of Sarich’s and Miele’s Fast-Track Micro-Evolution
A REVIEW BY ALONDRA OUBRÉ, Ph.d
Medical Anthropologist
In E-Skeptic. #56. February 18, 2005.

IN RACE: THE REALITY OF HUMAN DIFFERENCES, Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele attempt to prove the existence of human biological races in a discourse that challenges the claims made in the PBS documentary, Race: the Power of an Illusion. Drawing on research in paleoanthropology, molecular anthropology, genetics, and to some extent, history, Sarich and Miele endeavor to trace the origin of race as a biological construct. They claim that “human racial differences are both real and significant,” not only in regard to physical traits, but also (and perhaps more importantly), to cognitive and behavioral traits. Sarich and Miele assert that human social behaviors, which they contend differ along racial lines, are functional adaptations that emerged fairly quickly in each “race” as a result of natural selection.

While much of their presentation is based on well-known scientific studies, their work is distinguished by their seminal claim that contemporary biological races of modern humans, Homo sapiens, evolved rapidly within a time span of only 50,000 years. The notion that modern human races are not more than 50,000 years old, and perhaps only 15,000 years old, represents a radical departure from the conventional wisdom that until quite recently has dominated the field of human bioevolution. Sarich and Miele offer noteworthy findings to support a revised, indeed a considerably shorter, timeline for the making of modern human “races” (or, more accurately, geographical mega-populations).

However, it is their interpretation of what a revamped timeline of this sort signals for “racial adaptations”—alleged race-based functional differences—that potentially places Race: The Reality of Human Differences in the controversial realm of racialist writings—the genre of modern scientific racism. Race meets the main criterion that defines a pro-race work. It incisively embraces the perspective that human races are valid biological categories, despite the fact that they remain fuzzy sets, at best, without clearly defined borders.

Yet it may be unfair to label Race as intrinsically racialist simply because the authors maintain that human races are a biological reality. To their credit, Sarich and Miele base their conclusion not on a whimsical ideological stance of fear-based “race realism” (as some folk in the pro-race camp label themselves), but instead on a broad (though arbitrarily selected) cross-section of published research in biological sciences. Nonetheless, the relevance of some of their supporting evidence is open to debate. Codifying selective research findings that appear to lend credibility to one’s hypothesis is one thing. Formulating a compelling theory that successfully explains contradictions to one’s own hypothesis (in other words, that can account for anomalies in various sets of data) is quite another.

In a casual journalistic style designed to entice the average lay reader, Sarich and Miele cover a wide array of topics which, though pertinent, are not well integrated into a cohesive thesis. Although the book is one of the latest additions to scientifically-informed books on race-realism, it lacks the focus, cogency, and conviction, if you will, of writings in the “new racial science,” perhaps best embodied in Richard Herrnstein’s and Charles Murray’s 1994 The Bell Curve.

As staunch proponents of the race concept, both Sarich and Miele claim that human races are biological phenomena and not, as those in the anti-race camp proclaim, only social constructs. Sarich and Miele hold impressive track records in their respective fields of academia and journalism that should make them, individually and combined, qualified to write this book. Sarich, after all, attained widespread acclaim in the scientific community after he and his then senior co-worker, Alan Wilson, of the University of California at Berkeley, recalculated the evolutionary timeline of the ape-hominid divergence using immunological data (in this case, proteins) rather than fossil evidence. 1 Sarich (who has graduate level training in chemistry) was one of the first physical anthropologists to apply quantitative laboratory techniques used in biological sciences, particularly molecular biology, to paleoanthropology—the study of fossil remains of human ancestors. Sarich has earned a legitimate place in the halls of biological anthropology as that rare icon who (at least during the early part of his career) helped catalyze the cross-fertilization of several fields, namely biochemistry, genetics, and osteology.

Although Sarich’s critics may point out, and correctly so, that his empirical research experience is limited, he is nonetheless well-respected by his peers across the political spectrum for his intellectual contributions to theoretical and conceptual developments in molecular anthropology. On more than one occasion, Sarich has been right in his predictions—his “scientific hunches”—even after his colleagues thought him wrong. For example, during the 1990s Sarich insisted that the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) timeline estimated for the divergence of human races (or more accurately, human populations) was longer than that projected at that time by Alan Wilson, Mark Stoneking, and Rebecca Cann. Sarich appeared initially to be way off the mark, but the data eventually proved his position to be correct. In an analogous situation, over the past decade Sarich has publicly stated that the timeline for the micro-evolution, or differentiation, of modern human races is much shorter than scientists ever thought possible. 2 As the research summaries presented in Race reveal, once again Sarich’s maverick position on a temporal event in human bioevolution may have some validation, even in the face of initial opposition.

In like manner, Frank Miele is not just another science writer. Miele’s curriculum vitae is several cuts above the vast majority of science journalists, particularly those who focus on race and human evolution, for several reasons. As Senior Editor of Skeptic magazine, Miele has interviewed a coterie of highly public (if not controversial) scientists, including E.O. Wilson, Charles Murray, Richard Dawkins, and Arthur Jensen. Miele’s knowledge of evolutionary biology, including its contentious spin-off field of evolutionary psychology (and its sister field, sociobiology) is not entirely self-taught, however. Earlier in his career, Miele pursued graduate studies in psychology, including subfields of behavioral genetics and psychometrics, at the University of Georgia. During his tenure as an undergraduate student majoring in psychology, he was published in journals such as Mankind Quarterly (which, incidentally, is one of the premier voices of academic racial science). More recently, Miele has collaborated on scholarly projects with Richard Lynn, a British racial scientist and eugenicist.

Regardless of any controversy that may surround Sarich and Miele, the pivotal issue at stake here is not whether or not human races per se exist, regardless of what biological criteria are used to define a race. Rather, the crux of their book, I submit, is the assertion that over the past 15,000 to 30,000 years, modern human races evolved different sets of behavioral traits because each race was subjected to differing ecological selection pressures. Many experts agree that natural selection was the predominant Darwinian force that determined which traits were adaptive for a given population, or local geographical race, in a given environment. According to Sarich and Miele, however, natural selection not only shaped the physical traits that distinguish different populations, but it also drove the emergence of certain social behavioral patterns that (allegedly) vary from one “race” to another.

The implications of Sarich and Miele’s contention are staggering. If true, they suggest that what appear to be ethnic behavioral styles are linked more to inborn racial genetic tendencies than to nongenetic causes—that is, environmental and developmental causes. In the tradition of the post-Jensenian contemporary racial scholars, Sarich and Meile imply, rather meekly, that ethnic disparities in educational, economic, vocational, and social achievement are the result of race-based differences in physical and behavioral traits. Furthermore, they maintain that because these traits evolved through natural selection acting on the level of the population (which for them is tantamount to race), social behaviors are generally fixed and unchangeable in any population. The authors make this assertion while ignoring a wide array of environmental constraints as well as the impact of environmental influences known to affect human developmental biology, including the soft-wiring of the brain.

If Sarich and Miele’s goal is to garner praise from their own choir—“hard” and “softer” race-realists alike—for an eclipsed (and thus potentially distorted) canon of the origin of modern human races, they may have succeeded. If, however, their intent is to advance a substantive, data-driven argument for the evolutionary-genetic origins of race-based behavioral traits—traits which they seem to think are “fixed” by natural selection—then they have short-changed their readers (on “both sides” of this fierce debate). The predictive power and scientific valence of their assertions must ultimately be gauged by the strength of the replicable empirical evidence used to buttress their arguments.

In the final analysis, Sarich and Miele may have failed to persuade a significant portion of their readers not because they have taken a (presumably) politically incorrect position. Rather, their treatise falls short because they have opted to pander a “mainstream public” that is (understandably) irritated by growing ethnic gaps in social performance rather than uphold the rigor of the scientific process. Although portions of their presentation may be entertaining (especially to dog lovers), Sarich and Miele ignore a wealth of pertinent research findings that must be considered in any discourse on group differences, particularly differences in such highly valued human traits as intelligence and social behaviors.
Regardless of one’s position on the race-genes-and-ability debate, omitting salient counter-findings that go against the grain of one’s own a priori stance can severely compromise the scientific method. It can impede inductive reasoning, a quality critical to hypothesis testing. And it can render ineffective parsimonious interpretations of the available evidence as a whole needed to construct valid scientific models.

There are several lines of counter-evidence that cast doubt on, if not patently refute, the validity of Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis that human “races” are genetically predisposed to varying levels of cognitive ability and pro-social (or anti-social) behaviors. This review focuses on the validity and parsimony of the authors’ hypothesis that human races vary in their innate predispositions toward certain social behaviors. It addresses their idea that alleged behavioral tendencies in ethnic groups are rooted in racially-linked adaptations to varying ecological environments.

More importantly, this critique challenges Sarich and Miele’s assertion that presumed race-based behavioral adaptations that occurred during the course of human micro-evolution are necessarily a direct outcome of natural selection and, therefore, are generally fixed in most members of a racial group. It should be noted, however, that Sarich and Miele do allow for individual exceptions to what they call race-based behavioral proclivities. For this reason, they endorse a meritocracy in the United States that rewards individuals on the basis of individual achievement, regardless of the individual’s “racial” heritage.

The Sarich-Miele Proposition:
Fast-Track Human Evolution As Evidence of Race-Based Behavioral Adaptations

In order to evaluate the validity of the Sarich-Miele hypothesis, we must consider not only the supporting evidence presented by the authors, but also salient counter-findings that the authors have ignored. This critique considers four crucial issues within bio-evolution that bear directly on the validity, or lack thereof, of Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis about inborn, race-based behavioral traits.


1. Population-based (or race-based) differentials in the selection-driven functionality of physical, behavioral, and cognitive traits

Sarich and Miele propose that natural selection explains the origins of alleged behavioral differences along racial lines, yet, they never answer the question (in fact, they never even raise it): How do we know for certain whether a trait evolved through natural selection or instead, through a neutral evolutionary mechanism of genetic drift? This question (as well as any answers we may offer) is fundamental to understanding the adaptive significance, if any, of population-based (or race-based) differences in functional traits.

Many experts maintain that although natural selection plays a critical role in the evolutionary origin of many traits, it is not the driving force behind all biological phenomena. In fact, according to some evolutionary biologists who conduct empirical field research, genetic drift is typically assumed by default to account for most traits. Proving that natural selection is involved in the origin of a particular trait is a complicated process. Given the complexity of natural selection, it is not surprising that biologists cannot ascertain if there are long term differences in traits that have evolved through natural selection versus those that emerged through neutral selection. 3

There are other enigmas that must be sorted out as well if we are to identify the features that distinguish natural selection from neutral selection. For instance, genetic drift tends to be more influential in small populations while natural selection is more powerful in large populations. The microevolution of human races that occurred over the past 15,000 to 30,000 years affected smaller human populations. At the same time, however, natural selection had a momentous impact on the evolution of certain anatomical and physiological traits in larger geographical populations. Both genetic drift and selection could have operated in tandem to initiate the emergence of different traits in the same populations, or in clusters of geographical populations.

Positive natural selection increases fitness, which is measured in terms of survival and reproduction. However, natural selection may act on different levels of biological organization, even simultaneously at times. Classic bioevolutionary studies emphasize the influence of natural selection on individual organisms, populations, and even species. Yet, selection can also act at the level of the genome, chromosomes, and genes (DNA sequences). 4

Sarich and Miele’s treatise may have been more scientifically credible if they had clarified, even briefly, the limitation of our current scientific understanding of natural selection as the ultimate determinant of racial adaptations. To call for this clarification is neither to deny or espouse the existence of human races. Rather, it is a plea for scientific accountability: presentation of balanced pro and con evidence on the presumed functionality of race-based traits, particularly behavioral traits which the authors speculate differ along racial lines.


2. Population-based (or race-based) differentials in life history traits

Sarich and Miele do not examine the multifactorial causes—and the delicate interplay between biology and environment—that best explain population differentials in life history traits, such as rate of sexual maturation, fertility and birth rate, average number of births, and longevity. On the other hand, had they thoroughly examined the literature, they would have uncovered numerous inconsistencies in studies which show one of two things: either natural selection is not pivotally involved in the evolution of all life-history traits in human races; or life-history traits vary within the geographical mega-groups that Sarich and Meile insist on calling human races.

Consider, for instance, the rate of sexual maturation in African American girls, which is considerably faster than in girls in raised in various African populations living in Africa. 5 The mixed-race ancestry of African Americans does not account for this phenomenon. Instead, the differences in these rates appear to be linked to developmental biology.
In a similar vein, Sarich and Miele cite published studies on “race and brain size” without ever mentioning the well-known limitations of these studies. According to Michael Peters of the University of Guelph in Canada, and his colleagues, researchers who indiscriminately use only one formula for measuring human skulls of different shapes are more likely to make systematic errors in measuring brain size. 6 For example, the German Formula gives a smaller average brain size for male Blacks who have dolichocephalic, or long-headed, skulls. There is a wide amount of variation in skull shapes among people of African descent—even within a single African ethnic group, or local population. Peters and his co-investigators note that the solution for producing accurate calculations for cranial size in Blacks, in particular, is to use multiple cranial size formulas. For instance, the Ainu formula places more weight on the length rather than the breadth of the skull. In one study, the cranial size of Black skulls was 1359 cm3 when using the German formula. By contrast, the same skulls of Blacks averaged 1418 cm3 when the researchers used the Ainu formula (which gives more weight to the length of the skull) . As Leonard Lieberman points out, human populations that evolved in cold climates have a more spherical brain case to prevent loss of body heat during cold weather. 7

In addition, Sarich and Miele do not consider the nature of gene expression in the genes that guide the development of neural patterning. Nor do they address the complex phenomenon of gene-environment interactions, which can result in varying manifestations of genetic proclivities. They support Spearman’s hypothesis: the claim that Blacks typically score lower on the more difficult “g-loaded” IQ test questions that are reportedly associated with abstract reasoning. However, they ignore the fact that there is no consensus among experts on precisely what g signals. In fact, leading scholars cannot even agree on which IQ test questions are more “g-loaded.” 8

3. The role of developmental biology versus population genetics in determining human cognitive and behavioral traits
In their discussion of purported inborn, race-based behavioral patterns, Sarich and Miele omit findings from several relevant fields of study that reveal the powerful role of developmental genetics in shaping human cognition and behavior. These authors fail to clarify both the evolutionary constraints and environmental influences (including psychosocial and biotic factors) that are known to affect developmental biology. Experts have shown that long term developmental biology can mimic genetic transmission in producing some traits in certain populations. Slight population differences in life-history traits such as growth and maturation, fertility, and reproductive rate in some populations may appear to be a result of population genetics—“racial genetics”—when in fact, in certain situations the ethnic differences mainly reflect varying environmental exposures.

In the United States the age of menarche in African American girls is earlier than that of European American girls. 9 However, as noted previously, a similar “precocious” onset of menstruation (“precocious” only if a White female standard is used) has not been reported in various Black African girls born and reared in West and Central African societies 10 or in East African nations. 11 Yet, some racial scientists are erroneously convinced that the earlier average age of sexual maturation seen in African American girls reflects a genetic predisposition. 12 The evidence does not support their view. Cross-cultural surveys clearly show that the age of onset of menarche varies rather widely across geographical populations and ethnic groups.

Ethnic differences in developmental patterns appear to be associated with environmental influences. Candidate environmental factors include a wide range of nutritional deficiencies; exposure to lead, fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride used tofluoridate water; and possibly estrogenic compounds found in both soy-based infant formula and placenta-containing hair cosmetic products. 13 Preliminary findings from various studies suggest that African American infants, toddlers, and girls may be over-exposed to estrogen-like compounds, including PCB’s, from environmental toxins found in certain ethnic, placenta-containing hair products and in phytoestrogens (natural plant estrogens) found in soy-based infant formula. Compared to non-Black newborns in the United States, a higher proportion of African American babies are fed soy-based infant formula. (It should be noted, however, that even though these particular environmental factors are correlated with aberrant neurological and behavioral conditions, unequivocal cause-and-effect relationships have not been established.)
While findings linking environmental toxins such as lead, silicoflourides, manganese and estrogen-like compounds to psychosexual development are inconclusive, certain environmental factors have been shown to influence testosterone and serotonin levels. Research strongly suggests that “racial” differences—especially Black/White/Asian differences in testosterone levels in men—is associated with diet and social factors such as dominance and social status. Several studies contradict the claim that variations in this male sex hormone are tied to racial genetics. 14 Similarly, population differences in the levels of key neurotransmitters—brain chemicals such as serotonin and dopamine—may be linked to environmental influences rather than race-based genetics. 15

Sarich and Miele suggest that brain size and certain other neurological traits are associated with intelligence, or cognitive performance. They draw on data that seemingly supports their claim that Black African populations and their Diasporas have smaller cranial volumes. For these authors, “race-based” differences in brain size are the result of different adaptations to different geographical climates. Nonetheless, emerging evidence increasingly counters the long-held scientific claim, if not folk belief, that Blacks are genetically wired for a smaller cranial capacity.

According to several neuroscientists, the differences reported in the brain size of populations, especially in comparative studies on White, Northeast Asian, and Black African populations, reflect developmental differences rather than inborn race-based differences. The developmental biology of the human brain is influenced by myriad environmental and epigenetic factors—complex interactions between genes and environment. These factors include not only a gamut of nutritional factors, but also environmental toxins. As noted previously, the problems of objectively measuring brain size have distorted at least some of the reported population (“race-based”) differences in brain volume.

Sarich and Miele also fail to explain critical anomalies regarding g—the “thing” that IQ tests supposedly measure—in relation to Black/White differences in IQ tests scores. First, as noted, is the fact that there is a lack of consensus among experts on which IQ test questions are more abstract—that is, allegedly more difficult to answer. 16 Second, even pro-nature researchers, including some behavioral geneticists, cannot agree among themselves on either the neurophysiological or genetic substrates of g. And third, the relatively lower heritabilities for IQ in black twins suggests that environmental forces may play a relatively greater role in influencing the average IQ scores in African Americans compared to Whites. 17

In fact, a host of counter findings strongly suggests that the wide range of IQ scores reported in African populations depends on prior academic learning, including experience with taking tests. While racialists continually point to the “African IQ of 70,” the evidence clearly indicates that African populations as a whole do not have single average IQ. There is considerable variation in average IQ scores among Black Africans, even within the same population. Ugandans living in Uganda, for example, earned an average score of 80 on the Terman Vocabulary and Kohs Blocks Test, and a score of 88 points on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. In another study, Tanzanians in Tanzania also averaged 88 points on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. 18 Note that these latter scores, while low, are slightly higher then the typically reported IQ norm for African Americans. 19

If Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis carries any weight, then it must be allow researchers to differentiate traits shaped by developmental biology from traits that are primarily under genetic control. This concern immediately raises several questions. How strong of an influence do multiple environmental forces have on the genes and haplotypes that guide developmental biology? Do genes linked to developmental biology have a higher heritability? In other words, are they less subject to natural selection and therefore more easily influenced by environmental fluctuations—both internal and external environmental forces? Can environmental change affect the gene expression of functional traits that evolved through natural selection?

Detailed answers to these questions are beyond the scope of this review. In general, however, it appears that environment can change gene expression because developmental biology is itself subject to ongoing environmental influences that act through continuous—at times competing and at times cooperating—environmental forces. Supporting evidence for this claim may explain some of the inconsistencies in research on “race-based” genes linked to testosterone and serotonin.
To ignore, let alone discount, the impact of the environment on any life-history trait in humans is not simply incomplete science, but also disingenuous science. The mere act of dismissing crucial evidence in regard to scientific topics such as ethnicity and IQ—topics that have far-reaching social ramifications—borders on questionable science at best and, at its worse, fraudulent science.


4. The Role of neutral selection versus natural selection in population-based (or race-based) molecular traits associated with behavior
In the late 1960s, Motoo Kimura, a Japanese biologist, challenged the canons of evolutionary science when he stated that natural selection, particularly on the molecular level, was not necessarily a potent force in evolution. Extending the theory of genetic drift first proposed in the 1930s, Kimura argued that molecular variation was selectively neutral. Kimura focused on the randomness, or selective neutrality, of variation in proteins and DNA. The gist of his neutral theory of molecular evolution, usually called “neutral drift,” is that the vast amount of evolutionary change observed on the molecular level—the level of DNA and proteins—is driven by genetic drift rather than natural selection. This position contrasts with the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary perspective in which molecular evolution is thought to be the result of natural selection. 20
Although Kimura’s anti-selectionist position challenged the neo-Darwinian synthetic theory of evolution, his arguments were so compelling that his neutral theory was eventually incorporated into the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. In other words, although Kimura is considered an anti-Darwinist, his theory is compatible with the tenets of neo-Darwinism. During the 1970s, leading neo-Darwinists such as Ernst Mayr critiqued the limitations of the neutral theory which, in Mayr’s initial view, did not address traits that have become fixed in a species or population. Nonetheless, Mayr’s perspective could not explain a possible relationship between random molecular variation and fitness, including cumulative DNA changes that could ultimately lead to fitness.

By the 1980s, Mayr shifted his own position, noting that an increasing number of sites in the largest molecules were found to have specific functions. For Mayr, it was only a matter of time before the function of “functionless sites” of large molecules (conceivably both nucleotide sequences and amino acids) would be discovered. As Mayr pointed out, “neutral” base-pair replacements are widespread. More importantly, however, he acknowledged that numerous alleles once thought to be neutral had “selective significance.” In so doing, Mayr gave Kimura’s neutral theory a boost of credibility within the scientific community.

At the same time, Kimura admitted that the neutral theory is inadequate in explaining Darwinian evolutionary change at the phenotypic level—the level on which a trait manifests. Instead, Kimura argued, the value of the neutral theory lies in its prediction that the most variation occurs in the functionally less critical parts of a gene. 21 According to the neutral selection theory, the functionally significant components of a molecule will change more slowly than the functionally insignificant components. This view contrasts with the Darwinian position, which predicts that evolution will be most rapid in the functionally important parts of molecules—the area where selection is strongest.

In the neutral theory, genetic drift plays a comparatively larger role than natural selection in evolutionary processes. Evolutionary change is assumed to result from genetic drift acting on neutral alleles. In neutral selection, gene variants that become more prevalent in a population may decline or even disappear through random events. On rare occasion, a neutral substitution to one of these gene variants may become “fixed” and give rise to a widespread trait. If enough new substitutions accumulate on the gene variant, the genome will evolve. However, the evolution that occurs in such a rare case results from the additive effects of neutral substitutions to the gene variant. It does not emerge through natural selection.
Ironically, Sarich and Meile never mention the neutral selection theory in relation to the micro-evolution of human behavioral phenotypes. There are at least two reasons why they could have mentioned this theory in relation to their hypothesis about race-based differences in behavior. First, the early techniques used to determine the molecular clock—techniques that Sarich helped to develop—are based on the neutral theory. And second, if as Sarich and Miele claim, purported “race-base” behavioral differences reflect each “race’s” unique genetic-evolutionary history, then the molecular source—the genetics—of those differences should have been closely examined.

Consider new findings in molecular psychiatry—the study of the role of genetics in behavioral traits, or what scientists call behavioral phenotypes. Human geneticists working at the interface between molecular biology and the behavioral sciences have identified a small number of population-based (the term preferred by most mainstream researchers) polymorphisms, or differences in the genes that regulate brain chemicals involved in mood and certain social behaviors. For example, some populations differ slightly in their frequency of dopamine and serotonin gene variants linked to behavioral traits such as alcoholism, drug addiction, novelty seeking, and anxiety. 22

This line of research is highly controversial because of its potential use, or misuse, to support the existence of inborn race-based hierarchies in law-abiding behaviors, emotional stability, and even the capacity for (Western) cultural achievement. On a cautionary note, experts have yet to draw any definitive conclusions about cause-and-effect relationships between most of the neurochemical gene variants studied so far and social behaviors across a wide gamut of populations. Only a few associations have been established for individuals, and even fewer for populations. The research conducted to date typically has focused on smaller regional populations instead of huge, ill-defined social groupings that correspond to popular notions of human races. Yet, this is one of the most important arenas in which pro-race advocates such as Sarich and Miele should search if they are seeking irrefutable cause-and-effect evidence linking racial genetics and perceived ethnic behavioral patterns.

What happens when we examine the evidence produced thus far in this field? Alas, in a few cases we discover gene variants that do differ along population lines. In most cases, however, even race-based gene variants that reportedly predict certain behaviors in individuals are not consistently predictive at the group level. Whether or not an individual who carries one or more gene variants linked with socially deviant and unproductive behaviors actually manifests aberrant behaviors depends on myriad other influences, including an array of environmental factors. Moreover, there is no evidence for robust associations between specific gene variants and behaviors at the mega-population (racial) level.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that Sarich and Miele are correct in their thesis about relatively rapid evolution resulting in modern human races (as some findings suggest may be the case). If so, then certain gene variants that are linked to social behaviors and that may also differ slightly along population lines become likely biological (in this case, molecular and genetic) substrates for race-based behavioral differences. If Sarich and Meile are right, this variation is the product of natural selection. Yet, the differences seen in variant genes regulating serotonin, dopamine, and testosterone, as well as other genes involved in brain chemical and hormonal production, may reflect molecular variation. From the vantage of Kimura’s neutral theory, the molecular differences in these gene variants are a prime example of neutral evolutionary change. Granted, preliminary findings from a recent study suggest that selection may operate at the molecular level. 23 (see Yaris, 2002.) However, in many (though certainly not all) cases, evolutionary changes appear to have resulted from molecular genetic drift rather than selection, whether natural selection or sexual selection. 24

Conclusion

Although an in-depth analysis of the “neutralist-selectionist” debate is outside the purview of this critique, this debate is relevant to the assertions made in Sarich and Miele’s Race: The Reality of Human Differences. The central question is not whether or not natural selection accounts for certain traits in human populations since it clearly does. Instead, the paramount concern is over the relative proportion of neutral and selected, or non-neutral, alleles that determine traits. If a trait emerged through selection, the trait can be assumed to have fitness and functionality. However, if it arose through genetic drift, then it is neutral in terms of fitness. By definition it could not have evolved as an adaptation. Moreover, because neutral traits are not normally fixed, they can decrease in frequency or even vanish in a given population over time.
Are neutral genetic traits linked to mood and behavior more influenced by the environment than selected traits? This would appear to be the case—after all selected traits are fixed. This idea is consistent with the neutral theory, which states that evolution at the molecular level is non-adaptive. In fact, research in molecular psychiatry suggests that this may well be the case. This also may explain numerous inconsistencies in the relationship between, on the one hand, serotonin- and dopamine-related genes and, on the other hand, certain mood and behavioral states across ethnic populations. 25

This does not mean that population differences found at the molecular level, including gene variants implicated in human psychosocial behaviors, are irrelevant. They are. However, population variance at the molecular level is more likely the outcome of random evolutionary processes. The point here is that within the context of molecular micro-evolution, human population differences—“racial differences”—in gene variants linked with mood and behavior may not be unchangeable or fixed as in the case of a physical traits shaped by natural selection. A growing body of research suggests that a wide array of environmental factors can significantly affect the manner in which a particular gene, or gene variant, is expressed.

An introductory level treatise such as Race: The Reality of Human Differences cannot be expected to be comprehensive, but surely it is not prudent to overlook salient data, including important counter-data. To ignore the profound implications of developmental biology when talking about race-based differences in behavior is to offer bold, if not ludicrous, claims that often have no basis in reality. This misguided process renders scientific inquiry a frivolous pursuit of “perilous notions.”
By relying on assertions more than arguments throughout much of their text, Sarich and Miele unwittingly do scientific inquiry an injustice. While some of their material may be new to some readers, the misleading information, if not unfounded contentions, that plagues much of their text is disappointing. Despite their best intentions to present an objective, scientifically informed discussion of human race, Race: The Reality of Human Differences ironically may only further the “scientific dumbing down of America.

References & Notes
1.    Wilson, A.C. and Sarich, V.M. 1969. “A molecular time scale for human evolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
2.    Sarich, Vincent. 1995. “Race.” Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES). Northwestern University. Evanston, IL.
3.    > Wayne, M. L., and K. L. Simonsen. 1998. “Statistical tests of neutrality in the age of weak selection.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13:236-240.
4.    Hartl, D. L., and A. G. Clark. 1997. Principles of population genetics. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland , Massachusetts .
5.    Thomas F, Renaud F, Benefice E, de Meeus T, Guegan JF. 2001. “International variability of ages at menarche and menopause: patterns and main determinants.” Apr;73(2):271-90.
6.    Peters M, Jancke L, Staiger J, Schlaug G, Huang Y and Steinmetzi H. Unsolved Problems in Comparing Brain Sizes in Homo Sapiens. Brain and Cognition.1998. 37: 254-285
7.    Lieberman, 2001.
8.    Ceci SJ. On Intelligence: A Bio-Ecological Treatise. 1996. Harvard University Press; see also Dolan Conor, Roorda Willemijn and Wicherts Jelte M. Two failures of Spearman’s hypothesis: The GATB in Holland and the JAT in South Africa. 2004. Intelligence. 32: 155-173.
9.    Shumei S. Sun, PhD, Christine M. Schubert, MS, William Cameron Chumlea, PhD, Alex F. Roche, MD, PhD, DSc, Howard E. Kulin, PhD , Peter A. Lee, PhD , John H. Himes, PhD. National Estimates of the Timing of Sexual Maturation and Racial Differences Among US Children, Pediatrics November 2002. 110(5): 911-919
10.    See Thomas, et al., 2001, op cit.
11.    Rogo KO, Oniang’o RK, Muruli LA. Menarche in African girls in some post-secondary institutions in Kenya. East Afr Med J. 1984(11):745-50.
12.    Rushton, J. Philippe. Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. 1995. Somerset, NJ: Transaction.
13.    Crinella FM. Does soy-based infant formula cause ADHD? Expert Rev Neurotherapeutics. 3(2):145-148.2003; Masters, R,, Hone, B, and Doshi, A. Environmental Pollution, Neurotoxicity, and Criminal Violence,” in J. Rose, ed., Environmental Toxicology: Current Developments. London: Gordon and Breach. 1998, pp. 13-48; Tiwary CM. A survey of use of hormone/placenta-containing hair preparations by parents and/or children attending pediatric clinics. Mil Med. 1997;162:252-256; Tiwary CM. Premature sexual development in children following the use of estrogen- or placenta-containing hair products. Clin Pediatr. 1998;37:733-739; Zimmerman PA, Francis GL. Hormone-containing cosmetics may cause signs of early sexual development. Mil Med. 1995;160:628-630.
14.    Winters SJ; Brufsky A; Weissfeld J; Trump DL; Dyky MA; Hadeed V. Testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin, and body composition in young adult African American and Caucasian men. Metabolism 2001 Oct;50(10):1242-7; Kubricht WS; Williams BJ; Whatley T; Pinckard P; Eastham JA. Serum testosterone levels in African-American and white men undergoing prostate biopsy. Urology 1999 Dec;54(6):1035-8; Mazur, Allan & Booth, Alan. Testosterone and Dominance in Men. Behavioural and Brain Sciences. 1998. 21:353-397; Asbell SO; Raimane KC; Montesano AT; Zeitzer KL; Asbell MD; Vijayakumar S. Prostate-specific antigen and androgens in African-American and white normal subjects and prostate cancer patients. J Natl Med Assoc 2000. 92(9):445.
15.    Breggin Ginger and Breggin Peter. 1997. The War Against Children of Color: Psychiatry Targets Inner City Youth. Courage Press; Gelernter J., Kranzler H., Coccaro E., Siever L., New, A., Mulgrew C.L. 1997. “D4 dopamine-receptor (DRD4) alleles and novelty seeking in substance-dependent, personality-disorder, and control subjects.” Am J Hum Genet, Nov;61(5):1144-52; Gelernter J; Kranzler H; Coccaro EF; Siever LJ. 1998. “New AS. Serotonin transporter protein gene polymorphism and personality measures in African American and European American subjects.” Am J Psychiatry, Oct;155(10):1332-8.
16.    Ceci, 1996, op cit.
17.    Scarr, Sandra. 1994. “Review of: The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.” Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, 11(2):82-4.
18.    Lynn, Richard. 1990. “The Evolution of Racial Differences in Intelligence.” Mankind Quarterly, 32,99-121; Lynn, Richard and Vanhanen, Tatu. 2002. IQ and the Wealth of Nations. International variability of ages at menarche and menopause: patterns and main determinants. Westport, CT: Praeger.
19.    Herrnstein and Murray, 1994, op cit.
20.    Kimura, Motoo. 1983. Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge University Press; Kimura, Motoo. 1994. Population Genetics, Molecular Evolution, and the Neutral Theory: Selected Papers.
21.    Kimura, 1994, op cit.
22.    Hamer, D.H. and Copeland P. 1998. Living With Our Genes. New York: Doubleday.
23.    Yarris, Lynn. 2002. “Survival of the Fittest Molecules.” Berkeley Lab Currents. March 8. www.lbl.gov/Publications/Currents/Archive/Mar-08-2002.html
24.    Wayne and Simonsen, 1998, op cit.
25.    Gelernter, et al, 1998; Gelernter, et al, 1997, op cit.

Limitations of natural selection

It is a article of faith in some quarters to tout "natural selection" for this or that physical or "behavioral" trait. Mexican guy cuts you off in traffic? Well ancient environmental pressures in the Valley of Mexico circa 15,000 BC "selected" for such lineages that lack "restraint". Some women blonde? Well nature "selected" for these women to make them more attractive to their compatriots,  presumably even the pasty 200 pound chunkettes or bony types nobody is beating down the door for.


But in any event, credible scientists show that the much touted god of "selection" may be a minor or irrelevant deity in numerous cases. QUOTE:

[i]"It may appear counter-intuitive, but a large part, if not the majority, of genetic change in human populations is not thought to be due to natural selection but rather due to the play of chance (genetic drift; Harris and Meyer, 2006; Li et al., 2008; see Table 2 for a glossary of terms frequently used in population genetics). Many opportunities for chance can occur in the transmission of alleles from parents to offspring, and evidently did occur as part of the demographic process of dispersal out of Africa. Thus, finding differences in the frequency of alleles at a particular locus between populations is not an evidence of natural selection per se. The default position is that of neutral theory, whereby chance events account for most patterns of genetic diversity (Harris and Meyer, 2006). Of course, deleterious mutations will be selected against (purifying selection) and beneficial mutations may increase in frequency to fixation, but overall these events will contribute little to explaining the presence of most polymorphisms." [/i]
 --J. Rees and R. harding 2011. Understanding the Evolution of Human Pigmentation:  Recent Contributions from Population Genetics.  Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 358

[i]"How do we know for certain whether a trait evolved through natural selection or instead, through a neutral evolutionary mechanism of genetic drift? This question (as well as any answers we may offer) is fundamental to understanding the adaptive significance, if any, of population-based (or race-based) differences in functional traits.

Many experts maintain that although natural selection plays a critical role in the evolutionary origin of many traits, it is not the driving force behind all biological phenomena. In fact, according to some evolutionary biologists who conduct empirical field research, genetic drift is typically assumed by default to account for most traits. Proving that natural selection is involved in the origin of a particular trait is a complicated process. Given the complexity of natural selection, it is not surprising that biologists cannot ascertain if there are long term differences in traits that have evolved through natural selection versus those that emerged through neutral selection. 3

There are other enigmas that must be sorted out as well if we are to identify the features that distinguish natural selection from neutral selection. For instance, genetic drift tends to be more influential in small populations while natural selection is more powerful in large populations. The microevolution of human races that occurred over the past 15,000 to 30,000 years affected smaller human populations. At the same time, however, natural selection had a momentous impact on the evolution of certain anatomical and physiological traits in larger geographical populations. Both genetic drift and selection could have operated in tandem to initiate the emergence of different traits in the same populations, or in clusters of geographical populations.

Positive natural selection increases fitness, which is measured in terms of survival and reproduction. However, natural selection may act on different levels of biological organization, even simultaneously at times. Classic bioevolutionary studies emphasize the influence of natural selection on individual organisms, populations, and even species. Yet, selection can also act at the level of the genome, chromosomes, and genes (DNA sequences). "[/i]

--A. Oubre 2005. The Adaptionist Yardstick: Rethinking the Social Implications of Sarich’s and Miele’s Fast-Track Micro-Evolution