i.a. it underlines my opinion that J1-M267 in Ethiopia is not indigenous but came from Asian immigrants. Posts: 83 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could very well be, and percentages seem to hover at less than 3% per some previous works, but more so in the Amhara who are more Middle Eastern influenced. Will have to check out full study. Phenotypically, the peoples of that region, as late as the IRanian Bronze Age resembled tropical Africans, who themselves are diverse in looks - from narrow noses to wavy hair, as part of their indigenous makeup. Any migration into the Horn would be by people who already looked like a variant of tropical Africans already in place within Africa. Will have to check out full article.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will look into it also. But for those keeping up. Frequency tells part of the story. Variability is more significant. That is why the Refugium Theory is now unpopular. Modern technology with higher resolution can deduce which lineage of a spicific group is older. Eg results now show the Basque R1b1b is younger than R1b1b from the near east. Suggesting there was a major migratory event East to West.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK I am just a layman but I personally find the idea that Ethiopians are some sort of pure breed race ridiculous.They are like most Semitic speakers “to use the words on this forum mulatoos”. If J1 carriers originated in NW-Iran and spoke originally some language isolate or like Dagestanians “with their high levels of J1” a Caucasian language. This would mean that J1 speaking populations can not be the original carriers of Semitic. But they picked it up during their expansion from original Cushiets living the Levant. If I am not wrong Semitic also contains Cacasusian loan words.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one is saying that Ethiopians, or anyone else for that matter, are a pure breed. Ethiopians and other Afrasan speaking peoples, e.g., Beja peoples, do carry Eurasian lineages.
The contention that is at play here, is that this Eurasian geneflow does not explain their features. Afrasan speaking people are not the result of East African Bantu archtype + Asian geneflow.
Amhara's for example, have experienced much more Arabia specific geneflow than, say, Rendille's and Borana's. when you look at both groups though, their facial features aren't in accordance with their Arabian ancestry. There is no phenotypical cline among Afrasan speaking Horners that corresponds with the Arabian ancestry of various Afrasan speaking Horner groups.
That they are in their own lane is supported by the fact that their PN2 derived lineages are on a separate branch from most East African Bantu speakers, roughly similar to how Indian and Western European populations are (mostly) on the two major separate branches of the paternal R group. They too (Indians and Euros) are polymorphic in ways that correspond with the fact that they're in their own branches.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
i.a. it underlines my opinion that J1-M267 in Ethiopia is not indigenous but came from Asian immigrants.
Ethiopians aren't mulattos anymore than southern Italians are. And of course neither they nor the rest of the lesser modified Afro-Asiatics have a large amount of the J1 Eurasian haplotype.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Sero. Opps!!! Didn't realize you were a novice. I am out! Eyeballing Anthropolgy genetics. Sheeeeesh! Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sero: OK I am just a layman but I personally find the idea that Ethiopians are some sort of pure breed race ridiculous.They are like most Semitic speakers “to use the words on this forum mulatoos”. If J1 carriers originated in NW-Iran and spoke originally some language isolate or like Dagestanians “with their high levels of J1” a Caucasian language. This would mean that J1 speaking populations can not be the original carriers of Semitic. But they picked it up during their expansion from original Cushiets living the Levant. If I am not wrong Semitic also contains Cacasusian loan words.
^^No human is a "pure breed". EUropeans themselves are a hybrid breed- one third African.
And there are no such things as "Caucasian loan words." That's BS. Define what is "Caucasian" and where the language of said "Caucasians" originated. And who says the "original" Cushites were living in the LEvant? WHat's your source for this claim?
Credible scholars show 5 of 6 Afro-Asiatic languages originating in Africa, Semitic being the possible exception. SO how could Cushitic speakers be "originally" from the Levant if the language of said speakers originated in Africa?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
i.a. it underlines my opinion that J1-M267 in Ethiopia is not indigenous but came from Asian immigrants.
The question is HOW 'Asian' were these immigrants?
It's true J1 likely originated in South Arabia as that is where it has its highest frequency and diversity, but do you know what these indigenous South Arabians looked like?? Do you realize that many indigenous Arabians look not much different from Horn Africans like Ethiopians and are considered 'black' as well? Arabia after all is right next to Africa and shares the same latitude as not only Ethiopia-Eritrea but Sudan as well. So of course one would not expect the indigenous populations to look much different from Africans.
Also, there's this explanation from Keita:
The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose.-- Keita, In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. John Benjamins. (2008)
Although the presence of J1 in the Horn dates back to Neolithic times and Keita refers to Paleolithic migrations, his point was that during the Paleolithic, hunter-gatherer groups were moving back and forth between Africa and Eurasia not long after the first Africans left to colonize Eurasia. So even if certain lineages arose in Eurasia i.e. Arabia right next door, what difference does it make if they originated on the eastern coast of the Red Sea or the western coast of the Red Sea? Also, while Keita's point was made in reference to hg R and its derivatives which are predominantly found in Eurasia but were also found to be prevalent among areas of Western Africa and in particular paragroup R1* (V88), a similar argument can be made for hg J or at least its ancestral clades. The hypothetical ancestor of hg J is hg IJ which so far has yet to be discovered, but shares common ancestry with hg K which is found in Africa from Somalia to Ethiopia, southern Egypt, and throughout the Sahel region of Africa. The ancestor of IJ and K is hg IJK which in turn is derived from hg F, yet studies show the presence of paragroup F* in the Sudan.
So altogether, you can see what I mean when it comes to the ambiguity of the very definition of 'Asian' or 'Eurasian' origins of certain lineages.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
A few IJ-M429* were discovered look at the paper. This forum is funny, everybody inside of Africa is part of a huge diversity but everybody outside of Africa lacks this diversity. Excluding North Africans because their diversity is based on Turk mulattoes...
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 'Turks'--modern or ancient--have nothing to do with it. Because humankind originated in Africa, human populations IN Africa have the highest genetic diversity due to being the oldest human populations. All genetically defined 'Eurasians' descended from a small group of East Africans, this is why East Africans display 'intermediate' affinities. It's not so much that East Africans are "mixed" with Eurasians so much as they are the ancestors of Eurasians! And again these ancestral Eurasians are nothing more than Africans who made their way across the Red Sea into the 'Middle East'. That some of them crossed back into Africa later on does not nullify or take away from the African identity of either the returning groups or those that never left.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic