The history of the North African mitochondrial DNA haplogroup U6 gene flow into the African, Eurasian and American continents
Bernard Secher et al.
Abstract (provisional)
Background
Complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genome analyses have greatly improved the phylogeny and phylogeography of human mtDNA. Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup U6 has been considered as a molecular signal of a Paleolithic return to North Africa of modern humans from southwestern Asia.
Results
Using 230 complete sequences we have refined the U6 phylogeny, and improved the phylogeographic information by the analysis of 761 partial sequences. This approach provides chronological limits for its arrival to Africa, followed by its spreads there according to climatic fluctuations, and its secondary prehistoric and historic migrations out of Africa colonizing Europe, the Canary Islands and the American Continent.
Conclusions
The U6 expansions and contractions inside Africa faithfully reflect the climatic fluctuations that occurred in this Continent affecting also the Canary Islands. Mediterranean contacts drove these lineages to Europe, at least since the Neolithic. In turn, the European colonization brought different U6 lineages throughout the American Continent leaving the specific sign of the colonizers origin.
posted
Did you read the paper? The opening discussion is "hypothetically" how/when it arrived. Then the author provide data on it dispersal FROM NW Africa.
In other words - no data/evidence was provided on it's arrival to Africa.
What is fascinating is the unique tropical West African U6a sub-clade. And some U6 was found only in AFRAMS
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you have probably read my post at Dienekes Blog, the paper is a sham. It has not archaeological support it speculates that M1 an U6, returned to Africa via the Levant 4okya,this is impossible because the population in the Levant was Neanderthal.
Also they claim the Aurignacian culture entered west Eurasia from Central Asia. This is also without foundation Aurignacian culture entered Eurasia via Gibraltar,
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
We need not get caught up with headliners, as what Lioness just posted. That section Lioness posted is there to create controversy. As I said the author provided no proof or data showing U6 or U entered from the Levant. They only speculated that U/U6 MAY have entered from the Levant. That is ONLY their assumption. That is NOT what the paper is about. From that assumption they THEN went on to provided data/proof on the diversity and frequency of U6 and the subclades within and outside of Africa. The paper is really about U6 in Africa.
The paper has some important disclosure; don’t get caught up in the hype. The devil is in the details.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we agree. There is a lot of hypotheticals in the paper. The author only assumed That U entered from the Levant but it reads like that is a FACT. Deception. I am used to that by now. You should to. Focus only on the FACTUAL information. There are some gems in there.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
We need not get caught up with headliners, as what Lioness just posted. That section Lioness posted is there to create controversy. As I said the author provided no proof or data showing U6 or U entered from the Levant. They only speculated that U/U6 MAY have entered from the Levant. That is ONLY their assumption. That is NOT what the paper is about. From that assumption they THEN went on to provided data/proof on the diversity and frequency of U6 and the subclades within and outside of Africa. The paper is really about U6 in Africa.
The paper has some important disclosure; don’t get caught up in the hype. The devil is in the details.
True. But no one has ever shown any data/evidence of any back migration into Africa, yet other scholars will use this paper to make such a claim. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, When I first read that section in the paper(that Lioness posted). My knee-jerk reaction was…What the hell!!. I calmed down then read the entire paper including Suppl looking for data on what he just speculated on about U6 from the Levant. I soon realize the author was going on what he read from OTHER authors and NOT what he researched himself. SO yes, I agree, it is deceptive. But the work he actually did was revealing.
That is why reading and understanding is so important.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So we agree. There is a lot of hypotheticals in the paper. The author only assumed That U entered from the Levant but it reads like that is a FACT. Deception. I am used to that by now. You should to. Focus only on the FACTUAL information. There are some gems in there.
You can do this as a consumer of information. But as a researcher you never accept lies--you point them out and defeat them. My job is to get others to recognize the fallacy, and hope you can get someone to tell the truth.
posted
This paper is really fascinating. Several things stick out. Looking at the data in the SUPPL.
1. The comparison of U6 is in Africans(all) and Europeans and NOT West Asians/Middle Easternerns. Yet they made such a bold statement. No data on Middle Easterns were provided. 2. The more fascinating thing is U6 in Tropical West Africans eg Ghana, Burkino Faso and Guinea Bissau. The Deep Clades(root) of U6 is found heavily in Tropical West Africans ……and the Berbers. Reminds me of the paper “ Saami and Berber/Basque? And unlikely connection.”. IIRC hg-U had deepest roots in the Mandenka and Fulbe. I need to dig that paper up.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Dr Winters. These researchers are getting away with criminal activity. What they are doing is very simple. The raid a sometimes free GenBank database, pull the genomes, process it and publish a paper. If you have the resources to process this is very easy to do and a nice hustle
Someone needs to do one for hg-U5. Comparision of U5 across, Europe, Africa and the Near East.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: @ Dr Winters. These researchers are getting away with criminal activity. What they are doing is very simple. The raid a sometimes free GenBank database, pull the genomes, process it and publish a paper. If you have the resources to process this is very easy to do and a nice hustle
Someone needs to do one for hg-U5. Comparision of U5 across, Europe, Africa and the Near East.
So true. The only problem is you have to pay as much as $1500+ to have your paper published in most publications today.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So we agree. There is a lot of hypotheticals in the paper. The author only assumed That U entered from the Levant but it reads like that is a FACT. Deception. I am used to that by now. You should to. Focus only on the FACTUAL information. There are some gems in there.
What proof do you have that it didn't arrive from the Levant? I have always heard U6 classified as Eurasian in orgin.
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
U6 is universally recognized as local North African.
nope, "primarily" down the tubes
. Well, one author makes not a consensus. Anyway, read carefully that Secher quailfies U6 as phylogenetically EurAsian. What he writes about pre-Africa U6 deriving somewhere between so-called SW Asia and Central Asia is not supported by any genetic evidence. There is no Paleolithic SW or other Asian specific U6.
As mentioned recently [9], phylogenetic classification of U6 haplotypes based solely on diagnostic positions in the hypervariable region 1 (HVR-1) can be misleading. p.6c
As secondary branch of the Eurasian macro-haplogroup N, phylogenetically, U6 is a non- African lineage and represents a back-migration to Africa. According to haplogroup U geographic radiation, it was suggested that the most probable origin of the U6 ancestor was in western Asia with a subsequent movement into Africa [5]. p.12a
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Population expansion in the North African Late Pleistocene signalled by mitochondrial DNA haplogroup U6
Luísa Pereira12*, Nuno M Silva1, Ricardo Franco-Duarte1, Verónica Fernandes13, Joana B Pereira13, Marta D Costa13, Haidé Martins14, Pedro Soares13, Doron M Behar5, Martin B Richards3 and Vincent Macaulay
There is an intriguing further signal in the U6 data, witnessed by the Bayesian skyline plot. For the European haplogroup U5, which is one of the most ancient in Europe [11], we identified a strong expansion (an ~11-fold increase in effective population size) occurring in the Lateglacial period between the LGM and the beginning of the Holocene, followed by another large population expansion (~5-fold) after 5 ka, evidently associated with late Neolithic/early Bronze Age (rather than, for example, the early Neolithic expansion in Europe, which began ~8.5 ka). For U6, by contrast, the corresponding increases in effective sizes were less marked (~3-fold and ~1.5-fold, respectively), and the signal indicates that the expansion began earlier, ~22 ka. This coincides closely with the beginning of the Iberomaurusian industry in the Maghreb. These results therefore suggest that the Iberomaurusian was initiated by an expansion of modern humans of ultimately Near Eastern, carrying mtDNA haplogroup U6, who had spread into Cyrenaïca ~35-45 ka and produced the Dabban industry. The link back to the Near East and the European Early Upper Palaeolithic (which likely has the same source) may explain the suggested skeletal similarities between the robust Iberomaurusian "Mechta-Afalou" burials and European Cro-Magnon remains, as well as the case for continuity of the bearers of the Iberomaurusian industry from Morocco with later northwest African populations suggested by the dental evidencePosts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
35k yrs in Africa No evidence of Asian residence Yet still considered Asian?
In that case there are no European mtDNAs. Phylogenetcally they're Asian.
But no problemo outright declaring U5 European.
What a gwan?
Sing it: Ethnocentric bias all up here in my science.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The root of U6 is found amongst Western African Berbers and now Tropical West Africans. Where from the Levant is it from?
Enlighten me. Where in Eurasia is U6 origins.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So we agree. There is a lot of hypotheticals in the paper. The author only assumed That U entered from the Levant but it reads like that is a FACT. Deception. I am used to that by now. You should to. Focus only on the FACTUAL information. There are some gems in there.
What proof do you have that it didn't arrive from the Levant? I have always heard U6 classified as Eurasian in orgin.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Root is U5 is found in Fulbe. I am 2 for 2.
Enlighten me otherwise.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
If U6 and U5b is African...If I am a betting man. I would bet U5a is also African.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: 35k yrs in Africa No evidence of Asian residence Yet still considered Asian?
Politically any person citizen of an African country is African. The same thing could be said about African people in Europe (which are Europeans).
Vice President of Zambia:
This man is African of European origin. This is also true (of course) for people of Middle Eastern and European origin in North Africa. I would guess he's proud of his heritage.
But genetically, the haplogroup U in general, and it's descendants like U5/U6, are the results of the back migrations of non-African people (Eurasians) into North Africa a very long time ago. So they are not African in origin and those haplogroups are rare among indigenous black African populations (populations who stayed in Africa during the OOA migration). They represent the back migration of Out of Africa migrants.
You can see it here:
African people who are not admixed with Eurasian carry the Y-DNA A,B and E haplogroups and the mtDNA L haplogroups (L0, L1, L2, L3 on the map)
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Did you read the paper? The opening discussion is "hypothetically" how/when it arrived. Then the author provide data on it dispersal FROM NW Africa.
In other words - no data/evidence was provided on it's arrival to Africa.
What is fascinating is the unique tropical West African U6a sub-clade. And some U6 was found only in AFRAMS
^^So you are saying the "arrival" could have been from within Africa to a different African location?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: xyz's chart shows U6 is African, but you claim it is not African. How do you explain this discrepancy Amun-Ra?
Easily. It's parent haplogroup U and haplogroup R are Eurasian in origin. They are in Africa due to the back migration of Eurasian populations a very long time ago.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: xyz's chart shows U6 is African, but you claim it is not African. How do you explain this discrepancy Amun-Ra?
Easily. It's parent haplogroup U and haplogroup R are Eurasian in origin. They are in Africa due to the back migration of Eurasian populations a very long time ago.
as shown here, Achilli
source of xyyman's chart (he a;ways leaves that out) (table 1 at below link)
Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions Nicole Maca-Meyer, Ana M González, José M Larruga, Carlos Flores and Vicente M Cabrera* 2001
Conclusions The first detectable expansion occurred around 59,000–69,000 years ago from Africa, independently colonizing western Asia and India and, following this southern route, swiftly reaching east Asia. Within Africa, this expansion did not replace but mixed with older lineages detectable today only in Africa. Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe, also reaching India, and expanding to north and east Asia. More recent migrations have entangled but not completely erased these primitive footprints of modern human expansions.
Finally, cluster U seems to have suffered a radial spread (Fig. 2), giving subsequent diversification in different geographic areas. Three sub-haplogroups, U2, U5 and U6 had their major expansions in India, Europe and North Africa respectively. U2 split in two branches, one, characterized by mutations 16129C and 15907, is geographically scattered from Western Europe to Mongolia [2,26] but has not been detected in North Africa. The other reached India where it gave origin to several sub-clusters with global frequencies around 10% being, after its predecessor haplogroup M (53%), the second most abundant haplogroup in India [9]. U7 with a minor implantation in Europe but third in frequency in India [9] and also not detected in North Africa might have had a similar expansion as U2. The main radiation of haplogroup U5 occurred in Europe. It has been stated that this lineage entered Europe during the Upper Paleolithic [2], most probably from the Middle East-Caucasus area. The great divergence found here for the two U5 representatives is in agreement with the old age proposed for this haplogroup. Finally, U6 traces the first detectable Paleolithic return to Africa of ancient Caucasoid lineages. It has been mostly found in Northwest Africa, with a global estimated age of 47,000 years [28] reflecting an old human continuity in that rather isolated area. The fact that in Europe it has only been detected in the Iberian Peninsula [29] rules out a possible European route, unless a total lineage extinction in all the path is invoked. On the other hand, its presence in Northeast Africa [30], albeit in low frequencies, reinforces its way through North Africa. A third possibility could be that this lineage never went out of Africa but its coalescence with clades which all had prominent expansions in Eurasia weakens this option. U3 has also been found with a comparatively higher frequency in Northwest Africa [29] and might have followed the same route as U6, however, as its star-like expansion in the Caucasus has been dated around 30,000 yr BP [30], it most probably reached Africa in a posterior expansion. This out of Africa and back again hypothesis has also been suggested for Y-chromosome lineages [31]. Subsequent Neolithic and historic expansions have doubtlessly reshaped the human genetic pool in wide geographic areas but mainly as limited gene flow, not admixture, between populations. Consequently, the continental origin of the major haplogroups can still be detected and the earliest human routes inferred through them.
After coming out of Africa, modern humans first spread to Asia following two main routes. The southern one is represented by haplogroup M and related clades that are overwhelmingly present in India and eastern Asia. The northern one gave a posterior radiation that, through Central Asia, again reached North and East Asia carrying, among others, the prominent lineages A and B. Later expansions, can be detected by the presence of subclades of haplogroup U in India and Europe. There were also returns to Africa, most probably from the same two routes. The return from India could be detected by the presence of derivatives of M in Northeast Africa, and the arrival of Caucasoids by the existence of a subclade of haplogroup U that, today, is mainly confined to Northwest Africa.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: For those who like visuals. He is something interesting I came across. Dated but yet interesting.
This is the first I have seen where some researchers agree with me.
U5b is African U6 is also African' U3 is African H1 is African V is African.
LOL!
It would be great to see an similar but up to date study LOL.
Those Euros will need drugs to take them off the ledge. HA! Ha!\\\
Do you know what "HVS I motif" means and how it relates to the data that you are looking at?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
The fact remains. The proposed date for the back migration of U6 into Africa from the Levant, is before the Levant was settled by anatomically modern humans.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The fact remains. The proposed date for the back migration of U6 into Africa from the Levant, is before the Levant was settled by anatomically modern humans.
.
Not true at all and completely illogical.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The root of U6 is found amongst Western African Berbers and now Tropical West Africans. Where from the Levant is it from?
Enlighten me. Where in Eurasia is U6 origins.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So we agree. There is a lot of hypotheticals in the paper. The author only assumed That U entered from the Levant but it reads like that is a FACT. Deception. I am used to that by now. You should to. Focus only on the FACTUAL information. There are some gems in there.
What proof do you have that it didn't arrive from the Levant? I have always heard U6 classified as Eurasian in orgin.
The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa. Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC270091/Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still waiting on a scientific study, from you, proving U6 arrived from the Near East.
What you quoted there was another hypothetical by the author(2003) who THEN went on to provide evidence dipersal of U6 from West Africa.(there is no genetic proof of U6 or up-clades arriving from the Near East.) I have provided proof that U6a, U6b and probably U5b has origins in Western Africa.
Even the siblings of hg-U may have origins in Africa.
I got this covered.
Help me out Melchior7. What you have given me here is fantasy tale.
Come on man. I can put up a recent Kilivisd study to seal the coffin.
If you cannot then shut up my man.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The root of U6 is found amongst Western African Berbers and now Tropical West Africans. Where from the Levant is it from?
Enlighten me. Where in Eurasia is U6 origins.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So we agree. There is a lot of hypotheticals in the paper. The author only assumed That U entered from the Levant but it reads like that is a FACT. Deception. I am used to that by now. You should to. Focus only on the FACTUAL information. There are some gems in there.
What proof do you have that it didn't arrive from the Levant? I have always heard U6 classified as Eurasian in orgin.
The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa. Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC270091/
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
The fact remains. The proposed date for the back migration of U6 into Africa from the Levant, is before the Levant was settled by anatomically modern humans.
.
Not true at all and completely illogical.
The first Aurignacians in the Levant date back to 36-34kya from Ksar Akil, these people had been in Iberia as early as 44kya.
The oldest Aurignacian remains come from Iberia/Spain. These sites vary in age from 41kya for the l'Arbreda Cave, and 43kya for Abric Romani, located in Catalonia, Spain. The dates for the Aurignacian in Europe make it clear this culture spread from west to east. You can also recognize that Aurignacian appears not to have reached the Levant, until 11ky after it was established in Spain.
These dates for sites where amh were found in Western Europe make it impossible for claims of U6, M1 and etc., originating prior to 32kya in the Levant and entering Africa via a back migration as early as 40kya.
Eurocentric view of Spread of U6 . For more information on the Aurignacian culture see:
Demidenko Y.E., Otte M. & Noiret P. (dir.) - Siuren i rock-shelter. From Late Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic to Epi-Paleolithic in Crimea. Liège, ERAUL 129, 2012, p. 343-357.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: xyz's chart shows U6 is African, but you claim it is not African. How do you explain this discrepancy Amun-Ra?
Easily. It's parent haplogroup U and haplogroup R are Eurasian in origin. They are in Africa due to the back migration of Eurasian populations a very long time ago.
as shown here, Achilli
source of xyyman's chart (he a;ways leaves that out) (table 1 at below link)
Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions Nicole Maca-Meyer, Ana M González, José M Larruga, Carlos Flores and Vicente M Cabrera* 2001
Conclusions The first detectable expansion occurred around 59,000–69,000 years ago from Africa, independently colonizing western Asia and India and, following this southern route, swiftly reaching east Asia. Within Africa, this expansion did not replace but mixed with older lineages detectable today only in Africa. Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe, also reaching India, and expanding to north and east Asia. More recent migrations have entangled but not completely erased these primitive footprints of modern human expansions.
Finally, cluster U seems to have suffered a radial spread (Fig. 2), giving subsequent diversification in different geographic areas. Three sub-haplogroups, U2, U5 and U6 had their major expansions in India, Europe and North Africa respectively. U2 split in two branches, one, characterized by mutations 16129C and 15907, is geographically scattered from Western Europe to Mongolia [2,26] but has not been detected in North Africa. The other reached India where it gave origin to several sub-clusters with global frequencies around 10% being, after its predecessor haplogroup M (53%), the second most abundant haplogroup in India [9]. U7 with a minor implantation in Europe but third in frequency in India [9] and also not detected in North Africa might have had a similar expansion as U2. The main radiation of haplogroup U5 occurred in Europe. It has been stated that this lineage entered Europe during the Upper Paleolithic [2], most probably from the Middle East-Caucasus area. The great divergence found here for the two U5 representatives is in agreement with the old age proposed for this haplogroup. Finally, U6 traces the first detectable Paleolithic return to Africa of ancient Caucasoid lineages. It has been mostly found in Northwest Africa, with a global estimated age of 47,000 years [28] reflecting an old human continuity in that rather isolated area. The fact that in Europe it has only been detected in the Iberian Peninsula [29] rules out a possible European route, unless a total lineage extinction in all the path is invoked. On the other hand, its presence in Northeast Africa [30], albeit in low frequencies, reinforces its way through North Africa. A third possibility could be that this lineage never went out of Africa but its coalescence with clades which all had prominent expansions in Eurasia weakens this option. U3 has also been found with a comparatively higher frequency in Northwest Africa [29] and might have followed the same route as U6, however, as its star-like expansion in the Caucasus has been dated around 30,000 yr BP [30], it most probably reached Africa in a posterior expansion. This out of Africa and back again hypothesis has also been suggested for Y-chromosome lineages [31]. Subsequent Neolithic and historic expansions have doubtlessly reshaped the human genetic pool in wide geographic areas but mainly as limited gene flow, not admixture, between populations. Consequently, the continental origin of the major haplogroups can still be detected and the earliest human routes inferred through them.
After coming out of Africa, modern humans first spread to Asia following two main routes. The southern one is represented by haplogroup M and related clades that are overwhelmingly present in India and eastern Asia. The northern one gave a posterior radiation that, through Central Asia, again reached North and East Asia carrying, among others, the prominent lineages A and B. Later expansions, can be detected by the presence of subclades of haplogroup U in India and Europe. There were also returns to Africa, most probably from the same two routes. The return from India could be detected by the presence of derivatives of M in Northeast Africa, and the arrival of Caucasoids by the existence of a subclade of haplogroup U that, today, is mainly confined to Northwest Africa.
Yep, it's awesome when you look at this.
quote:African origin (haplogroups M and N) were the progenitors of all non-African haplogroups,...
Sarah Tiskhoff (2007) Whole-mtDNA genome sequence analysis of ancient African lineages.
quote: Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, L5, L2, L3, M, and N in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies.
quote: Although Haplogroup M differentiated soon after the out of Africa exit and it is widely distributed in Asia (east Asia and India) and Oceania, there is an interesting exception for one of its more than 40 sub-clades: M1.. Indeed this lineage is mainly limited to the African continent with peaks in the Horn of Africa."
--Paola Spinozzi, Alessandro Zironi . (2010). Origins as a Paradigm in the Sciences and in the Humanities. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. pp. 48-50
quote:“..the M1 presence in the Arabian peninsula signals a predominant East African influence since the Neolithic onwards.“
-- Petraglia, M and Rose, J (2010). The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia:
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Help me out...careful now! last time you put your foot in your mouth.
Help me out with "motif"
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: For those who like visuals. He is something interesting I came across. Dated but yet interesting.
This is the first I have seen where some researchers agree with me.
U5b is African U6 is also African' U3 is African H1 is African V is African.
LOL!
It would be great to see an similar but up to date study LOL.
Those Euros will need drugs to take them off the ledge. HA! Ha!\\\
Do you know what "HVS I motif" means and how it relates to the data that you are looking at?
No foot in mouth, you just dont know what you are talking about. There is actual SCIENCE to be learned in all of this. If you dont know the science you dont really know what they are talking about and you make armature mistakes : pulling Y-dna from Autosome. The difference between Y-DNA STR and AuDNA STR...etc. .. I will break down...step by step.........EXACTLY what you are looking at. Please take time to read it.
1 - The Blue section in the green loop is listed as the Control Region of the mtdna. 2 - You can also see Hyper variable segment (HVS) II and I. Notice I is "larger" than II. 3 - An new alternative to getting mtdna details is to sequence the FULL loop of DNA (FMS). HVS I and II is the "old" way as technology changes but its still up to snuff and cheap.
-Getting back to HVS. HVS I is larger and has more segments. HVS II add additional info. The more you have the better. Old DNA tests may include only HVS I. Newer test included both or even HVSIII.
Lets take a look at these numbers and KNOW WHAT THEY REPRESENT. HVR1 (16024-16569) HVR2 (00001-00576).
The number above are basically a range. Looking at HVR1, sometimes you will see a study only list 3 digits. This DOES NOT mean they are in HVS II unless they specify. Since we know they are not in HVSII take note that HVSI does NOT start with zero......IT starts at 16 thousand and 24 : 16024. Therefore you cannot have 3 simple digits. Going to the image you posted lets look at the first Haplogroup : K. For the Motif it lists : 145, 224 and 311 - ON HVSI this translates to 16145, 16224 and 16311 - they are basically shortening it. Everything above should make sense. If not repeat.. IF so move on.
-Now Looking at your image NOTICE you have two U3 lineages and three U2 lineages. -Notice the matching "HAPLOGROUP" but the different "ORIGIN". -This is why they have a different origin. Take a look at HVSI for the two U3 lineages: U3 - 343, 356, 390 - Canarian U3 - 343, 390, - Morrocan
DO you notice the Canrian sequence has something additional? ALso take a look at the three different U2 lineages. You notice they are all different? And the origins are all different? Also take a look at H. Same thing. Now that you understand that I will make a closing statement using H as the example.
RCRS is the "Cambridge Reference Sequence" they used a long time ago when looking at every mtdna sequence.....YES they looked at all DNA going forward or backward in the MTDNA tree starting with this European sequence. The key is this: The Cambridge Reference mtDNA lineage is H2a2a.
Notice you dont see H2a2a anywhere on that chart. Notice ALL the lineages are vague under "Haplogroup" except for U5b and U5a1a. What that means in real life is since you dont know what HVSI means....You dont understand that HVSI details will have one lineage as H2a2a and another as H4a1a1a2 and yet a 3rd lineage as H82a (not a typo). They will all have different "Origins" because the are far flung subclades separated by space and time.
From the Laymans point of view they can see H + origin + Berber and think they have it all figured out. NO....what the study is indicating is that a specific HVSI sequence that would translate to "H1a1b2a" would have an "Origin" in the Berber population.
I am hoping this made sense. A lot of this confusing could have been by passed if long term posted like you would have gotten your own DNA sequenced when it was cheap. IN face EVEN WHEN IT WAS FREE..........I think 1 or 2 people hopped at the chance when i brought the information here. This was a 400 product being given away free. These are the types of things you would learn just by digging into your own dna.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: For many of the individuals for which we have obtained DNA, we also collected phenotype data for traits likely to play a role in adaptation, some of which demonstrate a complex pattern of inheritance and are likely influenced by multiple loci and environmental factors. In addition to case/control analyses of variation at candidate genes, we are using whole-genome association studies to identify novel genes that are associated with these traits. Together with collaborators, we are also developing methods for mapping complex traits (including disease) in highly structured African populations.
quote: Although the study's main focus was on Africa, Tishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe," Tishkoff said.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: xyz's chart shows U6 is African, but you claim it is not African. How do you explain this discrepancy Amun-Ra?
Easily. It's parent haplogroup U and haplogroup R are Eurasian in origin. They are in Africa due to the back migration of Eurasian populations a very long time ago.
I wonder how everything is always a back migration.
However, no one ever explains the assemblage, industries and back navigation of these supposed back migrations. How were all these early hunter gatherers able to navigate back?
Maybe you can provide some sources explaining this remarkable event:
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: . How were all these early hunter gatherers able to navigate back?
the same way they migrated out of Africa they later migrated back into Africa
And how is that?
I asked for specif details. Not your argument as an opinion. As the OOA is not a "navigation courses", but merely due to drifting (literally and figural).
And this is the circumvention I'm speaking of, never an explanation. But for a simple skimp.
Therefore you tweaked my post, to make it appear differently. Because the core of the question is "assemblage and industries".
quote: I wonder how everything is always a back migration.
However, no one ever explains the assemblage, industries and back navigation of these supposed back migrations. How were all these early hunter gatherers able to navigate back?
Maybe you can provide some sources explaining this remarkable event:
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: . How were all these early hunter gatherers able to navigate back?
the same way they migrated out of Africa they later migrated back into Africa
And how is that?
I asked for specif details. Not your argument as an opinion.
And this is the circumvention I'm speaking of, never an explanation. But for a simple skimp.
If you agree that African migrated out of Africa yet don't have any "navigation" requirement to believe that then why when some of them migrated back into Africa does that require some sort of navigation explanation?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: . How were all these early hunter gatherers able to navigate back?
the same way they migrated out of Africa they later migrated back into Africa
And how is that?
I asked for specif details. Not your argument as an opinion.
And this is the circumvention I'm speaking of, never an explanation. But for a simple skimp.
If you agree that African migrated out of Africa yet don't have any "navigation" requirement to believe that then why when some of them migrated back into Africa does that require some sort of navigation explanation?
The OOA migrations are explained by assemble and industries.
I ask for you to do the same when it come to your hypothetical back migrations.
Instead of wasting time here. You could have should them already. Instead of making up these excuses.
Has Africa some short of magnet?
As I stated before, the OOA is a drift of from Africa. This how mankind populated the world in the first plays. By small pockets of genetic drifts.
Now, I hope you'll bring some evidence instead of "believe"...thanks is in advance.
quote: Although the study's main focus was on Africa, Tishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe," Tishkoff said.
The fact remains. The proposed date for the back migration of U6 into Africa from the Levant, is before the Levant was settled by anatomically modern humans.
.
Not true at all and completely illogical.
The first Aurignacians in the Levant date back to 36-34kya from Ksar Akil, these people had been in Iberia as early as 44kya.
The oldest Aurignacian remains come from Iberia/Spain. These sites vary in age from 41kya for the l'Arbreda Cave, and 43kya for Abric Romani, located in Catalonia, Spain. The dates for the Aurignacian in Europe make it clear this culture spread from west to east. You can also recognize that Aurignacian appears not to have reached the Levant, until 11ky after it was established in Spain.
These dates for sites where amh were found in Western Europe make it impossible for claims of U6, M1 and etc., originating prior to 32kya in the Levant and entering Africa via a back migration as early as 40kya.
Eurocentric view of Spread of U6 . For more information on the Aurignacian culture see:
Demidenko Y.E., Otte M. & Noiret P. (dir.) - Siuren i rock-shelter. From Late Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic to Epi-Paleolithic in Crimea. Liège, ERAUL 129, 2012, p. 343-357.
Here is more, from this specific study, propelled by lioness.
At some point they propelled that the Aterian industry was responsible for the distribution of U6 into Africa, as a back-migration. Later on we discovered that the Aterian are a OoA pocket. So they quickly went back to the drawing table, doing more guess/ or rather suggest work. Which now has become the Aurignacian.
quote:In absolute agreement with this vision, we propose that, in parallel, U6 reached the Levant with the intrusive Levantine Aurignacian around 35 kya, coinciding with the coalescence age for this haplogroup.
U6 spreads into Africa
This first African expansion of U6a in the Maghreb was suggested in a previous analysis [6]. This radiation inside Africa occurred in Morocco around 26 kya (Table 2) and, ruling out the earlier Aterian, we suggested the Iberomaurusian as the most probable archaeological and anthropological correlate of this spread in the Maghreb [6]. Others have pointed to the Dabban industry in North Africa and its supposed source in the Levant, the Ahmarian, as the archaeological footprints of U6 coming back to Africa [7,9]. However, we disagree for several reasons: firstly, they most probably evolved in situ from previous cultures, not being intrusive in their respective areas [42-44]; second, their chronologies are out of phase with U6 and third, Dabban is a local industry in Cyrenaica not showing the whole coastal expansion of U6. In addition, recent archaeological evidence, based on securely dated layers, also points to the Maghreb as the place with the oldest implantation of the Iberomaurusian culture [45], which is coincidental with the U6 radiation from this region proposed in this and previous studies [6]. In the same publication, based on partial sequences [6], we also suggested a migration from the Maghreb eastwards to explain the Ethiopian radiation but, in the light of complete sequence information, it seems that it was an independent spread [9]. In the present study, the U6a2 branch shows an important radiation centered in Ethiopia (Table 2) at around 20 kya (see Additional file 2). However, this period corresponds with a maximal period of aridity in North Africa and a return to East Africa across the Sahara seems unlikely. The most probable scenario is that small human groups scattered at a low density throughout the territory, retreated in bad times to more hospitable areas such as the Moroccan Atlas Mountains and the Ethiopian Highlands. Given the still limited U6 information from Northeast African and Levant populations, we are unable to hypothesize the route followed by the U6 settlers of Ethiopia and to correlate them to an appropriate archaeological layer. In this respect, the absence of U6 representatives in autochthonous populations from Egypt [46-8] and its scarcity in cosmopolitan samples [49,50] is puzzling. However, our model has an important outcome. It is that the proposed movement out of Africa through the Levantine corridor around 40 kya did not occur or has no maternal continuity to the present day. This is because: first, in that period the Eurasian haplogroups M and N had already evolved and spread at continental level in Eurasia, and, second, there is no evidence of any L-derived clade outside Africa with a similar coalescence age to that proposed movement. Under this perspective, the late Pleistocene human skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, considered as a sub-Saharan African predecessor of the Upper Paleolithic Eurasians [51], should be better considered as the southernmost vestige of the Homo sapiens return to Africa. The knowledge of its mtDNA and Y-chromosome affiliations would be an invaluable test for our hypothesis. The rest of the human movements inside Africa, such as the Saharan occupation in the humid period by Eastern and Northern immigrations, or the retreat to sub-Saharan African southwards and to the Maghreb northwards in the desiccation period [52], or even the colonization of the Canary Islands, all faithfully reflect the scenarios deduced from the archaeological and anthropological information.
(P. 13-14)
The history of the North African mitochondrial DNA haplogroup U6 gene flow into the African, Eurasian and American continents
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The root of U6 is found amongst Western African Berbers and now Tropical West Africans. Where from the Levant is it from?
Enlighten me. Where in Eurasia is U6 origins.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So we agree. There is a lot of hypotheticals in the paper. The author only assumed That U entered from the Levant but it reads like that is a FACT. Deception. I am used to that by now. You should to. Focus only on the FACTUAL information. There are some gems in there.
What proof do you have that it didn't arrive from the Levant? I have always heard U6 classified as Eurasian in orgin.
The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa. Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC270091/
It's funny and remarkable at the same time, because in previous studies such as the one you propose, the based their conclusions on the Dabban culture. Which later was to be discovered incorrect.
That of course meant back to the drawing table.
Looking for another possible connection. After so many already have been disputed.
quote: Assuming that M1 and U6 were introduced to Africa by a dispersal event from Asia, it would be difficult to accept their involvement in the first demographic spread of anatomically modern humans around 40–45 KYA, as suggested by Olivieri et al. (2006), [29] who associated these two clades with the spread of Dabban industry in Africa. It has indeed been previously suggested that the colonisation of North Africa from the Levant took place during the early Upper Paleolithic, as marked by the “Dabban” industry in North Africa [42]. However, comparison of early Upper Palaeolithic artefacts from Haua Fteah and Ksar Akil does not support the notion that the early Dabban of Cyrenaica is an evidence of a population migration from the Levant into North Africa [43]. Marks [44] also noted differences between the two areas in terms of the methods of blade production, further arguing against a demographic connection between the regions. Likewise, the new coalescent date estimates for M1 obtained in this study are not compatible with the model implying the spread of M1 in Africa during the Early Upper Palaeolithic, 40–45 KYA...
Our analyses do not support the model according to which mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 represent an early dispersal event of anatomically modern humans at around 40–45 KYA in association with the spread of Dabban industry in North Africa as proposed earlier [28,29]. A West Asian origin for these haplogroups still remains a viable hypothesis as sister clades of U (and ancestral to it, macro-hg N (including R)) and M are spread overwhelmingly outside Africa, notably in Eurasia, even though the phylogeographic data on extant populations do not present a clear support for it. [/i]
--Erwan Pennarun, Toomas Kivisild, Ene Metspalu, Mait Metspalu, Tuuli Reisberg, Doron M Behar, Sacha C Jones and Richard Villems
Divorcing the Late Upper Palaeolithic demographic histories of mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 in Africa
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The root of U6 is found amongst Western African Berbers and now Tropical West Africans. Where from the Levant is it from?
Enlighten me. Where in Eurasia is U6 origins.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So we agree. There is a lot of hypotheticals in the paper. The author only assumed That U entered from the Levant but it reads like that is a FACT. Deception. I am used to that by now. You should to. Focus only on the FACTUAL information. There are some gems in there.
What proof do you have that it didn't arrive from the Levant? I have always heard U6 classified as Eurasian in orgin.
The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa. Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC270091/
It's funny and remarkable at the same time, because in previous studies such as the one you propose, the based their conclusions on the Dabban culture. Which later was to be discovered incorrect.
That of course meant back to the drawing table.
Looking for another possible connection. After so many already have been disputed.
quote: Assuming that M1 and U6 were introduced to Africa by a dispersal event from Asia, it would be difficult to accept their involvement in the first demographic spread of anatomically modern humans around 40–45 KYA, as suggested by Olivieri et al. (2006), [29] who associated these two clades with the spread of Dabban industry in Africa. It has indeed been previously suggested that the colonisation of North Africa from the Levant took place during the early Upper Paleolithic, as marked by the “Dabban” industry in North Africa [42]. However, comparison of early Upper Palaeolithic artefacts from Haua Fteah and Ksar Akil does not support the notion that the early Dabban of Cyrenaica is an evidence of a population migration from the Levant into North Africa [43]. Marks [44] also noted differences between the two areas in terms of the methods of blade production, further arguing against a demographic connection between the regions. Likewise, the new coalescent date estimates for M1 obtained in this study are not compatible with the model implying the spread of M1 in Africa during the Early Upper Palaeolithic, 40–45 KYA...
Our analyses do not support the model according to which mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 represent an early dispersal event of anatomically modern humans at around 40–45 KYA in association with the spread of Dabban industry in North Africa as proposed earlier [28,29]. A West Asian origin for these haplogroups still remains a viable hypothesis as sister clades of U (and ancestral to it, macro-hg N (including R)) and M are spread overwhelmingly outside Africa, notably in Eurasia, even though the phylogeographic data on extant populations do not present a clear support for it. [/i]
--Erwan Pennarun, Toomas Kivisild, Ene Metspalu, Mait Metspalu, Tuuli Reisberg, Doron M Behar, Sacha C Jones and Richard Villems
Divorcing the Late Upper Palaeolithic demographic histories of mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 in Africa
The main problem with all of their theories about the origin and back migration of L(M) into Africa is they base this on the existence of haplogroup M among the Dravidians of India.
This theory can not be supported because the Dravidians belong to the C-Group of Nubia. This means that there were no Dravidians in India before 2500BC.
Some researchers try to imply that the Aurgnacian culture entered Eurasia from the East. They use a Neanderthal site to make their case. But the dates for Aurignacian in Europe begins in Iberia at 44kya.
They don't want to accept the Iberia origin of Aurignacian, because then they would have to admit that haplogroups, H.M.N and etc., entered Europe from Africa, instead of resulting from the OoA migration into South and East Asia.
The entrance of the Aurignacian culture from Africa, into Iberia makes all the proposed back migrations into Africa mute.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The main problem with all of their theories about the origin and back migration of L(M) into Africa is they base this on the existence of haplogroup M among the Dravidians of India.
This theory can not be supported because the Dravidians belong to the C-Group of Nubia. This means that there were no Dravidians in India before 2500BC.
Some researchers try to imply that the Aurgnacian culture entered Eurasia from the East. They use a Neanderthal site to make their case. But the dates for Aurignacian in Europe begins in Iberia at 44kya.
They don't want to accept the Iberia origin of Aurignacian, because then they would have to admit that haplogroups, H.M.N and etc., entered Europe from Africa, instead of resulting from the OoA migration into South and East Asia.
The entrance of the Aurignacian culture from Africa, into Iberia makes all the proposed back migrations into Africa mute.
^At one point they also claimed that Hofmeyr was responsible for the "back-migration.
I, however haven't found any evidence for this Hofmeyr migration into Africa.
In fact it's the opposite, as usually, as is with all the other proposed industries, assemblages and or cultures.
Late Pleistocene Human Skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, and Modern Human Origins
quote: The lack of Late Pleistocene human fossils from sub-Saharan Africa has limited paleontological testing of competing models of recent human evolution. We have dated a skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, to 36.2 ± 3.3 thousand years ago through a combination of optically stimulated luminescence and uranium-series dating methods. The skull is morphologically modern overall but displays some archaic features. Its strongest morphometric affinities are with Upper Paleolithic (UP) Eurasians rather than recent, geographically proximate people. The Hofmeyr cranium is consistent with the hypothesis that UP Eurasians descended from a population that emigrated from sub-Saharan Africa in the Late Pleistocene.
When I ask for evidence it's serious, not meant as sarcasm. Sometimes people don't get this.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice explanation...to the lurkers...for your boy Sweetness. But preaching to the choir.
But you haven't addressed the point I made. The authors are suggesting these mutations first occurred in the geographic location indicated. Am I wrong?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Pheeew!
Quote: "rCRS is not a Marker." It is a standard indicative of hg-H ie H2*? IIRC God!
Listen I need to post some new stuff on ESR. Get back to me. Unless I am banned there. LOL!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Xyyman: In addition – PS-1 and CH-1 carried the same mtDNA marker as two of the handler
CRS is not a marker, dummy. ~40% of the samples were CRS in HVS-I.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: [qb]
RCRS is the "Cambridge Reference Sequence" they used a long time ago when looking at every mtdna sequence.....YES they looked at all DNA going forward or backward in the MTDNA tree starting with this European sequence. The key is this: The Cambridge Reference mtDNA lineage is H2a2a.
Notice you dont see H2a2a anywhere on that chart.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The main problem with all of their theories about the origin and back migration of L(M) into Africa is they base this on the existence of haplogroup M among the Dravidians of India.
This theory can not be supported because the Dravidians belong to the C-Group of Nubia. This means that there were no Dravidians in India before 2500BC.
Some researchers try to imply that the Aurgnacian culture entered Eurasia from the East. They use a Neanderthal site to make their case. But the dates for Aurignacian in Europe begins in Iberia at 44kya.
They don't want to accept the Iberia origin of Aurignacian, because then they would have to admit that haplogroups, H.M.N and etc., entered Europe from Africa, instead of resulting from the OoA migration into South and East Asia.
The entrance of the Aurignacian culture from Africa, into Iberia makes all the proposed back migrations into Africa mute.
For a while they had the Aterian theory as well. They said the Aterian was between 40Kya and 20Kya old.
Was North Africa the Launch Pad for Modern Human Migrations?
Michael Balter
Until very recently, most researchers studying the origins of Homo sapiens focused on the fossils of East Africa and the sophisticated tools and ornaments of famed South African sites such as Blombos Cave. Few scientists thought that much of evolutionary significance had gone on in North Africa, or that the region's big-toothed, somewhat archaic-looking hominins might be closely related to the ancestors of many living people. Now, thanks to new excavations and more accurate dating, North Africa boasts unequivocal signs of modern human behavior as early as anywhere else in the world, including South Africa. Climate reconstructions and fossil studies now suggest that the region was more hospitable during key periods than once thought. The data suggest that the Sahara Desert was a land of lakes and rivers about 130,000 years ago, when moderns first left Africa for sites in what is today Israel. And new studies of hominin fossils suggest some strong resemblances—and possible evolutionary connections—between North African specimens and fossils representing migrations out of Africa between 130,000 and 40,000 years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The main problem with all of their theories about the origin and back migration of L(M) into Africa is they base this on the existence of haplogroup M among the Dravidians of India.
This theory can not be supported because the Dravidians belong to the C-Group of Nubia. This means that there were no Dravidians in India before 2500BC.
Some researchers try to imply that the Aurgnacian culture entered Eurasia from the East. They use a Neanderthal site to make their case. But the dates for Aurignacian in Europe begins in Iberia at 44kya.
They don't want to accept the Iberia origin of Aurignacian, because then they would have to admit that haplogroups, H.M.N and etc., entered Europe from Africa, instead of resulting from the OoA migration into South and East Asia.
The entrance of the Aurignacian culture from Africa, into Iberia makes all the proposed back migrations into Africa mute.
quote:Recent investigations into the origins of symbolism indicate that personal ornaments in the form of perforated marine shell beads were used in the Near East, North Africa, and SubSaharan Africa at least 35 ka earlier than any personal ornaments in Europe.
[...]
The first argues that modern cognition is unique to our species and the consequence of a genetic mutation that took place 50 ka in Africa among anatomically modern humans (AMH) (1).
--Francesco d’Erricoa et al. (2009)
Additional evidence on the use of personal ornaments in the Middle Paleolithic of North Africa
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The main problem with all of their theories about the origin and back migration of L(M) into Africa is they base this on the existence of haplogroup M among the Dravidians of India.
This theory can not be supported because the Dravidians belong to the C-Group of Nubia. This means that there were no Dravidians in India before 2500BC.
Some researchers try to imply that the Aurgnacian culture entered Eurasia from the East. They use a Neanderthal site to make their case. But the dates for Aurignacian in Europe begins in Iberia at 44kya.
They don't want to accept the Iberia origin of Aurignacian, because then they would have to admit that haplogroups, H.M.N and etc., entered Europe from Africa, instead of resulting from the OoA migration into South and East Asia.
The entrance of the Aurignacian culture from Africa, into Iberia makes all the proposed back migrations into Africa mute.
quote: The cultural sequence of the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene of Morocco displays three main techno-complexes: a Middle Palaeolithic, including a special facies called Aterian; an Upper Palaeolithic, separated into an early phase of uncertain configuration; a later phase, termed Iberomaurusian; and an Epipalaeolithic (Linstädter et al. 2012).
--Gerd-Christian Weniger 1; Jörg Linstädter 2; Josef Eiwanger 3 and Abdessalam Mikdad 4 (2012)
Late Pleistocene human occupation of Northwest Africa: A crosscheck of chronology and climate change in Morocco
quote: The area differs from other sties areas such as the Nile Valley or the Near East because the Middle/Late Paleolithic transition in the Sahara is not marked by changes in core technology. The overall dates for the Libya sites containing the Aterian tool technique range from 47,000- 24,500 BP. Some of the dating techniques were Thermoluminescence (TL) which proved successful in dating several types of sediments including "desert loss" sand dunes.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The main problem with all of their theories about the origin and back migration of L(M) into Africa is they base this on the existence of haplogroup M among the Dravidians of India.
This theory can not be supported because the Dravidians belong to the C-Group of Nubia. This means that there were no Dravidians in India before 2500BC.
Some researchers try to imply that the Aurgnacian culture entered Eurasia from the East. They use a Neanderthal site to make their case. But the dates for Aurignacian in Europe begins in Iberia at 44kya.
They don't want to accept the Iberia origin of Aurignacian, because then they would have to admit that haplogroups, H.M.N and etc., entered Europe from Africa, instead of resulting from the OoA migration into South and East Asia.
The entrance of the Aurignacian culture from Africa, into Iberia makes all the proposed back migrations into Africa mute.
quote:
Abstract The Aterian fossil hominins represent one of the most abundant series of human remains associated with Middle Stone Age/Middle Paleolithic assemblages in Africa.
[...]
A complete mandible of Homo erectus was discovered at the Thomas I quarry in Casablanca by a French-Moroccan team co-led by Jean-Paul Raynal, CNRS senior researcher at the PACEA(1) aboratory (CNRS/Université Bordeaux 1/ Ministry of Culture and Communication). This mandible is the oldest human fossil uncovered from scientific excavations in Morocco. The discovery will help better define northern Africa's possible role in first populating southern Europe.
A Homo erectus half-jaw had already been found at the Thomas I quarry in 1969, but it was a chance discovery and therefore with no archeological context.
This is not the case for the fossil discovered May 15, 2008, whose characteristics are very similar to those of the half-jaw found in 1969. The morphology of these remains is different from the three mandibles found at the Tighenif site in Algeria that were used, in 1963, to define the North African variety of Homo erectus, known as Homo mauritanicus, dated to 700,000 B.C.
The mandible from the Thomas I quarry was found in a layer below one where the team has previously found four human teeth (three premolars and one incisor) from Homo erectus, one of which was dated to 500,000 B.C. The human remains were grouped with carved stone tools characteristic of the Acheulian(2) civilization and numerous animal remains (baboons, gazelles, equines, bears, rhinoceroses, and elephants), as well as large numbers of small mammals, which point to a slightly older time frame. Several dating methods are being used to refine the chronology.
The Thomas I quarry in Casablanca confirms its role as one of the most important prehistoric sites for understanding the early population of northwest Africa. The excavations that CNRS and the Institut National des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine du Maroc have led there since 1988 are part of a French-Moroccan collaboration. They have been jointly financed by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs(3), the Department of Human Evolution at the Max Plank Institute in Leipzig (Germany), INSAP(4)(Morocco) and the Aquitaine region.
--J.-J. Hublin, C. Verna, S. Bailey, T. Smith, A. Olejniczak, F. Z. Sbihi-Alaoui, and M. Zouak (2012)
Dental Evidence from the Aterian Human Populations of Morocco
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The main problem with all of their theories about the origin and back migration of L(M) into Africa is they base this on the existence of haplogroup M among the Dravidians of India.
This theory can not be supported because the Dravidians belong to the C-Group of Nubia. This means that there were no Dravidians in India before 2500BC.
Some researchers try to imply that the Aurgnacian culture entered Eurasia from the East. They use a Neanderthal site to make their case. But the dates for Aurignacian in Europe begins in Iberia at 44kya.
They don't want to accept the Iberia origin of Aurignacian, because then they would have to admit that haplogroups, H.M.N and etc., entered Europe from Africa, instead of resulting from the OoA migration into South and East Asia.
The entrance of the Aurignacian culture from Africa, into Iberia makes all the proposed back migrations into Africa mute.
quote: Regular Middle Paleolithic inventories as well as Middle Paleolithic inventories of Aterian type have a long chronology in Morocco going back to MIS 6 and are interstratified in some sites. Their potential for detecting chrono-cultural patterns is low. The transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic, here termed Early Upper Paleolithic—at between 30 to 20 ka—remains a most enigmatic era. Scarce data from this period requires careful and fundamental reconsidering of human presence. By integrating environmental data in the reconstruction of population dynamics, clear correlations become obvious. High resolution data are lacking before 20 ka, and at some sites this period is characterized by the occurrence of sterile layers between Middle Paleolithic deposits, possibly indicative of a very low presence of humans in Morocco. After Heinrich Event 1, there is an enormous increase of data due to the prominent Late Iberomaurusian deposits that contrast strongly with the foregoing accumulations in terms of sedimentological features, fauna, and artifact composition. The Younger Dryas again shows a remarkable decline of data marking the end of the Paleolithic. Environmental improvements in the Holocene are associated with an extensive Epipaleolithic occupation. Therefore, the late glacial cultural sequence of Morocco is a good test case for analyzing the interrelationship of culture and climate change.
--Late Pleistocene Human Occupation of Northwest Africa: A Crosscheck of Chronology and Climate Change in Morocco Jörg Linstädter, Prehistoric Archaeology, Cologne University, GERMANY Josef Eiwanger, KAAK, German Archaeological Institute, GERMANY Abdessalam Mikdad, INSAP, MOROCCO Gerd-Christian Weniger, Neanderthal Museum, GERMANY
quote: North Africa is quickly emerging as one of the more important regions yielding information on the origins of modern Homo sapiens. Associated with significant fossil hominin remains are two stone tool industries, the Aterian and Mousterian, which have been differentiated, respectively, primarily on the basis of the presence and absence of tanged, or stemmed, stone tools. Largely because of historical reasons, these two industries have been attributed to the western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic rather than the African Middle Stone Age. In this paper, drawing on our recent excavation of Contrebandiers Cave and other published data, we show that, aside from the presence or absence of tanged pieces, there are no other distinctions between these two industries in terms of either lithic attributes or chronology. Together, these results demonstrate that these two ‘industries’ are instead variants of the same entity. Moreover, several additional characteristics of these assemblages, such as distinctive stone implements and the manufacture and use of bone tools and possible shell ornaments, suggest a closer affinity to other Late Pleistocene African Middle Stone Age industries rather than to the Middle Paleolithic of western Eurasia.
--On the industrial attributions of the Aterian and Mousterian of the Maghreb, Harold L. Dibble et al. Journal of Human Evolution, 2013 Elsevier.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The main problem with all of their theories about the origin and back migration of L(M) into Africa is they base this on the existence of haplogroup M among the Dravidians of India.
This theory can not be supported because the Dravidians belong to the C-Group of Nubia. This means that there were no Dravidians in India before 2500BC.
Some researchers try to imply that the Aurgnacian culture entered Eurasia from the East. They use a Neanderthal site to make their case. But the dates for Aurignacian in Europe begins in Iberia at 44kya.
They don't want to accept the Iberia origin of Aurignacian, because then they would have to admit that haplogroups, H.M.N and etc., entered Europe from Africa, instead of resulting from the OoA migration into South and East Asia.
The entrance of the Aurignacian culture from Africa, into Iberia makes all the proposed back migrations into Africa mute.
And finally, last but not least, the pre-Aurgnacian culture is within Africa. There is also Proto-Aurignacian, but it's younger.
Volume 300, 25 June 2013, Pages 153–170
The Middle Palaeolithic in the Desert
The Middle Stone Age of the Central Sahara: Biogeographical opportunities and technological strategies in later human evolution
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic