posted
This thread is for posters who can present their views and realize other views can be just as valid provided that the sources informing all views be current >2008 and acceptable to the academic community at large and the poster can discuss their views with others of a different point of view without deciding that people who don't agree with them are fill in the blank choice personal insult.
OK, let's put the following proposition to the test.
Some mtDNA and nrY-Chromosome uniparental clades are considered specific markers of geography, ethnicity, and/or language.
This specificity is not a certainty of population origin. The marker may've arose elsewhere before its carriers all settled where geneticists sampled them.
A specificity marker's lineage or genesis in terms of its clade's major haplogroup and that haplogroup's basal expansions may not be the same as its origin.
A locale specific marker may long ago originated some other place which itself may be off the track of the majority of its sibling, parental, and other related clades.
Candidate markers for that scenario?
A specificity marker with locale, origin, and lineage all differing would be harder to know about or find than one with locale or origin different from lineage.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One clade that comes to mind is mtDNA hg M. We know original M* and many of its descendants have a South Asian (Indian) center of dispersal. But then we have M1 in East Africa and M* itself is derived from L3 which is African. This is why there is an ongoing debate as to whether M1 originated in Africa or is the result of back-migration to Africa.
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
One clade that comes to mind is mtDNA hg M. We know original M* and many of its descendants have a South Asian (Indian) center of dispersal. But then we have M1 in East Africa and M* itself is derived from L3 which is African. This is why there is an ongoing debate as to whether M1 originated in Africa or is the result of back-migration to Africa.
I don't understand.
Where is the specificity here * macrohaplogroup * a subhaplogroup * a phylogenetic tip?
What particular breeding population is it?
Or is it geographical and if so is it * continental * regional * local?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This thread is for posters who can present their views and realize other views can be just as valid provided that the sources informing all views be current >2008 and acceptable to the academic community at large and the poster can discuss their views with others of a different point of view without deciding that people who don't agree with them are fill in the blank choice personal insult.
Information can be well dated past 2008, and still be quite valid. Heck, information can be nearly a century old, if not more, and still be valid... pending authentication to the contrary, of course.
Asking for validation of the "academic community at large," assumes that elements within this community are not subject to bias, and that "popularity" necessarily authenticates information. The merit of any information, on the contrary, is really reliant upon on the weight of substantiating material. The more substantive, the better the merit.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
One clade that comes to mind is mtDNA hg M. We know original M* and many of its descendants have a South Asian (Indian) center of dispersal. But then we have M1 in East Africa and M* itself is derived from L3 which is African. This is why there is an ongoing debate as to whether M1 originated in Africa or is the result of back-migration to Africa.
What is this M* clade, that is supposedly from South Asia? I am aware of sub-clades of M concentrated in this part of the world, but nothing comes to mind about just "M*".
Though many research papers from the "west" tend to take it for granted that such clades as M and N are "non-African", there is truly no such clarity that points to a non-African origin for either sub-clades of L3. As an example, one paper notes:
It is plausible that the M and F lineage could have originated in East Africa and migrated to India through the southern route, but the alternative of a back migration to Africa cannot be ruled out at this point. The HpaI/HincII loss at np-12406 (characteristic of F) could have arisen from a mutation in any of the four nucleotides, which can lead to multiple origins of F.
Thus the African haplotypes AF21 and AF10 (Figure 2) could have arisen from an independent mutation (F) in a +DdeI 10394, AluI 10397 African lineage. These haplotypes have a T at nucleotide 16223, whereas the Indian and East Asian N and F have a C at this position.
If the Asian haplotype originated from the one in Africa by the loss of the variable DdeI 10394 site, then the 16223T → C transition could have taken place either in Africa or India, as seen in Figure 2, or the Asian N and F lineage could have arisen on an African N background.
F is found at a higher frequency in East Asia, where it is well differentiated; its origin in this region would involve yet another independent event. - Barnabas et al. 2005
Though this paper is about 8 years old, the pressing matters above are still very much alive, notwithstanding some papers or the others purporting to have a firm grounding on the origins of these so-called "non-African" clades. The notes above open up the possibility of an African origin for these clades, just as a few other studies have. Still, many others treat these clades as though the authors have firm answers on their origins; this is cause for readers and observers to pause and take caution: origins of many of these "non-African" clades is still far from certain, notwithstanding what some research papers may be implicitly or explicitly suggesting otherwise.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: What is this M* clade, that is supposedly from South Asia? I am aware of sub-clades of M concentrated in this part of the world, but nothing comes to mind about just "M*".
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought underived M* was found in some substantial frequency in India. Unless the nomenclature has changed and/or SNP motif further elucidated. Other than that, I am well aware that the majority of M subclades are indeed found in India which is why I thought M* was found there as well.
quote:Though many research papers from the "west" tend to take it for granted that such clades as M and N are "non-African", there is truly no such clarity that points to a non-African origin for either sub-clades of L3. As an example, one paper notes:
It is plausible that the M and F lineage could have originated in East Africa and migrated to India through the southern route, but the alternative of a back migration to Africa cannot be ruled out at this point. The HpaI/HincII loss at np-12406 (characteristic of F) could have arisen from a mutation in any of the four nucleotides, which can lead to multiple origins of F.
Thus the African haplotypes AF21 and AF10 (Figure 2) could have arisen from an independent mutation (F) in a +DdeI 10394, AluI 10397 African lineage. These haplotypes have a T at nucleotide 16223, whereas the Indian and East Asian N and F have a C at this position.
If the Asian haplotype originated from the one in Africa by the loss of the variable DdeI 10394 site, then the 16223T → C transition could have taken place either in Africa or India, as seen in Figure 2, or the Asian N and F lineage could have arisen on an African N background.
F is found at a higher frequency in East Asia, where it is well differentiated; its origin in this region would involve yet another independent event. - Barnabas et al. 2005 Though this paper is about 8 years old, the pressing matters above are still very much alive, notwithstanding some papers or the others purporting to have a firm grounding on the origins of these so-called "non-African" clades. The notes above open up the possibility of an African origin for these clades, just as a few other studies have. Still, many others treat these clades as though the authors have firm answers on their origins; this is cause for readers and observers to pause and take caution: origins of many of these "non-African" clades is still far from certain, notwithstanding what some research papers may be implicitly or explicitly suggesting otherwise.
Very interesting. I am aware of the probable African provenance of both M and N considering their derivation from MN which is a subclade of African L3, but I didn't know that F could be African as well. I believe F is derived from a subclade of R.
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
F1 <- F <- R9c <- R9 <- N <- L3
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
One clade that comes to mind is mtDNA hg M. We know original M* and many of its descendants have a South Asian (Indian) center of dispersal. But then we have M1 in East Africa and M* itself is derived from L3 which is African. This is why there is an ongoing debate as to whether M1 originated in Africa or is the result of back-migration to Africa.
I don't understand.
Where is the specificity here * macrohaplogroup * a subhaplogroup * a phylogenetic tip?
What particular breeding population is it?
Or is it geographical and if so is it * continental * regional * local?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I was under the impression that a paragroup hg M* existed in India. According to Explorer this isn't the case though I wait for a clarifying response.
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ I was under the impression that a paragroup hg M* existed in India. According to Explorer this isn't the case though I wait for a clarifying response.
M* could mean all Hgs/clades carrying the M motif that don't fit into any known M derived Hgs or it could mean all known Hgs/clades with M's motif regardless of capital letter. By paragroup I take it you mean the former.
Barnabas 2005 looks at many haplotypes falling under M but doesn't resolve them any further. There are more current reports more useful than Barnabas who ignores Chen's African Hg assignments making those samples either M, N, F or the bogus M/F, N/F, and +- clusters.
Baranabas' erroneous assignments of the African haplotype samples and bogus clusters speak to the reason I requested reports cited in my thread be from 2008 and up (not that some of them are also outdated by later studies implementing more robust samples and/or more refined methodologies).
Hg M itself has an African specific clade M1 that's regional specific to NE Africa and periphery. Afaik Hg F is not found in Africa and definitely not in Chen's Senegalese samples used by Barnabas.
Other M clades are predominantly S Asian. Non-M clades derived from super-Hg M are predominantly in central and north Asia and the Americas.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ By M*, I meant all hgs/clades carrying the M motif that don't fit into any known M derived hgs. That's what I meant by paragroup. I remember some years back we had a debate about M1 in Africa in contrast to M* in India, particularly in regards to Clyde's claims of 'Dravidian Africans'. That said, if there is any update or elucidation on these M* types in India that I don't know about please someone (Explorer or whoever) inform me.
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dravidians are NOT African, I don't know why Winters keeps saying that. Me being part Southern Indian descent should know myself.
The debate about M is very interesting one. I strongly support an Asian origins and a back migration into Africa. But it doesn't matter because even if M1 is due to back migration, M1 is no longer Eurasian.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought underived M* was found in some substantial frequency in India. Unless the nomenclature has changed and/or SNP motif further elucidated. Other than that, I am well aware that the majority of M subclades are indeed found in India which is why I thought M* was found there as well.
I cannot correct you yet, as I'm trying to get a better grip of what you mean by M* in the first place. I'm certainly not aware of any M clade in India that is supposedly the ancestral clade to all the M clades found in the globe; I am however, aware that clades have been found in Africa, that may serve that very purpose.
quote:
quote:Though many research papers from the "west" tend to take it for granted that such clades as M and N are "non-African", there is truly no such clarity that points to a non-African origin for either sub-clades of L3. As an example, one paper notes:
It is plausible that the M and F lineage could have originated in East Africa and migrated to India through the southern route, but the alternative of a back migration to Africa cannot be ruled out at this point. The HpaI/HincII loss at np-12406 (characteristic of F) could have arisen from a mutation in any of the four nucleotides, which can lead to multiple origins of F.
Thus the African haplotypes AF21 and AF10 (Figure 2) could have arisen from an independent mutation (F) in a +DdeI 10394, AluI 10397 African lineage. These haplotypes have a T at nucleotide 16223, whereas the Indian and East Asian N and F have a C at this position.
If the Asian haplotype originated from the one in Africa by the loss of the variable DdeI 10394 site, then the 16223T → C transition could have taken place either in Africa or India, as seen in Figure 2, or the Asian N and F lineage could have arisen on an African N background.
F is found at a higher frequency in East Asia, where it is well differentiated; its origin in this region would involve yet another independent event. - Barnabas et al. 2005 [qb] Though this paper is about 8 years old, the pressing matters above are still very much alive, notwithstanding some papers or the others purporting to have a firm grounding on the origins of these so-called "non-African" clades. The notes above open up the possibility of an African origin for these clades, just as a few other studies have. Still, many others treat these clades as though the authors have firm answers on their origins; this is cause for readers and observers to pause and take caution: origins of many of these "non-African" clades is still far from certain, notwithstanding what some research papers may be implicitly or explicitly suggesting otherwise.
Very interesting. I am aware of the probable African provenance of both M and N considering their derivation from MN which is a subclade of African L3, but I didn't know that F could be African as well. I believe F is derived from a subclade of R.
That's because you have been thoroughly conditioned to take it for granted that M and N sub-clades are entirely "non-African", which was the very thing that my post was trying to debunk to begin with. The piece explains why its very plausible that not only the F clade could have very well emerged on the African continent, but that there is also that possibility that it may have emerged more than once in history!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Barnabas 2005 looks at many haplotypes falling under M but doesn't resolve them any further. There are more current reports more useful than Barnabas who ignores Chen's African Hg assignments making those samples either M, N, F or the bogus M/F, N/F, and +- clusters.
I'm aware that Barnabas et al. (2005) does not have a finely resolute sequencing data, and hence, obviously not the reason I posted it. I did however post it, because sequencing resolution notwithstanding, it serves as an example of the kind of actual hard substance many genetic papers are faced with...which rarely speaks to much of the firm origin-assignments often made by research teams from the 'west'.
quote: Baranabas' erroneous assignments of the African haplotype samples and bogus clusters
How do you deem the clusters "bogus"? I mean, a shared feature is required for clustering to take effect, is it not? If so, did the authors not identify such feature, and by extension, would that not make the accompanying clustering appropriate?
quote:Hg M itself has an African specific clade M1 that's regional specific to NE Africa and periphery. Afaik Hg F is not found in Africa and definitely not in Chen's Senegalese samples used by Barnabas.
How did Chen treat the "HpaI/HincII loss at np-12406" in the African haplotypes, which prompted Barnabas et al. to raise the possibility of F clade origin on the African continent?
M1 is found in western Africa, as it is found in eastern Africa, and most likely origin points to the former!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
^ By M*, I meant all hgs/clades carrying the M motif that don't fit into any known M derived hgs. That's what I meant by paragroup. I remember some years back we had a debate about M1 in Africa in contrast to M* in India, particularly in regards to Clyde's claims of 'Dravidian Africans'. That said, if there is any update or elucidation on these M* types in India that I don't know about please someone (Explorer or whoever) inform me.
Yeah, I have a clearer idea of what context you are using M*. Still, finding M clades in India that do not fall into any of the well-established clades, if it/they exist(s), does not mean that such clades are in fact ancestral to the African clades, or even preexisting Asian clades, although they could indeed be more basic than other examples. I find it hard to imagine that any such clade(s), if indeed found in India, will prove to be more basic than examples found in African samples. But let me first see what you've got, from a nucleotide sequencing standpoint.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
The debate about M is very interesting one. I strongly support an Asian origins and a back migration into Africa. But it doesn't matter because even if M1 is due to back migration, M1 is no longer Eurasian.
Apparently you have a personal opinion here, but other than to yourself, it holds little actual currency. You can change that however, by telling me, i.e. beyond just catering to your personal wishes, what set of hard substance makes you see an "Asian origin" for M.
M1 is in fact found in "Eurasia", but it is mainly there as a telltale sign of movements from the African continent.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
M1 is NE Africa and peripheries specific. M1 is found in Eurasia. Eurasian M1 in fact came from Africa. This is not the same as M1 originating other Eurasian M.
Comparative coalescence indicates M1 entered Africa from Afroasia or Eurasia after expansion events there.
Main factors disallowing M Hg origins in Africa - diversity - age - frequency. These are what usually determine an Hg's origins.
The pros say they can't find the OoA signature M in Africa nor the OoA signature L3 in Afroasia. That leaves an impossibility, the waters of the Red Sea as point of origin.
Obviously something is off about the pros' M and L3 remnant assessment. My guess is maybe these Hgs died off on both shores opposite their current provenances within a few thousand years of OoA?
I doubt either shore was exclusively M or L3. It'd seem to me both sides of Bab el Mandeb may've had both for some decades or centuries after the initial crossings.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Barnabas 2005 looks at many haplotypes falling under M but doesn't resolve them any further. There are more current reports more useful than Barnabas who ignores Chen's African Hg assignments making those samples either M, N, F or the bogus M/F, N/F, and +- clusters.
How do you deem the clusters "bogus"? I mean, a shared feature is required for clustering to take effect, is it not? If so, did the authors not identify such feature, and by extension, would that not make the accompanying clustering appropriate?
I reread that and wanted to replace bogus with private. The field recognizes no such thing as mtDNA F in Senegal nor an "'M and F' cluster".
Barnabas uses cluster and haplogroup synonymously. Most HVSI mutations are recurrent and appear in clades unrelated by descent. Basing a cluster on them is only a grouping by reversion state not by descent. To join M and F by descent the parent common mutation would be deep in L3 and thus permit all M and N as shared features.
Since the Senegal samples are not F and Barnabas uses them as the basis of her private "M and F" cluster then there is no such cluster.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
The debate about M is very interesting one. I strongly support an Asian origins and a back migration into Africa. But it doesn't matter because even if M1 is due to back migration, M1 is no longer Eurasian.
Apparently you have a personal opinion here, but other than to yourself, it holds little actual currency. You can change that however, by telling me, i.e. beyond just catering to your personal wishes, what set of hard substance makes you see an "Asian origin" for M.
M1 is in fact found in "Eurasia", but it is mainly there as a telltale sign of movements from the African continent.
There is a nothing 'personal' about this. Haplogroup M is in Africa because of back migrations. Africans don't carry the deepest rooted Haplogroup M lineages, Asians do. Not only that, but M1 lineages in East Africa are much younger in lineages then Haplogroup M lineages in Asia. Asian origins for Haplogroup M is supported by coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. That is enough to tell us that M is of Asian origins and M1 in Africa is due to back migration...
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^And, to add to that, the oldest M1 is in Northern Africa (not Ethiopia), yet, there simply is no indigenous Northern African culture M1 can be correlated with. There is the Aterian, which stops 40kya and seems to die out due to the increasing aridity of the Sahara. Then, there seems to be a population hiatus in Northern Africa which seems to end with the appearance of the Ibero-Maurusians in the coastal Maghreb 20kya. They're the only archaeological candidates for M1 and U6, and to the dismay of butt-hurt ideologues, they cluster morphometrically with Eurasian AMHs before doing so with African ones.
Then there is also the fact that the proto-Eurasian populations lived in Eastern Africa before OOA, certainly not in Northern Africa. Paul Mellars et al. 2013 demonstrated that by correlating East African MSA technologies (that have affinity with Southern African technologies [Howiesons Poort]) with the earliest OOA cultures in South Asia and reconfirming the Southern Dispersal Route theory. There is no way that the dubious notion of M1 representing some magical wandering Middle Palaeolithic African leftover ancestry can be upheld without clear evidence of a population movement from East Africa to the Maghreb ~30kya, that can explain what the hell the oldest M1 is doing in Northern Africa, rather than Ethiopia. Oops, my bad; there are no archaeological cultures attested in the Maghreb during that time period.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Also I think the Aterian culture was associated with Y-DNA 'A', its still found in the Maghreb but at VERY low frequencies.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: That's because you have been thoroughly conditioned to take it for granted that M and N sub-clades are entirely "non-African", which was the very thing that my post was trying to debunk to begin with. The piece explains why its very plausible that not only the F clade could have very well emerged on the African continent, but that there is also that possibility that it may have emerged more than once in history!
Actually, I have NOT been "conditioned" to anything at all in these matters of population genetic origins either one way or another-- whether African origins or Eurasian origins. I tend to keep an open mind and go by what the evidence says. As I understand it the jury is still out. I mean the only thing we know for sure is that L3 is definitely African while its derivatives M and N appear to be Eurasian. There is also the matter of MN ancestral to both M and N and direct daughter of L3 which has yet to be discovered. Don't think that just because I'm Asian, I'm favoring Eurasian origins for M and N, though it seems you yourself are favoring the African origin.
quote: Yeah, I have a clearer idea of what context you are using M*. Still, finding M clades in India that do not fall into any of the well-established clades, if it/they exist(s), does not mean that such clades are in fact ancestral to the African clades, or even preexisting Asian clades, although they could indeed be more basic than other examples. I find it hard to imagine that any such clade(s), if indeed found in India, will prove to be more basic than examples found in African samples. But let me first see what you've got, from a nucleotide sequencing standpoint.
I don't have anything up to date in terms of sequencing. The only sequencing data I have come from Metspalu and Kivilsid studies from before 2005. As I've mentioned before, I don't usually keep up with these studies on my own and only learn the latest findings from folks such as yourself or Swenet. Again, I don't deny the possibility that M may have originated in Africa but I don't deny a possible Eurasian origin as well.
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And, to add to that, the oldest M1 is in Northern Africa (not Ethiopia), yet, there simply is no indigenous Northern African culture M1 can be correlated with. There is the Aterian, which stops 40kya and seems to die out due to the increasing aridity of the Sahara. Then, there seems to be a population hiatus in Northern Africa which seems to end with the appearance of the Ibero-Maurusians in the coastal Maghreb 20kya. They're the only archaeological candidates for M1 and U6, and to the dismay of butt-hurt ideologues, they cluster morphometrically with Eurasian AMHs before doing so with African ones.
Then there is also the fact that the proto-Eurasian populations lived in Eastern Africa before OOA, certainly not in Northern Africa. Paul Mellars et al. 2013 demonstrated that by correlating East African MSA technologies (that have affinity with Southern African technologies [Howiesons Poort]) with the earliest OOA cultures in South Asia and reconfirming the Southern Dispersal Route theory. There is no way that the dubious notion of M1 representing some magical wandering Middle Palaeolithic African leftover ancestry can be upheld without clear evidence of a population movement from East Africa to the Maghreb ~30kya, that can explain what the hell the oldest M1 is doing in Northern Africa, rather than Ethiopia. Oops, my bad; there are no archaeological cultures attested in the Maghreb during that time period.
Interesting theory. So how do you think these Eurasian ancestors of the Oranians (Ibero-Marusians) entered Africa? Also, what of Nazlet Khater which dates ~ 30kya??
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And, to add to that, the oldest M1 is in Northern Africa (not Ethiopia), yet, there simply is no indigenous Northern African culture M1 can be correlated with. There is the Aterian, which stops 40kya and seems to die out due to the increasing aridity of the Sahara. Then, there seems to be a population hiatus in Northern Africa which seems to end with the appearance of the Ibero-Maurusians in the coastal Maghreb 20kya. They're the only archaeological candidates for M1 and U6, and to the dismay of butt-hurt ideologues, they cluster morphometrically with Eurasian AMHs before doing so with African ones.
Then there is also the fact that the proto-Eurasian populations lived in Eastern Africa before OOA, certainly not in Northern Africa. Paul Mellars et al. 2013 demonstrated that by correlating East African MSA technologies (that have affinity with Southern African technologies [Howiesons Poort]) with the earliest OOA cultures in South Asia and reconfirming the Southern Dispersal Route theory. There is no way that the dubious notion of M1 representing some magical wandering Middle Palaeolithic African leftover ancestry can be upheld without clear evidence of a population movement from East Africa to the Maghreb ~30kya, that can explain what the hell the oldest M1 is doing in Northern Africa, rather than Ethiopia. Oops, my bad; there are no archaeological cultures attested in the Maghreb during that time period.
Interesting theory. So how do you think these Eurasian ancestors of the Oranians (Ibero-Marusians) entered Africa? Also, what of Nazlet Khater which dates ~ 30kya??
Were any DNA test done on the Nazlet Khater. I know it had Negroid type features.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And, to add to that, the oldest M1 is in Northern Africa (not Ethiopia), yet, there simply is no indigenous Northern African culture M1 can be correlated with. There is the Aterian, which stops 40kya and seems to die out due to the increasing aridity of the Sahara. Then, there seems to be a population hiatus in Northern Africa which seems to end with the appearance of the Ibero-Maurusians in the coastal Maghreb 20kya. They're the only archaeological candidates for M1 and U6, and to the dismay of butt-hurt ideologues, they cluster morphometrically with Eurasian AMHs before doing so with African ones.
Then there is also the fact that the proto-Eurasian populations lived in Eastern Africa before OOA, certainly not in Northern Africa. Paul Mellars et al. 2013 demonstrated that by correlating East African MSA technologies (that have affinity with Southern African technologies [Howiesons Poort]) with the earliest OOA cultures in South Asia and reconfirming the Southern Dispersal Route theory. There is no way that the dubious notion of M1 representing some magical wandering Middle Palaeolithic African leftover ancestry can be upheld without clear evidence of a population movement from East Africa to the Maghreb ~30kya, that can explain what the hell the oldest M1 is doing in Northern Africa, rather than Ethiopia. Oops, my bad; there are no archaeological cultures attested in the Maghreb during that time period.
Interesting theory. So how do you think these Eurasian ancestors of the Oranians (Ibero-Marusians) entered Africa? Also, what of Nazlet Khater which dates ~ 30kya??
Not to overstay my welcome, as I'm not exactly posting in line with the OP parameters, but Nazlet Khater seems to correlate with L3k, which moved from the Ethiopian region to North East Africa 30-40kya, per Soares et al 2011. Whatever its affinity, its mandible strongly clusters with MSA Sub-Saharan Africans per Pinhasi's analysis.
What do you mean with how did they enter Africa? Are you referring to the aridity of the Sahara? The Ibero-Maurusian sites were found in coastal Maghreb, as well as the other sites (e.g., Dabban). The North African coastal regions weren't affected by the aridity of the Sahara to the point of becoming uninhabitable; they remained a traversable corridor.
Someone should make another thread if they want to discuss this further.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
M1 is NE Africa and peripheries specific. M1 is found in Eurasia.
How can M1 be Northeast African specific, when it is present in western Africa, where the even more basal clades have been located, not to leave out its southeast African distribution?
quote: Eurasian M1 in fact came from Africa. This is not the same as M1 originating other Eurasian M.
Wherever did you get this crazy idea that other Eurasian M derive from M1?
quote:
Comparative coalescence indicates M1 entered Africa from Afroasia or Eurasia after expansion events there.
This does not make any sense. If the most basal clades of M1 are found on the continent, how do you even figure an "Eurasian" origin point or greater coalescence for the clade in "Eurasia"?
Other M clades having greater coalescence time estimates than M1 is very old news. It simply means that M1 either did not expand as extensively as the other clades and/or it emerged relatively late from an ancestral M or L3M clade.
quote: Main factors disallowing M Hg origins in Africa - diversity - age - frequency. These are what usually determine an Hg's origins.
These are very flimsy reasons. More substantive than any of your reasons, is that not only is the ancestral lineage of the entire M clade readily present in Africa, but so is the most basic clade featuring M qualities, whereas neither has been located elsewhere.
Plus, M1 frequency is at its highest on the African continent. Pooling M1 with other M clades, to make a case for "frequency" makes very little sense.
quote:The pros say they can't find the OoA signature M in Africa nor the OoA signature L3 in Afroasia. That leaves an impossibility, the waters of the Red Sea as point of origin.
LOL, how can the "pros" not find OOA signature of M in Africa, when its ancestral lineage is squarely found there? M cannot exist without L3.
And what is this "Afroasia" you keep referring to?
quote: Obviously something is off about the pros' M and L3 remnant assessment. My guess is maybe these Hgs died off on both shores opposite their current provenances within a few thousand years of OoA?
Other M clades have been located on the African continent, in case you are wondering about that. And since M1 is apparently present on the African continent, it cannot be said that M has "died off" there.
An M origin outside of Africa, however unlikely, would require the consideration of L3 largely "dying off" there.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I reread that and wanted to replace bogus with private. The field recognizes no such thing as mtDNA F in Senegal nor an "'M and F' cluster".
Saying the "field" recognizes "no such thing" makes no sense, when we are discussing publication in the field implicating either an F clade or a clade which certainly has "F qualities" in African samples.
quote: Barnabas uses cluster and haplogroup synonymously.
How do you figure so?
The authors use nucleotide information to link sequences, as is done elsewhere; that does not mean they are confusing clusters with haplogroups or using them interchangeably.
quote:To join M and F by descent the parent common mutation would be deep in L3 and thus permit all M and N as shared features.
What are you talking about?
Barnabas et al. use two separate nodes for N and M, if that helps the conversation in any way.
quote:Since the Senegal samples are not F and Barnabas uses them as the basis of her private "M and F" cluster then there is no such cluster.
I see you repeating things; what's is clear however, is that you have not answered the question with regards to the nucleotide features which prompted Barnabas et al. to make a case for an African origin of F.
Ps: And you keep referring to some Senegalese sample; I gather you got that from references somewhere or another, as Barnabas et al. do not actually go into ethnic-assignments of the African samples. Still, it would be nice to have the answer to that pressing matter above. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
There is a nothing 'personal' about this. Haplogroup M is in Africa because of back migrations.
I'd say that drawing up a conclusion because it is what feels good to someone, as opposed to relying squarely on substance, is "personal". For instance, your claim about M being in Africa "because of back migrations" sounds quite personal, since you don't back it up with substance, other than just opining away.
quote:Africans don't carry the deepest rooted Haplogroup M lineages, Asians do. Not only that, but M1 lineages in East Africa are much younger in lineages then Haplogroup M lineages in Asia.
As noted above, the phylogeny of M1 speaks either to a relatively lower expansion bio-history and/or relatively late offshoot from the ancestral source. Saying "Asians" have the "deepest rooted M lineages" is of little consequence, when you understand this.
quote: Asian origins for Haplogroup M is supported by coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. That is enough to tell us that M is of Asian origins and M1 in Africa is due to back migration...
Tell me you are kidding here?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Actually, I have NOT been "conditioned" to anything at all in these matters of population genetic origins either one way or another-- whether African origins or Eurasian origins. I tend to keep an open mind and go by what the evidence says.
Considering substance over personal feelings is something I consider "open-minded".
quote: As I understand it the jury is still out. I mean the only thing we know for sure is that L3 is definitely African while its derivatives M and N appear to be Eurasian.
That is actually a strange logic to go by, since both M and N clades also appear on the African continent. Going by "appearances" then, these clades too can "appear" to be African.
Of course there is little doubt that L3 is African, since the entire phylogeny is practically found, and nearly exclusively, on the African continent. The predominance of M and N clades outside of Africa simply says that loss of diversity accompanied OOA immigration, and that these lineages blossomed therein out of several founder effect events. That does not suddenly make these clades "non-African".
quote:There is also the matter of MN ancestral to both M and N and direct daughter of L3 which has yet to be discovered.
M and N seemed to have emerged out of different African L3 backgrounds, which I have briefed on a few times before. So the "matter of MN" is striking me as news at the moment.
quote: Don't think that just because I'm Asian, I'm favoring Eurasian origins for M and N, though it seems you yourself are favoring the African origin.
And I don't think you were accused of such. It struck me however, that you treat M and N as you do, or surprised at the prospect of these clades having an African origin [strange since they derive from African lineages in the first place] because you have been conditioned--mainly by western research papers--to treat them that way.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
it seems you yourself are favoring the African origin.
I think you've missed the whole point of my first feedback to your post in this thread. What I've been trying to get you to see, is that there is nothing as certain about the origin assignments of M and N clades as many 'western' research teams would have one believe. For instance, at times a monophyletic origin is proposed when otherwise there could very well have been a multiple origin situation; other times, clades are treated as if entire phylogeny need to have come from the same geographical confines, when fact could have been otherwise, in that sub-clades/haplogroups could very well have emerged in entirely different geographical spaces from other monophyletic units within a larger clade. Human movement is not as linear, and relatively less complex, as many research teams prefer to view them.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The west has nothing to do with it. Using the west is an irrational emotional appeal.
Non-westerners are no more in agreement than westerners are about molecular biology and population genetics.
Here's an Indian report dated the same year as Barnabas and likewise outdated in part.
Revathi Rajkumar 2005 Phylogeny of the M superhaplogroup inferred from complete mitochondrial genome sequence of Indian specific lineages.
See what it has to say about M in India and Ethiopia.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I am reposting what I asked of posters to this thread because it's gone off kilter focusing on an outdated report of 2005 itself based on material dated 2000 and 1995. I ask further discussion on Barnabas 2005 go to a thread of its own, please. Please respect my thread parameters as you would your own blog, thank you.
I will gladly present my analysis and critique of Barnabas' outdated low resolution and down level methodology there but not here.
=======
This thread is for posters who can present their views and realize other views can be just as valid provided that the sources informing all views be current >= 2008 and acceptable to the academic community at large and the poster can discuss their views with others of a different point of view without deciding that people who don't agree with them are fill in the blank choice personal insult.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I couldn't agree more. I don't know what it is with Explorer but he seems to be the one acting emotional here judging by his over-defensive posturing. For one thing he makes a lot of presumptions about people such as myself. He presumes that I'm not open-minded and don't consider the substance over personal feelings even though as I said I have NO personal feelings one way or the other (unlike him) which is why I haven't decided one way or another but await for more evidence! He then says I am swayed by Western experts and talks about the West. Of course I know very well about the biases that exist among Western scholars which is why their work must be scrutinize though not all Western researchers have such biases! This is why the debate is still open among Western academia! Sorry if you hadn't noticed.
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not to overstay my welcome, as I'm not exactly posting in line with the OP parameters, but Nazlet Khater seems to correlate with L3k, which moved from the Ethiopian region to North East Africa 30-40kya, per Soares et al 2011. Whatever its affinity, its mandible strongly clusters with MSA Sub-Saharan Africans per Pinhasi's analysis.
Yes I'm aware of what Pinhasi and Soares state about the skeletal data, but I was wondering what you think of the possible genetic data. L3K does seem like a good guess in terms of Ethiopian origins but then again nothing is certain until actual DNA from Nazlet Khater or related finds are tested.
quote:What do you mean with how did they enter Africa? Are you referring to the aridity of the Sahara? The Ibero-Maurusian sites were found in coastal Maghreb, as well as the other sites (e.g., Dabban). The North African coastal regions weren't affected by the aridity of the Sahara to the point of becoming uninhabitable; they remained a traversable corridor.
So are you suggesting they entered North Africa from the Sinai area and thus acknowledge a relation with the contemporary Kebaran Culture??
quote:Someone should make another thread if they want to discuss this further.
We have how many threads already on the Oranians/Ibero-marusians??
By the way, I suddenly remember something.
You say the Oranian culture has no ties to anything in Sub-Sahara well what about the following point brought up by Troll Patrol? Figure 8.13. Taforalt, Morocco, under renewed excavation. The site preserves a long sequence of Iberomaurisian and, below these, Aterian deposits. (Courtesy and copyright Nick Barton and Ian Cartwright.) whole. This was the practice of removing two or more of the upper incisors, usually around puberty and from both males and females, something that probably served as both a rite of passage and an ethnic marker (Close and Wendorf 1990), just as it does in parts of sub-Saharan Africa today (e.g., van Reenen 1987). Cranial and postcranial malformations are also apparent and may indicate pronounced endogamy at a much more localised level (Hadjouis 2002), perhaps supported by the degree of variability between different site samples noted by Irish (2000). --Lawrence Barham, The First Africans: African Archaeology from the Earliest Toolmakers to Most Recent Foragers (Cambridge World Archaeology)
Is not the practice of avulsion of the incisors proof of connection to so-called "Sub-Saharans"?? The practice still survives today in the Kordofan region of Sudan among other areas of Africa.
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The west has nothing to do with it. Using the west is an irrational emotional appeal.
I suggest you approach my posts carefully. I referred to "western" research teams. Why? Because it is their papers that is most frequently referenced on social sites like this. Nobody said "it" has "something to do with the west". Your reading therefore is a more relevant example of what an irrational emotional appeal is like.
quote:Here's an Indian report dated the same year as Barnabas and likewise outdated in part.
Revathi Rajkumar 2005 Phylogeny of the M superhaplogroup inferred from complete mitochondrial genome sequence of Indian specific lineages.
See what it has to say about M in India and Ethiopia.
I take it that this publication does not make heavy references to previous 'western'-sourced publications?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I am reposting what I asked of posters to this thread because it's gone off kilter focusing on an outdated report of 2005 itself based on material dated 2000 and 1995.
You are at it again, with the emotional appeals.
I've asked of you very specific items, with regards to your questionable accusations against Barnabas et al.'s paper, and you have all but refrained from providing logical direct answers. You do this, all in a bid to cling onto your emotionally-driven appeal of rendering any study that predates 2008 as necessarily "outdated". It stinks of dogma.
quote: I ask further discussion on Barnabas 2005 go to a thread of its own, please. Please respect my thread parameters as you would your own blog, thank you.
This is not a personal blog, this is a public forum. The difference is as clear as that between day and night. If however, you want a place where you don't have to answer to anyone else, then you might want to consider starting a personal blog.
quote: I will gladly present my analysis and critique of Barnabas' outdated low resolution and down level methodology there but not here.
The reference to Barnabas et al. was well within the frame of the matter broached in the opening notes. You take issue with it, because its mere reference challenges the unreasonable appeal made in that intro post, about not looking to any publication predating 2008.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I couldn't agree more. I don't know what it is with Explorer but he seems to be the one acting emotional here judging by his over-defensive posturing.
Which would be identified by what particular posting here?
quote: For one thing he makes a lot of presumptions about people such as myself. He presumes that I'm not open-minded and don't consider the substance over personal feelings even though as I said I have NO personal feelings one way or the other (unlike him) which is why I haven't decided one way or another but await for more evidence! He then says I am swayed by Western experts and talks about the West.
I dunno, but this is looking like you are the highly emotional one here, overreacting to what was apparently an observation based off your comment. It was you who professed that it did not dawn on you that hg F could be African; as such, I offered my assessment on what the likely driver was behind this condition. You want to object to this assessment, then I say fine. But to dismiss it as "being over-defensive" is just beyond irrational. Show some class and decorum.
quote: Sorry if you hadn't noticed.
Your apology is greatly misplaced, I'm afraid, as I'm seated in the front-row seat when it comes to pointing out biases in 'western' research. Why then wouldn't I notice it!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
There goes the thread???
When bias fails and data prevails always the resort to emotional wreckage. But it doesn't obscure the facts except for the easily distracted.
@all Please continue with relevant posting and just ignore responding to troller emotional provocation.
Don't let the thread go from the topic to personal spat chat.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
There is a nothing 'personal' about this. Haplogroup M is in Africa because of back migrations.
I'd say that drawing up a conclusion because it is what feels good to someone, as opposed to relying squarely on substance, is "personal". For instance, your claim about M being in Africa "because of back migrations" sounds quite personal, since you don't back it up with substance, other than just opining away.
quote:Africans don't carry the deepest rooted Haplogroup M lineages, Asians do. Not only that, but M1 lineages in East Africa are much younger in lineages then Haplogroup M lineages in Asia.
As noted above, the phylogeny of M1 speaks either to a relatively lower expansion bio-history and/or relatively late offshoot from the ancestral source. Saying "Asians" have the "deepest rooted M lineages" is of little consequence, when you understand this.
quote: Asian origins for Haplogroup M is supported by coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. That is enough to tell us that M is of Asian origins and M1 in Africa is due to back migration...
Tell me you are kidding here?
No I am certainly not kidding. Can you explain why M lineages in Africa are younger than those in Asia? Again no one is taking this personal, I go by reality and facts.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Can you explain why M lineages in Africa are younger than those in Asia? Again no one is taking this personal, I go by reality and facts.
Researchers say they are.
LOL. None of the dates for these haplogroups are based on ancient DNA, they are all the result of statistical analysis.
This makes the date given for the origin of these genes guessestimates.
LOL. None of the dates for M haplogroups are supported by either archaeology, linguistics or craniometrics.
Dravidian archaeology and linguistics dates back to the C-Group in Africa. The Dravidians are the carriers of M clades.
When bias fails and data prevails always the resort to emotional wreckage.
It's a pity that the thread starter is more guilty of this than any other party in this thread.
quote: But it doesn't obscure the facts
There are facts presented here alright; only that there is yet any to be credited to you. Whining (about a study) is not an act of presenting facts.
quote:Please continue with relevant posting and just ignore responding to troller emotional provocation.
I intend to, thank you.
quote:Don't let the thread go from the topic to personal spat chat.
This is one of those "do as I say, and not as I do," kinda thing I reckon.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I was hoping you would say that you were, since your opinion about your stated reasons being "enough" couldn't be any further from truth.
quote: Can you explain why M lineages in Africa are younger than those in Asia?
Already did. Recall that I said M1's seemingly lower coalescence age estimates may be attributable to its bio-historically relatively lower expansion rate and/or late divergence from the ancestral clade.
M1 clade does not descend from the Asian M clades or vice versa; so, to turn to the reportedly older ages estimated for several Asian M clades has little relevance to the origin of M. If M1 were an Asian clade, the same peculiarity of its seemingly lower expansion ages compared to some other M clades would not be any more or less anomalous. Do you understand better now?
quote: Again no one is taking this personal, I go by reality and facts.
Which makes it odd that you would offer the kinds of reasons you did, as proof of an Asian origin of M.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for clarity, I will direct this to the Son of Ra and the forum in general:
--Contrary to the lie posted above, mtDNA M1's younger coalescence age is 1) not under discussion nor equivocal in the academic world (that's a big fat ass lie), 2) its not due to lower expansion rates nor is it due to a late divergence from the ancestral clade (whatever the hell that means). It has a younger coalescence age, because that's exactly what M1 is; younger. Notice that such silly objections (e.g., lower expansion rates) also apply to many Middle Palaeolithic clades, that have no problem registering as very ancient.
--It means nothing that African M1 doesn't descend from (Eur)asian M clades; many haplogroups are today found in region A, aren't downstream mutations from haplogroups in region B, without it jeopardizing the fact that that haplogroup would still have come from region B or regions adjacent to region B. For instance, South Asian M clades aren't descendants of Near eastern M clades, but that doesn't contradict that South Asian M clades travelled through South west Asia to get to South Asia. The general lack of basal M in the Near east, independent of South Asian M, has no implications whatsoever for this scenario. Turning the discussion back to mtDNA M1, one would naturally have to suppose that its nearest modern haplotypes in Eurasia will be either rare or non-existent, given the relatively old age of M1 (~30kya) and the fact that M in general is very low in the Near East anyway (mostly comprising African derived M1, and some M from Central and South Asia). Neither the Southern Dispersal Route OOA mtDNA M clades, nor the M clades that returned to the Near east from South Asia thereafter, survived well in the modern Near East. This makes a poor case for the idea that the absence of M1 in the Near East today is meaningful for whether or not it originated there in the Upper Palaeolithic.
--Contrary to the shabby uneducated claim above, the relatively young age of M1 is indeed relevant. More than relevant in fact, because the oldest M1 resides in Northwestern Africa (rather than Ethiopia), where there is no archaeological support for an indigenous origin of the clade, or any other contemporary clade for that matter (e.g., U6), as the region seems to have been depopulated after the Aterian.
Stone-Age Prehistory: Studies in Memory of Charles McBurney, p175 Angela E close
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Not to overstay my welcome, as I'm not exactly posting in line with the OP parameters, ...
Wouldn't worry about that. Multidisciplinary evidence is always welcome. Threads normally have topic related filler. Just as long as it doesn't overshadow the thread title.
Distinguishing Nazlet Khater between M1 and L3k is value add. So is Maurusian physical anthropology. It helps put a "face" on dry statistics. Same with M1 not being a time lagged remnant of some undocumented (afaik) African Hg M or M* taking 10s of 1000s of years to only expand in M1 and derive no other African M clades. Except for M1 all other M clades are Asian, no?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
So how do you think these Eurasian ancestors of the Oranians (Ibero-Marusians) entered Africa? Also, what of Nazlet Khater which dates ~ 30kya??
DJ What I make of that is also within topic.
If ancestral M1 entered via Levant and Sinai then are the expansion and archaeology dates in line and does another African culture fit the bill or only the Maurusian?
This brings cause to consider concepts of what M1 as real people were doing in a region spanning land from the pre-Sahara to the Jordan Rift ending at the Mediterranean's south and east shores. Also how landscape and climate may have marked this as a contiguous region at the time.
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra:
The debate about M is very interesting one. I strongly support an Asian origins and a back migration into Africa. But it doesn't matter because even if M1 is due to back migration, M1 is no longer Eurasian.
There is a nothing 'personal' about this. Haplogroup M is in Africa because of back migrations. Africans don't carry the deepest rooted Haplogroup M lineages, Asians do. Not only that, but M1 lineages in East Africa are much younger in lineages then Haplogroup M lineages in Asia. Asian origins for Haplogroup M is supported by coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. That is enough to tell us that M is of Asian origins and M1 in Africa is due to back migration...
Yes there's no extant M of any meaningful frequency in Africa except M1. Coudray 2008 found M in Siwa at 1.3% with no further comment on which M, haplogroup or paragroup. Low freqs of M1 in Afroasia and central Asia and low diversity outside of Africa adds to the fact of M1 being an African specific marker. Based on Olivieri 2006 and Rosa 2011 I called M1 NE Africa & peripheries specific.
Though oldest in NW Africa M1's frequency is more concentrated in NE Africa nowadays.
Standards to determine haplogroup origin - diversity - age - frequency favor Asian location of the parent of all derived M clades. The age of M1 compared to M is strong evidence M1 didn't arise from any OoA M remnant that stayed in Africa.
Only biased ethnocentric special pleading for Africa ignores these facts.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
M1 derives from M via M1'20'51 defined by the T14110C mutation. M1'20'51's motif is L3 + (T489C C10400T T14783C G15043A T14110C) Mutations in accordance with RSRS 2012 not the Eurocentric rCRS 1999 or CRS 1981
M1 descends from the parent it has in common with SE Asian M20 and M51. The implication is that M1'20'51 is an Asian M clade like the other basal M clades.
quote:... the region seems to have been depopulated after the Aterian.
Stone-Age Prehistory: Studies in Memory of Charles McBurney, p175 Angela E close
1986? Surely there's 21st century support for this?
It's a good practice to give the date of source material. Me, I have to rely on up to date as most current as possible. My money's on the sorrel colt not the old grey mare.
This is why I requested post-2007 reports and phylogenies (pro or con) except when the only relevant info available is older than 2008.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes that is a good question. North Africa may have been desert at that time but exactly how dry was it?? Was it too dry that it was completely devoid of humans at all?--something not only Swenet but many Eurocentrics use for North Africa being settled by folks from the outside. We know that populations were able to survive in the Sahara via oases and/or aquifers or at least cross the desert, and what about the Nile valley area?? Also, why do many sources still say the Halfan is the source of not only Marusian but the Kebaran as well?
By the way, Tukuler what exactly do you mean by "Afroasia"? Do you mean the Levant & Arabia?
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way, Tukuler what exactly do you mean by "Afroasia"? Do you mean the Levant & Arabia?
I'm tired of hearing Eurasia or even SW Asia when it comes to the Arabian plate and the NE tip of the African plate.
So, ... Afroasia.
Why? The region is much more African than Asian or European in language and the general attitudes of many of the peoples not to mention the terrain, etc. from there act
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Abu-Amero 2008 has it OoA signature M and N aren't found in the Arabian Peninsula because the AP was never an expansion center just a migration hub.
quote: Abstract Conclusion: Although there is evidence of Neolithic and more recent expansions in the Arabian Peninsula, mainly detected by (preHV)1 and J1b lineages, the lack of primitive autochthonous M and N sequences, suggests that this area has been more a receptor of human migrations, including historic ones, from Africa, India, Indonesia and even Australia, than a demographic expansion center along the proposed southern coastal route.
Background . . . . It could be that unfavorable climatic conditions forced a fast migration through Arabia without leaving a permanent track, but it is also possible that sample sizes have been insufficient to detect ancient residual lineages in the present day Arab populations.
Khaled K Abu-Amero Mitochondrial DNA structure in the Arabian Peninsula BMC Evolutionary Biology 2008
On the other Fernandez 2012 claims relict N clades exist in the AP in the face of intruding neolithic gene flow from the Near East (i.e., the Levant in this case).
quote: These lineages, which include - N1a2, - N1f, and possibly also - N1c, - N1d, and - N1e, date to 1555 ka ago and coalesce to the most ancient non-African mtDNA lineage ~60 ka ago. Thus, they are most likely relicts from the first modern-human settlement in Arabia during the earliest stage of the southern coastal dispersal from the Horn of Africa to the rest of the world.
. . .
these minor haplogroups have a relict distribution that suggests an ancient ancestry within the Arabian Peninsula, and they most likely spread from the Gulf Oasis region toward the Near East and Europe during the pluvial period 5524 ka ago. This pattern suggests that Arabia was indeed the first staging post in the spread of modern humans around the world.
Vero΄nica Fernandes The Arabian Cradle: Mitochondrial Relicts of the First Steps along the Southern Route out of Africa The American Journal of Human Genetics 90, 347355, February 10, 2012
What do other Arabian Peninsula studies like Rose 2010 and Armitage 2011 indicate?
--Contrary to the lie posted above, mtDNA M1's younger coalescence age is 1) not under discussion nor equivocal in the academic world (that's a big fat ass lie)
M1's age was introduced here by none other than the topic broacher. Another poster parroted him. So in that sense, it is under discussion. The irony is that you are protesting about a lie, when your post happens to be a lie.
quote: 2) its not due to lower expansion rates nor is it due to a late divergence from the ancestral clade (whatever the hell that means).
This is why you shouldn't be discussing something like genetics. These things (very basic) are way over your head.
quote: It has a younger coalescence age, because that's exactly what M1 is; younger.
This is what you should be crying about not making sense. A clade being younger, because that's exactly what it is, "younger". Only an idiot will take that as an explanation.
quote:It means nothing that African M1 doesn't descend from (Eur)asian M clades; many haplogroups are today found in region A, aren't downstream mutations from haplogroups in region B, without it jeopardizing the fact that that haplogroup would still have come from region B or regions adjacent to region B.
When you are done with telling unintelligible fairy tales, don't hesitate to inform us of where M1 originated, and why. You run away from this question countless times before; maybe this time will be different.
quote: Neither the Southern Dispersal Route OOA mtDNA M clades, nor the M clades that returned to the Near east from South Asia thereafter, survived well in the modern Near East. This makes a poor case for the idea that the absence of M1 in the Near East today is meaningful for whether or not it originated there in the Upper Palaeolithic.
I sense your pain, but trying to rely on phantom clades is not going to cut it. It's just another common pseudo-science.
quote: --Contrary to the shabby uneducated claim above, the relatively young age of M1 is indeed relevant.
Good, because I'm sure you'll now tell us how M1's reportedly-younger age is relevant to the fact that it doesn't descend from the Asian M clades, nor does it even appear in the areas where said Asian clades are at the highest presence.
quote: More than relevant in fact, because the oldest M1 resides in Northwestern Africa (rather than Ethiopia), where there is no archaeological support for an indigenous origin of the clade
What kind of "archaeological support" is needed for an "indigenous origin" of M1? I have a feeling that your answer to this will be humorously stupid, i.e. assuming you don't turn to your favorite kind of reply--either a non-answer or senselessly crying "troll".
quote: or any other contemporary clade for that matter (e.g., U6), as the region seems to have been depopulated after the Aterian.
Certain sites have indicated continued occupation from the so-called Aterian to the later industries, as reportedly the case in Haua Fteah, Libya, which would contradict what is stated in your photographic piece. That aside, one without a mental faculty would of course be expected to assume that old M1 clades seen in living Maghrebi populations would have necessarily been originally picked up right from the very spot where the clade was presently located...not leaving out the total lack of intuition about the somewhat tenuous nature of age estimates, which are often than not, reliant on assumptions about generational reproduction, as well as the haplotype content respective to the particular samples under study.
Some readers here might recall this (from my blog), as I had posted it before: Summarizing clade M1
It's just easier to post the material as a link, rather than having to go through countless regurgitation of the same points.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Distinguishing Nazlet Khater between M1 and L3k is value add.
Associating the Nazlet Khater specimen with one or the other clade?
quote: Same with M1 not being a time lagged remnant of some undocumented (afaik) African Hg M or M* taking 10s of 1000s of years to only expand in M1 and derive no other African M clades.
Such a scenario stumps you, because you don't realize that the success of haplotype mutations factor in population size and random genetic drift, which may or may not be influenced by cultural factors. In any case, you seem also oblivious of the fact that other M clades, besides M1, are located on the African continent.
quote:Except for M1 all other M clades are Asian, no?
Well, let's see; for instance, what can you tell us about the non-M1 M clades in Tanzania?
How about the African haplotype (e.g. found in a Senegalese sample) with M-like qualities; is that Asian too?
quote:Yes there's no extant M of any meaningful frequency in Africa except M1. Coudray 2008 found M in Siwa at 1.3% with no further comment on which M, haplogroup or paragroup.
You seem to be over-obsessed over "frequency", something a rookie at the subject would do.
Hg R is dominant perhaps among Europeans, yet there is very little indication that the clade originated among them. Same thing with E-M81 in northwest Africa.
quote:Low freqs of M1 in Afroasia and central Asia and low diversity outside of Africa adds to the fact of M1 being an African specific marker. Based on Olivieri 2006 and Rosa 2011 I called M1 NE Africa & peripheries specific.
You haven't found a single ancestral M clade in Asia, while these are readily available on the African continent. Yet you still insist it must be Asian. If that is not emotionalism, I don't know what is.
quote: Standards to determine haplogroup origin - diversity - age - frequency favor Asian location of the parent of all derived M clades.
Those are your standards and your personal opinion, albeit parroting after those of other people. Nothing more.
quote: The age of M1 compared to M is strong evidence M1 didn't arise from any OoA M remnant that stayed in Africa.
If they were OOA, then they wouldn't be in Africa. LOL
quote: Only biased ethnocentric special pleading for Africa ignores these facts.
Or it could be said the other way: Only biased enthnocentric special pleading for an Asian origin ignores facts. Think about that!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic