First Genetic Insight into Libyan Tuaregs: A Maternal Perspective
Claudio Ottoni et al.
Abstract
The Tuaregs are a semi-nomadic pastoralist people of northwest Africa. Their origins are still a matter of debate due to the scarcity of genetic and historical data. Here we report the first data on the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genetic characterization of a Tuareg sample from Fezzan (Libyan Sahara). A total of 129 individuals from two villages in the Acacus region were genetically analysed. Both the hypervariable regions and the coding region of mtDNA were investigated. Phylogeographic investigation was carried out in order to reconstruct human migratory shifts in central Sahara, and to shed light on the origin of the Libyan Tuaregs. Our results clearly show low genetic diversity in the sample, possibly due to genetic drift and founder effect associated with the separation of Libyan Tuaregs from an ancestral population. Furthermore, the maternal genetic pool of the Libyan Tuaregs is characterized by a major "European" component shared with the Berbers that could be traced to the Iberian Peninsula, as well as a minor 'south Saharan' contribution possibly linked to both Eastern African and Near Eastern populations.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Annals of Human Genetics
First Genetic Insight into Libyan Tuaregs: A Maternal Perspective
Claudio Ottoni et al.
Phylogeographic analysis of L0a1a highlighted a genetic affinity of the Libyan Tuaregs with the Northeast African and the Near Eastern populations. More particularly, this holds true when the Libyan Tuareg L2a1 lineages were grouped with the 16189-16192-16309A! sub-branch. Interestingly, the coalesence age calculated in the typically Near Eastern 16189-16192-16309A! cluster of full mtDNAs (16,012 yrs, SD 5,661) was very close to the values observed in the L0a1a cluster (i.e., 14,678 yrs, SD 4,811). Noteworthy is that similar coalesence ages and geographic distributions were observed in the Y-chromosome haplogroup E-V12* (Cruciani et al., 2007), which is related to the movement of people from East Africa northward through the Nile Valley and spreading also into the Central Sahara and the Arabian peninsula. Accordingly, a relationship between L2a1 and L0a1a mtDNA lineages and this migration flow is proposed.Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Annals of Human Genetics
First Genetic Insight into Libyan Tuaregs: A Maternal Perspective
Claudio Ottoni et al.
Phylogeographic analysis of L0a1a highlighted a genetic affinity of the Libyan Tuaregs with the Northeast African and the Near Eastern populations. More particularly, this holds true when the Libyan Tuareg L2a1 lineages were grouped with the 16189-16192-16309A! sub-branch. Interestingly, the coalesence age calculated in the typically Near Eastern 16189-16192-16309A! cluster of full mtDNAs (16,012 yrs, SD 5,661) was very close to the values observed in the L0a1a cluster (i.e., 14,678 yrs, SD 4,811). Noteworthy is that similar coalesence ages and geographic distributions were observed in the Y-chromosome haplogroup E-V12* (Cruciani et al., 2007), which is related to the movement of people from East Africa northward through the Nile Valley and spreading also into the Central Sahara and the Arabian peninsula. Accordingly, a relationship between L2a1 and L0a1a mtDNA lineages and this migration flow is proposed.
Evergreen Writes: This new data seems to challenge the assertion made by Richards et al. that the L* lineages found in the Levant are related ONLY to the slave trade.
Extensive female-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa into near eastern Arab populations.
Richards M, Rengo C, Cruciani F, Gratrix F, Wilson JF, Scozzari R, Macaulay V, Torroni A.
Am J Hum Genet. 2003 Apr;72(4):1058-64. Epub 2003 Mar 10.
We have analyzed and compared mitochondrial DNA variation of populations from the Near East and Africa and found a very high frequency of African lineages present in the Yemen Hadramawt: more than a third were of clear sub-Saharan origin. Other Arab populations carried approximately 10% lineages of sub-Saharan origin, whereas non-Arab Near Eastern populations, by contrast, carried few or no such lineages, suggesting that gene flow has been preferentially into Arab populations. Several lines of evidence suggest that most of this gene flow probably occurred within the past approximately 2,500 years. In contrast, there is little evidence for male-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa in Y-chromosome haplotypes in Arab populations, including the Hadramawt. Taken together, these results are consistent with substantial migration from eastern Africa into Arabia, at least in part as a result of the Arab slave trade, and mainly female assimilation into the Arabian population as a result of miscegenation and manumission
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed this calls into question the whole U6 is Eurasian theme. Osirion where you at?? Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Libyan Tuaregs is characterized by a major "European" component shared with the Berbers that could be traced to the Iberian Peninsula, as well as a minor 'south Saharan' contribution possibly linked to both Eastern African and Near Eastern populations.
- that is very interesting indeed.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Double speak.. How can a "south Saharan contribution" be linked to near eastern populations?
In any event, this is apparently from the paper. Quotation retrieved via secondary source:
quote:Of note is that the other Tuareg sample described in the literature (Watson et al., 1996) (Western Tuaregs) did not show a close genetic relationship with the Libyan Tuaregs, implying a genetic heterogeneity of the Tuaregs. This difference appears to be primarily caused by the low frequency (8%) of the European component in the Western Tuaregs, characteristic of northern African populations. After the removal of the H and V haplotypes, the Libyan Tuaregs showed a strong affiliation with the Eastern populations, while the Western Tuaregs associated more with the Central and Western African populations.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes that is the issue. What exactly is Near Eastern? Is the Near Eastern not essentially an extension of African populations?
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting reading so far folks. Thanks for the link.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A total of 129 individuals from two villages in the Acacus region, in Fezzan, were genetically analysed at the mtDNA level. The results here reported clearly show the low level of genetic diversity in the Libyan Tuareg sample, that is hypothetically due to high endogamy. Furthermore, phylogenetic analyses indicate that the mtDNA genetic pool of the Libyan Tuareg is characterized by a major “West- Eurasian” component, that is shared with many Berber groups and hypothetically comes from the Iberian Peninsula, and a minor “South-Saharan” component that shows some kind of relationship with Central and Eastern African populations.
--- Sounds like Hebrews to me.
Yes this is getting interesting.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: Eastern being used. I guess they are saying East Africa.
so we see that the Western Tuareg are closer to Africans in West and Central Africa, while Libyan Tuaregs are more linked to Eastern Africa?
Peace
They're actually saying that Lybian ["Northern"] Tuaregs have predominant female ancestry ultimately from Europe, with minor retentions from east Africa. Not surprising as it conforms to the data reported for other Berber-speakers from the Mahgreb.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
"Other Imazighen nomads spread through the length of the Sahara, likely mixing with other groups therein; and again, being male-biased, they would have picked up mtDNA gene pools of those other groups. This would explain the gradient that authors like Rando et al. observed:
The mitochondrial data of the Northwest African populations (Berber from Morocco and Algeria, Moroccans, West-Saharans, Mauritanians, Tuareg) show a mosaic composition of mtDNA types, with a pronounced gradient of sub-Saharan lineages from north to south: at the one extreme, the Berbers from Morocco have a predominantly European (Iberian) affinity, while at the other extreme, the Tuareg are closely related to sub-Saharan West Africans as represented by several Senegalese groups in this study, whereas the West-Saharans and Mauritanians are somewhat intermediate. It is remarkable that the Tuareg bear little mitochondrial resemblance to the Berber populations, although they speak a Berber language."
*The Tuaregs here are apparently the Western African ones.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Just finished reading your blog about the Imazighen. Have to say it was a good read.
Some people seem to forget that the first berbers the Egyptians encountered were the Tehenu who they painted with dark skin. Even Today you will find Berbers in Egypt that look African, some try to explain it away as they being decendents of slaves, but we know that is a lie. It's just too Bad in the New Kingdom, we don't see anymore pics of the Tehenu as if they were ignored, and the Light berbers promoted.
If I ever get to Egypt, I will definetley want to go to Siwa to see how African they still are.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strange that this article denotes M1 as African rather than Eurasian. Doesn't appear to explain why.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: Eastern being used. I guess they are saying East Africa.
so we see that the Western Tuareg are closer to Africans in West and Central Africa, while Libyan Tuaregs are more linked to Eastern Africa?
Peace
They're actually saying that Lybian ["Northern"] Tuaregs have predominant female ancestry ultimately from Europe, with minor retentions from east Africa. Not surprising as it conforms to the data reported for other Berber-speakers from the Mahgreb.
Nothing new there.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recently, complete mtDNA sequencing of U6 and M1 haplotypes allowed to shed light on the phylogeny of these two lineages (Olivieri et al. 2006, Gonzalez et al. 2007). Both of them are predominantly North African clades that originated in Southwest Asia and spread together to North Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Yes that is the issue. What exactly is Near Eastern? Is the Near Eastern not essentially an extension of African populations?
A good point. If as the study below shows- that early Middle Easterners looked like Africans, can it be thus said that the gene flow was from "different races"? or was it, as you say- an extension of African populations showing typically tropical adapted characteristics?
posted
Cavalli Sforza (1994) highlighted a high genetic affinity between Tuareg and Eastern Africa populations from Ethiopia, in particular the Beja. They are a nomadic Pastoral population speaking a Cushitic language and who probably have inhabited for a long time (hypothetically even since 4,000 years ago) the area of Northern Sudan that they presently occupy, between the Nile and the Red Sea. As Cavalli Sforza noticed, the higher genetic relationship of Tuareg with Eastern Ethiopian people, rather than with Northern Berbers, hypothetically points to their common origin. In detail, genetic differentiation between Tuareg and Beja, would date back to 5,000 years ago, when Tuareg could have moved westward.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Strange that this article denotes M1 as African rather than Eurasian. Doesn't appear to explain why.
Because they assumed that they were talking to an "advanced" audience, who have gone through and learned from previous material.
These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.
*For those who may not realize this, but apparently my posts are regularly updated, as the link above.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Yes that is the issue. What exactly is Near Eastern? Is the Near Eastern not essentially an extension of African populations?
A good point. If as the study below shows- that early Middle Easterners looked like Africans, can it be thus said that the gene flow was from "different races"? or was it, as you say- an extension of African populations showing typically tropical adapted characteristics?
Evergreen Posts:
In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory
SOY Keita
.....how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing....variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose.Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Because they assumed that they were talking to an "advanced" audience, who have gone through and learned from previous material.
These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.
*For those who may not realize this, but apparently my posts are regularly updated, as the link above.
Indeed. M1 and U6 are predominant and most diverse in Africa. Any explanation for a Eurasian origin must take into account the time frame during OOA and *if* OOA migrated back in not long at all after they left Africa they would still be African. Plus the existence of significant samples outside of the African continent. There are non.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory
SOY Keita
.....how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing....variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose.
Exactly. Which underscores Keita's point about dendrograms purporting to show "divergence of entities called human races or of populations used as their surrogates. This is problematic since few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches."Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Strange that this article denotes M1 as African rather than Eurasian. Doesn't appear to explain why.
Not strange at all..
No it is very strange. If you read the entire report it clearly states that M1 and U6 originated in Southwest Asia. It then goes own and calls them African due to the fact that it is primarily found in Africa.
This article helps solidify the relationship the Tuareg have with East African populations especially the Beja Sudanese. We already knew this. What it failed to do was be able to definatively identify them as originally African.
What we get rather is a story of dessication of the Sahara with a social stratification system being developed as a result of competition. Those practicing agriculture, that appears to have been of demic diffusion from West Asia, had the upper hand and occupied to the top levels of the social order. None of which is readily born out by the data provided by the researcher. This is the most frustrating part. Very little evidence of West Asian input but the author almost gives an emotional plee to consider a West Asian origin. Instead the evidence simply points to a connection between the Tuareg and East Africa as well as maternal relationship with NW Africans. Again nothing new in this study.
What am I missing? What is new here?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Because they assumed that they were talking to an "advanced" audience, who have gone through and learned from previous material.
These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.
*For those who may not realize this, but apparently my posts are regularly updated, as the link above.
Indeed. M1 and U6 are predominant and most diverse in Africa. Any explanation for a Eurasian origin must take into account the time frame during OOA and *if* OOA migrated back in not long at all after they left Africa they would still be African. Plus the existence of significant samples outside of the African continent. There are non.
But this particular article which is the subject of this thread specifically states a Southwest Asian origin of U6 and M1.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Wait.. You may have indeed found a blatant contradiction here. Their tree on page 36 clearly identifies M1 as East African, stemming from African M*
quote:Haplogroup M1 is significantly represented in Ethiopians, but is widespread in Northeast Africa too. It is present in Ethiopia at frequencies of about 20% (Passarino et al. 1998), and declines north-westwards (Nubians 10%, Egyptians 8%) (Krings et al. 1999), whereas its frequency in the Middle East is lower (3% in Jordan, 2% in Palestinians, 2% in Druze) (Macaulay et al. 1999). Furthermore, M1 frequencies significantly diminish westward (where it reaches frequencies of 3-4%) (Rando et al. 1998, Plaza et al. 2003), and also going South of sub-equatorial areas. Recently in Upper Egypt, high frequencies of M1 (17%) have been found, pointing to a close genetic relationship with Ethiopia (Stevanovitch et al. 2004).
Only to go on to say, without further exploration that:
quote:Haplogroup M1. Haplogroup M is almost absent in West Eurasia, while it is dominant in Asia. Nevertheless, its sub-clade M1 is present at high frequencies in the Horn of Africa and appears to be predominantly African specific. Complete mtDNA sequencing demonstrated that the presence of this lineage in Eastern Africa is the result of a back migration from Southwest Asia, where it arose, suggesting a return to Africa of populations carrying M1 and U6 from the Mediterranean area about 40,000-45,000 years ago. The coalescence age for M1 lineages dates back to 36,800 +/− 7,100 years (Olivieri et al. 2006). Kivisild et al. (2004) observed that M1 lineages constitute 17% of the Ethiopian mtDNA sequences. It is worth noting that M1 is rare or absent in North Africans (Corte-Real et al. 1996, Rando et al. 1998, Brakez et al. 2001, Plaza et al. 2003), but its sub-clade M1c, defined by mutation at position 16185, covers most of haplogroup M1 variation in Northwest Africa, the Canary islands, and the Near East, while it has not yet been found in Ethiopians (Kivisild et al. 2004). High resolution phylogenetic analysis of M1 lineages, indicates that presumably Northwest African haplogroup M1 variation cannot be interpreted as a derivative of the East African mtDNA pool (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001, Kivisild et al. 2004).
They then go on again to correctly refer to it as an African lineage along with the L lineages. Like I said before. Double speak.. I'm sort of getting sick of reading this kind of nonsense from these hack geneticists. Even when their own data contradicts them they still parrot these inconsistencies. All that I can say is to go back and read Explorer's blog post as it makes a lot more sense than the above.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: But this particular article which is the subject of this thread specifically states a Southwest Asian origin of U6 and M1.
We've tried explaining to you countless times before that IF U6 and M1 did indeed originate in Eurasia it happened only shortly after the first OOA among peoples who were still recent African emmigrants only to go back to Africa! As Africa is the area where these two haplogroups are the most diverse.
It makes little sense for a people new to an area (Eurasia) to migrate back to their African homeland, but if that were the case then it won't change the fact that they were overall African. But since there is NO conclusive evidence that this happened all we're left with is origins IN Africa! To associate these lineages with "Hebrews" would even be more ridiculous!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evergreen. Do you have more information from the following study?
Reconstructing the phylogeny of African mitochondrial DNA lineages in Slavs.
To elucidate the origin of African-specific mtDNA lineages, revealed previously in Slavonic populations (at frequency of about 0.4%), we completely sequenced eight African genomes belonging to haplogroups L1b, L2a, L3b, L3d and M1 gathered from Russians, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles. Results of phylogeographic analysis suggest that at least part of the African mtDNA lineages found in Slavs (such as L1b, L3b1, L3d) appears to be of West African origin, testifying to an opportunity of their occurrence as a result of migrations to Eastern Europe through Iberia. However, a prehistoric introgression of African mtDNA lineages into Eastern Europe (approximately 10 000 years ago) seems to be probable only for European-specific subclade L2a1a, defined by coding region mutations at positions 6722 and 12903 and detected in Czechs and Slovaks. Further studies of the nature of African admixture in gene pools of Europeans require the essential enlargement of databases of African complete mitochondrial genomes.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Evergreen. Do you have more information from the following study?
Reconstructing the phylogeny of African mitochondrial DNA lineages in Slavs.
To elucidate the origin of African-specific mtDNA lineages, revealed previously in Slavonic populations (at frequency of about 0.4%), we completely sequenced eight African genomes belonging to haplogroups L1b, L2a, L3b, L3d and M1 gathered from Russians, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles. Results of phylogeographic analysis suggest that at least part of the African mtDNA lineages found in Slavs (such as L1b, L3b1, L3d) appears to be of West African origin, testifying to an opportunity of their occurrence as a result of migrations to Eastern Europe through Iberia. However, a prehistoric introgression of African mtDNA lineages into Eastern Europe (approximately 10 000 years ago) seems to be probable only for European-specific subclade L2a1a, defined by coding region mutations at positions 6722 and 12903 and detected in Czechs and Slovaks. Further studies of the nature of African admixture in gene pools of Europeans require the essential enlargement of databases of African complete mitochondrial genomes.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: But this particular article which is the subject of this thread specifically states a Southwest Asian origin of U6 and M1.
We've tried explaining to you countless times before that IF U6 and M1 did indeed originate in Eurasia it happened only shortly after the first OOA among peoples who were still recent African emmigrants only to go back to Africa! As Africa is the area where these two haplogroups are the most diverse.
It makes little sense for a people new to an area (Eurasia) to migrate back to their African homeland, but if that were the case then it won't change the fact that they were overall African. But since there is NO conclusive evidence that this happened all we're left with is origins IN Africa! To associate these lineages with "Hebrews" would even be more ridiculous!
I would argue that U6 is not African. However, I would argue that M1 is African based on the fact that M* is considered African.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Wait.. You may have indeed found a blatant contradiction here. Their tree on page 36 clearly identifies M1 as East African, stemming from African M*
quote:Haplogroup M1 is significantly represented in Ethiopians, but is widespread in Northeast Africa too. It is present in Ethiopia at frequencies of about 20% (Passarino et al. 1998), and declines north-westwards (Nubians 10%, Egyptians 8%) (Krings et al. 1999), whereas its frequency in the Middle East is lower (3% in Jordan, 2% in Palestinians, 2% in Druze) (Macaulay et al. 1999). Furthermore, M1 frequencies significantly diminish westward (where it reaches frequencies of 3-4%) (Rando et al. 1998, Plaza et al. 2003), and also going South of sub-equatorial areas. Recently in Upper Egypt, high frequencies of M1 (17%) have been found, pointing to a close genetic relationship with Ethiopia (Stevanovitch et al. 2004).
Only to go on to say, without further exploration that:
quote:Haplogroup M1. Haplogroup M is almost absent in West Eurasia, while it is dominant in Asia. Nevertheless, its sub-clade M1 is present at high frequencies in the Horn of Africa and appears to be predominantly African specific. Complete mtDNA sequencing demonstrated that the presence of this lineage in Eastern Africa is the result of a back migration from Southwest Asia, where it arose, suggesting a return to Africa of populations carrying M1 and U6 from the Mediterranean area about 40,000-45,000 years ago. The coalescence age for M1 lineages dates back to 36,800 +/− 7,100 years (Olivieri et al. 2006). Kivisild et al. (2004) observed that M1 lineages constitute 17% of the Ethiopian mtDNA sequences. It is worth noting that M1 is rare or absent in North Africans (Corte-Real et al. 1996, Rando et al. 1998, Brakez et al. 2001, Plaza et al. 2003), but its sub-clade M1c, defined by mutation at position 16185, covers most of haplogroup M1 variation in Northwest Africa, the Canary islands, and the Near East, while it has not yet been found in Ethiopians (Kivisild et al. 2004). High resolution phylogenetic analysis of M1 lineages, indicates that presumably Northwest African haplogroup M1 variation cannot be interpreted as a derivative of the East African mtDNA pool (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001, Kivisild et al. 2004).
They then go on again to correctly refer to it as an African lineage along with the L lineages. Like I said before. Double speak.. I'm sort of getting sick of reading this kind of nonsense from these hack geneticists. Even when their own data contradicts them they still parrot these inconsistencies. All that I can say is to go back and read Explorer's blog post as it makes a lot more sense than the above.
Finally someone sees my point of view.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Haplogroup M1 is significantly represented in Ethiopians, but is widespread in Northeast Africa too. It is present in Ethiopia at frequencies of about 20% (Passarino et al. 1998), and declines north-westwards (Nubians 10%, Egyptians 8%) (Krings et al. 1999), whereas its frequency in the Middle East is lower (3% in Jordan, 2% in Palestinians, 2% in Druze) (Macaulay et al. 1999). Furthermore, M1 frequencies significantly diminish westward (where it reaches frequencies of 3-4%) (Rando et al. 1998, Plaza et al. 2003), and also going South of sub-equatorial areas. Recently in Upper Egypt, high frequencies of M1 (17%) have been found, pointing to a close genetic relationship with Ethiopia (Stevanovitch et al. 2004).
Only to go on to say, without further exploration that:
quote:Haplogroup M1. Haplogroup M is almost absent in West Eurasia, while it is dominant in Asia. Nevertheless, its sub-clade M1 is present at high frequencies in the Horn of Africa and appears to be predominantly African specific. Complete mtDNA sequencing demonstrated that the presence of this lineage in Eastern Africa is the result of a back migration from Southwest Asia, where it arose, suggesting a return to Africa of populations carrying M1 and U6 from the Mediterranean area about 40,000-45,000 years ago. The coalescence age for M1 lineages dates back to 36,800 +/− 7,100 years (Olivieri et al. 2006). Kivisild et al. (2004) observed that M1 lineages constitute 17% of the Ethiopian mtDNA sequences. It is worth noting that M1 is rare or absent in North Africans (Corte-Real et al. 1996, Rando et al. 1998, Brakez et al. 2001, Plaza et al. 2003), but its sub-clade M1c, defined by mutation at position 16185, covers most of haplogroup M1 variation in Northwest Africa, the Canary islands, and the Near East, while it has not yet been found in Ethiopians (Kivisild et al. 2004). High resolution phylogenetic analysis of M1 lineages, indicates that presumably Northwest African haplogroup M1 variation cannot be interpreted as a derivative of the East African mtDNA pool (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001, Kivisild et al. 2004).
They then go on again to correctly refer to it as an African lineage along with the L lineages. Like I said before. Double speak.. I'm sort of getting sick of reading this kind of nonsense from these hack geneticists. Even when their own data contradicts them they still parrot these inconsistencies. All that I can say is to go back and read Explorer's blog post as it makes a lot more sense than the above.
You are right about the "double speak", and as you have learned yourself, even then, their findings are at odds with what they say. Take note of the authors being cited, and one gets a sense of where some of this 'double speak' is coming from. This notion that a region that lacks M1 basal clades, lower frequency and diversity of M1 clades, and where when M1 or any M subclade do appear, they are generally downstream clades of either African or south Asian clades, can somehow be the source of the lineages where the opposite of the aforementioned applies, kind'a reminds of the attempt to say Hg E is "southwest Asian", wherein too, we see the same underlying situation at hand. The main difference in this scenario though, being that proto-M1 doesn't occur anywhere in Asia, not even south Asia, whereas DE* [just 2 people] has been detected in east Asia. However, Africa has all the necessary basal clades for M1 and yes, M* haplogroup in general.
Gonzalez et al. have been noted for their 'double speak' as well, but to their defense, they do posit the African origin of M1 as well [one might say that is yet another expression of double speak]. Now of course, anti-African elements generally leave that [not-so-subtle] bit out, take advantage of the double speak elements, and in doing so, apply a cult-like tunnel vision approach to just recalling on only any "origin" thesis that examines from a non-African standpoint.
The way to remedy 'double speak', is to examine and understand what results the authors purport to actually have observed, in what way, how so, and why, rather than [lazily] relegate oneself to merely accepting at face-value what they speculate from said results.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Very well then, let's hear it. For instance, which non-African territory did U6 emerge, and where can I find its proto-U6 ancestor?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Definitely, which is why reading your blog on these points is so refreshing, especially for those not as well versed in genetics. I especially appreciate (in addition to what you've just summarized) your point about the lack of the proposed U6 expansion partner in Siwa, where there is a considerable high frequency of M1 as contrasted with the high U6 frequencies in Northwest Africa. To reconcile all of this with out some serious over sight or preferential bias going in, seems to me to be very improbable.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Evergreen. Do you have more information from the following study?
Reconstructing the phylogeny of African mitochondrial DNA lineages in Slavs.
Thanks a lot Evergreen. Just finished reading it and though I thought they'd have more definitive answers to their query, I still find it striking how much of the literature takes for granted the Africanity of M1 while the minority interpretations based mainly on flawed reasoning, seems to be given more weight, at least among some discussants outside of this forum and in some of the other literature. Also interesting of course is the object of the study its self in finding such an array of African haplotypes in Europeans, both west and east African specific.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ As already defined by the research cited in this thread - West Asian.
It originated amongst West Asian people. If you want to claim that they were morphologically African, I am not concerned with such narrow way of looking at things. I simply describe people by their origins regardless of superficial adaptive phylogenetic expressions.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ As already defined by the research cited in this thread - West Asian.
Well, where are "direct" answers to my questions, as defined [according to you] by said research?
quote: It originated amongst West Asian people.
Which West Asian people, and as indicated by what specific marker?
quote: If you want to claim that they were morphologically African, I am not concerned with such narrow way of looking at things. I simply describe people by their origins regardless of superficial adaptive phylogenetic expressions.
BS. Please just answer my questions, and start addressing what is "actually" being said/requested, rather than what you think people "want" to say.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I have explained myself enough. Read the cited research of this thread and make your own conclusions. The research specifically states that u6 is of SW Asian origins and back migrated into Africa. It says the same thing for M1 but apparently contradicts such a description with actual data showing M1 arising from an African M* and calling both African. As a result I don't see the evidence supporting M1 as non-African. U6 apparently arose from a non-African parent.
I don't see why I need to hold your hand.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
What did the cited research do but CONTRADICT YOU REPEATEDLY and somewhere in the middle simply parrot the same thing you do?
Then again i didn't really expect you to have the balls nor the brains to delve deeper and amend the confusion for whoever's mistaken..
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ As already defined by the research cited in this thread - West Asian.
It originated amongst West Asian people. If you want to claim that they were morphologically African, I am not concerned with such narrow way of looking at things. I simply describe people by their origins regardless of superficial adaptive phylogenetic expressions.
In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory
SOY Keita
.....how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing....variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic