posted
Eur J Med Genet. 2006 January - February;49(1):43-56. Epub 2005 Feb 10.
HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their Relationship with other Mediterraneans.
Hajjej A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa1ed A, Boukef K.
National Blood Transfusion Centre, Tunis, Tunisia.
South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th-8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote : ___________________________________________________________________ This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara. ___________________________________________________________________
This relationship is probably due to the numerous Africans who lived in Greece before the Indo-Europeans came on the scene--not some natural catastrophe. Greece was formerly a center of Black Civilizations.
posted
HLA Genes in Macedonians and the Sub-Saharan Origin of the Greeks by Arnaiz-Villena, Dimitroski, Pacho, et. al. Tissue Antigens (2001)
"It is hypothesized that there could have been a migration from southern Sahara which mixed with ancient Greeks to give rise to a part of the present day Greek genetic background. The admixture must have occurred in the Aegean Islands and Athens area at least. The reason why this admixture is not seen in Crete is unclear but may be related to the influential and strong Minoan empire which hindered foreigners establishment. Also, the time when admixture occurred could be after the overthrown of some of the Negroid Egyptian dynasties (Nubian or from other periods) or after undetermined natural catastrophes (i.e.: dryness). Indeed, ancient Greeks believed that their religion and culture came from Egypt."
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Eur J Med Genet. 2006 January - February;49(1):43-56. Epub 2005 Feb 10.
HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their Relationship with other Mediterraneans.
Hajjej A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa1ed A, Boukef K.
National Blood Transfusion Centre, Tunis, Tunisia.
South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th-8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.
Thought Writes:
Myra, do you have this study?
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Myra Wysinger: HLA Genes in Macedonians and the Sub-Saharan Origin of the Greeks by Arnaiz-Villena, Dimitroski, Pacho, et. al. Tissue Antigens (2001)
"It is hypothesized that there could have been a migration from southern Sahara which mixed with ancient Greeks to give rise to a part of the present day Greek genetic background. The admixture must have occurred in the Aegean Islands and Athens area at least. The reason why this admixture is not seen in Crete is unclear but may be related to the influential and strong Minoan empire which hindered foreigners establishment. Also, the time when admixture occurred could be after the overthrown of some of the Negroid Egyptian dynasties (Nubian or from other periods) or after undetermined natural catastrophes (i.e.: dryness). Indeed, ancient Greeks believed that their religion and culture came from Egypt."
The problem with the titile is that the study does not show origin, but admixture. That is like saying the Greek origin of Egyptians because there was contact.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom: The problem with the titile is that the study does not show origin, but admixture. That is like saying the Greek origin of Egyptians because there was contact.
Thought Writes:
The origins have allready been established in part, via the Y-Chromosome.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom: The problem with the titile is that the study does not show origin, but admixture. That is like saying the Greek origin of Egyptians because there was contact.
Thought Writes:
The origins have allready been established in part, via the Y-Chromosome.
Of the founding greek population? As different from the Macedonian?
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the study it says that the neolithic people spread from the middle east to egypt. I think this is wrong. The neolithic people came from east africa. Am I reading this study wrong because to me it seems to say that the neolithic people are from middle east instead of from east africa.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
King, neolithic is a term for an earlier period sometimes around the stone age, there are no people called neolithic. But there existet neolithic Algerians, neolithic Sudanese etc, people living in these areas at that time.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for clearing this up Yonis. I now understand that I made a mistake in thinking.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: In the study it says that the neolithic people spread from the middle east to egypt. I think this is wrong. The neolithic people came from east africa. Am I reading this study wrong because to me it seems to say that the neolithic people are from middle east instead of from east africa.
The Holocene Neolithic culture that developed in the "Near East", was sparked by the movement of people from Africa via the Nile Valley, who introduced new culture [e.g. proto-Afrasan], as well as new technology [e.g. new lithic chipping techniques (hence Neo-lithic); Bar Yosef 1987] into the (Near Eastern) region. The ensuing population expansions accompanied by the Neolithic in the Near East, was supposed to have occurred in the northerly [e.g. Asian Minor and Europe] and westerly directions [encompassing Europe and perhaps Northern Africa]. Some viewpoints [see Arredi et al.] have posited a parallel westward spread of Neolithic immigrants (from Near East?) in North Africa and Europe, and from the North African context, this is determined in part by the older E-M81 lineages in NE (Egypt) than NW Africa [see Luis et al.], and then, J lineages [within the Neolithic expansion context, see Arredi et al.]. On that note, agricultural development in the North Africa is independent from that of the Levant. Some excerpts of note, with respect to what I just mentioned,...
A Conversation with Christopher Ehret excerpt, 2004:
WHC: How does a small group of Semites coming in from Africa transform the language of a region in which they are a minority?
Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people the Mushabaeans? are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.
Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this.
And by the way: we can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the earliest stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati have it. And there are a lot of common words for using grasses and seeds.
Some authors believe that languages families are unlikely to be >10 KY old and that their diffusion was associated with the diffusion of agriculture (Diamond and Bellwood 2003). Since most of the languages spoken in North Africa and in nearby parts of Asia belong to the Afro-Asiatic family (Ruhlen 1991), this expansion could have involved people speaking a protoAfro-Asiatic language. These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment containing few humans. - Arredi et al. 2004
If Luis et al. are anything to go by, the possible appearance of E-M81 in Northwest Africa, came about ~ 2ky:
"E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco, dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in acordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa ~ 2 KY ago. The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 KY ago)..." - Luis et al. 2004
quote:Originally posted by KING: In the study it says that the neolithic people spread from the middle east to egypt. I think this is wrong. The neolithic people came from east africa. Am I reading this study wrong because to me it seems to say that the neolithic people are from middle east instead of from east africa.
Some peoples probably back migrated.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ There is no proof that Berber are descendant from 'back migrated' anything, since there are no Berber in Eurasia; no Berber language speakers in Eurasia, no E3b2 lineages in Eurasia, and no underived E3b [ancestral to E3b2] lineages in Eurasia.
All of the above are essentially found exclusively in Africa.
There is a desparate attempt to link the Berber to some sort of ancient Eurasian peoples, but there is no proof of such a link.
Trying to make the Berber back migrated Eurasians is in some ways as flawed as trying to make Dravidians into out-migrating neolithic Mandingo.
Both agenda are driven by the need to make the complexities of human history concord with racial theory.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ There is no proof that Berber are descendant from 'back migrated' anything, since there are no Berber in Eurasia; no Berber language speakers in Eurasia, no E3b2 lineages in Eurasia, and no underived E3b [ancestral to E3b2] lineages in Eurasia.
All of the above are essentially found exclusively in Africa.
Undoubtedly, but which makes the position of Arredi et al., at least curious, as we had discussed in the Nile Valley forum...
"Some authors believe that languages families are unlikely to be >10 KY old and that their diffusion was associated with the diffusion of agriculture (Diamond and Bellwood 2003). Since most of the languages spoken in North Africa and in nearby parts of Asia belong to the Afro-Asiatic family (Ruhlen 1991), this expansion could have involved people speaking a protoAfro-Asiatic language. These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment containing few humans." - Arredi et al. 2004
Ps - Arredi et al. seem to be making this hypothesis based on presence of J lineages in the region [and in part, influenced by the works of Diamond and Bellwood], which they argue, are of Neolithic extraction, while others posit much of the J lineages to a relatively more recent timeframe, as that associated with Arabs. As reminders, we know that the East African E3b2 presence goes as far south as Ethiopia.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ There is no proof that Berber are descendant from 'back migrated' anything, since there are no Berber in Eurasia; no Berber language speakers in Eurasia, no E3b2 lineages in Eurasia, and no underived E3b [ancestral to E3b2] lineages in Eurasia.
All of the above are essentially found exclusively in Africa.
There is a desparate attempt to link the Berber to some sort of ancient Eurasian peoples, but there is no proof of such a link.
Trying to make the Berber back migrated Eurasians is in some ways as flawed as trying to make Dravidians into out-migrating neolithic Mandingo.
Both agenda are driven by the need to make the complexities of human history concord with racial theory.
You claim the natufians are a neolithic migration from Africa. But you do not beleive that it could go the other way as well? Isn't the M(?) haplotype originated outside of Africa and some migrated to india and others migrated to Africa?
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Dr. Kivisild stated that there was the possibility of a back migration from middle East which was a founder for M1 in Africa. Dr. Villems stated that M1 could be found in the north Caucasus, but that L was absent there and therefore he beleived in a back migration. Dr. Scorecki said that some time later this year they will be publishing a new paper on the M1 haplotype that will discuss the subject more. So I am on a wait and see status. Of course I am a layman. I just asked a few questions to them.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could you quote from genetic studies rather than paraphrasing?
Saying that M1 is found in Eurasia but ancestral L3 is not, and this somehow suggests that M1 is the product of a back migration...... makes little sense.
Moreover M1 fades out as you go deeper into SouthWest Asia, and is typically found in SouthWest Asia in association with other conspicuous African lineages - including E3b - which is *very telling*.
M1 is most common in East Africa as is East African L3 from which it is derived - and that suggests that East Africa is the source origin.
The only way to logically infer a non African origin for M1 is to find both M1 and underived M in a non African population, so I would would like to see the actual quote for this illogical claim.
Simply put - unless you can find a non-African ancestor between L3 and M1, any suggestion that M1 is 'back migration' is speculation against the evidence.
Here is what the latest genetic study on M1 says:
There is no evidence whatsoever that M1 originated in India.There is no evidence whatsoever that M1 originated in India. -
The Dazzling Array of Basal Branches in the mtDNA Macrohaplogroup M from India as Inferred from Complete Genomes
Chang Sun et al., 2006.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who stated anything about M1 originating in India? Those doctors told me the possibility of the Middle East. I will see what I can do about the studies. As I paraphrased what the doctors told me, not from their studies.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who stated anything about M1 originating in India?
The challenge of being able to assess genetic studies lies partly in being able to relate them to one another, while making logical inferences and reasoning deductively.
The issue isn't {India}, but rather L3M lineage.
M1 is and ancient downstream L3 lineage, most properly referenced as L3M1.
To theorise that M1 originated in a given locale - is to theorise that it diverged from a less derived L3 state and at and earlier time.
East Africa is the home from which all L3 lineages derive, this increases the probablity that M1 derives in East Africa, and narrows the window of opportunity of derivition 'elsewhere'.
The best candidate for 'elsewhere' by far - is India; because India has a vast array of similiar-ancient M lineages, and moreover completely lacks lineages that might be assocated with neolithic/recent African migration.
By contrast in West-Eurasia, east African M1 lineages are found almost exclusively in association with neolithic east African E3b lineages.
The most parsimoneous explanation is that these lineages signify neolithic and later East African migration into Eurasia.
Hence if there is no evidence of M1 originating in India, then...there is less/still [if possible] evidence of it originating in West Eurasia.
M1 is and East African lineage until/unless a non East African direct ancestor, [proto M1?] among a non East African M1 bearing population can be identified.
quote:As I paraphrased what the doctors told me, not from their studies.
I know, and thus it is hearsay, possibly misleading and of no value.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You claim the natufians are a neolithic migration from Africa.
Don't try to play it off as *my claim*. This has long been theorised by anthroplogists, such as Larry Angel and Dorothy Garrod, and supporting evidence has been provided via genetics [Underhill], linguistics [Ehret], and most recently by the physical anthropologist CL Brace.
Try a search for: Natufian, on these forums and you will find references to the source data cited above.
quote: But you do not beleive that it could go the other way as well?
No. See above.
quote: Isn't the M(?) haplotype originated outside of Africa
posted
The basic facts that need to be known about the M haplogroup in Asia, and the M1 lineage in East Africa:
From Mait Metspalu et al,...
Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31].
Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3].
Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M.
On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa;
ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of subclades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths.
That, plus the presence of M1 without accompanying L lineages in the Caucasus [32]
Indeed, other than the fact that both the Asian haplogroup M and East African M1 derive from L3, the exact direct relationship between M1 and the M haplogroup in Asia, is something that still needs to be established. The similarities in mutations, aside from the noted (below) differences, may in fact be nothing more than a product of random parallel mutations, i.e., an occurrence by chance, and not of any direct ties of the M1 lineage to the Asian M haplogroup…
Since M macrohaplogroup is derived from L3, which finds its roots in East Africa, it is believed that presence of M1 in Ethiopia further substantiates an African origin of M…
Interestingly, a single M2 genome differs in its coding region from the root of M at ten sites as compared to M1, which possess only four substitutions. - Revathi Rajkumar et al.
Last but not least...
"A particular case in question is the origin of haplogroup M1, which is mainly found in Northeast Africa and the Near East (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999). Due to the fact that M1 bears variant nucleotides, for example, at site 16311 in common with haplogroup M4, at 16129 with M5, and at 16249 with haplogroup M34, it has been proposed that M1 might have some affinity with Indian M haplogroups (Roychoudhury et al. 2001). This inference, however, could not receive support from our complete sequencing information. Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, i.e., 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002). Therefore, those common mutations in the control region rather reflect random parallel mutations..." - Chang Sun et al.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This study is crap. I read the full text and it talks about Caucasoid Fulani, its just as faulty as the last study about HLA genes.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: quote : ___________________________________________________________________ This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara. ___________________________________________________________________
This relationship is probably due to the numerous Africans who lived in Greece before the Indo-Europeans came on the scene--not some natural catastrophe. Greece was formerly a center of Black Civilizations.
"5.3. Greeks and Sub-Saharans Our study shows that the Greeks are separate from other Mediterranean populations and tend to cluster with Sub-Saharans (Figs. 2 and 3). This result confirms the Sub-Saharan origin of Greeks. The Greek/Sub-Saharan relatedness is probably due to that several quasispecific Greek alleles were also found in some tribes ofWest Africa (Rimaibe, Fulani and Mossi) and others from East Africa (Oromo, Amhara, Nubians). This observation suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans at an ancient time. The admixture has probably occurred during Egyptian pharaonic times. Indeed, ancient Greeks thought that their culture and religion came from Egypt. In this period, there was an influx of people to Greece represented by the migration of Negroid Egyptian dynasties with their followers (who were expelled) towards Greece [38]. Other emigrations to Greece have probably occurred [31].Why Greeks cluster with Sub-Saharans as Rimaibe (Figs. 2 and 3). The latter is one from related tribes of West Africa (Fulani, Mossi and Rimaibe, Burkina Faso). The Rimaibe Blacks were slaves belonging to the Fulani and frequently mixed with them. The facials and skin colour parameters of Fulani suggest a Caucasian admixture. Moreover, many linguistic and cultural studies confirm that Fulani have several characteristics in common with ancient Egyptians, which suggest that they may come from pharaonic Egypt [31]. Also, Many genetic studies show that theWest African and the East Afri- can tribes (Nubians, Oromo...) are inter-related. This is supported by linguistic and cultural evidences. Two types of ancient Nubians were described: reds and blacks, which may reflect a Caucasian admixture. The present-day Nubians are the descendants of the ancient Nubians that ruled Egypt between 8th–7th centuries B.C. [39]. All these observations confirm the relationship between Western African tribes and ancient Egyptians and thus between the Western Africans and Greeks. An other possible influx of Negroid people into Greece was occurred, when the weather of desert became hyperarid (5000 B.C.) [31]."
Red and Black Nubians? Lies more like Red and Black Noba and the colors have nothing to do with mixture. Fulani having a linguistic connection with AEs? the study belongs in the rubbish basket.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: This study is crap. I read the full text and it talks about Caucasoid Fulani, its just as faulty as the last study about HLA genes.
So, are you saying that *any* study regarding HLA genes is 'crap'?
If so, can you explain why?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Great, more substandard pseudoscience! __________________________________________________ rigaud please provide specific examples of the so called pseudoscience along with citations supporting your propositions.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: quote : ___________________________________________________________________ This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara. ___________________________________________________________________
This relationship is probably due to the numerous Africans who lived in Greece before the Indo-Europeans came on the scene--not some natural catastrophe. Greece was formerly a center of Black Civilizations.
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: Red and Black Nubians? Lies more like Red and Black Noba and the colors have nothing to do with mixture. Fulani having a linguistic connection with AEs?
I agree with you that we can often disregard non-genetic speculations outside of the profession of the scientists - just like speculations from Sforza or Arredi on linguistics can often be disregarded.
But we still must deal with the genetics at hand, we can't dismiss the genetics for the reasons that you give, because like the statements at issue, they have nothing to do with genetics. They are simply irrelevant.
So, let's focus on the genetics in the study.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This relationship is probably due to the numerous Africans who lived in Greece before the Indo-Europeans came on the scene--not some natural catastrophe. Greece was formerly a center of Black Civilizations. http://clyde.winters.tripod.com/chapter6.html
Quoting one's self on a website that cites but doesn not directly quote with claims like "Winter proves..." Talking in third person, isn't a very reliable source. As for this study, it doesn't show anything that would indicate a founder position, just an admixture relation. And how did the macedonians miss this supposed founder population in their genetics?
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: Red and Black Nubians? Lies more like Red and Black Noba and the colors have nothing to do with mixture. Fulani having a linguistic connection with AEs?
I agree with you that we can often disregard non-genetic speculations outside of the profession of the scientists - just like speculations from Sforza or Arredi on linguistics can often be disregarded.
But we still must deal with the genetics at hand, we can't dismiss the genetics for the reasons that you give, because like the statements at issue, they have nothing to do with genetics. They are simply irrelevant.
So, let's focus on the genetics in the study.
Simply read through the entire study, the historical *facts* used in the study to support its conclusions are seriously flawed and from looking at the dendograms HLA genes are not reliable indicators to be used in population genetics. How do Japanese cluster with Africans?
Posts: 6 | From: Vicksburg Misissippi | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:, the historical *facts* used in the study to support its conclusions are seriously flawed
I agree that the non genetic remarks are flawed, but they have little bearing on the fact that Greeks show affinity with Africans via African Y chromosome lineages, and specific autosomes - such as Benin Hbs, as well as now two different HLA studies.
All of this data is accurate and revealing if read properly- always the key with genetic study.
quote:and from looking at the dendograms HLA genes are not reliable indicators to be used in population genetics. How do Japanese cluster with Africans?
They don't, from the study -> The Greeks have been shown a substantial Sub-Saharan admixture [30,31].
Bushmen and Japanese form an outgroup.
:review dendrogram in figure 2. Look at the horizontal length of the twigs, as well as vertical relationships.
What is suggested is ancient divergence of *both* Japanese and Bushmen from the other groups studied as far as HLA frequency is concerned - *not* recent ancestry between them.
You have to look at all of the information, and understand what HLA genes are, and are not.
They are not lineages, and should not be viewed as if they were.
They simply suggest qualitative affinities between populations - without defining source/origin as lineages do.
That Greeks have Black ancestry is clear.
Based on multiple studies of Y chromosome SNP markers, as well as Benin HBs autosome, and now two different HLA studies.
Different methodologies: same conclusion.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why anyone would be suprised. History and litrature indicate contact between Greeks and Africa.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ironically, the ancient Greeks would be the 1st to acknolwedge their Black African ancestry.
It's modern Europe that sees it as some sort of 'terrible truth' to be denied by, if you'll pardon the Greek - all manner of "sophistry." Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
sidirom quote: ___________________________________________________________________ Quoting one's self on a website that cites but doesn not directly quote with claims like "Winter proves..." Talking in third person, isn't a very reliable source. As for this study, it doesn't show anything that would indicate a founder position, just an admixture relation. And how did the macedonians miss this supposed founder population in their genetics? __________________________________________________________________ You're full of it. If you read any published article you will find that the authors often cite their own work. It is nothing wrong with citing your own work if it relates to the subject under discussion.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ At the moment, you may be able to come across excerpts or portions of the study via an internet search, or the complete study possibly through connections in a university, but to get access to the full study on the internet, subscription may be the only way!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supercar quote: ____________________________________________________________ ^ At the moment, you may be able to come across excerpts or portions of the study via an internet search, or the complete study possibly through connections in a university, but to get access to the full study on the internet, subscription may be the only way! ____________________________________________________________
Thanks for the information. I will try to get it at the library when I have the time.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I agree with rasol and Supercar towards the L3M1 mtDNA information, you rasol and Supercar are well researched and the facts support your position.
Now for those who may want some more information about L3M1. Please check out the Dravidians because they claim that according to their Oral History their ancestors were living in Afrika and left by boat and traveled to India, they also claim that India was a lot closer to the Horn of Africa and that a landmass was located within the area of Horn of Afrika and India. They also claim that this land mass was flooded covering their ancient cities.
Now fast forward to today and we see Archaeologist now studying the flooded region because the ancient Dravidian city was found and NASA satellites have confirmed that a landmass is located under the area covered by water today. That is the reason why Dravidian\Tamils consider themselves as Afrikans because they are connecting with their Ancestral traditions that began in AFRIKA and not India.
I also suspect that the Kerma culture has something to do with Dravidians because two clues that can’t be ignored are
1. Why did Kerma Culture side with the Hyksos? 2. could it be because they knew the Hyksos from somewhere else?
The fact that Qurna/Gurna people are still living in Kemet today shows that not all of Kerma Culture was destroyed and that Nubia\Kush was not linked to Kerma. Gurna people are rumored to have a history of Tomb robbing if this is true could they be doing this as a form of revenge against the Pharoahs for destroying their people earlier? The latest Genetic study of Qurna peoples show they are very closely linked with Kerma Culture and not with Kush so that is something that should not be ignored in my opinion. I have read two studies that point this fact very precisely, so if I was to ask if Kerma Culture was a group of Indians based off Clyde Winters study then I would agree with this conclusion also based on the fact that the Gurna people of Northern Kemet today are carriers of M1 mtDNA.
We can clearly see from this picture of a black person jumping unto the bull, this is a picture from Ancient Mionan Crete and it speaks clearly of the black presence.
This news article is one of the most ignored facts that shaped ancient history IMO, people really need to study this event because it would clear up a lot of problems that shows up in that time period.
Scientists revisit Aegean eruption far worse than Krakatoa New research supports previously discredited evidence that the gigantic eruption of Thera sounded the death knell of Minoan culture By William J. Broad NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003,Page 16 For decades, scholars have debated whether the eruption of the Thera volcano in the Aegean more than 3,000 years ago brought about the mysterious collapse of Minoan civilization at the peak of its glory. The volcanic isle (whose remnants are known as Santorini) lay just 110km from Minoan Crete, so it seemed quite reasonable that its fury could have accounted for the fall of that celebrated people.
This idea suffered a blow in 1987 when Danish scientists studying cores from the Greenland icecap reported evidence that Thera exploded in 1645 BC, some 150 years before the usual date. That put so much time between the natural disaster and the Minoan decline that the linkage came to be widely doubted, seeming far-fetched at best. Now, scientists at Columbia University, the University of Hawaii and other institutions are renewing the proposed connection.
New findings, they say, show that Thera's upheaval was far more violent than previously calculated -- many times larger than the 1883 Krakatoa eruption, which killed more than 36,000 people. They say the Thera blast's cultural repercussions were equally large, rippling across the eastern Mediterranean for decades, even centuries. "It had to have had a huge impact," said Floyd W. McCoy, a University of Hawaii geologist who has studied the eruption for decades and recently proposed that it was much more violent than previously thought.
The scientists say Thera's outburst produced deadly waves and dense clouds of volcanic ash over a vast region, crippling ancient cities and fleets, setting off climate changes, ruining crops and sowing wide political unrest.
For Minoan Crete, the scientists see direct and indirect consequences. McCoy discovered that towering waves from the eruption that hit Crete were up to 15m high, smashing ports and fleets and severely damaging the maritime economy. Other scientists found indirect, long-term damage. Ash and global cooling from the volcanic pall caused wide crop failures in the eastern Mediterranean, they said, and the agricultural woes in turn set off political upheavals that undid Minoan friends and trade.
"Imagine island states without links to the outside world," William B. F. Ryan, a geologist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, told a meeting of the American Geophysical Union. Compelling evidence Scientists who link Thera to the Minoan decline say the evidence is still emerging and in some cases sketchy. Even so, they say it is already compelling enough to have convinced many archaeologists, geologists and historians that the repercussions probably amounted to a death blow for Minoan Crete.
Rich and sensual, sophisticated and artistic, Minoan culture flourished in the Bronze Age between roughly 3,000 and 1,400 BC, the first high civilization of Europe. It developed an early form of writing and used maritime skill to found colonies and a trade empire.
The British archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans called the civilization Minoan, after Minos, the legendary king. His unearthed palace was huge and intricate, and had clearly been weakened by many upheavals, including fire and earthquakes. Nearby on the volcanic island of Thera, or Santorini, archaeologists dug up Minoan buildings, artifacts and a whole city, Akrotiri, buried under volcanic ash like Pompeii. Some of its beautifully preserved frescoes depicted Egyptian motifs and animals, suggesting significant contact between the two peoples.
In 1939, Spyridon Marinatos, a Greek archaeologist, proposed that the eruption wrecked Minoan culture on Thera and Crete. He envisioned the damage as done by associated earthquakes and tsunamis. While geologists found tsunamis credible, they doubted the destructive power of Thera's earthquakes, saying volcanic ones tend to be relatively mild. The debate simmered for decades.
In the mid-1960s, scientists dredging up ooze from the bottom of the Mediterranean began to notice a thick layer of ash that they linked to Thera's eruption. They tracked it over thousands of square miles.
Such clues helped geologists estimate the amount of material Thera spewed into the sky and the height of its eruption cloud -- main factors in the Volcanic Explosivity Index. Its scale goes from zero to eight and is logarithmic, so each unit represents a tenfold increase in explosive power. Thera was given a VEI of 6.0, on a par with Krakatoa in 1883.
The similarity to Krakatoa, which lies between Sumatra and Java, helped experts better envision Thera's wrath. Krakatoa hurled rock and ash more than 35km high and its blasts could be heard 4,800km away. Its giant waves killed thousands of people.
Despite the power of Thera, the Danish scientists' evidence raised doubts about its links to the Minoan decline.
Another blow landed in 1989 when scholars on Crete found, above a Thera ash layer, a house that had been substantially rebuilt in the Minoan style. It suggested at least partial cultural survival.
By 1996, experts like Jeremy B. Rutter, head of classics at Dartmouth College, judged the chronological gap too extreme for any linkage. "No direct correlation can be established" between the volcano and the Minoan decline, he concluded.
As doubts rose about this linkage, scientists found more evidence suggesting that Thera's eruption had been unusually violent and disruptive over wide areas. Scientific maps drawn in the 1960s and 1970s showed its ash as falling mostly over nearby waters and Aegean islands. By the 1990's, however, the affected areas had been found to include lands of the eastern Mediterranean from Anatolia to Egypt. Scientists found ash from Thera at the bottom of the Black Sea and Nile delta.
Massive anomaly Peter I. Kuniholm, an expert at Cornell University on using tree rings to establish dates, found ancient trees in a burial mound in Anatolia, what now is in the Asian part of Turkey. For half a decade those trees had grown three times as fast as normal -- apparently because Thera's volcanic pall turned hot, dry summers into seasons that were unusually cool and wet. "We've got an anomaly, the biggest in the past 9,000 years," Kuniholm said in an interview. Two years ago McCoy stumbled on more evidence suggesting that Thera's ash fall had been unusually wide and heavy. During a field trip to Anafi, an island some 32km east of Thera, he found to his delight that the authorities had just cut fresh roads that exposed layers of Thera ash up to 3m thick -- a surprising amount that distance from the eruption.
And Greek colleagues showed him new seabed samples taken off the Greek mainland, suggesting that more ash blew westward than scientists had realized. Factoring in such evidence, McCoy calculated that Thera had a VEI of 7.0 -- what geologists call colossal and exceedingly rare. In the past 10,000 years only one other volcano has exploded with that kind of gargantuan violence: Tambora, in Indonesia, in 1816, It produced an ash cloud in the upper atmosphere that reflected sunlight back into space and produced a year without a summer. The cold led to ruinous harvests, hunger and even famine in the US, Europe and Russia. "I presented this evidence last summer at a meeting," McCoy recalled, "and the comment from the other volcanologists was, `Hey, it was probably larger than Tambora.'"
Some prominent archaeologists have concluded that the volcano's long-term repercussions meant the end of Minoan Crete. For instance, they argue that the revolt of nature over the predictable certainties of Minoan religion probably crippled the authority of the priestly ruling class, weakening its hold on society.
In scholarly articles, Jan Driessen, an archaeologist at the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, and Colin F. MacDonald, an archaeologist at the British School in Athens, have argued that changes to Cretan architecture, storage, food production, artistic output and the distribution of riches imply major social dislocations, and perhaps civil war.
By 1450 BC, Mycenaean invaders from mainland Greece seized control of Crete, ending the Minoan era. Thera's destructiveness was probably the catalyst, Driessen and MacDonald wrote, "that culminated in Crete being absorbed to a greater or lesser extent into the Mycenaean, and therefore, the Greek world."
1. Why did Kerma Culture side with the Hyksos? 2. could it be because they knew the Hyksos from somewhere else? ____________________________________________________________________
Col. Rawlinson, the decipherer of the cuneiform writing claimed that the Hyksos were Kushites. Maybe the Hyksos were Tjhnw/Tehenu.
The inhabitants of Libya were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South. (Diop 1986) A Tehenu personage is depicted on Amratian period pottery (Farid 1985 ,p. 84). The Tehenu wore pointed beard, phallic-sheath and feathers on their head.
The Temehus are called the C-Group people by archaeologists (Jelinek, 1985; Quellec, 1985). The central Fezzan was a center of C-Group settlement. Quellec (1985, p.373) discussed in detail the presence of C-Group culture traits in the Central Fezzan along with their cattle during the middle of the Third millennium BC.
The Temehus or C-Group people began to settle Kush around 2200 BC. The kings of Kush had their capital at Kerma, in Dongola and a sedentary center on Sai Island. The same pottery found at Kerma is also present in Libya especially the Fezzan.
The C-Group founded the Kerma dynasty of Kush. Diop (1986, p.72) noted that the "earliest substratum of the Libyan population was a black population from the south Sahara". Kerma was first inhabited in the 4th millennium BC (Bonnet 1986).
By the 2nd millennium BC Kushites at kerma were already worshippers of Amon/Amun and they used a distinctive black-and-red ware (Bonnet 1986; Winters 1985b,1991). Amon, later became a major god of the Egyptians during the 18th Dynasty.
You are right the Dravidian people probably did have a relationship with the Kerma people, via their origin as members of the C-Group. It is interesting to note that a major god of the Dravidians was Amma/Ammam, just like other members of the former C-Group nationality.
Since the Nehasyu were ancient members of the Temehu "Confederation", maybe the Hyksos expected help from the Kushites based on kin relations. This would explain why Rawlinson saw a connection between the Hyksos and Kushites.
..
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: sidirom quote: ___________________________________________________________________ Quoting one's self on a website that cites but doesn not directly quote with claims like "Winter proves..." Talking in third person, isn't a very reliable source. As for this study, it doesn't show anything that would indicate a founder position, just an admixture relation. And how did the macedonians miss this supposed founder population in their genetics? __________________________________________________________________ You're full of it. If you read any published article you will find that the authors often cite their own work. It is nothing wrong with citing your own work if it relates to the subject under discussion.
They cite their evidence and give a source of study. You just site yourself without giving evidence.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank heaven for the reality check. We're slipping farther and farther into hypothetical speculation here lately instead of firm grounding in reliance from primary source material.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote: Since the Nehasyu were ancient members of the Temehu "Confederation", maybe the Hyksos expected help from the Kushites based on kin relations.
Kamose specifically refers to the Hyksos as [Aamu] Asiatics.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol. I forwarded your comments as I am not a geneticist and you seem to know about the subject.
I got this response:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Villems" <rvillems@ebc.ee> > Now, with tens of Indian autochtonous variants of M known at the > level of complete sequence, the singular (East) African M1 is not > enough to convince any professional population geneticist that M > has arisen in Africa. > > One of the strongest extra arguments comes from the age of M. Being some > 60 000 years old - how then, in Africa, it is phylogeographically > so restricted? > > I cannot see much point in such discussions any more. Unless at least > several more African M clades will be found. > > It appears that East Africa received sebus already many (6?) thousands > of > years ago - and for sure from India, over Bab-el-Mandeb, not Sinai. Why > not some successful Y chromosomes as cowboys? > > Regards > Richard Villems
I guess you could ask him more, but that is whom I got my info from.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:, the historical *facts* used in the study to support its conclusions are seriously flawed
I agree that the non genetic remarks are flawed, but they have little bearing on the fact that Greeks show affinity with Africans via African Y chromosome lineages, and specific autosomes - such as Benin Hbs, as well as now two different HLA studies.
All of this data is accurate and revealing if read properly- always the key with genetic study.
quote:and from looking at the dendograms HLA genes are not reliable indicators to be used in population genetics. How do Japanese cluster with Africans?
They don't, from the study -> The Greeks have been shown a substantial Sub-Saharan admixture [30,31].
Bushmen and Japanese form an outgroup.
:review dendrogram in figure 2. Look at the horizontal length of the twigs, as well as vertical relationships.
What is suggested is ancient divergence of *both* Japanese and Bushmen from the other groups studied as far as HLA frequency is concerned - *not* recent ancestry between them.
You have to look at all of the information, and understand what HLA genes are, and are not.
They are not lineages, and should not be viewed as if they were.
They simply suggest qualitative affinities between populations - without defining source/origin as lineages do.
That Greeks have Black ancestry is clear.
Based on multiple studies of Y chromosome SNP markers, as well as Benin HBs autosome, and now two different HLA studies.
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom: Rasol. I forwarded your comments as I am not a geneticist and you seem to know about the subject.
I got this response:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Villems" <rvillems@ebc.ee> > Now, with tens of Indian autochtonous variants of M known at the > level of complete sequence, the singular (East) African M1 is not > enough to convince any professional population geneticist that M > has arisen in Africa. > > One of the strongest extra arguments comes from the age of M. Being some > 60 000 years old - how then, in Africa, it is phylogeographically > so restricted? > > I cannot see much point in such discussions any more. Unless at least > several more African M clades will be found. > > It appears that East Africa received sebus already many (6?) thousands > of > years ago - and for sure from India, over Bab-el-Mandeb, not Sinai. Why > not some successful Y chromosomes as cowboys? > > Regards > Richard Villems
I guess you could ask him more, but that is whom I got my info from.
...in which case, Richard Villems hasn't really said anything new, in terms of the basic facts I had spelt out earlier.
Available findings lend preponderance to M1 origins in East Africa, and this doesn't necessarily negate the possibility of an Indian population being the ancestral carrier of the Asian M haplogroup derivatives of L3 [take note though; lack of L3, aside from M and N derivatives in the Indian subcontinent]...this should be understood, if one grasps the aforementioned basic facts concerning these lineages.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see a M lineage coming from what we know today as East Africa and approaching differentiation with its presence/startup in its present location. A founder gene, as it were.
Science show us that when a gene is isolated from its main host, it (re)differentiates with other localized gene(tic) material. Within African genetic structure, there are so called "junk DNA' that seems to have no purpose but it seems (my hypothesis) that this junk material form with useful genes (coding present) to allow the species to 'survive'. Only time will tell?
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ..in which case, Richard Villems hasn't really said anything new,.
Correct, but Chang, et. al [2006] have->. There is absolutely no evidence that M1 originated in India.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Correct, but Chang, et. al [2006] have->. There is absolutely no evidence that M1 originated in India.
True, and in getting to that point...
What are we told about why the M1 could be closely related to Indian M haplogroup?…
Well, for one, they all derive from L3, with origins in Africa. But then all non-African mtDNA ultimately derive from L3.
And so, why is there the need to affiliate M1 with the Indian M haplogroup? We are told…
Due to the fact that M1 bears variant nucleotides, for example, at site 16311 in common with haplogroup M4, at 16129 with M5, and at 16249 with haplogroup M34, it has been proposed that M1 might have some affinity with Indian M haplogroups (Roychoudhury et al. 2001). - Chang Sun et al.
One has to bear in mind though, concerning single nucleotide polymorphisms…
Interestingly, a single M2 genome differs in its coding region from the root of M at ten sites as compared to M1, which possess only four substitutions. - Revathi Rajkumar et al.
…and what do we know about these aforementioned alleles of M1?…
Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, i.e., 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002). Therefore, those common mutations in the control region rather reflect random parallel mutations. - Chang Sun et al.
The conclusion…
There is no evidence whatsoever that M1 originated in India. - Chang Sun et al.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And actually if L3M1 is just another african L3 lineage [of which there are many], that would explain most of the data and eliminate the parodoxes.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic