posted
Here is my recent re-analysis on haplogroups E and J but this post is focused mostly on J. I made this post to a dodona member who seems unusually fixated on the idea of haplogroups being "Negrid" and "Europoid":
Its sensless and useless to connect linages to groups considering that lineages could undergo bottlenecks and founder effect. E3a with the M191 mutation chracterizes people in Central Africa whereas E3a without the M191 mutation characterizes West Africans. Thats just one example another is haplogroup J in Ethiopians and Europeans. Haplogroup J in Europeans and Ethiopians is not really Arab mixture but haplogroup J in North Africans is because of low internal variance, read:
"The TD of the two sister clades J-M267 and J-M172 was estimated, with V0 = 0, and turned out to be 31.7 ky (see phylogeny in fig. 2). This estimate, however, is not easily interpretable, because such old haplogroups are differently represented in different regions where they probably underwent multiple bottlenecks. The lower internal variance of J-M267 in the Middle East and North Africa, relative to Europe and Ethiopia, is suggestive of two different migrations. In the absence of additional binary polymorphisms allowing further informative subdivision of J-M267, the YCAII microsatellite system provides important insights. The majority of J-M267 Y chromosomes harbor the single-banded motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 in the Middle East (>70%) and in North Africa (>90%), whereas this association is much less frequent in Ethiopia and only sporadically found in southern Europe. Considering the distribution of this YCAII single-banded patternwhich, besides the usual stepwise mutational mechanism, could be due to a stable mutational event (one locus deletion or a single-nucleotide mutation in the primer sequence)we suggest that the motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 potentially characterizes a monophyletic clade of J-M267. A comparable situation is observed within Hg I-M170, in which the single-banded haplotype YCAIIa21-YCAIIb21 parallels a biallelic marker (O.S., unpublished data).
According to this interpretation, the first migration, probably in Neolithic times, brought J-M267 to Ethiopia and Europe, whereas a second, more-recent migration diffused the clade harboring the microsatellite motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 in the southern part of the Middle East and in North Africa. In this regard, it is worth noting that the median expansion time of the J-M267-YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 clade was estimated to be 8.74.3 ky, by use of the TD approach (see fig. 4 legend), and that this clade includes the modal haplotype DYS19-14/DYS388-17/DYS390-23/DYS391-11/DYS392-11 of the Galilee (Nebel et al. 2000) and of Moroccan Arabs (Bosch et al. 2001). These results are consistent with the proposal that this haplotype was diffused in recent time by Arabs who, mainly from the 7th century A.D., expanded to northern Africa (Nebel et al. 2002)."
Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area
Now from reading that we can see that haplogroup J in Ethiopia and Europe has less to do with Arabs as opposed to North Africans, therefore it would be false to say that haplogroup J in Ethiopians is due to "Arab" mixture. The data indicates that J came into Ethiopia at an earlier time than North Africa and underwent a bottleneck with some founder effect thereby increasing its frequency in Ethiopia, the same hold true for E3b2-M81 lineages in North Africa. E3b2-M81 is older in Northeast Africa but appears in lower frequencies whereas in northwest Africa it is younger and appears in higher frequencies due to founder effect. That therefore debunks the assertion that Ethiopians have high "Caucasoid" mixture and E3b2-M81 is an exclusively "Berber" lineage. If you apply the same logic to E3b1 lineages in Europe, Europeans are remarkably very "European". Reverse the logic then Europeans become just as "East African" admixed as Ethiopians are "Arab Caucasoid" admixed, thats why its tricky and misleading to label lineages as "Europoid" and "Negrid".
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that if anyone in Africa is heavily or moderately "Arab" admixed its North Africans more so that Ethiopians. The case for a founder effect, genetic drift and or bottleneck in Ethiopia is very plausible when we consider that Ethiopia as a Christian kingdom was mostly isolated from the rest of the world with the advent and spread of Islam. That would increase inbreeding and would explain why the frequency of J is higher in the Tigre and Amhara and low to nil in the Oromo who only recent expanded from southern Ethiopia towards the north. Anyone agree or disagree with this hypothesis?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I like your analysis though I would caution to you to realize that E3a without the M191 mutation had to start from East Afrika then traveled to> Central Afrika and finally ended up in> West Afrika at the end of the East to West Afrikan Migration.
RACISM SPREADS A FALSE IDEA THAT SO CALLED WEST AFRIKANS (Broad featured "True Afrikans") ALWAYS LIVED IN WEST AFRIKA AND MIGRATED TO CENTRAL AFRIKA SUCH A IDEA IS NOT SUPPORTED BY HISTORICAL TEXT AND SHOULD BE REJECTED.
Honestly the original "West Afrikan" or people who originally occupied West Afrika first were PYGMIES. based off historical text.
Though your analysis of J haplogroup might give a hint to the Antiu spoken of in Kemet or the "sand dwellers" who also migrated to the Southern areas of Ethiopia/Kush.
posted
Yes this was well done. I agree with the analysis of Hap J. I think too much people use it to try and seperate Ethiopians from the rest of Black Africa when this is not the case. Ethiopians are just as black as the rest of east Africa and east africans don't have that much Hap J to begin with. Only the Amhara and the Tigre have High Hap J at 35%. The Oromo, Borana, and Afar have less than 3%. Good post Riguad
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree exept that I think that based on the historical interaction between Southern Arabians and Horn Africans it seems like the alternate explanation that J migrated out of the horn into arabia should be given equal weight. History seems to favor horn Africans settling in Southern Arabia and then being present as a distinct group until before the Arab expansion at which time they may have been just absorbed by taking on a arab identity.
Posts: 167 | From: usa | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: Yes this was well done. I agree with the analysis of Hap J. I think too much people use it to try and seperate Ethiopians from the rest of Black Africa when this is not the case. Ethiopians are just as black as the rest of east Africa and east africans don't have that much Hap J to begin with. Only the Amhara and the Tigre have High Hap J at 35%. The Oromo, Borana, and Afar have less than 3%. Good post Riguad
Peace
I HIGHLY DOUBT THE AFAR HAVE LESS THEN 3%. PROVE IT. THEY SEEM SLIGHTLY YEMENI INFLUENCED JUST LIKE SOMALIS. AND CONSIDERING THE AFAR VALLEY IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO ARABIA.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking back at this, its still not known at which time J came into Ethiopia. There is no evidence of any population movements into the Horn at this time. That term Neolithic is used to explain almost every lineage found anywhere.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I like your analysis though I would caution to you to realize that E3a without the M191 mutation had to start from East Afrika then traveled to> Central Afrika and finally ended up in> West Afrika at the end of the East to West Afrikan Migration.
RACISM SPREADS A FALSE IDEA THAT SO CALLED WEST AFRIKANS (Broad featured "True Afrikans") ALWAYS LIVED IN WEST AFRIKA AND MIGRATED TO CENTRAL AFRIKA SUCH A IDEA IS NOT SUPPORTED BY HISTORICAL TEXT AND SHOULD BE REJECTED.
Honestly the original "West Afrikan" or people who originally occupied West Afrika first were PYGMIES. based off historical text.
Though your analysis of J haplogroup might give a hint to the Antiu spoken of in Kemet or the "sand dwellers" who also migrated to the Southern areas of Ethiopia/Kush.
Hotep
E3a is not found among indeginous east africans so it can't have originated from there, its the bantu expansion that brought it to that region, as far as i understood.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I doubt that it's indigenous, but it certainly isn't the result of later migrations. It's from either the Neolithic or earlier, I guess.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
I like your analysis though I would caution to you to realize that E3a without the M191 mutation had to start from East Afrika then traveled to> Central Afrika and finally ended up in> West Afrika at the end of the East to West Afrikan Migration.
RACISM SPREADS A FALSE IDEA THAT SO CALLED WEST AFRIKANS (Broad featured "True Afrikans") ALWAYS LIVED IN WEST AFRIKA AND MIGRATED TO CENTRAL AFRIKA SUCH A IDEA IS NOT SUPPORTED BY HISTORICAL TEXT AND SHOULD BE REJECTED.
Honestly the original "West Afrikan" or people who originally occupied West Afrika first were PYGMIES. based off historical text.
Though your analysis of J haplogroup might give a hint to the Antiu spoken of in Kemet or the "sand dwellers" who also migrated to the Southern areas of Ethiopia/Kush.
Hotep
E3a is from west Africa and not East as its not found among the original East African populations.
Haplogroup E3 which is the father of E3b and E3a I believe travelled to west Africa whereby younger brother by 14000 years or so E3a was born. E3a then spread by the Bantu expansion.
This is why you find very old E3 (PN2) lineages in places like Senegal whereby E3a might have been born.
E3 (PN2) is found only in Ethiopia and Senegal.
E3b is also found in places of west Africa and found in Senegalese strangely enough (at low amounts thought)
Its is thought that all lineages came from Ethiopia as the oldest are found their. But did the split of these two particular haplotypes happen somewhere in the Sahara?
Posts: 265 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But did the split of these two particular haplotypes happen somewhere in the Sahara?
There are good chances, because E3a carrying Africans (who moved subsequently south and east with the Bantu migration) are mainly located in Western Sahara, Tuareg are like the typical population that carry all main haplogroups, ancient(A,E) and more recent like E3a and E3b...maybe they are the clue with respect to the split.
I doubt that it's indigenous, but it certainly isn't the result of later migrations. It's from either the Neolithic or earlier, I guess.
From an earlier discussion:
quote:Yom:
quote:Supercar:
Maybe you can clarify what you are 'specifically' getting at, but again from Semino et al.:
According to this interpretation, the first migration, probably in Neolithic times, brought J-M267 to Ethiopia and Europe, whereas a second, more-recent migration diffused the clade harboring the microsatellite motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 in the southern part of the Middle East and in North Africa. In this regard, it is worth noting that the median expansion time of the J-M267-YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 clade was estimated to be 8.74.3 ky, by use of the TD approach (see fig. 4 legend), and that this clade includes the modal haplotype DYS19-14/DYS388-17/DYS390-23/DYS391-11/DYS392-11 of the Galilee (Nebel et al. 2000) and of Moroccan Arabs (Bosch et al. 2001). These results are consistent with the proposal that this haplotype was diffused in recent time by Arabs who, mainly from the 7th century A.D., expanded to northern Africa (Nebel et al. 2002).
The above describes the expansion of J-M267 characterized by the YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 motif, but not of clades not characterized by it, which is what I'm looking for.
Well, you were saying something about the authors simply mentioning "Neolithic", but not mentioning any dates; hence, I provided the above. As far as this last comment above is concerned, all the J-M267 ultimately have a "Near Eastern" origin. As far as the M267 subclades, i.e. M62, M365, M367/M368, and M369 are concerned, no frequency estimate for the Ethiopian samples have been shown in the Semino et al. study, possibly reflecting their absence. Of the aforementioned subclades, the M367/M368 hasn't been mentioned in the table provided by Semino et al., unless it was placed under M267*, in which case, it was not specified. The reason Semino et al. focused on the YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 bearing chromosomes, was to make the case about their possible associations with historic Arab migrations.
quote:Yom:
The existence of J-M172 in Ethiopia and J-M267 with motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 is probably indicative of historic migration from the Arabian peninsula as you pointed out.
Other J-M267 not bearing the said single-banded motif, along with J-M172 lineages in Ethiopian samples, may reflect relatively more ancient arrivals than the chromosomes bearing the said single-banded motif. The chromosomes bearing the said single-banded motif, may well include dispersions brought about by migrating southwest Asians into the region spanning the historic period.
J lineages would have likely come some time after the establishment of agricultural economy in the Levant, but perhaps during the ongoing spread of the economy, along with some movement of people. I'd caution the interpretation of the frequency distribution of such ancient lineages in contemporary populations, given the impact of genetic drift into the equation...
The TD of the two sister clades J-M267 and J-M172 was estimated, with V0 = 0, and turned out to be 31.7 ky (see phylogeny in fig. 2). This estimate, however, is not easily interpretable, because such old haplogroups are differently represented in different regions where they probably underwent multiple bottlenecks.
The lower internal variance of J-M267 in the Middle East and North Africa, relative to Europe and Ethiopia, is suggestive of two different migrations.
Remember, that the Neolithic agricultural economy of north Africa is autonomous from that of the Levant, and the same can be said of the African Horn vis-à-vis that of the Levant.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's from either the Neolithic or earlier, I guess.
Supercar, Is it scientifically sound to exclude the fact that the presence of J haplogroup among Amhara and Tigre is not due to recent admixture (post neolithic)?
quote:It's from either the Neolithic or earlier, I guess.
Supercar, Is it scientifically sound to exclude the fact that the presence of J haplogroup among Amhara and Tigre is not due to recent admixture (post neolithic)?
Of course, there was gene flow of relatively recent extraction, but as you can see from the study above, as far as J lineages are concerned, much of it is from very ancient gene flow, perhaps pre-historic from the African Horn standpoint.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
This would be questionable; relatively recent gene flow from SW Asia into Ethiopian regions just seems to be modest, if J lineages, which appears to be the majority of SW Asian patrilineages in Ethiopia, is any indication.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, can anyone point me to a site where all the ethiopian tribes are genetically examined? What about other groups like the Harare and Gurage? Is there any link with N. Sudan? b
Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is almost impossible to use any of these genetic studies to draw any meaningful historical conclusions. Genetic information alone is not enough and only serves to confuse. Its interesting to look at but tells us almost nothing about these cultures.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: It is almost impossible to use any of these genetic studies to draw any meaningful historical conclusions...
Wrong. Genetic studies provide significant information on the age of certain populations, their movements, and intermingling with other populations.
quote:Genetic information alone is not enough and only serves to confuse...
Of course genetic evidence is not enough in the sense that it doesn't tell you everything about a populations history, especially culturally wise, but there is nothing "confusing" about it if you understand the science or at least the basics of it.
quote:Its interesting to look at but tells us almost nothing about these cultures.
You're right about this part; which is why it is best to use an interdisiplinary stand point-- combining genetics with other sciences like physical anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, and of course if availabe historical documentation. Only when all of these disciplines are put together can a clear picture be created.
A perfect example, it's been known for a while by scholars that the Neolithic (New Stone Age) "Revolution" spread from the Middle East into Europe from archaeological evidence. Many of the skeletons corresponding to this period as examined by physical anthropologists showed "negroid" features. And now today geneticists have found an African lineage (E3b1) that corresponds with areas which the Neolithic spread. All in all scholars now conclude Neolithic expansions from Africa into the Southwest Asia and from there Europe and beyond. The African lineage E3b which originated in Africa is found outside from high frequencies in the Levant which decreases to Mesopotamia. This lineage is also found along with Southwest Asian J lineage in Europe, especially in southern Europe with its greatest frequencies in Greece. Which is why geneticist now say Europeans are 1/3 African in ancestry corresponding to the Neolithic revolution.
If you put the genetics together with other disciplines, the historical picture is very clear indeed even at a time period when there was no written documents. Posts: 26259 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure scholars are saying what you say they are saying. They can say that a gene was present in this population or that but that alone cannot tell you who a given group of people were or where they came from or really, anything about them at all. We are 50 years away from being able to draw any meaningful conclusions with that kind of information. I do agree that an IDS approach is helpful but even with that we know almost nothing about prehistoric populations.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: They can say that a gene was present in this population or that but that alone cannot tell you who a given group of people were or where they came from or really, anything about them at all.
Evergreen Writes:
What is the scientific basis to this claim?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti, Here is where your theory runs aground. To say that the Greeks are genetically 33% black is misleading. If less than 1% of ancient peoples in Greece carried a particular gene fully a third could have it today. Obviously that does not mean they are negroid in any way, nor does it mean they ever were. My father always taught me that a little knowledge is dangerous and this is a classic case of that. Greeks are not African in any way today and certanily were not in classical times or in the Bronze age. This is what I meant when i said that you cannot draw conclusions about prehistoric peoples. I can put 5 Mexicans in Duluth Minnesota and witin 10,000 years everyone in minnesota will carry that gene and 99.9% will have never been Mexican. You are asking genetics to do much more than it is capable of doing.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ARROW99 seems rather Horemheb-esque in his views, language, and writing style. Makes you wonder.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Djehuti, Here is where your theory runs aground. To say that the Greeks are genetically 33% black is misleading.
In that these lineages underly tropical African ancestry, how is their presence in Greeks misleading?
quote:ARROW99:
If less than 1% of ancient peoples in Greece carried a particular gene fully a third could have it today.
This would of course be your imagination, presumably to downplay the impact of immigrants on Europe. Archeology and genetics attest to the movement of "Neolithic" farming migrants from "SW Asia" into [pre-farming] Europe, after the movement of Africans into the Levant. This would be in addition to migrations from North Africa into the Iberian peninsula, not to mention historic movements of Africans into Europe.
quote:ARROW99:
Obviously that does not mean they are negroid in any way, nor does it mean they ever were.
This is of course a strawman, but at the same time, it doesn't mean that Euro-folks should seek to ajudge other folks' accomplishments on 'racial purity' in other places, just so they promote the intellectually bankrupt idea of 'racial purity' in Europe.
quote:ARROW99:
Greeks are not African in any way today and certanily were not in classical times or in the Bronze age.
They are not Africans any more than Nile Valley Africans are Europeans or Asians, and they are no more 'racially pure' than any society on this globe.
quote:Originally posted by Calypso: ARROW99 seems rather Horemheb-esque in his views, language, and writing style. Makes you wonder.
...and interestingly, both are from Texas. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Very interesting I didn't realize that. We should be in for some fun then. Old Hore was always good for a laugh or two.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Very interesting I didn't realize that. We should be in for some fun then. Old Hore was always good for a laugh or two.
Indeed; and add to the list, the common ground that these two share in geopolitics and U.S. imperialism.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm downplaying the impact of immigrants on Europe because you have no reliable data. You have isloated a gene, so what, it proves nothing. To do what you are trying to do you have to have much more solid information and at least at this time it simply doesn't exist. What we do know for an absolute fact is that as far back as we can reliably look Greeks have nothing to do with Africa. People believe in Big Foot and that Elvis lives. To say that Greece is conneced to Africa with the information we have avilable is just that kind of thinking.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yup, definitely the old professor Hore with the same old arguments! LOLPosts: 26259 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats a cop out Djehuti. The ladies on the politics board accused me of being someone else as well. Fact is, when there is no valid reply you have to concede.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^So you're not professor Hore? Well, well you must either be a relative of his or come from a strikingly similar background. Posts: 26259 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Now this has got to be more than just coincidence! I mean the probability is too astounding!
Printer-friendly view of this topic