- I related factual information about the uncertain nature of early derived paleolithic lineages that are at or near the original migrations of Africans and the peopling of the rest of the world.
- You respounded by asking a question - which was weren't all of these lineages Eurasian?
- My answer is that -to my knowledge- many of these lineages are of undefined source origin and so we can't say that they are Eurasian.
- My source, SOY Keita, who says the same thing.
- My follow up question asked if you have contradictory information?
The 1st time you ignored the question.
The 2nd time you respound by tellng me we are talking past each other.
The fact is you are *trying* to 'talk past' my answer and follow up question rather than address it.
Effectively this translates to....
No, you don't have proof that all the lineages between M168 and M-173 originate in Eurasia.
So, now that this question was been answered, we can move on...
According to Spencer Wells.2002. The Journey of Man NY: Random House
P. 109 "M89, the marker that occurred immediately after M 168 on our main line into Eurasia, has been dated using the absolute method detailed above to around 40,000 years ago. . . This is because it serves to unite populations living in north-eastern Africa- Ethiopia and Sudan in particular-- with the population of the Levant. the shuttingof the Saharan ate after these M89-bearing population were allowed through is suggested by the low frequency in north-eastern Africa of Eurasian markers that occurred later on t he M89 lineage. If Africa and the Levant had been part of a continuous range occupied by humans throughout the Upper Paleolithic, we wouod expect to see a relatively homogenous distribution of markers throughout. In fact, itseems that the emigratioin of populations bearing M89, which we can call the Middle East marker, signified the last substantial Upper Paleolithic exchange between sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia."
p. 111"... another marker appeared on the M89 lineage, given the name M9. It was the descendants of M9, a man born perhaps 40,000 years ago on the plains of Iran or southen Central Asia,..."
pp. 113-114 "It is around this time that another mutation occurred on the Eurasian lineage. It was known as M45, and it will help us to trace two very important later migrations. Using absolute dating methods, we can infer that the M45 mutation occurred appproximately 35,000 years ago in central Asia."
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where does Keita make the claim that R*-M173 originates in the Levant; in fact in the said citation, he isn't arguing for any Levantine origin of anything - where did you get that idea?
My mistake, I was trying to go along with Rasol's cite of Keita. As you can read from my response to Rasol on the origins of M9,M45, etc. 1) R1*-M173 probably originated in Central Asia not the Levant.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Which language was supposedly doing this 30ky ago? You don't seem to be properly engaging in what is being said. If there no specific language family being noted here, and this is just done for the heck of hypothesizing, then wouldn't this take us back to the question you are responding to?
And as already relayed to you, so what if many of the *Euro-identified* languages have been deemed to belong to families; does this in any way diminish diversity of African languages? If not, then what's the issue?
Since the "back migration" idea is so offensive,
According to whom? Yourself?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
let's do this; Between 30-20 KYA in East Africa the precursors of proto-Nilo Saharan and proto-Niger-Congo developed and also a technological advance in hunting/gathering technique or a new social organization developed, which conferred an advantage to these populations. Then, say 12KYA they rapidly expanded over much of Africa displacing and/or absorbing the variety of linguistic families that already occupied the land.
I hope that you are aware that when you say "let's do this", you're effectively engaging in something that wasn't promoted by the piece you posted, right? And so, you'd essentially be putting words into the author's mouth, no?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Somewhat later proto-Afroasiatic did the same. This would, I think, produce what Blench finds (and tries to explain)-- a few well-defined language phyla but with a huge variety of phonological and morphological differences in the languages composing the phyla and relatively few isolated languages.
Specific Blench citation?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
The point to concentrate on is the relatively recent large expansion of a few language phyla over a territory that was already occupied by people with many different languages.
Why? This isn't the point made by your source.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
These characteristics seem contrary to the enormous time depth of African languages and the expected variety that would result.
"Enormous time depth" of which African languages - how enormous?
You just claimed that your extracts from Blench were acknowledging relatively recent divergences of many of the major languages spoken, so what is all this talk of 'enormous time depth'?
Basically, it seems that by the time humans left Africa they had language and that surely means that modern humans in Africa had language prior to that. Thus, in Africa humans have had language for some 100,000 years. Comparing the diversification that occurred in other areas with much shorter occupations one would expect that Africa would have had at some time a much much more varied set of languages than even those found today.
But why?...given what I had already pointed out time and again.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
But, they became extinct and were replaced by what we find now.
Well, it is a given that some languages over time, due to acculturation, would become largely defunct. However, how does this support the notion that languages in Africa in the past would have been 'extremely' more diverse than they are, or that they 'ought' to be as diverse?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Mystery Solver said
quote: ^This is why I said you hadn't been carefully engaging in what my reponses to your extracts were saying and why so.
This does not go one way only. You (and Rasol) keep arguing that African languages are very diverse and that Blench is denying that
Citation?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
but I keep pointing out that what Blench is trying to explain is the unexpectedly low number of well-defined language phyla which, however have a huge diversity of phonology and morphology, i.e. African languages are very diverse-- no denial there.
Why would the current language phyla be unexpectedly low? Is it not the fact of reality? You dodged my last question about the bearing of language families on diversity; please try not to do that again. Thanks.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, the reason I told you to carefully read my responses. Blench is simply talking about the idea of more isolates being in the said non-African places and using that to extrapolate about the possibility of African languages being initially more diverse than it is now [and one which he reckons 'ought' to have followed through to this day - see your emphasized citation with in the *very last post* of my reply at the bottom], while I'm on the other hand, providing the biological and linguistic rationale for the cause of the said "situations" in the citation to which I was replying - see the difference?
E.g. see citation below:
Whatever the present situation, there must have been a stage in African prehistory when the continent was characterized by **extreme** linguistic and biological diversity. As modern humans diffused from southern and eastern Africa, they would have spread over the continent at extremely low population densities, either assimilating or out competing existing in situ hominid populations.
What does 'extreme diversity' mean here?...perhaps because he is including 'non-modern' humans, so as to cause this 'extreme diversity'? Because as far as modern humans are concerned, on what basis would it be proposed that Africans would have been 'extremely' more diverse than the case is today?
Again, Blench is not denying that African languages are diverse, but that the pattern is not what linguists would expect from their experience in other languages;
Which other linguists?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quoting again: "All in all, the pattern of African language phyla is both evident and puzzling. The great majority of the African land mass is occupied by speakers of languages that are assigned to clearly defined phyla while the isolates from a small and uncertain list. This is very much in contrast with Papua and the New World, where linguistic differentiation is at levels such that existing groupings remain disputed[my emphasis] and many isolates[my emphasis] have been identified. To illustrate the point, there are more language isolates in Colombia than in the entirety of Africa (AILV 1994). This seems entirely counter to our present understanding of the relationship between time depth and linguistic diversity; [Quetzalcoatl's emphasis] if modern humans did indeed come out of Africa, and they already had some form of language, then the languages of Africa ought to be considerably more diverse than those in Papua or South America.
Okay? For nth time now, what bearing does this have on diversity? All this tells us [don't know if Blench is aware of it], is that the said people have been relatively more isolated from one another, both temporally and spatially.
Moreover,...
if modern humans did indeed come out of Africa, and they already had some form of language, then the languages of Africa ought to be considerably more diverse than those in Papua or South America - Blench
^Is a qualifier statement without substantive merit. Language isn't lineage; it isn't expected to remain intact.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
There is an additional contrast that is equally surprising:
the comparative phonological and morphological diversity of African languages. Both Papuan and Australian languages are distinguished by lexical diversity combined with surprisingly similar phonologies and morphologies (Dixon 1980; Foley 1986). In other words, despite the gradual diversification of the lexicon, the framework in which they are set has remained remarkably stable over a very long period. African languages, on the other hand, are strikingly diverse, with very large and small consonantal inventories, often abutting one another and great variation in tonal, morphological and syntactic systems."
Why is this surprising? The diversity is correctly noted in African language families, while the similarities are also noted in Australian and Papua languages, but with greater lexical distinctions - goes back to the relative isolation issue.
quote:Quetzalcoatl:
Mystery Solver
quote:How does he know that languages in this 'prehistory' were any more diverse than it is today?
Because as a professional linguist he knows wht would have been expected from the presence of language for 80-100 thousand years, or more, if no great displacement had taken place, in this case "more diverse" would refer to many more language phyla and isolates.
This talk of 'what would have been' is a non-starter. It isn't the status quo. See response prior to the last one.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
- I related factual information about the uncertain nature of early derived paleolithic lineages that are at or near the original migrations of Africans and the peopling of the rest of the world.
- You respounded by asking a question - which was weren't all of these lineages Eurasian?
- My answer is that -to my knowledge- many of these lineages are of undefined source origin and so we can't say that they are Eurasian.
- My source, SOY Keita, who says the same thing.
- My follow up question asked if you have contradictory information?
The 1st time you ignored the question.
The 2nd time you respound by tellng me we are talking past each other.
The fact is you are *trying* to 'talk past' my answer and follow up question rather than address it.
Effectively this translates to....
No, you don't have proof that all the lineages between M168 and M-173 originate in Eurasia.
So, now that this question was been answered, we can move on... [/qb]
According to Spencer Wells.2002. The Journey of Man NY: Random House
P. 109 "M89, the marker that occurred immediately after M 168 on our main line into Eurasia, has been dated using the absolute method detailed above to around 40,000 years ago. . . This is because it serves to unite populations living in north-eastern Africa- Ethiopia and Sudan in particular-- with the population of the Levant. the shuttingof the Saharan ate after these M89-bearing population were allowed through is suggested by the low frequency in north-eastern Africa of Eurasian markers that occurred later on t he M89 lineage. If Africa and the Levant had been part of a continuous range occupied by humans throughout the Upper Paleolithic, we wouod expect to see a relatively homogenous distribution of markers throughout. In fact, itseems that the emigratioin of populations bearing M89, which we can call the Middle East marker, signified the last substantial Upper Paleolithic exchange between sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia."
p. 111"... another marker appeared on the M89 lineage, given the name M9. It was the descendants of M9, a man born perhaps 40,000 years ago on the plains of Iran or southen Central Asia,..."
pp. 113-114 "It is around this time that another mutation occurred on the Eurasian lineage. It was known as M45, and it will help us to trace two very important later migrations. Using absolute dating methods, we can infer that the M45 mutation occurred appproximately 35,000 years ago in central Asia."
Reasonable propositions, based on a number of qualifiers taken into consideration, but you do realize that this has no bearing on the cited Keita piece about asymmetrical distribution of lineages and its potential to incite misleading impressions, or Rasol's question about the more ancestral, perhaps undifferentiated groups of the said lineages, right?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to Spencer Wells.2002. The Journey of ManNY: Random House
P. 109 "M89, the marker that occurred immediately after M 168 on our main line into Eurasia, has been dated using the absolute method detailed above to around 40,000 years ago. . . This is because it serves to unite populations living in north-eastern Africa- Ethiopia and Sudan in particular-- with the population of the Levant. The shutting of the Saharan ate [after these M89-bearing population were allowed through Why you believe this shows that the case is that M168 populations left Africa is suggested by the low frequency in north-eastern Africa of Eurasian markers that occurred later on the M89 lineage.
Yes, good book. But isn't some of what you cite effectively mooted by R-173 [and other UP lineages] having now been found in Africa?
Given this, how can you assert with any confidence that only M168 populations left Africa as as opposed to M89 populations as well?
Are there underived M89 populations in Eurasia?
Are there underived M168 populations in Eurasia?
If not, why not?
quote:If Africa and the Levant had been part of a continuous range occupied by humans throughout the Upper Paleolithic, we wouod expect to see a relatively homogenous distribution of markers throughout. In fact, itseems that the emigration of populations bearing M89, which we can call the Middle East marker, signified the last substantial Upper Paleolithic exchange between sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia."
But this comments predates the finding of R*173 in Cameroon which is *precisely what Keita is addressing*, Wells comments cannot account for underived R*173 [and Upper Paleolithic marker], in central Africa. According to what you just quoted - it shouldn't be there, yet it is.
The rest of Wells argument follows logically from the complete or near complete absense of post M89 UP lineages in Africa, but if that postulate is - as now seems likely - proven wrong, then the rest of his argument collapses around it.
IE -
quote:p. 111"... another marker appeared on the M89 lineage, given the name M9. It was the descendants of M9, a man born perhaps 40,000 years ago on the plains of Iran or southen Central Asia,..."
I agree that this is possible, but it doesn't answer the question, 'what Eurasian populations' actually *carry these underived lineages*, in the same manner that Cameroonians carry underived R1*-173 - which post dates M89 and according to Wells they aren't supposed to have? ?
quote: pp. 113-114 "It is around this time that another mutation occurred on the Eurasian lineage. It was known as M45, and it will help us to trace two very important later migrations. Using absolute dating methods, we can infer that the M45 mutation occurred appproximately 35,000 years ago in central Asia."
Again, this is possible, but does not answer the question of what central Asian population harbors these lineages.
It is the lack of ancient lineages such as R1* in Central Asia, and their precense in Africa that drives the logic of Keita's inference.
By the way, on some particulars Wells has also been outdated by Kivisld.
Wells saw R1A as indicative of the so called "Aryan invasion" [presumably post neolithic] from central Asia and into India, but Kivisld 2006 says that R1A is more likely of UP provenance in India and possibly even originates there. Sound familiar?
Bottom line:
Keita is well aware of Spencer Wells Journey of man - which does not refute his hypothesis and predates the very topic which we are supposedly addressing.
Wells says that M89 was the last UP genetic exchange between Africa and Eurasia - you use that as proof that everything that is UP and post M89 is Eurasian and *not* AFrican....however the whole point of this discussion is that we know now that this is -not true - via Upper Paleolithic R*-M173 [and other lineages] which *are* found in Africa.
On this point - the data contradicts Wells....not Keita.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since the "back migration" idea is so offensive
Please don't try to pawn off your lack of evidence for your hypothesis on our being offended by it.
After all, you are trying to attribute unspecified languages and cultural [influence] - a term you use to hide the lack of specifics, to Eurasian migrations into Africa, even though you lack direct linguistic, or anthropological, or archeological, or genetic evidence.
When pressed on the matter you are essentially reduced to the observation that African languages are great in number and diversity and related in family as opposed to fragmented into isolates.
We all agree on this - but do not see any evidence that it supports your hypothesis of "Eurasian" influence, be it genetic, archeological, linguistic or anthropological.
Your hypothesis is weak. Our skepticism is fully justified.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it dificult to do these discussions when things like this happen
Rasol said
quote:The fact is you are *trying* to 'talk past' my answer and follow up question rather than address it.
Effectively this translates to....
No, you don't have proof that all the lineages between M168 and M-173 originate in Eurasia.
So, now that this question was been answered, we can move on...
I then quote Wells on the Eurasian origin of these lineages, i.e. what you asked but your response is
quote:Given this, how can you assert with any confidence that only M168 populations left Africa as as opposed to M89 populations as well?
Are there underived M89 populations in Eurasia?
Are there underived M168 populations in Eurasia?
If not, why not?
This is not what you wanted me to respond to. I answered what you asked- i.e. evidence that the lineages originated in Eurasia. What do you mean by underived populations; why would these negate what Wells says about the origin of the lineage.
******* Then I get whipsawed between Rasol and Mystery Solver
Based on Rasol's quoting Keita
quote:What is most commonly misunderstood bout R1*173 in Cameroon is that this lineage is only found in Cameroon [mainly], Egypt, and SouthWest Asia.
It is not found among Europeans, NorthEast Asians, Indians, and...nor is it found among Maghreb Berber.
This is likely for the reason Cruciani suggests which is that it is at least a 30 thousand year old lineage in Central Africa.
Since this lineage is scarse outside of Africa, there is no direct proof that it originated per se outside of Africa, however many non African lienages are either predessor or cousin to R1, such as R1b which is the most common original European lineage.
The best assessment of these early dirived lineages which may be African or may be Eurasian comes from Keita:
It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplo-types called “Eurasian” are predominantly, although not solely, of indige-nous African origin. As a term “Eurasian” is likely misleading, since itsuggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can bepostulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before theemigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saha-ran/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and carefulanalysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities isneeded. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be mod-eled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving anasymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wideregion, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion.
I wrote that R1*-M173 had originated in the Levant rather than Eurasia. To which Mystery Solver replied
quote:Where does Keita make the claim that R*-M173 originates in the Levant; in fact in the said citation, he isn't arguing for any Levantine origin of anything - where did you get that idea?
.
I replied
quote: mistake, I was trying to go along with Rasol's cite of Keita. As you can read from my response to Rasol on the origins of M9,M45, etc. 1) R1*-M173 probably originated in Central Asia not the Levant.
Whereupon Rasol, refering to the Keita quote above, states:
quote:But this comments predates the finding of R*173 in Cameroon which is *precisely what Keita is addressing*, Wells comments cannot account for underived R*173 [and Upper Paleolithic marker], in central Africa. According to what you just quoted - it shouldn't be there, yet it is.
I
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
I find it dificult to do these discussions when things like this happen
Like what - Specify?
I suspect though, what you are really finding difficult, is the defense of a presentation whose primary basis is at best very questionable, and thereby built upon by way of acrobatics with common linguistic terms and in the process, mystifying things in areas where they need not be.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I then quote Wells on the Eurasian origin of these lineages,
It seems you are yet again ignoring my responses instead of addessing them.
1) I asked you to identify the Eurasian populations who actually have these underived lineages. Did you do that?
2) You cited Wells 2001, who based his hypothesis on the origin of all of these lineages in Eurasia on what was then viewed as the complete 'lack' of post M89 lineages in Africa - lineages such as R1*.
Wells expected to find R1* in "Central Asia".
Instead it is found in Central Africa.
This is contrary to his now dated hypothesis, and it is the more recent data that informs Keita's hypothesis, which you have still not addressed.
3) You seem to be ignoring the fact that Wells citation actually -contradicts- what you are attempting to assert.
Emigratioin of populations bearing M89 - signified the *last substantial Upper Paleolithic exchange between sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia.*
^ It's as if you read this quote as only being of relevance only to out-migration from Africa to Eurasia, as opposed ot vice versa also, but that's not what Wells actually stated now is it?
Thefore if you still believe Wells statement to be valid - then you cannot hypothesize back migration.
If on the other hand you accept the recent evidence of R1* in Africa - then you must accept that it equally opens up the possibility of African outmigration of post M89 lineages, as well as of back migrations.
Actually your discourse is *massively* conflicted.
* You deny genetic exchange for the point of avoiding the possiblity of African origin of post M89 lineages....but then turn around and claim genetic exchange for the purpose of hypothesizing back-migration.
* You claim said lineages are unlikely to be African because of their rarity, yet you then ascribe such lineages a mysterious unspecified -influence- (?) that is hugely disportunate given their rarity.
Isn't it irrational to suggest that R1* bearers -which make up less than 1/10 of 1 percent of African population- play the central role in *reducing* language diversity? How exactly?
Shouldn't such a supposedly influential lineage be much more widespread to be logically implicated in facilitating major language change, and even...elimination?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I find it dificult to do these discussions when things like this happen
Rasol said
quote:The fact is you are *trying* to 'talk past' my answer and follow up question rather than address it.
Effectively this translates to....
No, you don't have proof that all the lineages between M168 and M-173 originate in Eurasia.
So, now that this question was been answered, we can move on...
I then quote Wells on the Eurasian origin of these lineages, i.e. what you asked but your response is
quote:Given this, how can you assert with any confidence that only M168 populations left Africa as as opposed to M89 populations as well?
Are there underived M89 populations in Eurasia?
Are there underived M168 populations in Eurasia?
If not, why not?
This is not what you wanted me to respond to. I answered what you asked- i.e. evidence that the lineages originated in Eurasia. What do you mean by underived populations; why would these negate what Wells says about the origin of the lineage.
******* Then I get whipsawed between Rasol and Mystery Solver
Based on Rasol's quoting Keita
quote:What is most commonly misunderstood bout R1*173 in Cameroon is that this lineage is only found in Cameroon [mainly], Egypt, and SouthWest Asia.
It is not found among Europeans, NorthEast Asians, Indians, and...nor is it found among Maghreb Berber.
This is likely for the reason Cruciani suggests which is that it is at least a 30 thousand year old lineage in Central Africa.
Since this lineage is scarse outside of Africa, there is no direct proof that it originated per se outside of Africa, however many non African lienages are either predessor or cousin to R1, such as R1b which is the most common original European lineage.
The best assessment of these early dirived lineages which may be African or may be Eurasian comes from Keita:
It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplo-types called “Eurasian” are predominantly, although not solely, of indige-nous African origin. As a term “Eurasian” is likely misleading, since itsuggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can bepostulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before theemigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saha-ran/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and carefulanalysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities isneeded. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be mod-eled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving anasymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wideregion, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion.
I wrote that R1*-M173 had originated in the Levant rather than Eurasia. To which Mystery Solver replied
quote:Where does Keita make the claim that R*-M173 originates in the Levant; in fact in the said citation, he isn't arguing for any Levantine origin of anything - where did you get that idea?
.
I replied
quote: mistake, I was trying to go along with Rasol's cite of Keita. As you can read from my response to Rasol on the origins of M9,M45, etc. 1) R1*-M173 probably originated in Central Asia not the Levant.
Whereupon Rasol, refering to the Keita quote above, states:
quote:But this comments predates the finding of R*173 in Cameroon which is *precisely what Keita is addressing*, Wells comments cannot account for underived R*173 [and Upper Paleolithic marker], in central Africa. According to what you just quoted - it shouldn't be there, yet it is.
I
HEEEEEYYY Welcome to the club lol!!!!!!
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I challenge you to relate any source for any scholar who can refute anything cited from Keita, Stringer or Hiernaux.
Where do I refute what the above fellows wrote, I confirmed what Supercar said and agree totally with Hienaux and Keita work.
quote:Because the statement you quoted is about similarity.
I agree.
quote:You are not addressing that.
Let me repeat myself, it would be interesting to see the sampling method, indeed some scholars are not aware of the Afican diversity or prefer to ignore it, like for example dumping Amhara and Oromo together and labeling them Ethiopians in some genetic studies. How accurate the study you quoted is in terms of sampling the Africans, since we know pretty well that they are the most diverse on earth. Do you have more details on the sampling method? If you present them I will read them and maybe I will be convinced.
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Africa I: Where do I refute what the above fellows wrote, I confirmed what Supercar said and agree totally with Hienaux and Keita work.
I am trying to get you to understand that Keita and Heirnaux agree with Stringer. For example, Keita has spoken also of the tropically adapted nature of early Eurasian humans, and the later divergence of Eurasian physical form....
* Europeans and Asian-Australians did develop more unique genetic profiles over time, but had a common background before their average "uniqueness" emerged. This background is African in a bio-historical sense. Therefore, it should not be surprising that some Africans share similarities with non-Africans. - The Diversity of Indigenous Africans S.O.Y. Keita Department of Biological Anthropology Oxford University
* Australo-Melanesian populations were [physically] close to the East African ones but separated from those of the Eurasian region.
The results of phylogenetic analysis of the reconstructed phene pools of the regional ancestral populations support -
* the early colonization of Australia and Melanesia.
* and on the later time of divergence of the ancestors of modern Northern Eurasians - - Moscow State University
Some [cromagon] resembled African and Australians more than [modern] European based on objective anatomical measurement - Stringer.
quote: like for example dumping Amhara and Oromo together and labeling them Ethiopia ns
Gratuitous strawman argument.
You are trying to make a rhetoric point, but not actually addressing, and therefore not effectively critiquing the studies in question.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:some(Cro-Magnon) resembled Africans and Australians more than modern Europeans based on objective anatomical criterion
We are trying to address that...I'm trying to say what's the sampling methods used who are these Africans? Be assured that Cro-Magnon were more similar to Africans and Australian since they were more physically tropically adapted than modern Europeans. But the problem is Africans are more diverse than people around the globe....so who are those Africans sampled?
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The population-graphs from this study was posted on ES over a year ago. You may want to do a search.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm gonna ask you whether all African groups were included: diminutive Africans(batwa) San like Africans, elongated African and Broad faced Africans...is it the case?
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
let's do this; Between 30-20 KYA in East Africa the precursors of proto-Nilo Saharan and proto-Niger-Congo developed and also a technological advance in hunting/gathering technique or a new social organization developed, which conferred an advantage to these populations. Then, say 12KYA they rapidly expanded over much of Africa displacing and/or absorbing the variety of linguistic families that already occupied the land.
I hope that you are aware that when you say "let's do this", you're effectively engaging in something that wasn't promoted by the piece you posted, right? And so, you'd essentially be putting words into the author's mouth, no?
And taking the liberty of demonstrating so,...
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
By suggesting that 20 to 30,000 years ago there was a back migration from Asia to Africa of a population with “...new skills, technology or perhaps social/ritual systems— spread out across Africa and gradually displaced or assimilated many of its resident populations. This hypothesis was first put forward in its modern form by Kingdon (1993), although in the absence of genetic evidence it was little more than speculation. But if the argument is accepted, these early returnees would be the source of Nilo-Saharan, as this is the oldest of the phyla apart from Khoesan (p. 183).”
^Your "let's do this" is totally out of sync with that of the said author.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand. Is R*-M173 Eurasian, or did it develop in Africa? I thought its origins were uncertain or inconclusive. And where is the evidence that R*-M173 is associated with some advanced culture or technique?
Posts: 26504 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^There have been propositions weighed in here and there, but nothing conclusive about its origins. Fact of the matter is however, that these rare chromosomes are most frequent in N. Cameroon.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Barac, L. et al. 2003 “Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates,” European Journal of Human Genetics 11: 535–542
Y chromosome variation in 457 Croatian samples was studied using 16 SNPs/indel and eight STR loci. High frequency of haplogroup I in Croatian populations and the phylogeographic pattern in its background STR diversity over Europe make Adriatic coast one likely source of the recolonization of Europe following the Last Glacial Maximum. The higher frequency of I in the southern island populations is contrasted with higher frequency of group R1a chromosomes in the northern island of Krk and in the mainland. R1a frequency, while low in Greeks and Albanians, is highest in Polish, Ukrainian and Russian populations and could be a sign of the Slavic impact in the Balkan region. Haplogroups J, G and E that can be related to the spread of farming characterize the minor part (12.5%) of the Croatian paternal lineages. In one of the southern island (Hvar) populations, we found a relatively high frequency (14%) of lineages belonging to P*(xM173) cluster, which is unusual for European populations. Interestingly, the same population also harbored mitochondrial haplogroup F that is virtually absent in European populations – indicating a connection with Central Asian populations, possibly the Avars.
underived M-89 in Eurasia
Brion, M. et al. 2005. “A collaborative study of the EDNAP group regarding Y-chromosome binary polymorphism analysis,” [I]Forensic Science International [I]153 (2-3):103-108
Abstract
A collaborative study was carried out by the European DNA Profiling Group (EDNAP) in order to evaluate the performance of Y-chromosome binary polymorphism analysis in different European laboratories. Four blood samples were sent to the laboratories, to be analysed for 11 Y-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs): SRY-1532, M40, M35, M213, M9, 92R7, M17, P25, M18, M153 and M167. All the labs were also asked to submit a population study including these markers.
All participating laboratories reported the same results, indicating the reproducibility and robustness of Y-chromosome SNP typing.
A total of 535 samples from six different European populations were also analysed. In Galicia (NW Spain) and Belgium, the most frequent haplogroup was R1b*(xR1b1,R1b3df). Haplogroup F*(xK) is one of the most frequent in Austria and Denmark, while the lowest frequency appear in Belgium.
Haplogroup frequencies found in this collaborative study were compared with previously published European Y-chromosome haplogroup data. *****
Now please provide me some population examples in Africa of the underived precursors to R1*=M173
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Barac, L. et al. 2003 “Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates,” European Journal of Human Genetics 11: 535–542
Y chromosome variation in 457 Croatian samples was studied using 16 SNPs/indel and eight STR loci. High frequency of haplogroup I in Croatian populations and the phylogeographic pattern in its background STR diversity over Europe make Adriatic coast one likely source of the recolonization of Europe following the Last Glacial Maximum. The higher frequency of I in the southern island populations is contrasted with higher frequency of group R1a chromosomes in the northern island of Krk and in the mainland. R1a frequency, while low in Greeks and Albanians, is highest in Polish, Ukrainian and Russian populations and could be a sign of the Slavic impact in the Balkan region. Haplogroups J, G and E that can be related to the spread of farming characterize the minor part (12.5%) of the Croatian paternal lineages. In one of the southern island (Hvar) populations, we found a relatively high frequency (14%) of lineages belonging to P*(xM173) cluster, which is unusual for European populations. Interestingly, the same population also harbored mitochondrial haplogroup F that is virtually absent in European populations – indicating a connection with Central Asian populations, possibly the Avars.
P*(xM173) simply means all P lineages excepting M173 derivatives, which brings me the question of where else undifferentiated M173 chromosomes have been located aside from N. Cameroon [most frequent], followed by Egypt, Jordan, and Oman [much less frequent by comparison].
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
underived M-89 in Eurasia
Brion, M. et al. 2005. “A collaborative study of the EDNAP group regarding Y-chromosome binary polymorphism analysis,” [I]Forensic Science International [I]153 (2-3):103-108
Abstract
A collaborative study was carried out by the European DNA Profiling Group (EDNAP) in order to evaluate the performance of Y-chromosome binary polymorphism analysis in different European laboratories. Four blood samples were sent to the laboratories, to be analysed for 11 Y-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs): SRY-1532, M40, M35, M213, M9, 92R7, M17, P25, M18, M153 and M167. All the labs were also asked to submit a population study including these markers.
All participating laboratories reported the same results, indicating the reproducibility and robustness of Y-chromosome SNP typing.
A total of 535 samples from six different European populations were also analysed. In Galicia (NW Spain) and Belgium, the most frequent haplogroup was R1b*(xR1b1,R1b3df). Haplogroup F*(xK) is one of the most frequent in Austria and Denmark, while the lowest frequency appear in Belgium.
Haplogroup frequencies found in this collaborative study were compared with previously published European Y-chromosome haplogroup data.
Again, R1b*(xR1b1, R1b3df) translates into R1b lineages barring the R1b1 and R1b3df lineages.
F*(xK) similarly applies to all F derived lineages barring the K derivative(s).
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Now please provide me some population examples in Africa of the underived precursors to R1*=M173
Why? The focus at hand is rare undifferentiated R1*-M173 chromosomes in Africa.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Now please provide me some population examples in Africa of the underived precursors to R1*=M173 Why? The focus at hand is rare undifferentiated R1*-M173 chromosomes in Africa.
Precisely. But Rasol kept harping on underived precursors of this haplotype in Eurasia and accusing me of dodging the question etc. This was just obfuscation and way of berating me rather than seriously dealing with the question at hand- a technique which seems to be very prevalent on this discussion group.
It is clear that R1*-M173 is a back migration. Rasol demanded that I show that the origin of all the lineages between M168 and M173 originate in Eurasia. When I did so he switched and demanded that I show that there were populations of underived M89 in Eurasia. Which I just did.
Now you complain that the issue is R1*-M173 is Africa, and I'm off topic. You and Rasol need to get your act synchronized. His questions were irrelevant to the real issue, but a convenient way to critize me-and you now have the gall to criticize me for answering his demands.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Now please provide me some population examples in Africa of the underived precursors to R1*=M173 Why? The focus at hand is rare undifferentiated R1*-M173 chromosomes in Africa.
Precisely. But Rasol kept harping on underived precursors of this haplotype in Eurasia and accusing me of dodging the question etc.
Because he was making a point about the undifferentiated R1*-M173 lineages [devoid of designated downstream mutations], as it pertains to its rare status. This comes with the understanding that subsequent UEPs of a lineage don't all necessarily have to have taken place in the same locale or geography. The same point to be taken away from Keita's assessment about asymmetrical trail of certain lineages.
quote:Quetzalcoatl:
This was just obfuscation and way of berating me rather than seriously dealing with the question at hand- a technique which seems to be very prevalent on this discussion group.
How so? Concise points were made about R1*, followed by questions based on your claims about certain mutations such as M9, M45 et al.
quote:Quetzalcoatl:
It is clear that R1*-M173 is a back migration.
How so?
quote:Quetzalcoatl:
Rasol demanded that I show that the origin of all the lineages between M168 and M173 originate in Eurasia. When I did so he switched and demanded that I show that there were populations of underived M89 in Eurasia. Which I just did.
Actually, as he demonstrated, the original question did ask you for "underived" lineages. See his post on this.
quote:Quetzalcoatl:
Now you complain that the issue is R1*-M173 is Africa, and I'm off topic.
Where is the said 'complaint' - citation?
quote:Quetzalcoatl:
You and Rasol need to get your act synchronized.
How so and why?...just because you made some posts from a very weak position?
quote:Quetzalcoatl:
His questions were irrelevant to the real issue, but a convenient way to critize me-and you now have the gall to criticize me for answering his demands.
This is emotional gibberish. I made legitimate assessments about your posts, and made legitimate requests accordingly. Demonstrate methodologically what is illegitimate about the specifics therein. Thanks.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Perhaps, you're jumping the hoops too far, because... P*(xM173) simply means all P lineages excepting M173 derivatives, which brings me the question of where else undifferentiated M173 chromosomes have been located aside from N. Cameroon [most frequent], followed by Egypt, Jordan, and Oman [much less frequent by comparison].
lol. this is one of the most common mistakes made with regards to African genetics.
for instance, a previous poster attributed R1*173 to 'berber' influence in cameroonians, but did so based on R1b lineages found in magrebians, who do *not* have r1* underived.
this is why i asked -> isn't it odd that that northwest africans don't have this lineage?
Likewise, a similar mistake is made with regards to U6.
not only is there no 'known' non african population with a proginator U6* lineage, but most levantines with u6 have late derived U6a1, whose pattern of migration is U6 North Africa, [paleolithic] U6a NorthWest Africa, U6a1 NorthEast Africa [holocene], and thence....U6a1 [Levantine] Neolithic.
Given this, is it not backwards [or twisted] to refer to U6a1 in say, Palestinians as a "levantine" lineage?
This is Kieta's 'sound' point, and the current evidences for these lineages are generally consistent with his hypothesis.
quote:Quetzalcoatl: It is clear that R1*173 is a backmigration
No, but it is clear that you miscited a genetic study....so, the question stands.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
such questions are fundamental and must be addressed if the hypothesis under discussion is to be taken seriously.
treating them as 'hoops' - to be avoided - is indicative of and unsound thesis.
quote:This was just obfuscation and way of berating me
^ no one is berating you.
the above is just and example of personalising the issue. [ad hominem whining]
in this way you attempt to distract from your inability to answer our questions.
your hypothesis has been shown to be massively flawed.
it's not personal, but if you are determined to 'take this personally', there's nothing we can do about that, is there?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yeap, Quetzalcoatl thinks that somehow you [rasol], I and perhaps the rest of the board, have some conspiracy to 'criticize' him just for the heck of it so to speak, without legitimate cause to do so; to put it in his own terms:
But Rasol kept harping on underived precursors of this haplotype in Eurasia and accusing me of dodging the question etc. This was just obfuscation and way of berating me rather than seriously dealing with the question at hand- a technique which seems to be very prevalent on this discussion group. - by Quetzalcoatl
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
lol. this is one of the most common mistakes made with regards to African genetics.
for instance, a previous poster attributed R1*173 to 'berber' influence in cameroonians, but did so based on R1b lineages found in magrebians, who do *not* have r1* underived.
this is why i asked -> isn't it odd that that northwest africans don't have this lineage?
Which would be silly, as Maghrebians don't even have much of R1b itself [quite rare], if not almost non-existent, to begin with.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I don't know which forum will provide a red carpet treatment where people just sit by and have no disagreemets, just for the sake of not hurting someone's feelings. This is certainly no place where people just sit by, and allow questionable claims to go unfettered. Have any of these complainers ever been in any kind of debate?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Okay guys, I think it's enough for you to expose the flaws in Quetzalcoatl's argument. We don't want to really 'berate' the guy any more.
Underived R1* is found at it's highest frequency in West Africa-- northern Cameroon to be exact, and then is found in lower frequencies in Egypt and then Oman etc. with it being almost non-existent anywhere else in Eurasia. As such, where is the proof that it originated in Eurasia?
Posts: 26504 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: [qb] [QUOTE] Nasidze, I., et al. 2006 “The Gagauz, a Linguistic Enclave, are not a Genetic Isolate,” Annals of Human Genetics 71:379–389
R1*-M173
Moldovians 0.0130 Gagauz 0.082 Turks 0.310 Ukranian 0.020 Hungarian 0.133 ******* Y chromosome variation in 457 Croatian samples was studied using 16 SNPs/indel and eight STR loci. High frequency of haplogroup I in Croatian populations and the phylogeographic pattern in its background STR diversity over Europe make Adriatic coast one likely source of the recolonization of Europe following the Last Glacial Maximum. The higher frequency of I in the southern island populations is contrasted with higher frequency of group R1a chromosomes in the northern island of Krk and in the mainland. R1a frequency, while low in Greeks and Albanians, is highest in Polish, Ukrainian and Russian populations and could be a sign of the Slavic impact in the Balkan region. Haplogroups J, G and E that can be related to the spread of farming characterize the minor part (12.5%) of the Croatian paternal lineages. In one of the southern island (Hvar) populations, we found a relatively high frequency (14%) of lineages belonging to P*(xM173) cluster, which is unusual for European populations. Interestingly, the same population also harbored mitochondrial haplogroup F that is virtually absent in European populations – indicating a connection with Central Asian populations, possibly the Avars.
Hungary is known as a way station for Central Asian groups so it would make sense that to escape the hordes, the main population would have to move inland to a secure barrier location(forest/lake/mountain) to preserve their indentity while the foreigner, through conquest, would mix with the people who did not move and provide the tools of a new group! In Egypt, Alexandria would provide the 'mixed' group through conquest (forced or voluntary) while the fellahin (those of the land) would retain their characteristics, despite not having the classical barriers to stop invaders! Climate would be sufficent and they would probably share moe of their cultural traits with those of the southern regions!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:which brings me the question of where else undifferentiated M173 chromosomes have been located aside from N. Cameroon [most frequent], followed by Egypt, Jordan, and Oman [much less frequent by comparison].
Ivan Nasidze,I., et al. 2006 “Concomitant Replacement of Language and mtDNA in South Caspian Populations of Iran,” Current Biology 16:668–673
Three haplogroups were found at high frequencies in the Mazandarani and Gilaki groups (R1*(M173), G*(M201), and J2*(M172)); to further investigate the relationships of these groups based on these three Y-SNP haplogroups, we typed nine Y-STR loci in individuals with these Y-SNP haplogroups and compared the results with the same set of Y-STR loci on the same Y-SNP background that were typed previously in the groups from the South Caucasus and Iran [7].
J. R. Luis, J.R., et al. 2004 “The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations,” Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74:532–544
Paleoanthropological evidence indicates that both the Levantine corridor and the Horn of Africa served, repeatedly, as migratory corridors between Africa and Eurasia. We have begun investigating the roles of these passageways in bidirectional migrations of anatomically modern humans, by analyzing 45 informative biallelic markers as well as 10 microsatellite loci on the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (NRY) in 121 and 147 extant males from Oman and northern Egypt, respectively. The present study uncovers three important points concerning these demic movements: (1) The E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 lineages, as well as the R1*-M173 lineages, mark gene flow between Egypt and the Levant during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. (2) In contrast, the Horn of Africa appears to be of minor importance in the human migratory movements between Africa and Eurasia represented by these chromosomes, an observation based on the frequency distributions of E3b*-M35 (no known downstream mutations) and M173. (3) The areal diffusion patterns of G-M201, J-12f2, the derivative M173 haplogroups, and M2 suggest more recent genetic associations between the Middle East and Africa, involving the Levantine corridor and/or Arab slave routes. Affinities to African groups were also evaluated by determining the NRY haplogroup composition in 434 samples from seven sub-Saharan African populations. Oman and Egypt’s NRY frequency distributions appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any sub-Saharan African population, suggesting a much larger Eurasian genetic component. Finally, the overall phylogeographic profile reveals several clinal patterns and genetic partitions that may indicate source, direction, and relative timing of different waves of dispersals and expansions involving these nine populations.
Derenko, M, et al. 2006 “Contrasting patterns of Y-chromosome variation in South Siberian populations from Baikal and Altai-Sayan regions,” Hum Genet 118: 591–604
quote:which brings me the question of where else undifferentiated M173 chromosomes have been located aside from N. Cameroon [most frequent], followed by Egypt, Jordan, and Oman [much less frequent by comparison].
Ivan Nasidze,I., et al. 2006 “Concomitant Replacement of Language and mtDNA in South Caspian Populations of Iran,” Current Biology 16:668–673
Three haplogroups were found at high frequencies in the Mazandarani and Gilaki groups (R1*(M173), G*(M201), and J2*(M172)); to further investigate the relationships of these groups based on these three Y-SNP haplogroups, we typed nine Y-STR loci in individuals with these Y-SNP haplogroups and compared the results with the same set of Y-STR loci on the same Y-SNP background that were typed previously in the groups from the South Caucasus and Iran [7].
J. R. Luis, J.R., et al. 2004 “The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations,” Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74:532–544
Paleoanthropological evidence indicates that both the Levantine corridor and the Horn of Africa served, repeatedly, as migratory corridors between Africa and Eurasia. We have begun investigating the roles of these passageways in bidirectional migrations of anatomically modern humans, by analyzing 45 informative biallelic markers as well as 10 microsatellite loci on the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (NRY) in 121 and 147 extant males from Oman and northern Egypt, respectively. The present study uncovers three important points concerning these demic movements: (1) The E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 lineages, as well as the R1*-M173 lineages, mark gene flow between Egypt and the Levant during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. (2) In contrast, the Horn of Africa appears to be of minor importance in the human migratory movements between Africa and Eurasia represented by these chromosomes, an observation based on the frequency distributions of E3b*-M35 (no known downstream mutations) and M173. (3) The areal diffusion patterns of G-M201, J-12f2, the derivative M173 haplogroups, and M2 suggest more recent genetic associations between the Middle East and Africa, involving the Levantine corridor and/or Arab slave routes. Affinities to African groups were also evaluated by determining the NRY haplogroup composition in 434 samples from seven sub-Saharan African populations. Oman and Egypt’s NRY frequency distributions appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any sub-Saharan African population, suggesting a much larger Eurasian genetic component. Finally, the overall phylogeographic profile reveals several clinal patterns and genetic partitions that may indicate source, direction, and relative timing of different waves of dispersals and expansions involving these nine populations.
Derenko, M, et al. 2006 “Contrasting patterns of Y-chromosome variation in South Siberian populations from Baikal and Altai-Sayan regions,” Hum Genet 118: 591–604
I commend your effort in searching for evidence of undifferentiated R1*-M173 chromosomes elsewhere. Of the three studies, I'm most familiar with the Luis et al., and as I have already noted herein, the undifferentiated chromosomes also appear in Egypt, Oman and Jordan, but to a much lesser degree than in N. Cameroon. These are the only places to date that I'm aware of, as having populations bearing these chromosomes. That said, you present two other studies which note R1*-M173, but this doesn't say much, in so far as R1*-M173 could well just mean R1*-M173 derivatives in general. What is being sought after, is specifically undifferentiated R1*-M173 chromosomes devoid of designated downstream mutations. If these two other aforementioned studies shed light on this, then please share it with us. Thanks.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 lineages, as well as the R1*-M173 lineages, mark gene flow between Egypt and the Levant during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic
The above does not state that R1*-M173 originated in the Levantine. It only states that the precense of E3b1, E3b3 and R1*-M173 mark exchange between Africa and Levantine. And actually Luis specifically denoted E3b lineages are originating in Africa and spreading from Africa to Asia.
quote:Derenko, M, et al. 2006 “Contrasting patterns of Y-chromosome variation in South Siberian populations from Baikal and Altai-Sayan regions
Please provide links to these studies, in full, so we can properly assess them.
I have never heard of underived R1 being found in these places.
I've also seen a graph posted on the internet which lists lineages such as N* R* etc.. from the same supposed study and all from Russia, [even as the frequency of R1b is listed 0%], and is clearly wrong.
Possibly it's translated from the study incorrectly by it's [nefarious] source.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quetzalcoatl, I too am interested in what these studies have to say about underived R1* being present in Eurasia, especially Siberia. This is new to me.
Posts: 26504 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
for some reason the forum would not accept the urls I had for these papers. here are the listings in google scholar:
Contrasting patterns of Y-chromosome variation in South Siberian populations from Baikal and Altai- … - all 3 versions » M Derenko, B Malyarchuk, GA Denisova, M Wozniak, I … - Human Genetics, 2006 - Springer ... SRY-8299, M89, M201, M52, M170, 12f2, M9, M20, 92R7, SRY-1532, DYS199, M173, M17, Tat ... with Shors and Tofalars had a high frequency of haplogroup R1* (12.8, 19.6 ...
Concomitant Replacement of Language and mtDNA in South Caspian Populations of Iran - all 6 versions » I Nasidze, D Quinque, M Rahmani, SA Alemohamad, M … - Current Biology, 2006 - Elsevier ... Haplogroup J2 (M172) was found at high frequency in both groups, as was haplogroup R1 (M173); together, these two haplogroups account for more than 50% of ...
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
for some reason the forum would not accept the urls I had for these papers.
You can always copy by typing the relevant parts in question from the studies. Remember R*-M173 in itself doesn't necessarily mean undifferentiated chromosomes without the designated downstream UEPs, unless specified so. See my last post for details.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^You're right, I got it wrong. So, let me put it another way, what I'm getting at:
I need to know what downstream mutations were examined by the studies in question and to what extent, so as to be able to assess what R1*-M173 here entails, and compare this with the context in which R1*-M173 chromosomes are placed in Cruciani et al. 2002 and Luis et al. 2004.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Take this for example from Quetzalcoatl's reference, the likes of which have led me to my earlier statement:
Concomitant Replacement of Language and mtDNA in South Caspian Populations of Iran
Ivan Nasidze1, , , Dominique Quinque1, Manijeh Rahmani2, Seyed Ali Alemohamad3 and Mark Stoneking1 1Department of Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany 2Department of Molecular Genetics, Cardiovascular Research Center, Imam Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 14469-74516, Iran 3Department of Human Genetics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 14469-74516, Iran Received 21 November 2005; revised 6 January 2006; accepted 6 February 2006. Published: April 3, 2006. Available online 3 April 2006.
Summary
The Gilaki and Mazandarani occupy the South Caspian region of Iran and speak languages belonging to the North-Western branch of Iranian languages [1]. It has been suggested that their ancestors came from the Caucasus region, perhaps displacing an earlier group in the South Caspian [2]. Linguistic evidence supports this scenario, in that the Gilaki and Mazandarani languages (but not other Iranian languages) share certain typological features with Caucasian languages 3 and 4. We analyzed patterns of mtDNA and Y chromosome variation in the Gilaki and Mazandarani. Based on mtDNA HV1 sequences, the Gilaki and Mazandarani most closely resemble their geographic and linguistic neighbors, namely other Iranian groups. However, their Y chromosome types most closely resemble those found in groups from the South Caucasus. A scenario that explains these differences is a south Caucasian origin for the ancestors of the Gilaki and Mazandarani, followed by introgression of women (but not men) from local Iranian groups, possibly because of patrilocality. Given that both mtDNA and language are maternally transmitted, the incorporation of local Iranian women would have resulted in the concomitant replacement of the ancestral Caucasian language and mtDNA types of the Gilaki and Mazandarani with their current Iranian language and mtDNA types. Concomitant replacement of language and mtDNA may be a more general phenomenon than previously recognized.
Jumping to the relevant portion of the study:
Y Chromosome Variation
Overall, seven Y-SNP haplogroups were found in the Gilaki and ten haplogroups were found in the Mazandarani (Table S2). Haplogroup J2*(M172) was found at high frequency in both groups, as was haplogroup R1*(M173); together, these two haplogroups account for more than 50% of Mazandarani and Gilaki Y chromosomes.
Interestingly, the frequency of haplogroup J2*(M172) in these groups is more similar to the frequency in South Caucasus groups than in other Iranian groups 5 and 6. Moreover, haplogroup I*(M170) is found at high frequency in the Iranian groups from Tehran and Isfahan, but is absent in the Mazandarani and Gilaki and is in low frequency in the South Caucasus groups (Table S2).
The pairwise Fst value (Table 1) between the Mazandarani and Gilaki groups was not significantly different from zero (Fst = 0.003, p = 0.337). In contrast to the mtDNA results, both groups showed greater similarity with South Caucasian populations than with their geographic and linguistic neighbors, namely other Iranians (Fst = 0.013 and 0.084 for Mazandarani versus South Caucasian and versus Iranians, respectively; and Fst = 0.010 and 0.072 for Gilaki versus South Caucasian and versus Iranians, respectively).
The MDS analysis (Figure 2B) further illustrates these patterns. The Mazandarani and Gilaki groups fall inside a major cluster consisting of populations from the Caucasus and West Asia and are particularly close to the South Caucasus groups—Georgians, Armenians, and Azerbaijanians. Iranians from Tehran and Isfahan are situated more distantly from these groups.
Three haplogroups were found at high frequencies in the Mazandarani and Gilaki groups (R1*(M173), G*(M201), and J2*(M172)); to further investigate the relationships of these groups based on these three Y-SNP haplogroups, we typed nine Y-STR loci in individuals with these Y-SNP haplogroups and compared the results with the same set of Y-STR loci on the same Y-SNP background that were typed previously in the groups from the South Caucasus and Iran [7]. Reduced median networks of the Y-STR haplotypes (Figure S2) further indicate a closer relationship of the Mazandarani/Gilaki Y-STR haplotypes with South Caucasian Y-STR haplotypes than with Iranian Y-STR haplotypes. This is most evident in the network for Y-STR haplotypes on the background of haplogroup R1*(M173), in which 9 of 11 Mazandarani/Gilaki Y-STR haplotypes fall into a single cluster that connects with South Caucasian Y-STR haplotypes, and for haplogroup G*M201, in which 9 of 12 Mazandarani/Gilaki Y-STR haplotypes group with South Caucasian Y-STR haplotypes while the other three could be of either Iranian or South Caucasian origin (Figure S2). For haplogroup J2*(M172), the pattern is less clear: six Mazandarani/Gilaki Y-STR haplotypes group with South Caucasian haplotypes and three group with Iranian haplotypes, while the remaining six haplotypes could be of either Iranian or South Caucasian origin (Figure S2).
The patterns observed in the median networks are further supported by pairwise Rst comparisons for Y-STR haplotypes within each Y haplogroup (Figure 3); the Mazandarani/Gilaki are more similar to South Caucasian groups than to Iranian groups for Y-STR haplotypes within all three Y-SNP haplogroups. Nevertheless, the sample sizes in these analyses are small and thus the results could change with further sampling. However, while some contribution of Y chromosomes of Iranian origin to the Mazandarani/Gilaki cannot be excluded, overall the Y chromosome data do indicate a closer relationship of the Mazandarani and Gilaki with South Caucasian groups than with Iranian groups.
Recap from above, for example:
Reduced median networks of the Y-STR haplotypes (Figure S2) further indicate a closer relationship of the Mazandarani/Gilaki Y-STR haplotypes with South Caucasian Y-STR haplotypes than with Iranian Y-STR haplotypes. This is most evident in the network for Y-STR haplotypes on the background of haplogroup R1*(M173), in which 9 of 11 Mazandarani/Gilaki Y-STR haplotypes fall into a single cluster that connects with South Caucasian Y-STR haplotypes, and for haplogroup G*M201, in which 9 of 12 Mazandarani/Gilaki Y-STR haplotypes group with South Caucasian Y-STR haplotypes while the other three could be of either Iranian or South Caucasian origin (Figure S2).
What is this talk of 9 of out 11 R1*-M173 chromosomes falling into a "single" cluster?
The authors go onto point out that:
Y Chromosome Analysis
All 100 samples were typed for the X- and Y-linked zinc finger protein genes in order to confirm the gender of the sample [25]. Genotyping was carried out for ten Y chromosomal SNP markers (RPS4Y (M130), M9, M89, M124, M45, M173, M17, M201, M170, and M172 [26]) and YAP Alu insertion polymorphism [27] as described elsewhere 6, 9, 27, 28 and 29. The samples were genotyped according to the hierarchical order of the markers as described in [26]. Published Y-SNP data for Caucasian, European, West Asian, and Central Asian groups 6, 22, 30, 31 and 32 were also included in some analyses.
Eleven samples belonging to Y-SNP haplogroup R1*(M173), samples belonging to haplogroup G*(M201), and 17 samples belonging to haplogroup J2*(M172) were genotyped for nine Y chromosome short tandem repeat (Y-STR) markers: DYS19 (DYS394), DYS385a, DYS385b, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, and DYS393 as described elsewhere 33 and 34. The resulting Y-STR haplotypes were compared to published Y-STR haplotypes from these same haplogroups from Iran and the south Caucasus [7].
How the heck does one have all the genotyped markers, each distinct from the others, fall into undifferentiated groups? Makes no sense, unless...one gets it from the context that I mentioned earlier.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Interesting deduction, Mystery. It makes more sense now. Also that the form of R*-M173 found in those Eurasian populations are downstream mutations and not the original undifferentiated.
Posts: 26504 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic