. The Way Many Geneticists define a male "Sub-Saharan" person
any person with any of the following Y DNA
A
B
E1b1a E1a E2
_______________________
>>> [but NOT E1b1b ]
I'm not saying I agree with this but I am observing this in articles
I get the strong impression that many geneticists classify a male "Sub-Saharan" person as a biological type that includes E1b1a, A and B
>> but not E1b1b
This does not conform to an exact below-the-Sahara geographic definition
Instead it follows this genetic map, the predominant places where E1b1b and E1b1a people live.
There also also some exceptions as per the modern demographic comparison, some E1b1b living in the brown area likewise some E1b1a people living in the purple area
Similarly there are some some prominent ancient exceptions also. The oldest DNA recovered Africa is an Ethiopian found in a town called Mota in Ethiopia and he was E1b1a despite this group only representing around 3% in modern Ethiopia
And of very few ancient Egyptian human remains that have been tested thus far for Y DNA, the only two who were of the haplogroup E are Rameses III and his son Pentawer, both predicted to belong to E1b1a, thus Rameses III was paternally a Sub-Saharan according to how this term is applied by aforementioned geneticists ( - and his mtDNA unreported (-why??? )
I think it is more useful NOT to use this term "Sub-Saharan" as a biological type because that is a very geographic term and as we can see the haplogroup densities do not fully conform to that because of the horn
Thus we can look at the hard biological markers, the haplogroups and stop using the term "Sub-Saharan" as a biological term
As for the biological Y DNA markers of ancient Egyptians, very few have been tested and we are far from being able to make broad conclusions
So you see, this is why I prefer SNP analysis because you have a marker and you can compare to where other people with this same marker live today >> Thus that can be discussed without having to use all these words "Africa" , "Sub-Saharan", "Black", "White" "Eurasian", "North African", "Negroid", "Caucasian"
^^ geographic and color terms of which there are endless arguments over their definitions and semantics
None of that is needed. It is part of the old paradigm.
We have hard data. for instance E1b1a
It's a letters and numbers code marker determined by microscope analysis So a author could simply publish the result and optionally mention in what modern populations also carry this DNA and even then not half to get into all these other words without attaching all these old geographic, color and racial terms out
When DNA is classified as "Sub-Saharan", this is an attempt to attach new genetic testing data to the old pre-genetics paradigms and I believe those old paradigms are eroding and becoming less and less relevant
E1b1b
and
E1b1a
are not that far apart however
What is further apart in Africa genetically is the Maternal ancestry, Haplogroup L being regarded as "Sub Saharan" and anything not L considered not Sub-Saharan. There is more variation in the maternal DNA
The term "Sub Saharan" aka "SSA" causes confusion when applied to genetics
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And yet E1b1ba (V100) and E1b1b (M215) are genetic siblings arising from a common ancestor that makes them unrelated to the Eurasian clades in your map or even the older African clades (A & B) in other parts of Africa. It is the E clade that unites 'North' and 'Sub-Saharans' at least by Y-chromosome and note that even M215 isn't even confined to 'North Africa' but reaches all the way into Sub-Saharan East Africa. But of course NRY haplogroups are just one element of genetics.
yes, there are commonalities and differences.
I think "Sub-Saharan" could be used for geography
but I DON'T think it should be used to describe a type of people or be used in genetics because as we can see the genetic map does not correspond to the geographic map. It's an attempt to use an old school overly broad pre-genetics term into the present
And of the DNA there are commonalities that both are E paragroup but also differences that these are different clades of E1b1b a or b
and another nuance is that the geographic regions these clades dominate today may not be the same say 2,000 or more years ago, at some point
There are also younger clades E-M81 which is predominant in the Maghreb and E-V13 the only lineage that reaches the highest frequencies out of Africa both of these sub-clades of E1b1b
And if you get rid of all the old paradigm geographic term baggage and only speak of DNA in genetic terms, like any distinction, it could be misused in the future for social competition based on these or any type of difference described
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ E-M215 is 'North African' even though it's found in Sub-Saharan East Africa as far south as Kenya.
But note the hypocrisy how in that map they divide E1b1 but not R1.
So by the standard of the authors of that African map, Europeans should also be divided into genetically Western and Eastern Europeans via the distinction in R1 subclades. Southeastern Europe around the Aegean is 'Arab' or Middle Eastern and eastern Scandinavia is Siberian. LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
So by the standard of the authors of that African map, Europeans should also be divided into genetically Western and Eastern Europeans via the distinction in R1 subclades.
yes, as the map shows Western and Eastern Europeans are different genetically
geographic names or nationalities don't change that the oldest TMRCA datings of the R1a haplogroup occur in the Saharia tribe, a caste of the Bundelkhand region in North Central India
The intent of this thread is to inform people that when you read genetics articles and the term "Sub-Saharan" and "North African" are used to keep in mind geneticists tend to translate the male line "Sub-Saharan" as
A
B
E1b1a _____________
and
"North African"
as
E1b1b
_____________________
I'm saying keep this in mind when reading articles so you know what the genetic intent is when you read these terms, "Sub-Saharan" and "North African"
I'm not saying they are right in this intent, just that you understand what, in my opinion, they often are intending
I think it's better in genetics articles to not refer to "Sub-Saharans" or "North Africans" at all . Just talk about the haplogroups and the countries you took DNA samples from, that avoids unnecessary and imprecise semantics of categorizations that are part of a pre-genetics paradigm, using overly broad geographic terms when it comes to peoples
And in articles if talking about ethnic regions I have another thread proposing that "North African" not even be used to describe people
The term "North African" should not be used in Anthropology (if pertaining to people)
posted
^ There is actually a biological basis for the distinction between North Africans and Sub-Saharans, however the Y-chromosome markers you use is not good evidence of that.
First of all, again E-M215 is found in Sub-Sahara as far south as Tanzania so it's not just a 'North African' marker. Second, both E-M215 and E-V38 are sibling clades the same way European R1a (M420) and R1b (M343) are siblings.
I thought it was explained to you already that a better way of assessing exact relations is with autosomal DNA.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: There is actually a biological basis for the distinction between North Africans and Sub-Saharans, however the Y-chromosome markers you use is not good evidence of that.
OK, how is the distinction made?
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Yoruba of Ibadan are the only real black/Sub-Saharan Africans.
The remaining groups of so called "Sub-Saharan" Africans are in fact brown Hamitic Kaukazoids, including the Yorubas who aren't from Ibadan
Posts: 206 | From: Nibiru | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: There is actually a biological basis for the distinction between North Africans and Sub-Saharans, however the Y-chromosome markers you use is not good evidence of that.
OK, how is the distinction made?
You're asking this despite being on this forum for how many years and being exposed to info the likes of Antalas has shown?
Okay, for one is craniofacial morphology.
Another is dental morphology.
Metrically North Africans have smaller 'microdont' crowns than Sub-Saharans who have 'megadont' crowns.
And even in nonmetric traits there is a difference.
Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which parallels that of Europeans, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans. --Irish (1998)
I thought it was explained to you before that uniparental markers are a poor indicator of total genetic relations because that is only one part of a populations' population genetics. Autosomes give a better picture of overall relations. This is why Neolithic Upper Nubians both craniofacially and dentally are North African and their autosomal genetics show them to be closely related to Egyptians yet in that same sample their Y-DNA haplotype was A1b1b2b (A-M13).
In your own hap-map there are south Europeans in the Balkans and southern Italy who carry E-M215, do you think that overall they are closer related to North Africans or to their fellow Europeans?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic