posted
I noticed some have quoted him in the past, but I wanted to take some time out to discuss other interpretations of what's been written.
quote:DNA of some modern Egyptians found a genetic ancestral heritage to East Africa: "The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers. This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations. Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population." (Stevanovitch A, Gilles A, Bouzaid E, et al. (2004) Mitochondrial DNA sequence diversity in a sedentary population from Egypt.Ann Hum Genet. 68(Pt 1):23-39.)
However some people are saying that the 20.6% L1 and L2 frequency proves that Egyptians are only 20% Sub Saharan and 79.4% of Modern Egyptian haplogroups are thus "Out of African"
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova Member # 15718
posted
They are forgetting the M1 which is African.
claus3600 Member # 19584
posted
Is there a really, really easy to read book/article that explains what haplogroups are and geographic distribution/origin? I find the discussions of haplogroups on ES impenetrable.
Oshun Member # 19740
posted
So would we add just the 17.6? That would still suggest that 61.8% of their lineages are non African though right?
Mike111 Member # 9361
posted
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: Is there a really, really easy to read book/article that explains what haplogroups are and geographic distribution/origin? I find the discussions of haplogroups on ES impenetrable.
Ha,ha,ha: SUCKER!
You are the latest to fall for the Albino mans most recent con job - which numbskulls have made a fad of.
Like the Albino mans last con (Cold Adapted), it has no meaning. I.E. you cannot take a haplogroup and know what anyone looks like, and except for the extremes, you cannot take a haplogroup and know where anyone came from, or passed through.
It simply makes fodder for conversation. BTW - the Wiki's on this are perfectly acceptable.
claus3600 Member # 19584
posted
@Mike111 Ha,ha,ha: SUCKER!
Have you ever been diagnosed as bi-polar?
Mike111 Member # 9361
posted
^I answered in levity because that is what the subject deserves. Why so touchy?
claus3600 Member # 19584
posted
I misjudged your tone, I thought you were taking the piss.
Apologies.
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova Member # 15718
posted
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: Is there a really, really easy to read book/article that explains what haplogroups are and geographic distribution/origin? I find the discussions of haplogroups on ES impenetrable.
GEt a basic up-to-date book on DNA and human evolution from your local library and go from there. But be aware of the "Eurasian labeling game" being played by many in the academy and elsewhere. Always keep in mind that the pattern is to attempt to downplay or distort the diversity of the African peoples- to de-Africanize their bio-cultural history, especially in NE Africa. The game is labeling things "Eurasian", "Middle Eastern" or whatever- and to identify or split off parts of Africa into some other framework- such as "Eurasian", particularly where NE Africa is concerned. That's the game. This is not simply my opinion. Such concerns appear explicitly in the scientific literature. See below..
The spin is in place to deAfricanize as much of NE Africa as possible, and lump in under a "Eurasian" or "Middle Eastern" label. But see below, where several scholars hold that M1 is primarily based in Africa, and indeed differentiation of haplogroups BEGAN INSIDE Africa BEFORE significant migration out of the continent. IN other words, Thus when the OOA migrants moved out they did not cease being African and suddenly become "Asian" or "Middle Eastern" simply because they stepped off the Sinai Penisula. If you follow the logic of some who use the Eurocentric labeling game, then a white guy who steps across the border into Mexico, suddenly becomes "Hispanic race." This is the bogus model they are trying to push on African diversity- De-Africanize anything where African civilization and development in NE Africa can be shown.
BUt they STILL fail on another count. Even so-called "backflow" migrants resemble tropical Africans more than their beloved "Eurasians" or "Middle Easterners." SO they fail on 2 counts:
(1) Differentiation of the haplogroups began INSIDE Africa BEFORE significant OOA migrations. In other words the variability groundwork was already laid inside Africa. Further differentiation would of course occur outside Africa over the millennia as populations spread, as all know. But Africans did not suddenly become "Eurasian" by walking into Arabia, or crossing a few miles of water into Yemen.
(2) Any incoming "back-flowees" would ALREADY resemble tropical Africans. People in Yemen for example crossing back over into Ethiopia, circa 40,000 BC would resemble today's tropical Africans as shown below. Do not fall for the slick "Eurasian" labeling game. This is not merely my opinion. See heavyweight mainstream scholars quoted below that take issue with the "Eurasian" game being played in the academy and elsewhere.
Note the two points above explicitly Claus and keep them in mind as you read up on the subject. Ask questions like these..
(a) are they downplaying or distorting the bio-history of African peoples?
(b) WHy are they using a "EUrasian" label?
(c) Is the "sub-Saharan" "true negro" model being used stereotypically? WHy for instance are they making "comparisons" to "African" samples 2000 miles distant, when there are Africans 300 miles away that are being ignored?
(d) WHy are they sampling the way they do? How come for example they are excluding the Sudan or Chad from "North African" sampling?
(e) WHat kind of labeling game is being played with African diversity?
Gene divergence predates population divergence: several scholars hold that Haplogroup M began initial differentiation in Africa before major development elsewhere outside. QUOTES:
"In Africa, the three most ancient mtDNA haplogroups (L0, L1, and L2), which make up macrohaplogroup L, are specific for sub-Saharan Africa. African macrohaplogroup L radiated to form the Africa-specific haplogroup L3 as well as the Eurasian macrohaplogroups M and N. M and N arose in northeastern Africa and individuals bearing M and N mtDNAs subsequently left Africa to colonize Europe and Asia." ----Dan Mishmar, et al 2003. Natural selection shaped regional mtDNA variation in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(1): 171-176.
"All non-Africans have inherited a subset of African mtDNA haplogroup L3 lineages, differentiated into haplogroups M and N. The lack of other L3 lineages among all non-African mitochondria suggests that the earliest migration(s) of AMH already carried those two mtDNA ancestors or that they have replaced previously extant lineages. Haplogroup M is present in Ethiopia, but the rest of M is densely distributed throughout South and East Asia and is absent in the Near East and Europe. " --Phillip Endicott, et al, Reply to Cordaux and Stoneking. Am J Hum Genet. 2003 June; 72(6): 1590-1593.
"The observed timing discrepancies between genetic and archeological estimates are simply explained by the fact that the divergence of genes predates that of populations.." --Cordaux et al (2003) South Asia, the Andamanese and the genetic evidence.. Am J Hum Genet 72:
"the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N in India and among non-African mitochondria in general suggests that the earliest migration(s) of modern humans already carried these two mtDNA ancestors, via a departure route over the Horn of Africa." -- Kivisild et al., Metspalu et al. (2003). "The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations". Amr Jr Hum Genet 72 (2):
In Africa, only one autochthonous basal branch of M, named M1, has been detected.. M1 is particularly abundant in Ethiopia (20%).. In Arabia, M lineages account for 7% of the total and half of them belong to the M1 African clade.. As the majority of M1 haplotypes in Arabia belong to the East African M1a sub-clade, it seems that, likewise L lineages, the M1 presence in the Arabian peninsula signals a predominant East African influence since the Neolithic onwards." -- Petraglia, M and Rose, J (2010). The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia:.. Springer. p. 90
Misleading "Eurasian" label for ancient mtDNA flagged by some scholars - QUOTE: "The historical linguistic data reported earlier would apply in the case of maternal lineages as well.. it is not likely that the "northern" genetic profile is simply due to "Eurasians" having colonized supra-Saharan regions from external African sources. It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplotypes called "Eurasian" are predominantly, although not solely, of indigenous African origin. As a term "Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it suggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can be postulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before the emigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saharan/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and careful analysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities is needed. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be modeled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an asymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wide region, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion." --Keita, A, Boyce, A. (2005) Genetics, Egypt, and History... History in Africa, 32, 221-246
Mike111 Member # 9361
posted ^claus3600 - My apologizes to you for not explaining WHY the haplogroups thing is nonsense in the practical sense.
From Wiki:
In human genetics, haplogroup R is a Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup very common throughout Europe, Central Asia and South Asia, and also common in parts of the Middle East and Africa. It is a subgroup of haplogroup P and it is defined by the M207 SNP mutation.
R1 is the second most important haplogroup in Indigenous peoples of the Americas following haplogroup Q, and spreads specially in Algonquian peoples from United States and Canada.
While Western Europe is dominated by the R1b1a2 (R-M269) branch of R1b, the Chadic-speaking area in Africa is dominated by the branch known as R1b1c (R-V88). These represent two very successful "twigs" on a much bigger "family tree."
The Chadic languages constitute a language family of perhaps 200 languages spoken across northern Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Central African Republic and Cameroon, belonging to the Afroasiatic phylum. The most widely spoken Chadic language is Hausa, a lingua franca of much of inland West Africa.
So then, all of these people are Y-haplogroup "R". If you can find a common thread among them, please point it out to me.
Algonquian peoples
Chad people
Dravidian Albino and Dravidian
Modern European Albino
Ancient Black European (R1a)
Oshun Member # 19740
posted
I think I get what your saying Zarahan. It's like saying African Americans stopped being African just because they were shipped to the Americas. They didn't stop being African just because their physical location moved. I think what we need to do is to describe the phenomenon with language that draws similar understandings like "diaspora" and the like. I feel fairly good about the information we have here. Just one thing. Looking at how Stevanovitch was interpreted by these people, even if added haplogroup M as African, wouldn't the Eurasian haplogroups still be about 60%?
Am I still missing something?Are there more haplogroups with a similar predicament as M or do you agree with the people editing wikipedia, that Stevanovitch is saying 60% of modern Egyptian DNA is Eurasian?
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova Member # 15718
posted
Stevanovitch is not saying that. Right off the bat, look at the quote from Stevanovich:
"The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers. This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations. Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population." (Stevanovitch A, Gilles A, Bouzaid E, et al. (2004) Mitochondrial DNA sequence diversity in a sedentary population from Egypt.Ann Hum Genet. 68(Pt 1):23-39.)
Stevanovich et al emphasize the linkage with neighboring African populations, particularly M1. The wiki moles are distorting and slanting the actual study which to the contrary does NOT hold that the modern Egyptian population is "Eurasian." Let's re-quote: "Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population."
Note- the ANCESTRAL population, the ORIGINALS, show clear links with East Africa. In the modern era late-coming Persians, Assyrians, Hyskos, GReeks, Romans and Arabs were to influence this ANCESTRAL population. So sure there is "Eurasian" influence in modern Egypt- hell the Arabs dominate the country now. What else is new? BUt the crucial point is not the present day Arab/Middle East mixes, but the ORIGINALS, the ANCESTRAL population. That is the key point to consider re Stevanovich.
The Stevanovich breakdown is shown below. Note that rather than the touted "60% Eurasian" over half or at least half DNA clusters on the African side, even though large Arab influence is in the mix.
Note also the Salas breakdown below. Most of the weight is with L haplogroups and M1.
Y-chromosome data shows clustering with African DNA
Mike111 Member # 9361
posted
^Does anyone know which of these Gurna citizens were used in the Stevanovitch study?
.
Mike111 Member # 9361
posted
^I see a few Africans, but mostly - as expected - Turk mulattoes. Can't help but wonder what Stevanovitch meant by (Gurna - whose population has an ancient cultural history). I do not see any "Cultural" difference between the people of Gurna and any other poor Egyptians. But the "Real" question is; what does "Cultural history" have to do with genetics?
I mean "Culture" is the way people dress, worship, talk, customs, etc.
Genetics is about their physical human bodies, I just don't see the connection that would make the two relate-able.
Mike111 Member # 9361
posted
Doxie Bump.
Firewall Member # 20331
posted
Interesting.
Mike111 Member # 9361
posted
Your point?
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Stevanovitch is not saying that. Right off the bat, look at the quote from Stevanovich:
"The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers. This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations. Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population." (Stevanovitch A, Gilles A, Bouzaid E, et al. (2004) Mitochondrial DNA sequence diversity in a sedentary population from Egypt.Ann Hum Genet. 68(Pt 1):23-39.) Stevanovich et al emphasize the linkage with neighboring African populations, particularly M1. The wiki moles are distorting and slanting the actual study which to the contrary does NOT hold that the modern Egyptian population is "Eurasian." Let's re-quote: ***"Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population."*** Note- the ANCESTRAL population, the ORIGINALS, show clear links with East Africa. In the modern era late-coming Persians, Assyrians, Hyskos, GReeks, Romans and Arabs were to influence this ANCESTRAL population. So sure there is "Eurasian" influence in modern Egypt- hell the Arabs dominate the country now. What else is new? BUt the crucial point is not the present day Arab/Middle East mixes, but the ORIGINALS, the ANCESTRAL population. That is the key point to consider re Stevanovich.
The Stevanovich breakdown is shown below. Note that rather than the touted "60% Eurasian" over half or at least half DNA clusters on the African side, even though large Arab influence is in the mix.
Note also the Salas breakdown below. Most of the weight is with L haplogroups and M1.
Troll Patrol Member # 18264
posted
Bump
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Stevanovitch is not saying that. Right off the bat, look at the quote from Stevanovich:
"The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers. This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations. Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population." (Stevanovitch A, Gilles A, Bouzaid E, et al. (2004) Mitochondrial DNA sequence diversity in a sedentary population from Egypt.Ann Hum Genet. 68(Pt 1):23-39.) Stevanovich et al emphasize the linkage with neighboring African populations, particularly M1. The wiki moles are distorting and slanting the actual study which to the contrary does NOT hold that the modern Egyptian population is "Eurasian." Let's re-quote: ***"Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population."*** Note- the ANCESTRAL population, the ORIGINALS, show clear links with East Africa. In the modern era late-coming Persians, Assyrians, Hyskos, GReeks, Romans and Arabs were to influence this ANCESTRAL population. So sure there is "Eurasian" influence in modern Egypt- hell the Arabs dominate the country now. What else is new? BUt the crucial point is not the present day Arab/Middle East mixes, but the ORIGINALS, the ANCESTRAL population. That is the key point to consider re Stevanovich.
The Stevanovich breakdown is shown below. Note that rather than the touted "60% Eurasian" over half or at least half DNA clusters on the African side, even though large Arab influence is in the mix.
Note also the Salas breakdown below. Most of the weight is with L haplogroups and M1.