...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
J-M267 was found in mos North Africans except the Tuareg and Amizmiz Valley Moroccan
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] . [b] J-M267 (J1) was found in all North Africans except the Tuareg and Amizmiz Valley Moroccan and Tunisia (Jerbian and Bou Omrane Berbers) (other Tunisan berbers up to 32%)[/b] Oddly Tuareg speak a language associated with Semitic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267 highest frequencies of J are found in the Caucus, Dagestan Russia, although they and the far off Khartom Sudanese, also who have high frequencies have low diversity of J1 The J-M267 in the Caucasus is also notable because most of it is not within the J-P58 subclade. Kubachi 65 99.0% 99.0% 0.0% Balanovsky 2011 Kaitak 33 85.0% 85.0% 0.0% Balanovsky 2011 Avars 115 59.0% 58.0% 1.0% Balanovsky 2011 Dargins 101 70.0% 69.0% 1.0% Balanovsky 2011 also Khartoum, Sudan 35 NA 74.3% Chiaroni 2009 Tofanelli 2009 and Hassan 2008 comparitively Sudan-Arabic 35 NA 17.1% Chiaroni 2009 Highest frequency in Maghreb Tunisia (Andalusian Zaghouan) 32 NA 43.8% 0% 43.8% Fadhlaoui-Zid 2011 Comparitively Tunisia (Bou Omrane Berbers) 40 NA 0% NA NA Ennafaa 2011 Tunisia (Jerbian Berbers) 47 NA 0% NA NA Ennafaa 2011 Tunisia (Sened Berbers) 35 NA 31.4% 0% 31.4% Fadhlaoui-Zid 2011 Morocco (Amizmiz Valley) 33 NA 0% NA NA Alvarez 2009 comparitively Morocco 51 NA 19.6% NA NA Onofri 2008 Ethiopia Amhara 48 NA 29.2% 8.3% 20.8% Chiaroni 2009 Semino 2004 comparitively Ethiopia Oromo 78 NA 2.6% 2.6% 0.0% Chiaroni 2009 Semino 2004 Jordan 76 48.7% 0.0% 48.7% Chiaroni 2009 Jews (Cohanim) 215 46.0% 0.0% 46.0% Hammer & Behar 2009 Jews (non Cohanim) 1,360 14.9% 0.9% 14.0% Hammer 2009 Jews (Portugal/Trás-os-Montes) 57 12.3% NA NA Nogueiro 2009 ____________________________________________ The P58 marker which defines subgroup J-P58 was announced in (Karafet 2008), but had been announced earlier under the name Page08 in (Repping 2006 and called that again in Chiaroni 2011). It is very prevalent in many areas where J-M267 is common, especially in parts of North Africa and throughout the Arabian peninsula. It also makes up approximately 70% of the J-M267 among the Amhara of Ethiopia. Notably, it is not common among the J-M267 populations in the Caucasus. Chiaroni 2009 proposed that J-P58 (that they refer to as J1e) might have first dispersed during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period, "from a geographical zone, including northeast Syria, northern Iraq and eastern Turkey toward Mediterranean Anatolia, Ismaili from southern Syria, Jordan, Palestine and northern Egypt." They further propose that the Zarzian material culture may be ancestral. They also propose that this movement of people may also be linked to the dispersal of Semitic languages by hunter-herders, who moved into arid areas during periods known to have had low rainfall. Thus, while other haplogroups including J-M172 moved out of the area with agriculturalists who followed the rainfall, populations carrying J-M267 remained with their flocks (King 2002 and Chiaroni 2008). According to this scenario, after the initial neolithic expansion involving Semitic languages, which possibly reached as far as Yemen, a more recent dispersal occurred during the Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age (approximately 3000–5000 BCE), and this involved the branch of Semitic which leads to the Arabic language. The authors propose that this involved a spread of some J-P58 from the direction of Syria towards Arab populations of the Arabian Peninsula and Negev. _____________________________________________________ HIghest frequency of J1 (J M267) [b]Kubachi 65 99.0% 99.0% 0.0% Balanovsky 2011[/b] http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/10/2905.full Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region We analyzed 40 single nucleotide polymorphism and 19 short tandem repeat Y-chromosomal markers in a large sample of 1,525 indigenous individuals from 14 populations in the Caucasus and 254 additional individuals representing potential source populations. We also employed a lexicostatistical approach to reconstruct the history of the languages of the North Caucasian family spoken by the Caucasus populations. We found a different major haplogroup to be prevalent in each of four sets of populations that occupy distinct geographic regions and belong to different linguistic branches. The haplogroup frequencies correlated with geography and, even more strongly, with language. Within haplogroups, a number of haplotype clusters were shown to be specific to individual populations and languages. The data suggested a direct origin of Caucasus male lineages from the Near East, followed by high levels of isolation, differentiation, and genetic drift in situ. Comparison of genetic and linguistic reconstructions covering the last few millennia showed striking correspondences between the topology and dates of the respective gene and language trees and with documented historical events. Overall, in the Caucasus region, unmatched levels of gene–language coevolution occurred within geographically isolated populations, probably due to its mountainous terrain. Strikingly, language rather than geography tended to have a larger influence on the genetic structuring in the Caucasus (tables 3 and 4). Language and geography are also closely linked with each other, probably because of the mountainous nature of the Caucasus region where languages are often restricted to a few valleys. In this context, the slightly higher dependence of genetic structure on language could be explained by marriage and individual migration practices, linking linguistically similar populations in preference. For example, Circassians, who are geographically situated between Adyghes and Ossets, might receive more gene flow from Adyghes, who speak a similar language, than from Ossets who differ in their language and culture. Although occupying a boundary position between Europe and the Near East, all four major Caucasus haplogroups show signs of a Near Eastern rather than European origin (fig. 2, supplementary fig. 1, Supplementary Material online). These four haplogroups reach their maximum (worldwide) frequencies in the Caucasus (table 2, fig. 2). They are either shared with Near East populations (G2a3b1-P303 and J2a4b*-M67(xM92)) or have ancestral lineages present there (G2a1*-P16(xP18) and J1*-M267(xP58)). Typical European haplogroups are very rare (I2a-P37.2) or limited to specific populations (R1a1a-M198) in the Caucasus. [b]This pattern suggests unidirectional gene flow from the Near East toward the Caucasus, which could have occurred during the initial Paleolithic settlement or the subsequent Neolithic spread of farming. Archaeological data do not indicate a Near Eastern influence on the Neolithic cultures in the North Caucasus (Bader and Tsereteli 1989; Bzhania 1996; Masson et al. 1982), whereas Neolithization in the Transcaucasus was part of a Neolithic expansion that perhaps paralleled those occurring in Europe (Balaresque et al. 2010) and North Africa (Arredi et al. 2004). However, the current genetic evidence does not allow us to distinguish between Paleolithic and Neolithic models in shaping the genetic landscape of the North Caucasus.[/b] All of these genetic findings are based solely on Y-chromosomal data. This choice was prompted by the high interpopulation variation in the data set (and therefore the best detection of the differences) compared with mitochondrial DNA and autosomal markers. However, one may wonder if the pattern of the entire gene pool is different from its Y-chromosomal subset. In the context of this study, languages are typically learned from the maternal side (we say “mother tongue”; Beauchemin et al. 2010). Thus, the observed similarity between the distributions of languages and genes might become even more evident if full-genome data, incorporating maternally inherited information as well, become available; this possibility may be explored in future studies. Conclusions Combining genetic and linguistic findings, we now propose a model of the evolution of the Caucasus populations. The final tree (fig. 6) was obtained by merging the genetic clusters with the background linguistic tree. We conclude that the Caucasus gene pool originated from a subset of the Near Eastern pool due to an Upper Paleolithic (or Neolithic) migration, followed by significant genetic drift, probably due to isolation in the extremely mountainous landscape. This process would result in the loss of some haplogroups and the increased frequency of others. The Caucasus meta-population underwent a series of population (and language) splits. Each population (linguistic group) ended up with one major haplogroup from the original Caucasus genetic package, whereas other haplogroups became rare or absent in it. The small isolated population of the Kubachi, in which haplogroup J1*-M267(xP58) became virtually fixed (99%, table 2), exemplifies the influence of genetic drift there. Dagestan Region, Russia [IMG]http://images-01.delcampe-static.net/img_large/auction/000/047/127/750_001.jpg[/IMG] RUSSIA CAUCASIA GEORGIA KUBACHI MAN WITH KINJAL DAGGER 99% J1 [IMG]http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/article_large/public/2012/09/02/1346636567316.cached.jpg[/IMG] Kubachi silversmith, Newsweek magazine 99% J1 [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Sunni_Muslim_man_wearing_traditional_dress_and_headgear.jpg/749px-Sunni_Muslim_man_wearing_traditional_dress_and_headgear.jpg[/IMG] Sunni Muslim man, Dagestan 1907 [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Prokudin-Gorskii-44.jpg/691px-Prokudin-Gorskii-44.jpg[/IMG] Dagestani couple posed outdoors for a portrait. Date 1904 [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3