The Arabian peninsula: Gate for Human Migrations Out of Africa or Cul-de-Sac? A Mitochondrial DNA Phylogeographic Perspective Vicente M. Cabrera2 , Khaled K. Abu-Amero1 , José M. Larruga2 and Ana M. González2
(1) College of Medicine, King Saud University, 245, Riyadh, 11411, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (2) Genética, Biología, Universidad de La Laguna La Laguna, 38271, Tenerife, Spain
Vicente M. Cabrera Email: vcabrera@ull.es
Khaled K. Abu-Amero (Corresponding author) Email: abuamero@gmail.com
José M. Larruga Email: jlarruga@ull.es
Ana M. González Email: amglez@ull.es Abstract The reconstruction of the origin and spread of modern humans has been a multidisciplinary enterprise. Archaeological records and genetic inferences (Stringer and Andrews, 1988), have given strong support to the model of a single recent origin of modern humans in Africa around 200 ka (McDougall et al., 2005). Subsequent dispersals out of Africa replaced, in relatively short time, the archaic humans living in Eurasia (Pääbo et al., 2004). However, the dates of this exit and the routes taken to spread out of Africa are currently debatable topics. On the basis of modern human fossils in the Levant, dated around 120 ka (Valladas et al., 1988), a northern route by land across the Sinai peninsula was proposed. The lack of fossil continuity in the area prompted researchers to consider it as an unproductive exit. A later successful exit around 45 ka using the same corridor has received stronger archaeological support (Lahr and Foley, 1994). A second, maritime, southern route across the Bab al Mandab strait and afterwards coasting Arabia, India, Southeast Asia to reach the Sahul has also been proposed as a complementary or alternative exit gate (Stringer, 2000). Recent archaeological findings in coastal Eritrea dated about 125 ka (Walter et al., 2000) have been taken as support of an earlier exit age for the southern route (Stringer, 2000). Keywords Dispersals - Macrohaplogroup - MtDNA
Introduction The reconstruction of the origin and spread of modern humans has been a multidisciplinary enterprise. Archaeological records and genetic inferences (Stringer and Andrews, 1988), have given strong support to the model of a single recent origin of modern humans in Africa around 200 ka (McDougall et al., 2005). Subsequent dispersals out of Africa replaced, in relatively short time, the archaic humans living in Eurasia (Pääbo et al., 2004). However, the dates of this exit and the routes taken to spread out of Africa are currently debatable topics. On the basis of modern human fossils in the Levant, dated around 120 ka (Valladas et al., 1988), a northern route by land across the Sinai peninsula was proposed. The lack of fossil continuity in the area prompted researchers to consider it as an unproductive exit. A later successful exit around 45 ka using the same corridor has received stronger archaeological support (Lahr and Foley, 1994). A second, maritime, southern route across the Bab al Mandab strait and afterwards coasting Arabia, India, Southeast Asia to reach the Sahul has also been proposed as a complementary or alternative exit gate (Stringer, 2000). Recent archaeological findings in coastal Eritrea dated about 125 ka (Walter et al., 2000) have been taken as support of an earlier exit age for the southern route (Stringer, 2000).
Phylogenetic analysis using autosomal gene frequency data were consistent with the out of Africa theory and with both, the southern and northern, dispersals out of Africa (Nei and Roychoudhury, 1993). Later studies using uniparental markers also agreed with dual dispersals. The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes suggested that derived M216 and M174 haplotypes represent a southern route of dispersal from East Africa to India and beyond, whereas the M89 derived haplotypes represent a Eurasian colonization from the Levantine corridor (Underhill et al., 2001). In a similar vein, the first phylogeographic analysis using complete mitochondrial DNA genomic sequences confirmed that only two founder female mitochondrial lineages, named M and N, left Africa about 70–50 ka. Based on the geographic distribution of these lineages with M predominant in southern and eastern regions of Eurasia and N mainly in western and central Eurasia, it was proposed that M lineages expanded by the coastal southern route and N by the continental northern route (Maca-Meyer et al., 2001). However, the late detection of ancestral N lineages in south and Southeast Asia (Palanichamy et al., 2004; Macaulay et al., 2005) and in Australia (Ingman and Gyllensten, 2003) weakened the mitochondrial hypothesis (Tanaka et al., 2004). In addition, as the founder ages of M and N are very similar, it was hypothesized that both lineages were carried out in a unique migration (Forster et al., 2001), and, even more, that the southern coastal trail was the only route, being the western Eurasian colonization the result of an early offshoot of the southern radiation in India (Oppenheimer, 2003; Macaulay et al., 2005).
Under these suppositions, the Arabian peninsula has gained crucial importance to test the existence of an early southern route out of Africa across the Bab al Mandab strait. Regrettably, there is a lack of adequate hominin fossil record for this region and the archaeological material, although relatively abundant, has few reliable age estimates (Petraglia and Alsharekh, 2003). Until this situation changes, genetic inferences, gathered from phylogenetic and phylogeographic studies on the current populations of the Arabian peninsula seems to be an alternative option. In the following chapter we will review the most recent genetic information obtained from the peninsula using mitochondrial DNA as a temporal and spatial tracer.
Mitochondrial DNA Characteristics Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is still the most used genetic marker in molecular evolution and in population studies. Before the in vitro DNA polymerase amplification was discovered, mtDNA was one of a few molecules amenable for the analysis of variation detectable by restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs). This was due to its small size (16.6 kb), circular structure, cytoplasmic localization, and high copy number per cell (hundreds to thousands) compared with the two copies for nuclear autosomes. These characteristics allowed its relatively easy isolation and the direct visualization of their electrophoretic RFLP profiles. Even today, in spite of the PCR improvements, its high copy number makes it the most useful DNA molecule for the analysis of fossil samples.
Another valuable property of mtDNA is its high mutation rate, several orders of magnitude higher than that of nuclear genes. This means that initially identical molecules accumulate different mutations in the time frames of the Paleolithic, Neolithic and even historic time. Furthermore, as it has only maternal inheritance, and as all molecules in an individual are alike, it has a non-recombining haploid genetics. For these reasons, differences between mtDNA sequences are only due to mutation. As time passes, mutations accumulate sequentially along less and less related molecules that constitute independent lineages known as haplotypes or lineages.
Relationships among lineages can be estimated by phylogenetic networks where mutations are classified in hierarchical levels. Old basal mutations are shared for clusters of lineages, defined as haplogroups, clusters or clades, whereas the most recent ones, at the tips, characterize individual haplotypes.
As mutations have a time probability to appear, it is possible, under the assumption of molecular neutrality, to date clusters transforming the average number of mutations accumulated in its haplotypes to time by multiplying this average with the mutation rate. Combining the number of different haplotypes and their relative frequencies in a cluster it is possible to obtain a measure of its diversity in a population, in a region or in a continent and comparing these diversities it is possible to infer the most probable geographic origin of that cluster. Moreover, when haplotypes of a subcluster are only detected in a region it is also possible to calculate the time when it expanded in that region if, in addition, the ancestral haplotype is only found in another region, the latter will be considered the source population of the former secondary expansion. Using these calculations it has been possible for instance, to roughly determine the time back to the most recent common ancestor of all mitochondria in extant human populations. To know that all the maternal lineages existing in Eurasia had an African origin, because all the Eurasian clusters coalesce into two macrohaplogroups (M and N) that are sister clusters of all the L3 African clusters that share with them an ancestral root, with branches of similar age into Africa. These calculations have also been used to infer the maternal genetic structure of Arabia, the most probable origin of their mtDNA lineages and the age of their expansions in this region.
To infer the mtDNA structure of the Arabian peninsula and to assess its role in the southern route, we have analyzed 1,129 Arabian partial sequences assorted into haplogroups by their HVSI/II sequence motifs and diagnostic RFLPs (Abu-Amero et al., 2008and references within). To resolve cases of difficult haplogroup diagnosis 15 individuals had to be complete or nearly complete genome mtDNA sequenced. The majority of the Arabian lineages have been assorted into well known African and Eurasian haplogroups albeit with different frequencies and heterogeneous geographic distributions (Abu-Amero et al., 2007, 2008).
Macrohaplogroup L in Arabia The presence of mtDNA lineages belonging to the sub-Saharan Africa macrohaplogroup L in Eurasia and America is mainly explained as the result of the historic and infamous slave trade. In the Arabian peninsula, the incidence of L lineages differs according to country. The highest frequency is found in Yemen (38%), then in Oman and Qatar (16%) and drops to 10% in Saudi Arabia and UAE (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). The most probable source of these sub-Saharan Africa lineages is the geographically closest East African border. However, in that large region it is possible to distinguish at least a northern area conformed by Egypt, Nubia, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia in which, at mtDNA level, the L3 haplogroups have significantly greater frequencies than in the southern area represented by Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique where, in compensation, the most ancestral haplogroup L0 has comparatively higher frequencies.
For presumably recent contacts, a common way to measure the relative gene flow between areas is to count the number of exact haplotype matches shared. For instance, 98% of the shared lineages between Yemen and Africa can be explained by direct eastern Africa influences as only 2% of them are exclusive matches with western Africa. In a similar vein, 88% of the shared sub-Saharan Africa lineages present in Saudi Arabia are also with East Africa, 5% are exclusive matches with western Africa and 7% exclusive with the Near East, implying a more varied source of sub-Saharan African influences in Saudi Arabia compared to Yemen (Abu-Amero et al., 2008and references within). In addition, the entire eastern African component in Yemen could be explained by south-eastern input as 46% of the matches are exclusive of this area and the remaining 64% shared by both areas, without exclusive matches with the northeast. However, for Saudi Arabia, the exclusive north-eastern (25%) and south-eastern (29%) components are rather similar with the remaining 46% of the East African matches present in both areas. As the Arab slave trade had greater impact on southern African areas, these data could be explained supposing greater traffic with Yemen than with Saudi Arabia. However, earlier contacts, between Arabian and north-eastern Africa historic kingdoms could have had relatively stronger genetic impact in Saudi Arabia compared to Yemen. Another hint of the relative independence of the Yemeni and Saudi sub-Saharan Africa genetic pools is the main and nearly exclusive presence in each country of single haplotypes of different and rare north-eastern African clades. Phylogenetically, L6 is a sister clade of the ancient and widespread African clade L2 (Kivisild et al., 2004). Outside Yemen, it has only been detected twice in Ethiopia (Kivisild et al., 2004) and once in Saudi Arabia (Abu-Amero et al., 2008), but it has a frequency of 12% in Yemen although only one haplotype was the main responsible (86%) of this frequency. On the other hand, L5 is also a phylogenetically ancestral clade that has a sparse north-eastern African distribution. It has not been detected in Yemen, however six Saudi Arab sequences (1%) belonged to the L5a1 subclade (Abu-Amero et al., 2008), and five (83%) were represented by a single haplotype (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). Most probably both lineages arrived at the Arabian peninsula from north-eastern Africa by two independent events, and expanded in rather endogamic and isolated populations. This supposition is congruent with the significant genetic structure found in the Arabian peninsula (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). Based on the lack of matches between Arabia and Africa, it has been suggested that haplogroup L6 might have originated from the same out-of-Africa migration that carried haplogroup M and N to Eurasia. This seems not to be the case for the L5a1 subclade because the main L5a1 Saudi haplotype has exact matches in Egypt, Ethiopia and Kenya. In any case, due to ancient or more recent African gene flows, the fact that any of both lineages has not spread into surrounding areas implies that, since their arrivals, the Arabian peninsula has acted more as a cul-de-sac than as a demic source of later migrations.
Macrohaplogroup M in Arabia Macrohaplogroup M is particularly abundant and diverse in South and Southeast Asia, reaching frequencies above 60% in some regions (Metspalu et al., 2004). However, it is practically absent in western Asia (Quintana-Murci et al., 2004). In Africa, only one autochthonous basal branch of M, named M1, has been detected (Quintana-Murci et al., 1999). In this continent it has a predominant northern distribution. M1 is particularly abundant in Ethiopia (20%). From there, frequencies significantly diminish forming decreasing gradients westwards and southwards. It has been proposed that the presence of M1 in Africa and surrounding Mediterranean areas can be explained as result of two expansion centers situated in East and Northwest Africa which are marked by the radiation of subhaplogroups M1a and M1b respectively (Olivieri et al., 2006; González et al., 2007). Although the coalescence age of M1 is Paleolithic it seems that the most important expansions occurred in Neolithic times when the Sahara was a more hospitable region. Some authors consider that the presence of M1 in Africa supports the idea that macrohaplogroup M originated in eastern Africa and was carried towards Asia with the out of Africa expansion (Quintana-Murci et al., 1999), others think that the distribution of M1 in Africa traces an early human backflow to this Continent from Asia (Maca-Meyer et al., 2001; Olivieri et al., 2006; González et al., 2007).
In Arabia, M lineages account for 7% of the total and half of them belong to the M1 African clade. M1 frequencies are significantly greater in western Arabian regions than in the East (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). As the majority of the M1 haplotypes in Arabia belong to the East African M1a subclade, it seems that, likewise L lineages, the M1 presence in the Arabian peninsula signals a predominant East African influence since the Neolithic onwards.
The majority of the resting M lineages found in Arabia has matches or are related to Indian clades. In addition, some M sequences point to rare links with more remote geographic regions as Central Asia, West New Guinea and even Australia (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). Although more ancient connections cannot be discarded, it seems that this rare M component in the Arabian populations could be the result of trade and military links among those regions in Arabia during and after the British role. As all the M lineages found in Arabia belong to haplogroups that have deeper roots and diversities in other geographic regions, its presence in the Arabian peninsula is better explained as external genetic inputs. Therefore, there are no traces of autochthonous M lineages in Arabia that could support the exit of modern humans from Africa across the Bab al Mandab strait.
Macrohaplogroup N in Arabia A sole branch of macrohaplogroup N, named R, encompasses the overwhelming majority of the N clades. It will be treated in the next section. The resting sister branches of R, that sprout directly off the N trunk, have an irregular geographic distribution. Western (N1, W, X) and northern (A, N9, Y) Asian clades have moderate frequencies in their respective geographic ranges (Quintana-Murci et al., 2004; Tanaka et al., 2004; Abu-Amero et al., 2008). On the contrary, basic N clades in India are sparse (Palanichamy et al., 2004) and even rarer in Southeast Asia (Friedlaender et al., 2005; Macaulay et al., 2005; Hill et al., 2006). However, they are predominant and highly diverse in Australia (van Holst Pellekaan et al., 2006) the utmost limit of the out-of-Africa exit.
Only branches N1a, N1b, N1c, I, W, X2 of the western Eurasian N clades have been detected in Arabia (Kivisild et al., 2004; Abu-Amero et al., 2007; Rowold et al., 2007) albeit in low individual frequencies. The majority of these Arabian lineages reflect genetic inputs into the peninsula from adjacent areas. For instance, haplogroup X has two well defined branches of north African (X1) and Eurasian (X2) adscription (Reidla et al., 2003), but all the X haplotypes found in Saudi Arabia (Abu-Amero et al., 2008) and Yemen (Kivisild et al., 2004) belong to the Eurasian branch, which discards an East African introduction. The geographical distribution of the Arabian I and W lineages points to an eastern provenance across Iran (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). Haplogroups N1b and N1c are moderately represented in Arabia although their highest diversities are in Iran and Turkey respectively pointing to eastern and northern contributions to the Arabian genetic pool. However, the N1a haplogroup deserves a more detailed analysis. First, frequencies in Arabia (7% in Yemen, 4% in Saudi Arabia) are higher than in surrounding areas. Second, diversities in the peninsula are the highest in the geographic range of N1a (Table 1). Third, Arabian haplotypes are present in the most ancient nodes of the N1a network (Fig. 1), and in all its main expansions. Hence, it may be concluded that the Arabian peninsula was within the nuclear area that originated the first and subsequent N1a dispersions. Adding a Tanzanian N1a (Gonder et al., 2007) and an Italian (Gasparre et al., 2007) to the N1a tree of complete sequences recently published (Derenko et al., 2007), it can be deduced that N1a haplotypes carrying the 16147G transversion are ancestral compared to those with the 16147A mutation. This fact gives a root, marked with a star, to the N1a network constructed with worldwide HVSI sequences (Fig. 1). It seems that the N1a ancestor migrated from west-central Asia, the most probable cradle of the N1 expansion, southwards to Arabia where a secondary radiation occurred affecting East Africa, and southwest and South Asia (Fig. 1). One of these lineages suffered a transition in position 16147G giving place to the 16147A clade (N1a1) that also expanded in the western range of the preceding 16147G wave. In time, at the northern edge of the 16147A clade dispersion, perhaps in southern Russia, a new mutation, 16,320, in the HVSI region, defined a new clade named N1a1a that originated the biggest expansion in all directions, reaching, southwards, the Mediterranean area, and, again, Arabia, Iran and India and northwards Siberia and Europe. In all these areas new and more geographically localized subclusters emerged, such as that characterized by the 16,189 transition in Central Siberia (Fig. 1). Today, N1a is a minor cluster in its whole range but it seems that it was more abundant in Central Europe in Neolithic times (Haak et al., 2005) and in the Altaian region around 3,000 years ago (Ricaut et al., 2004). Depending on the mutation rate chosen and on the coding or regulatory region used, coalescence times for these dispersions varied broadly, oscillating between 40 and 20 ka for the whole N1a cluster and around 25–11 ka for the N1a1a subcluster. Possibly, these expansions took place during interstadial favorable episodes. In any case, this detailed analysis of the N1a haplogroup has demonstrated the existence of late Paleolithic human expansions in Arabia. However, as the entire sister branches of N1a had a northern origin, these demographic expansions are more the result of secondary back-migration than of primary radiations in Arabia after the out-of-Africa exit. Table 1 Number of individuals (N i), number of different haplotypes (N h) and nucleotide diversity by 1,000 with error (π ± s), in several geographic areas Area
N i
N h
π ± s
Northeast Africa
16
9
5.602 ± 3.891
Southwest Asia
16
9
8.756 ± 5.540
NC-Asia
8
6
3.137 ± 2.733
Arabia
21
12
13.353 ± 7.772
Europe
42
23
12.164 ± 6.993
Fig. 1 Reduced median network (Bandelt et al., 1999) relating N1a HVSI sequences. The ancestral motif (star) differs from rCRS at the indicated positions. Numbers along linksrefer to nucleotide position minus 16,000. Broken linesare less probable links and/or recurrent mutations. Size of boxes is proportional to the number of individuals included. Codes are ALB, Albanian; ALT, Altaian; ARA, Arab; ARM, Armenian; AUS, Austrian; AZO, Azorean; BER, Berber; BUR, Buryat; CAN, Canarian; CAU, Caucasian; CRO, Croatian; EGY, Egyptian; ENG, English; ETH, Ethiopian; FRA, French; GER, German; GRE, Greek; HUF, Hungarian fossil; IND, Indian; IRN, Iranian; ITA, Italian; MON, Mongolian; MOR, Moroccan; NCE, North-central European; NEE, North-east European; POR, Portuguese; RCH, Chuvasch Russian; RBA, Bashkirs Russian; RKP, Komi-Permyaks Russian; RTA, Tatar Russian; SCA, Scandinavian; SCO, Scottish; SOM, Somali; SPA, Spaniard; TAN, Tanzanian Macrohaplogroup R in Arabia Macrohaplogroup R derives from the N trunk by two additional mutations (gain of 12,705 and loss of 16,223 transitions). Similar to the other macrohaplogroups, it also shows a notable geographic structure with different branches characteristic of different areas. In Western Asia seven main clades (R0a, HV, H, V, U, J and T) nearly capture all its diversity. In India the R radiation was particularly impressive, and many lineages are still pending full characterization (Metspalu et al., 2004; Palanichamy et al., 2004). Haplogroups B and F are the most conspicuous R representatives in Southern and Eastern Asia and, different P branches, in New Guinea and Australia. Although represented by different clades, a notable characteristic of R is that it is widespread and abundant everywhere.
In the Arabian peninsula, except for a few R1, R2 and U2 haplotypes of clear Indian origin, the bulk of its R lineages (70%) belong to Western Asian clades (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). From their relative geographic distributions in Arabia, the number of exact matches with surrounding areas, and relative diversities in the different regions, it is possible to assign a geographic provenance to the majority of the R haplotypes found in Arabia. It has been demonstrated that U6 had an old implantation in North Africa (Maca-Meyer et al., 2003) and that is the most probable origin of the few U6 haplotypes detected in the Arabian peninsula. The majority of the U and K representatives in Arabia (U3, U4, U7, K) show greater frequencies in the eastern and southern Arabian regions supporting an eastern entrance through Iran. Nevertheless, the major portion of R Arabian lineages (60%) had a most probable northern source. In this respect the distribution of haplogroup H is a good example. It is the most frequent clade in Europe (45%) and Near East (25%) however in the Arabian peninsula its mean frequency, around 9%, is moderate. In fact, H frequencies significantly diminished with latitude from Turkey to Yemen (Abu-Amero et al., 2007). Haplogroup T shows a similar trend presenting its lower frequencies in the southern Yemen and Oman countries. Other minor lineages in Arabia, as those belonging to the European U2e and U5 clades and the infrequent U9, could also reach the Arabian peninsula from northern areas. Due to the lack of clear founder subclades in Arabia for these lineages, and to the difficulty of differentiating successive gene flows or expansions, because the most recent migration could carry both early and derivate lineages, it is impossible to accurately gauge their entrance times in the Peninsula. However, for the two most frequent R clades in Arabia R0a (Abu-Amero et al., 2007) and J1b (Abu-Amero et al., 2008), phylogenetic and phylogeographic analysis have allowed to date different expansion events. The time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for both R0a and J1b clades was calculated around 20 ka (Abu-Amero et al., 2007, 2008). However, whereas for the latter the ancestral motif was present in the Near East as much as in Arabia, suggesting that the peninsula played an active role in the Paleolithic spread of J1b, the R0a first radiation had a main Near East origin because its ancestral motif was barely present in Arabia. However, recent data from Yemen (Černý et al., 2008) raises the possibility that R0a also had a Paleolithic spread in southern Arabia. The successive most important radiation of both clades, signed by the R0a1a and J1b1a1 subclades, had, again, similar Neolithic ages around 10 ka (Abu-Amero et al., 2007, 2008). In both cases there was a shortage or absence of their ancestral motifs in Arabia discarding this area as a radiation center. However, whereas the R0a1a wave reached Arabia from the Near East, J1b1a1 occupied northern areas, including Europe, being absent in the Arabian peninsula. It seems that at least two well represented subclades had Arabia as their radiation origin (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). The J1b one, rooted by the 16,136 transition has a TMRCA around 11 ka and could be considered the southern branch of the J1b1a1 Neolithic northern expansion. Nevertheless, the R0a Arabian branch, defined by the 16,304 transition, is only about 4,000 years old which situates its expansion in the Bronze Age (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). From the above data it may be concluded that the Arabian peninsula was mainly a receiver of mitochondrial immigrations. Even in favorable climatic conditions population densities should be low enough to convert this region in a demographic expansive centre. Finally, the lack of ancestral R lineages in Arabia left this region without any genetic support to the proposed southern route across the Bab al Mandab strait of modern humans. Although this lack of genetic evidence can be attributed to the total extinction of the ancestral mtDNA lineages that once, hypothetically, crossed southern Arabia, and the single coastal migration model has general support (Stringer, 2000; Metspalu et al., 2004; Forster and Matsumura, 2005; Macaulay et al., 2005; Thangaraj et al., 2005), any alternative model that might explain the first successful Eurasian dispersion of modern humans without involving Arabia should be taken into consideration.
Mitochondrial Footsteps of the Old World Human Colonization When Maca-Meyer et al. (2001) formulated the hypothesis of two dispersals from Africa based on the phylogeny and phylogeography of complete mtDNA sequences, the presence in South and Southeast Asia and in Australia of lineages belonging to the macrohaplogroup N, that were not R derivates, had not yet been detected. Based on the distribution of the two macrolineages with N prevalent in Western Asia and M predominant in South and East Asia, it was proposed that M and N were, respectively, the mitochondrial signals of the already proposed southern and northern routes (Nei and Roychoudhury, 1993). The simultaneous presence in India, Malaysia, and Australia of N, M, and R lineages has prompted other researchers (Forster et al., 2001; Kivisild et al., 2003; Hudjashov et al., 2007) to propose that there was only a single coastal southern route out of Africa. On this supposition an ancestral L3 split into haplogroups M, N and R out of Africa and, after that, was lost by genetic drift. Then the three lineages traveled together eastwards coasting South Arabia, India and Southeast Asia reaching Australia. Moreover, the colonization of West Eurasia has been explained as an offshoot from the Southern route discrediting the two dispersals hypothesis. However, as it was previously suggested (Tanaka et al., 2004), this new scenario does not satisfactorily explain the mitochondrial haplogroup phylogeographic distributions. With some modifications, the two routes model previously proposed better explains it. First of all, M and N are two independent lineages because, as all the other L3 branches in Africa, they directly spread from the common L3 trunk. Second, we consider the coalescence age of L3 as the lowest bound of the out-of-Africa exit (Maca-Meyer et al., 2001). This frame could anticipate the Eurasian colonization to as early as 100–80 ka which coincides with an interglacial stage, an optimum period to leave Africa across to the then humid and hospitable Sinai peninsula. Most probably, during this favorable period several small groups of modern humans ventured out-of-Africa through this peninsula following afterwards northern and southern corridors signaled by their preys and avoiding regions where competition with other hominins, as the Neanderthals, could be strong. It is worthwhile mentioning that this date is coincidental with the first paleontological evidence of modern human presence in the Near East (Valladas et al., 1988; Mercier et al., 1993). Mitochondrial lineages carried by these colonizers were not yet ripe M and N lineages but their L3 ancestors. Under this supposition the M and N ancestors could have left Africa independently. Around 60 ka glacial conditions returned, strongly affecting the descendants of those wandering groups that suffered important bottle-necks with the subsequent loss of lineages, in such a way that only the direct ancestors of all the present day M and N branches lasted. As this selective process occurred well inside Asia, not in Africa, it is not necessary to invoke a very fast diaspora to explain the simultaneous existence of ancestral M and N lineages in areas geographically as distant as India, Southeast Asia or Australia. Glacial conditions forced human bands in the North going southwards and those in the South, to avoid deserts, searching for more hospitable regions. The phylogeographic distribution of M and N haplogroups points to northern and southern populations as the bearers of N and M lineages respectively. It is evident that R is an ancestral branch of N that signals a primary radiation of N in Asia. After its apparition, some R branches spread southwards to India where they met M, and others, along with N lineages, dispersed to Southeast Asia avoiding India in their southern migrations. Clearly, this model also better explains the early presence of modern humans in Australia. Due to phylogenetic considerations we think that at least two migratory waves reached Australia. The first one carrying mainly N ancestral lineages and the second, that also affected Papua New Guinea, bringing R and M lineages (Fig. 2). Around 45 ka, coinciding with an interstadial substage of the Würm Glacial, favorable climatic conditions allowed secondary dispersions including, westwards, Europe, the Near East and northern Africa, southwards India, and northwards Siberia (Fig. 2). With the exception of an M1 African branch, these waves brought to West Asia and North Africa only N and R lineages. It is not easy to explain the absence of ancestral M lineages in Western Eurasia if they were the result of an Indian offshoot, as in India around of 60% of its lineages belong to different M haplogroups. Furthermore, the fact that the Eurasian N and R lineages are not derived from Indian clades is also against its Indian origin. As there is no evidence of African haplogroups in Eurasia that could be dated to that epoch, we think that the proposed out-of-Africa exit around 45 ka across the Sinai peninsula had little impact or did not exist at all. This scenario leaves the Bab al Mandab corridor unnecessary as the genetic studies on Arabia suggest. It has been argued that to reach Australia their colonizers had to have seafaring experience, as it was necessary to cross the Bab al Mandab strait. But it could most probably be acquired later in Asian tropical regions rich in wood and wide rivers than in the, under glacial period, desert regions of the Horn of Africa and Arabia.
References
Abu-Amero KK, González AM, Larruga JM, Bosley TM, Cabrera VM. Eurasian and African mitochondrial DNA influences in the Saudi Arabian population. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2007;7:32.
Abu-Amero KK, Larruga JM, Cabrera VM, González AM. Mitochondrial DNA structure in the Arabian peninsula. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2008;8:45.
Bandelt H-J, Forster P, Röhl A. Median-joining networks for inferring intraspecific phylogenies. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 1999;16:37–48.
Černý V, Mulligan CJ, Rídl J, Žaloudková M, Edens CM, Hájek M, et al. Regional differences in the distribution of the sub-Saharan, West Eurasian, and South Asian mtDNA lineages in Yemen. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2008;136:128–37.
Derenko M, Malyarchuk B, Grzybowski T, Denisova G, Dambueva I, Perkova M, et al. Phylogeographic analysis of mitochondrial DNA in northern Asian populations. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2007;81:1025–41.
Forster P, Torroni A, Renfrew C, Röhl A. Phylogenetic star contraction applied to Asian and Papuan mtDNA evolution. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2001;18:1864–81.
Forster P, Matsumura S. Human evolution: did early humans go north or south? Science. 2005;308:965–6.
Friedlaender J, Schurr T, Gentz F, Koki G, Friedlaender F, Horvat G, et al. Expanding southwest Pacific mitochondrial haplogroups P and Q. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2005;22:1506–17.
Gasparre G, Porcelli AM, Bonora E, Pennisi LF, Toller M, Iommarini L, et al. Disruptive mitochondrial DNA mutations in complex I subunits are markers of oncocytic phenotype in thyroid tumors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 2007;104:9001–6.
Gonder MK, Mortensen HM, Reed FA, de Sousa A, Tishkoff SA. Whole-mtDNA genome sequence analysis of ancient African lineages. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2007;24:757–68.
González AM, Larruga JM, Abu-Amero KK, Shi Y, Pestano J, Cabrera VM. Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa. BMC Genomics. 2007;8:223.
Haak W, Forster P, Bramanti B, Matsumura S, Brandt G, Tänzer M, et al. Ancient DNA from the first European farmers in 7500-year-old Neolithic sites. Science. 2005;310:1016–8.
Hill C, Soares P, Mormina M, Maculay M, Meehan W, Blackburn J, et al. Phylogeography and ethnogenesis of Aboriginal Southeast Asians. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2006;23:2480–91.
Hudjashov G, Kivisild T, Underhill PA, Endicott P, Sanchez JJ, Lin AA, et al. Revealing the prehistoric settlement of Australia by Y-chromosome and mtDNA analysis. Proceedings of the National Academic of Sciences USA. 2007;104:8726–30.
Ingman M, Gyllensten U. Mitochondrial genome variation and evolutionary history of Australian and New Guinean aborigines. Genome Research. 2003;13:1600–6.
Kivisild T, Rootsi S, Metspalu M, Mastana S, Kaldma K, Parik J, et al. The genetic heritage of the earliest settlers persists both in Indian tribal and caste populations. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2003;72:313–32.
Kivisild T, Reidla M, Metspalu E, Rosa A, Brehm A, Pennarum E, et al. Ethiopian mitochondrial heritage: tracking gene flow across and around the gate of tears. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2004;75:752–70.
Lahr MM, Foley RA. Multiple dispersals and modern human origins. Evolutionary Anthropology. 1994;3:48–60.
Maca-Meyer N, González AM, Larruga JM, Flores C, Cabrera VM. Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions. BMC Genetics. 2001;2:13.
Maca-Meyer N, González AM, Pestano J, Flores C, Larruga JM, Cabrera VM. Mitochondrial DNA transit between West Asia and North Africa inferred from U6 phylogeography. BMC Genetics. 2003;4:15.
Macaulay V, Hill C, Achilli A, Rengo C, Clarke D, Meehan W, et al. Single, rapid coastal settlement of Asia revealed by analysis of complete mitocondrial genomes. Science. 2005;308:1034–6.
McDougall I, Brown FH, Fleagle JG. Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia. Nature. 2005;433:733–6.
Mercier N, Valladas H, Bar-Yosef O, Vandermeersch B, Stringer C, Joran L. Thermoluminescence date for the Mousterian burial site of Es Skhul, Mt Carmel. Journal of Archaeological Science. 1993;20:169–74.
Metspalu M, Kivisild T, Metspalu E, Parik J, Hudjashov G, Kaldma K, et al. Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans. BMC Genetics. 2004;5:26.
Nei M, Roychoudhury AK. Evolutionary relationships of human populations on a global scale. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 1993;10:927–43.
Olivieri A, Achilli A, Pala M, Battaglia V, Fornarino S, Al-Zahery N, et al. The mtDNA legacy of the Levantine early Upper Palaeolithic in Africa. Science. 2006;314:1767–70.
Oppenheimer S. Out of Eden: the peopling of the world. London: Constable; 2003.
Pääbo S, Poinar H, Serre D, Jaenicke-Despres V, Hebler J, Rohland N, et al. Genetic analyses from ancient DNA. Annual Review of Genetics. 2004;38:645–79.
Palanichamy MG, Sun C, Agrawal S, Bandelt H-J, Kong QP, Khan F, et al. Phylogeny of mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup N in India, based on complete sequencing: implications for the peopling of South Asia. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2004;75:966–78.
Petraglia MD, Alsharekh A. The Middle Palaeolithic of Arabia: implications for modern human origins, behaviour and dispersals. Antiquity. 2003;77:671–84.
Quintana-Murci L, Semino O, Bandelt H-J, Passarino G, McElreavey K, Santachiara-Benereceti AS. Genetic evidence of an early exit of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa. Nature Genetics. 1999;23:437–41.
Quintana-Murci L, Chaix R, Well RS, Behar DM, Sayar H, Scozzari R, et al. Where west meets east: the complex mtDNA landscape of the southwest and Central Asian corridor. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2004;74:827–45.
Reidla M, Kivisild T, Metspalu E, Kaldma K, Tambers K, Tolk HV, et al. Origin and difussion of mtDNA haplogroup X. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2003;73:1178–90.
Ricaut FX, Keyser-Tracqui C, Bourgeois J, Crubezy E, Ludes B. Genetic analysis of a Scytho-Siberian skeleton and its implications for ancient Central Asian migrations. Human Biology. 2004;76:109–25.
Rowold DJ, Luis JR, Terreros MC, Herrera RJ. Mitochondrial DNA geneflow indicates preferred usage of the Levant corridor over the Horn of Africa passageway. Journal of Human Genetics. 2007;52:436–77.
Stringer CB. Coasting out of Africa. Nature. 2000;405:24–7.
Stringer CB, Andrews P. Genetic and fossil evidence for the origin of modern humans. Science. 1988;239:1263–8.
Tanaka M, Cabrera VM, González AM, Larruga JM, Takeyasu T, Fuku N, et al. Mitochondrial genome variation in eastern Asia and the peopling of Japan. Genome Research. 2004;14:1832–50.
Thangaraj K, Chaubey G, Kivisild T, Reddy AG, Singh VK, Rasalkar AA, et al. Reconstructing the origin of Andaman Islanders. Science. 2005;308:996.
Underhill PA, Passarino G, Lin AA, Shen P, Mirazón Lahar M, Foley RA, et al. The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations. Annals of Human Genetics. 2001;65:43–62.
Valladas H, Reyss JL, Joron JL, Valladas H, Bar-Yosef O, Vandermeersch B. Thermoluminescence dating of Mousterian ‘Proto-Cro-Magnon’ remains from Israel and the origin of modern man. Nature. 1988;331:614–6.
van Holst Pellekaan SM, Ingman M, Roberts-Thomson J, Harding RM. Mitochondrial genomics identifies major haplogroups in Aboriginal Australians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2006;131: 282–94.
Walter RC, Buffler RT, Bruggeman JH, Guillame MM, Berhe SM, Negassi B, et al. Early human occupation of the Red Sea coast of Eritrea during the Last Interglacial. Nature. 2000;405:65–9.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
lioness
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote: Macrohaplogroup M in Arabia Macrohaplogroup M is particularly abundant and diverse in South and Southeast Asia, reaching frequencies above 60% in some regions (Metspalu et al., 2004). However, it is practically absent in western Asia (Quintana-Murci et al., 2004). In Africa, only one autochthonous basal branch of M, named M1, has been detected (Quintana-Murci et al., 1999). In this continent it has a predominant northern distribution. M1 is particularly abundant in Ethiopia (20%). From there, frequencies significantly diminish forming decreasing gradients westwards and southwards. It has been proposed that the presence of M1 in Africa and surrounding Mediterranean areas can be explained as result of two expansion centers situated in East and Northwest Africa which are marked by the radiation of subhaplogroups M1a and M1b respectively (Olivieri et al., 2006; González et al., 2007). Although the coalescence age of M1 is Paleolithic it seems that the most important expansions occurred in Neolithic times when the Sahara was a more hospitable region. Some authors consider that the presence of M1 in Africa supports the idea that macrohaplogroup M originated in eastern Africa and was carried towards Asia with the out of Africa expansion (Quintana-Murci et al., 1999), others think that the distribution of M1 in Africa traces an early human backflow to this Continent from Asia (Maca-Meyer et al., 2001; Olivieri et al., 2006; González et al., 2007).
In Arabia, M lineages account for 7% of the total and half of them belong to the M1 African clade. M1 frequencies are significantly greater in western Arabian regions than in the East (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). As the majority of the M1 haplotypes in Arabia belong to the East African M1a subclade, it seems that, likewise L lineages, the M1 presence in the Arabian peninsula signals a predominant East African influence since the Neolithic onwards.
This recalls my 2007 response to Ana Gonzalez et l. (2007), detailing the inadequacies of that work. It's funny, because Ana Gonzalez is part of the present research team responsible for the above statement. Is it possible somehow that the word got to her? I certainly hope so, and if so, it should serve an instructive purpose to the lay folk out there who treat every single thing researchers say as gospel or divine truth, or that they are infallible beings, who have the last word on everything. At the end of the day, it is the quality and quantity of material evidence that determines whether an idea is sound.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Despite heightened frequencies of M1 in eastern Africa, I have had second thoughts about its origins there, or if not that, then its earliest expansion centers. The distribution pattern of M1, as I have said before, suggests two out-of-Africa dispersals; one in the Paleolithic and one at the turn of the Paleolithic. The Maghrebi M1c must have reached the "Near East" earlier (M1c has low incidence in the northern part of the Arabian plate), and then, the eastern African M1a and M1b markers made their way there. As Maitspalu et al. recognized, the Arabian plate examples are generally derivatives of M markers from three different regions, as opposed to uniquely Arabian branches; these areas are namely, south Asia (Indian sub-continent), Maghreb and eastern Africa (African Horn).
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Despite heightened frequencies of M1 in eastern Africa, I have had second thoughts about its origins there, or if not that, then its earliest expansion centers. The distribution pattern of M1, as I have said before, suggests two out-of-Africa dispersals; one in the Paleolithic and one at the turn of the Paleolithic. The Maghrebi M1c must have reached the "Near East" earlier (M1c has low incidence in the northern part of the Arabian plate), and then, the eastern African M1a and M1b markers made their way there. As Maitspalu et al. recognized, the Arabian plate examples are generally derivatives of M markers from three different regions, as opposed to uniquely Arabian branches; these areas are namely, south Asia (Indian sub-continent), Maghreb and eastern Africa (African Horn).
I disagree. I believe that M1 did originate in East Africa and it early expanded to West Africa . I don't believe that hg M1c is the oldest M1 clade.
The available sample for M1c was complete sequences from individuals found in Jordan, Senegal, and Spain. The small data set make a precise estimation of the errors in the data uncertain.
The limited sample for M1c makes it difficult to effectively quantify the estimation error for the data, since error increases from level to level in models possessing a hierarchical structure.
The small sample size makes the confidence intervals overlap. This calls into question the conclusions of Gonzalez et al (2007) despite the differing levels of hierarchy.
If the sample used by Gonzalez et al (2007) had been larger we might expect the researchers to have paid close attention to the estimated value of the variance in the data sets. Given the extremely small size of the data set, the researchers probably has too much confidence in the predicted ages for the M1 subsets, because the sample was too small to allow the estimation errors to propagate as the data was analyzed. The failure to effectively estimate uncertainty in the limited data set probably led to estimation errors in the predicted ages for the M1 subclades, which inflated the age of M1c in relation to the other M1 subsets.
In addition to the evidence of the coalescence age estimation in support of the antiquity of M1c, Gonzalez et al (2007) believe the presence of M1c among Jordanians is an important indicator for the ancient origin of this clade. The evidence of M1c in Jordan, does not really add to the hypothesis that M1c is the oldest clade because the presence of this clade in the Middle East can be explained by the thousands of West Africans who have taken the hajj to Mecca, and remained in the Middle East, instead of returning to West Africa.
The Valencia sample can also be explained by the history of Islam. There is a direct link between Senegal and Tariq ibn Ziyad’s invasion of Spain in 711. This link comes from the fact that many of the followers of Tarik came from the ribats or ‘religious schools’ he had established in northern Senegal. Troops from these ribats formed the backbone of Tarik’s army. These African Muslims ruled much of Spain until 1492. Since M1c is presently found in Senegal, the carrier of M1c reported by Gonzalez et al (2007) in Valencia may be a descendent of these African ‘Moors’ that ruled Spain for over 700 years
You can check out my views on the spread of M1 and the M macrohalogroups generally in my papers below.
As I have pointed out elsewhere the N haplogroup was probably spread to Eurasia by the Khoisan who founded the Aurignacian culture 45-40kya. Its origin in Arabia is more likely due to an African migration into the area instead of a back migration from Eurasia. Africans carrying hg N probably entered the area around 60kya. See:
The genetic landscape of Arabia make it clear that the slave trade can not account for the presence of African L haplogroups in the region. Many of these haplogroups probably entered the area before the slave trade.
The first civilization in Northeast Africa was the Tihama culture. This view is supported by the archaeological evidence that support a close relationship between the Puntites/ Ethiopians and Nubians. For example, according to Fattovich, the pottery from Tihama Cultural Complex and other Ethiopian sites shows similarities to the Kerma and C-Group pottery. Given this connection between Ethiopian civilizations and civilizations in Nubia, make it clear that the Ethiopians would have been familiar with the ancient writing system used in this area discussed above.
If the story represents the C-Group people it would explain the affinity between the earliest Ethio-Semitic culture Tihama and the C-Group. At Tihama and other sites in Arabia we find pottery related to the C-Group people of Nubia (Keall, 2000;2008; Fattovish, 2008; Giumlia-Mair, 2002)The archaeological evidence indicates that C-Group people expanded from Nubia to Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley.
It appears that whereas the Egyptians preferred the cultivation of wheat, many ancient C-Group people were agro-pastoral people who cultivated Millet/Sorghum and rasied cattle.
The Tihama civilization probably originated in Nubia. It is characterized by the cheesecake or pillbox burial monuments which extend from Dhofar in Nubia, the Gara mountains to Adulis on the Gulf of Zula, to Hadramaut, Qataban, Ausan, Adenm, Asir, the Main area and Tihama.
Reference:
Rudolfo Fattovich, The development of urbanism in the Northern Horn of Africa in ancient and Medieval Times. Retrieved 2/19/2008.The earliest civilization in Southwest Arabia date back to the 2nd Millenium. This culture is called the Tihama culture which originated in Africa (Fattovich, 2008). http://www.arkeologi.uu.se/afr/projects/BOOK/fattowich.pdf
Giumlia-Mair, A., Keall, E. J., Shugar, A. and Stock, S.2002.Investigation of a Copper-based Hoard from the Megalithic Site of al-Midamman, Yemen: an Interdisciplinary Approach, Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 195-209.
Keall, Dr. Edward J.Contact across the Red Sea (between Arabia and Africa) in the 2nd millennium BC: circumstantial evidence from the archaeological site of al-Midamman, Tihama coast of Yemen, and Dahlak Kabir Island, Eritrea .
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There is a direct link between Senegal and Tariq ibn Ziyad’s invasion of Spain in 711. This link comes from the fact that many of the followers of Tarik came from the ribats or ‘religious schools’ he had established in northern Senegal. Troops from these ribats formed the backbone of Tarik’s army.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote: Macrohaplogroup M in Arabia Macrohaplogroup M is particularly abundant and diverse in South and Southeast Asia, reaching frequencies above 60% in some regions (Metspalu et al., 2004). However, it is practically absent in western Asia (Quintana-Murci et al., 2004). In Africa, only one autochthonous basal branch of M, named M1, has been detected (Quintana-Murci et al., 1999). In this continent it has a predominant northern distribution. M1 is particularly abundant in Ethiopia (20%). From there, frequencies significantly diminish forming decreasing gradients westwards and southwards. It has been proposed that the presence of M1 in Africa and surrounding Mediterranean areas can be explained as result of two expansion centers situated in East and Northwest Africa which are marked by the radiation of subhaplogroups M1a and M1b respectively (Olivieri et al., 2006; González et al., 2007). Although the coalescence age of M1 is Paleolithic it seems that the most important expansions occurred in Neolithic times when the Sahara was a more hospitable region. Some authors consider that the presence of M1 in Africa supports the idea that macrohaplogroup M originated in eastern Africa and was carried towards Asia with the out of Africa expansion (Quintana-Murci et al., 1999), others think that the distribution of M1 in Africa traces an early human backflow to this Continent from Asia (Maca-Meyer et al., 2001; Olivieri et al., 2006; González et al., 2007).
In Arabia, M lineages account for 7% of the total and half of them belong to the M1 African clade. M1 frequencies are significantly greater in western Arabian regions than in the East (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). As the majority of the M1 haplotypes in Arabia belong to the East African M1a subclade, it seems that, likewise L lineages, the M1 presence in the Arabian peninsula signals a predominant East African influence since the Neolithic onwards.
This recalls my 2007 response to Ana Gonzalez et l. (2007), detailing the inadequacies of that work. It's funny, because Ana Gonzalez is part of the present research team responsible for the above statement. Is it possible somehow that the word got to her? I certainly hope so, and if so, it should serve an instructive purpose to the lay folk out there who treat every single thing researchers say as gospel or divine truth, or that they are infallible beings, who have the last word on everything. At the end of the day, it is the quality and quantity of material evidence that determines whether an idea is sound.
While it didn't immediately connect that one of the co-authors in this study was responsible for the former study in question, I indeed recall this discussion from your blog posts. That IS pretty surprising, especially considering how easily her position changed. Another lesson may be that a lot of this science shouldn't be taken automatically as an affront to pro-African ('Afrocentric') interpretations, or something to be seen as offensive. A lot of disagreements are genuinely errors in methodology or the author may have simply overlooked vital points that some of our members here are astute enough to catch.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There is a direct link between Senegal and Tariq ibn Ziyad’s invasion of Spain in 711. This link comes from the fact that many of the followers of Tarik came from the ribats or ‘religious schools’ he had established in northern Senegal. Troops from these ribats formed the backbone of Tarik’s army.
What is so confusing. Eurocentrist use slavery to account for African haplogroups in Eurasia.
I am offering an alternative view that these genes may have been carried to Europe by African troops.
.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I disagree. I believe that M1 did originate in East Africa and it early expanded to West Africa . I don't believe that hg M1c is the oldest M1 clade.
The available sample for M1c was complete sequences from individuals found in Jordan, Senegal, and Spain. The small data set make a precise estimation of the errors in the data uncertain.
You're putting stock in an M1 origin in eastern Africa on the basis of a belief; I'm making my assessment based on nucleotide information. Here's why I have had second thought about M1 origins in eastern Africa, while not totally ruling it out:
1)Maghrebi M1 clades largely fall into different M1 sub-branches from those popular in eastern Africa.
2) a: M1c is largely western African, with no distribution yet, detected in eastern Africa. M1a on the other hand, is very popular in eastern Africa and generally absent in western Africa. M1b is heavily represented in eastern Africa than western Africa, but the sub-clades of this lineage in western Africa fall into distinct clusters from the eastern African counterparts, per Gonzalez et al. (2007)
b: M1c is largely absent in Europe, except for very low incidence in Spain, which is right next to the Maghreb, where it likely came from. This distribution parallels that of U6, wherein U6a also sporadically in low frequencies, is found in the so-called "Near East" but rare in Europe. Presence of U6a is again relegated to the Iberian peninsula in the European sub-continent, which is next door to the Maghreb.
c: On the other hand, M1a and M1b clades largely parallel the distribution of historic centers of either proto-Afrisan distribution and/or the agro-based Neolithic cultural package. This distribution is best approximated by U6a1 in the U6 phylogeny. U6a1, like M1a, is relatively rare in larger Europe, but has wider distribution in this department than U6a; likewise M1a has a relatively wider distribution than M1c in Europe, even though M1 generally has low frequencies in Europe. To get an idea on these distributions, see Kivisild et al. (2004) and Gonzalez et al. (2007) for examples. In a theme reminiscent of the M1 distribution pattern described by Kivisild et al. (2004), Gonzalez et al. (2007) assess that...
On the contrary, Iberian Peninsula has significant differences with the rest of Europe. In turn, West Asia conforms an homogenous continuum with East Africa and Europe excepting Iberian Peninsula and the latter is not significantly different of western Africa. All these results can be explained as due to the differential radiation of M1a from East Africa and M1c from Northwest Africa, the Iberian Peninsula being mostly influenced by Northwest Africa and the rest of Europe and western Asia by East Africa. - Gonzalez et al. (2007)
3)Even though western Africa has lower M1 frequency than eastern Africa, M1 has greater diversity in western Africa by comparison. In western Africa, we have M1c, M1abde, and M1b, along with the M1-like L3 AF24 haplotype; whereas, in eastern Africa M1 clades generally fall into either M1a or M1b.
4)M1c separates from the basal M1 node by much fewer [mutational] steps than M1a and M1b. This may point to its relatively older genesis when compared to the latter two.
Conclusions:
Because of these fundamental points, I suspect that either M1 originated in the middle of the Sahara, OR its earliest expansions took place here rather than eastern Africa.
As I noted above, M clades in the so-called "Near East" are derivatives of African M1 clades and south Asian M clades, rather than unique "Near Eastern" branches of either clades. This is in addition to its low frequencies, if not patchy distribution, in the "Near East". In my book, these facts rule the "Near East" out as a likely point of origin.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
This study is also relatively unique as it proposes two separate OOA events (in "Mitochondrial Footsteps of the Old World Human Colonization). I've always felt that the early presence in Australia was cutting it pretty thin with time estimates for the traditionally proposed single OOA event. They mentioned that as well and claim this is best explained under a "two route" model. I won't say this is unreasonable, I just don't see the plausibility of two separate migrations to Australia as well in such a short time frame. Also, would there be any evidence in the archaeological record of this, like say, two separate paleolithic tool traditions (or maybe variations of the same)? I ask while assuming there isn't.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Sundjata
So from what I can gather from a quick run through of the study, Is that they now Claim that African M1 is indeginous and not a back migration like first thought.
If Explorer is right and Gonzales changed her mind about the origin of M1, then thats a boon and shows that these Authors are trying to hunt for Truth and are not that much stubborn that they don't change there views. We are all Learning and it's good to see scholars take and Accept criticism.
Peace
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I didn't quote anything about Eurocentrism, slavery, or geo-haplogroups.
I'm confused by your history of Tariq acting in Senegal. What's the basis?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There is a direct link between Senegal and Tariq ibn Ziyad’s invasion of Spain in 711. This link comes from the fact that many of the followers of Tarik came from the ribats or ‘religious schools’ he had established in northern Senegal. Troops from these ribats formed the backbone of Tarik’s army.
What is so confusing. Eurocentrist use slavery to account for African haplogroups in Eurasia.
I am offering an alternative view that these genes may have been carried to Europe by African troops.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
There were some Africans or Sudani probably with Tariq. But the ribats were built in Senegal by Abd Allah b Yasin of the Almoravids.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I didn't quote anything about Eurocentrism, slavery, or geo-haplogroups.
I'm confused by your history of Tariq acting in Senegal. What's the basis?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There is a direct link between Senegal and Tariq ibn Ziyad’s invasion of Spain in 711. This link comes from the fact that many of the followers of Tarik came from the ribats or ‘religious schools’ he had established in northern Senegal. Troops from these ribats formed the backbone of Tarik’s army.
What is so confusing. Eurocentrist use slavery to account for African haplogroups in Eurasia.
I am offering an alternative view that these genes may have been carried to Europe by African troops.
.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
King, the acknowledgement of an African origin for M1 does not necessarily indicate impartiality on the part of researchers. It just underlies that ignoring empirical data cannot be tenable in the long run, as there are conflicting published data with respect to the likes of Gonzalez et al.(2007). So, even if the authors continued to bury their heads in the sand, there will be data out there that conflicts with their own, along with accompanying evidence.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
This study is also relatively unique as it proposes two separate OOA events (in "Mitochondrial Footsteps of the Old World Human Colonization). I've always felt that the early presence in Australia was cutting it pretty thin with time estimates for the traditionally proposed single OOA event. They mentioned that as well and claim this is best explained under a "two route" model. I won't say this is unreasonable, I just don't see the plausibility of two separate migrations to Australia as well in such a short time frame. Also, would there be any evidence in the archaeological record of this, like say, two separate paleolithic tool traditions (or maybe variations of the same)? I ask while assuming there isn't.
What threw these authors off, and authors before them, is the presence of both L3M and L3N markers in Australia. Whereas L3M is largely prevalent in south and southeast Asia, L3N is prevalent in western Asia. However, I think a single OOA migratory thesis can account for this distribution, wherein the small founder group proceeded to south Asia, from where there was movement towards the areas immediately north of the Indian sub-continent -- which happens to also approximated the central or "middle" area of Asia. In this "central" area, major initially bi-pronged demographic expansion processes would have taken place, culminating in largely N being distributed in northern and western areas, and the M ones being clustered in the middle and southern regions. The movements would have ensured increased drift activity, explaining why those that parted north were largely N carriers, and likewise others in the southern territories, were rich in M; the rapid expansion of these new lineages would have overshadowed residual L types that came with the original OOA migrants. A portion of the group from the aforementioned central/middle-lying region proceeded eastward further, ultimately landing in Australasia. Of course, this is conjecture at this point, but from the empirical assessment about the core local gene pools of Asians being largely M and N, a two separate OOA migration doesn't seem very likely; otherwise, one would expect a bit more diverse patterning of mtDNA gene pool specific to non-Africans, rather than just two major clades of M and N. I mean, how likely is it, for two separate OOA migrations to only generate singular new phylogeny respectively? Like many things, one can suppose it is possible; but the question is, what's the probability? After all, M and N are ultimately traced back to just two individual females. Couple this with proposed time frames of separate OOA migratory scenarios.
Ps: At least one, if not both, of these major clades of non-African gene pool would have already been around in Africa, before the migrants left. If primacy were to be given to one over the other, hg M would definitely be in the driver's seat. Unlike Africa, with its far more diverse gene pool and the then larger anatomically modern human population than anywhere, and wherein these clades would have been up against the more established markers, genetic drift in a small migrating group, with reduced diversity, would have however given subdued new markers greater chance to blossom.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I disagree. I believe that M1 did originate in East Africa and it early expanded to West Africa . I don't believe that hg M1c is the oldest M1 clade.
The available sample for M1c was complete sequences from individuals found in Jordan, Senegal, and Spain. The small data set make a precise estimation of the errors in the data uncertain.
You're putting stock in an M1 origin in eastern Africa on the basis of a belief; I'm making my assessment based on nucleotide information. Here's why I have had second thought about M1 origins in eastern Africa, while not totally ruling it out:
1)Maghrebi M1 clades largely fall into different M1 sub-branches from those popular in eastern Africa.
2) a: M1c is largely western African, with no distribution yet, detected in eastern Africa. M1a on the other hand, is very popular in eastern Africa and generally absent in western Africa. M1b is heavily represented in eastern Africa than western Africa, but the sub-clades of this lineage in western Africa fall into distinct clusters from the eastern African counterparts, per Gonzalez et al. (2007)
b: M1c is largely absent in Europe, except for very low incidence in Spain, which is right next to the Maghreb, where it likely came from. This distribution parallels that of U6, wherein U6a also sporadically in low frequencies, is found in the so-called "Near East" but rare in Europe. Presence of U6a is again relegated to the Iberian peninsula in the European sub-continent, which is next door to the Maghreb.
c: On the other hand, M1a and M1b clades largely parallel the distribution of historic centers of either proto-Afrisan distribution and/or the agro-based Neolithic cultural package. This distribution is best approximated by U6a1 in the U6 phylogeny. U6a1, like M1a, is relatively rare in larger Europe, but has wider distribution in this department than U6a; likewise M1a has a relatively wider distribution than M1c in Europe, even though M1 generally has low frequencies in Europe. To get an idea on these distributions, see Kivisild et al. (2004) and Gonzalez et al. (2007) for examples. In a theme reminiscent of the M1 distribution pattern described by Kivisild et al. (2004), Gonzalez et al. (2007) assess that...
On the contrary, Iberian Peninsula has significant differences with the rest of Europe. In turn, West Asia conforms an homogenous continuum with East Africa and Europe excepting Iberian Peninsula and the latter is not significantly different of western Africa. All these results can be explained as due to the differential radiation of M1a from East Africa and M1c from Northwest Africa, the Iberian Peninsula being mostly influenced by Northwest Africa and the rest of Europe and western Asia by East Africa. - Gonzalez et al. (2007)
3)Even though western Africa has lower M1 frequency than eastern Africa, M1 has greater diversity in western Africa by comparison. In western Africa, we have M1c, M1abde, and M1b, along with the M1-like L3 AF24 haplotype; whereas, in eastern Africa M1 clades generally fall into either M1a or M1b.
4)M1c separates from the basal M1 node by much fewer [mutational] steps than M1a and M1b. This may point to its relatively older genesis when compared to the latter two.
Conclusions:
Because of these fundamental points, I suspect that either M1 originated in the middle of the Sahara, OR its earliest expansions took place here rather than eastern Africa.
As I noted above, M clades in the so-called "Near East" are derivatives of African M1 clades and south Asian M clades, rather than unique "Near Eastern" branches of either clades. This is in addition to its low frequencies, if not patchy distribution, in the "Near East". In my book, these facts rule the "Near East" out as a likely point of origin.
Your argument favoring a West African origin for hg M1 is compelling—but it does not gel with the evidence. I do not base my identification of East Africa as the origin for M1 on belief. I base this conclusion on two main factors 1) the greatest diversity theory and 2) the spread of the Sangoan culture from East to West Africa.
You are correct in claiming that the M1 haplogroups in East Africa, vary from those found in North Africa. But the greatest diversity of M1 hgs are found in East Africa, this suggest that the origin of this haplogroup lie there instead of West Africa.
As I pointed out earlier, the small sample size for M1c, can not reliably be used to give a positive date for the appearance of hg M1c. This suggest that it may not be the oldest M1 hg. Given the limited sample we can not conclusively say the date assigned to M1c is correct.
Granted Af-24 is found among West Africans, but this alone can not support the origination of M1 in West Africa granted AF-24 is delieneated by DdeI site at 10394 and AluI site np at 10397, which points to its early association with hg LOd. But we also have to remember that basal L3 motif is characterized by the same sites as are those of M macrohaplogroup. Given the fact that LOd , I believe is also found in West Africa appears to represent a possible expansion of hg M from East Africa to Senegal during Sangoan times since LOd dates back to 106kya, and we see the spread of of Sangoan artifacts from East Africa to West Africa between 100-80 kya.
Finally the small sample size, great diversity in M1 clades in East Africa suggest that the homeland of this haplogroup is east Africa. This is supported by the spread hg M1 to India, and Gonder (2006) finding that Tanzanian M1 hg cluster with the people of Oceania.
The presence of Af-24 in Senegal is best explained by the expansion of LOd during the Sangoan period.
I discuss the possible spread of Af-24 and hg LOd in my blog:
This study is also relatively unique as it proposes two separate OOA events (in "Mitochondrial Footsteps of the Old World Human Colonization). I've always felt that the early presence in Australia was cutting it pretty thin with time estimates for the traditionally proposed single OOA event. They mentioned that as well and claim this is best explained under a "two route" model. I won't say this is unreasonable, I just don't see the plausibility of two separate migrations to Australia as well in such a short time frame. Also, would there be any evidence in the archaeological record of this, like say, two separate paleolithic tool traditions (or maybe variations of the same)? I ask while assuming there isn't.
What threw these authors off, and authors before them, is the presence of both L3M and L3N markers in Australia. Whereas L3M is largely prevalent in south and southeast Asia, L3N is prevalent in western Asia. However, I think a single OOA migratory thesis can account for this distribution, wherein the small founder group proceeded to south Asia, from where there was movement towards the areas immediately north of the Indian sub-continent -- which happens to also approximated the central or "middle" area of Asia. In this "central" area, major initially bi-pronged demographic expansion processes would have taken place, culminating in largely N being distributed in northern and western areas, and the M ones being clustered in the middle and southern regions. The movements would have ensured increased drift activity, explaining why those that parted north were largely N carriers, and likewise others in the southern territories, were rich in M; the rapid expansion of these new lineages would have overshadowed residual L types that came with the original OOA migrants. A portion of the group from the aforementioned central/middle-lying region proceeded eastward further, ultimately landing in Australasia. Of course, this is conjecture at this point, but from the empirical assessment about the core local gene pools of Asians being largely M and N, a two separate OOA migration doesn't seem very likely; otherwise, one would expect a bit more diverse patterning of mtDNA gene pool specific to non-Africans, rather than just two major clades of M and N. I mean, how likely is it, for two separate OOA migrations to only generate singular new phylogeny respectively? Like many things, one can suppose it is possible; but the question is, what's the probability? After all, M and N are ultimately traced back to just two individual females. Couple this with proposed time frames of separate OOA migratory scenarios.
Ps: At least one, if not both, of these major clades of non-African gene pool would have already been around in Africa, before the migrants left. If primacy were to be given to one over the other, hg M would definitely be in the driver's seat. Unlike Africa, with its far more diverse gene pool and the then larger anatomically modern human population than anywhere, and wherein these clades would have been up against the more established markers, genetic drift in a small migrating group, with reduced diversity, would have however given subdued new markers greater chance to blossom.
I agree that there was probably an early migration of carriers of hg L3 (N, M) to Australia. But I believe the major spread of hg N in Eurasia, was via Iberia during the Aurignacian period. I believe that the Khoisan carried this haplogroup to Western Eurasia 40kya.
My studies suggest that L3(N) probably originated in the Great Lakes region of East Africa 93kya. From here it probably spread to Ethiopia and thence Australia with the OOA event 60kya.
.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: 1) the greatest diversity theory
please state the origin of "the greatest diversity theory" and what it means
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
That's like 400 years later.
There's no documentation for Senegalese backbone of Tariq's army. The romances of Tariq's Iberian incursion make no mention of neither Senegalese nor Sudani. The area of Beled es Sudan was not part of nor known to the Muslim world of the early 8th century.
Tariq was himself African as were a goodly number of his forces.
We must be careful what we write of African history less it become an unbelieveable fantasy not to take seriously. When reading false assessments like this many people will assume all of the history is likewise a contrived reactionary response.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There were some Africans or Sudani probably with Tariq. But the ribats were built in Senegal by Abd Allah b Yasin of the Almoravids.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I didn't quote anything about Eurocentrism, slavery, or geo-haplogroups.
I'm confused by your history of Tariq acting in Senegal. What's the basis?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There is a direct link between Senegal and Tariq ibn Ziyad’s invasion of Spain in 711. This link comes from the fact that many of the followers of Tarik came from the ribats or ‘religious schools’ he had established in northern Senegal. Troops from these ribats formed the backbone of Tarik’s army.
What is so confusing. Eurocentrist use slavery to account for African haplogroups in Eurasia.
I am offering an alternative view that these genes may have been carried to Europe by African troops.
.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Your argument favoring a West African origin
That's not my argument! Why do you feel the need to wrongly re-write something that was plainly put, which was this:
"I suspect that either M1 originated in the middle of the Sahara, OR its earliest expansions took place here rather than eastern Africa."
Do you know what the Sahara is? Do you know where its "middle" is?
quote: I do not base my identification of East Africa as the origin for M1 on belief. I base this conclusion on two main factors 1) the greatest diversity theory
You were already fed on the established specifics of hg M1 phylogenetic diversities respective to each region. How does your idea of "diversity" supposedly trump this?
quote: But the greatest diversity of M1 hgs are found in East Africa, this suggest that the origin of this haplogroup lie there instead of West Africa.
Your inadequate understanding of genetics is once again handicapping you to logically react to what you were just told. You were told that M1 has at least 2 major different branches in western Africa, one of which is further divided into 2 sub-branches vs. the only 1 major branch in eastern Africa, which branches further on. Do you have material to the contrary? Because if not, then you clearly don't know what you're doing.
quote: As I pointed out earlier, the small sample size for M1c, can not reliably be used to give a positive date for the appearance of hg M1c.
The specifics I gave you for what renders M1c older than M1b or M1a has nothing to do with either getting a "positive date" or "sample size". What then did I tell you, as the reason for its likely older genesis than the other mentioned M1 markers? Do you understand the implications of what this is? Your non-sequitur about "sample size" tells me that there is some language barrier going on here.
quote:
Granted Af-24 is found among West Africans, but this alone can not support the origination of M1 in West Africa
Not that anybody, except for your mind playing tricks on you, said anything about a Western African origin of M1, BUT that haplotype alone could be sufficient to make that very case, were it to be entertained. The upstream haplotype hasn't yet been found anywhere else!
quote:
granted AF-24 is delieneated by DdeI site at 10394 and AluI site np at 10397, which points to its early association with hg LOd.
This is just ridiculous. Co-occurrence of the nucleotide sites described only appears in M haplogroups. Demonstrate how this is somehow duplicated in L0d without anybody else but yourself knowing about it!
quote:But we also have to remember that basal L3 motif is characterized by the same sites as are those of M macrohaplogroup.
It is a no-brainer that hg M will bear the generic motifs of L3, since this is the clade it came from. That's irrelevant. The nucleotides specific only to hg M is what's relevant. The sites you described for haplotype AF24 are not shared with other L3 markers, SAVE for hg M.
quote:
Given the fact that LOd , I believe is also found in West Africa appears to represent a possible expansion of hg M from East Africa to Senegal during Sangoan times since LOd dates back to 106kya, and we see the spread of of Sangoan artifacts from East Africa to West Africa between 100-80 kya.
Your confusion between hg M and L0d makes it clear that you are in no position to be making theories using a subject you barely understand. This is not the first indication of your inadequacies in the knowledge of molecular DNA fundamentals. For example, you couldn't interpret either the notation R-V88(xR1b1a)--which doesn't make sense, since R-V88 is R1b1a, or the notation Y(xR1b)*. You've even confused Y-DNA markers with mtDNA counterparts. Yet even with this fatal inadequacy, you were going to write a journal on the topic. These are FUNDAMENTALS that you ought to have a grasp on before you attempt to build complex narratives, let alone publish them in a journal!
I can't help but see that you don't quite catch the magnitude of the nucleotide specifics I just fed you on M1, because your reactions to them are way out of sync; they just don't follow!
quote: This is supported by the spread hg M1 to India, and Gonder (2006) finding that Tanzanian M1 hg cluster with the people of Oceania.
M1 barely exists in India and beyond that point in Asia. It's probably another effect of your mis-comprehension.
You know, it's not just that you don't seem to have molecular DNA fundamentals in the bag; it is your stubborn unwillingness to learn, when people are trying to help you, by correcting your glaring errors and teaching you how to go about approaching the field the right way. What you get from this site could be used to enhance your knowledge in genetics and place you in better footing to come up with complex narratives on population bio-history, which you could then proceed to publish without risk of public embarrassment in academia. But your big ego gets in the way, and you are steadfast at defending dogma -- not prepared to do away with an idea no matter how it doesn't hold against evidence; rather, you try to force evidence to work for your thesis. It doesn't work that way. Missed opportunity to learn!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Your argument favoring a West African origin
That's not my argument! Why do you feel the need to wrongly re-write something that was plainly put, which was this:
"I suspect that either M1 originated in the middle of the Sahara, OR its earliest expansions took place here rather than eastern Africa."
Do you know what the Sahara is? Do you know where its "middle" is?
quote: I do not base my identification of East Africa as the origin for M1 on belief. I base this conclusion on two main factors 1) the greatest diversity theory
You were already fed on the established specifics of hg M1 phylogenetic diversities respective to each region. How does your idea of "diversity" supposedly trump this?
quote: But the greatest diversity of M1 hgs are found in East Africa, this suggest that the origin of this haplogroup lie there instead of West Africa.
Your inadequate understanding of genetics is once again handicapping you to logically react to what you were just told. You were told that M1 has at least 2 major different branches in western Africa, one of which is further divided into 2 sub-branches vs. the only 1 major branch in eastern Africa, which branches further on. Do you have material to the contrary? Because if not, then you clearly don't know what you're doing.
quote: As I pointed out earlier, the small sample size for M1c, can not reliably be used to give a positive date for the appearance of hg M1c.
The specifics I gave you for what renders M1c older than M1b or M1a has nothing to do with either getting a "positive date" or "sample size". What then did I tell you, as the reason for its likely older genesis than the other mentioned M1 markers? Do you understand the implications of what this is? Your non-sequitur about "sample size" tells me that there is some language barrier going on here.
quote:
Granted Af-24 is found among West Africans, but this alone can not support the origination of M1 in West Africa
Not that anybody, except for your mind playing tricks on you, said anything about a Western African origin of M1, BUT that haplotype alone could be sufficient to make that very case, were it to be entertained. The upstream haplotype hasn't yet been found anywhere else!
quote:
granted AF-24 is delieneated by DdeI site at 10394 and AluI site np at 10397, which points to its early association with hg LOd.
This is just ridiculous. Co-occurrence of the nucleotide sites described only appears in M haplogroups. Demonstrate how this is somehow duplicated in L0d without anybody else but yourself knowing about it!
quote:But we also have to remember that basal L3 motif is characterized by the same sites as are those of M macrohaplogroup.
It is a no-brainer that hg M will bear the generic motifs of L3, since this is the clade it came from. That's irrelevant. The nucleotides specific only to hg M is what's relevant. The sites you described for haplotype AF24 are not shared with other L3 markers, SAVE for hg M.
quote:
Given the fact that LOd , I believe is also found in West Africa appears to represent a possible expansion of hg M from East Africa to Senegal during Sangoan times since LOd dates back to 106kya, and we see the spread of of Sangoan artifacts from East Africa to West Africa between 100-80 kya.
Your confusion between hg M and L0d makes it clear that you are in no position to be making theories using a subject you barely understand. This is not the first indication of your inadequacies in the knowledge of molecular DNA fundamentals. For example, you couldn't interpret either the notation R-V88(xR1b1a)--which doesn't make sense, since R-V88 is R1b1a, or the notation Y(xR1b)*. You've even confused Y-DNA markers with mtDNA counterparts. Yet even with this fatal inadequacy, you were going to write a journal on the topic. These are FUNDAMENTALS that you ought to have a grasp on before you attempt to build complex narratives, let alone publish them in a journal!
I can't help but see that you don't quite catch the magnitude of the nucleotide specifics I just fed you on M1, because your reactions to them are way out of sync; they just don't follow!
quote: This is supported by the spread hg M1 to India, and Gonder (2006) finding that Tanzanian M1 hg cluster with the people of Oceania.
M1 barely exists in India and beyond that point in Asia. It's probably another effect of your mis-comprehension.
You know, it's not just that you don't seem to have molecular DNA fundamentals in the bag; it is your stubborn unwillingness to learn, when people are trying to help you, by correcting your glaring errors and teaching you how to go about approaching the field the right way. What you get from this site could be used to enhance your knowledge in genetics and place you in better footing to come up with complex narratives on population bio-history, which you could then proceed to publish without risk of public embarrassment in academia. But your big ego gets in the way, and you are steadfast at defending dogma -- not prepared to do away with an idea no matter how it doesn't hold against evidence; rather, you try to force evidence to work for your thesis. It doesn't work that way. Missed opportunity to learn!
There is no confusion in my discussion. You can hold your views of a greater antiquity for M1c if you wish, but the entire argument is weak.
The frequency of M1 in India does not matter, the fact that it is found supports the recent spread of the Dravidians in India, which is supported by archaeology and linguistics. All of this supports an East African origin for M1, not the Sahara.
It is not ego that drive me it is science.Science is based on hypotheses testing. There is an abundance of archaeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence supporting an African origin for the Dravidians, as a result, as the Hindutva decline in control of the Academia in India the true genetic picture will become clear. All I am doing is laying the groundwork to make this change.
You spend your time parroting research instead of taking the research and extending the knowledge. While you mention AF-24 I investigate the influence of this haplotype in Africa.
While you follow the lead of the status quo, who is trying to explain European origins and deny any "recent" connection to African people I am discussing the expansion of African haplogroups in Africa to illustrate that these haplogroups probably expanded across Africa before the OOA exit 60kya.
Moreover while you debate the researchers here I debate them on their own ground that is why I am recognized at bioexperts:
I will admit that I am by no means a geneticist,and I will make mistakes. But at least I don't mind publishing my ideas in the public arena and letting the chips fall where they may. .
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Your argument is out of order, and you are out of order. LOL.
Saying my argument is week isn't going to make it so; demonstrate it, point by point, with counter material.
You claim that I parrot, yet nothing I've said above can be cited to any published journal! They come from intuition, being familiar with published work, and having a good grasp of the fundamentals of the field. Disagree? Cite the sources.
You, on the other hand, can barely read basic notations of genealogical terms, and yet, act like you can argue with people who do, and have even convinced yourself that you are fit to be publishing DNA journals.
Like I said, the problem is not that you make mistakes, which are usually on things that should be fundamental nonetheless, but rather, you are unwilling to be corrected on them, and hence learn. I've tried to correct you many times, but you only react with trying to bitch back and forth with me. You proceed to try and publish stuff that will undoubtedly turn you into a laughing stock. If you are okay with this direction where "the chips fall", then that's on you.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Your argument is out of order, and you are out of order. LOL.
Saying my argument is week isn't going to make it so; demonstrate it, point by point, with counter material.
You claim that I parrot, yet nothing I've said above can be cited to any published journal! They come from intuition, being familiar with published work, and having a good grasp of the fundamentals of the field. Disagree? Cite the sources.
You, on the other hand, can barely read basic notations of genealogical terms, and yet, act like you can argue with people who do, and have even convinced yourself that you are fit to be publishing DNA journals.
Like I said, the problem is not that you make mistakes, which are usually on things that should be fundamental nonetheless, but rather, you are unwilling to be corrected on them, and hence learn. I've tried to correct you many times, but you only react with trying to bitch back and forth with me. You proceed to try and publish stuff that will undoubtedly turn you into a laughing stock. If you are okay with this direction where "the chips fall", then that's on you.
I can prove I can argue with the experts given my papers published in PNAS and Bioessay.
If your work is so great cite one paper you have published and where you are cited in bioexperts as the author of a peer reviewed article in an establishment journal. I'm waiting...LOL.
.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The frequency of M1 in India does not matter, the fact that it is found supports the recent spread of the Dravidians in India, which is supported by archaeology and linguistics.
What frequency? It is barely present in India.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If your work is so great cite one paper you have published and where you are cited in bioexperts as the author of a peer reviewed article in an establishment journal. I'm waiting...LOL.
Logical fallacy as a deflection. In any case, if I were going to do that, then I wouldn't be using a pseudonym, now would I? You charged me with parroting. Prove it or that is to say, put up or shut up.
Furthermore, if you are not basing your own supposed ideas of DNA marker distribution on findings in published journals, then what are you basing them on, since you admit your are not a geneticist? Lies? Psychic powers?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If your work is so great cite one paper you have published and where you are cited in bioexperts as the author of a peer reviewed article in an establishment journal. I'm waiting...LOL.
Logical fallacy as a deflection. In any case, if I were going to do that, then I wouldn't be using a pseudonym, now would I? You charged me with parroting. Prove it or that is to say, put up or shut up.
Furthermore, if you are not basing your own supposed ideas of DNA marker distribution on findings in published journals, then what are you basing them on, since you admit your are not a geneticist? Lies? Psychic powers?
I can not prove you have any publications this is up to you. LOL.
.
.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
I didn't ask you to prove whether I've published something in a journal or not; that matter is just some fringe off-topic drivel of your's to deflect attention away from your inadequacies.
I asked you to prove your claptrap about me being the 'pawn' of "the status quo", and parroting. For instance, I don't recall any published journal making a case for the Saharan origin of M1, yet it is up there. I asked you to cite the sources, that I presumably parroted. You've given every kind of response, but that: providing proof for your baseless allegations.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The frequency of M1 in India does not matter, the fact that it is found supports the recent spread of the Dravidians in India, which is supported by archaeology and linguistics.
What frequency? It is barely present in India.
In the Kivisild et al 1999 study of Indian mtDNA around 15% carried haplogroup M1. See:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I didn't ask you to prove whether I've published something in a journal or not; that matter is just some fringe off-topic drivel of your's to deflect attention away from your inadequacies.
I asked you to prove your claptrap about me being the 'pawn' of "the status quo", and parroting. For instance, I don't recall any published journal making a case for the Saharan origin of M1, yet it is up there. I asked you to cite the sources, that I presumably parroted. You've given every kind of response, but that: providing proof for your baseless allegations.
I admit that I am no expert. But you claim expert knowledge in the field and that due to your own estimation of your worth in the field--I should accept your claims without reservation.This is an ego trip. Everyone here has a right to their own opinion about a subject.
I provided proof that you are a ego-tripping coward who claims to be the master of genetics--and fighting the status quo--without one published article to back up your hollow claims.LOL
We can disagree but, you have no right to think you are superior to anyone if you are afraid to write a paper and see if it can be published.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
This is outdated material, conducted at a time when the M haplogroup phylogeny was just beginning to unravel; at that time, M1 phylogeny was not well define or resolved, and their M1 is not the same thing as the marker we now recognize as M1. You were told this by myself and others several years back, when you first posted it. Yet here you are again, regurgitating the same falsehoods. This is precisely what I mean: you hang onto false and grossly misunderstood data, and refuse to learn the correct way. If you refused to be corrected, then you are only doing yourself a disservice, because you'll forever be handicapped in debating those who know the stuff. That's clearly the path you've chosen for yourself.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I admit that I am no expert.
Then why do you stubbornly try to bicker with those who know the stuff, when they are correcting you, and thereby giving you an opportunity to fine tune your understanding of the subject?
quote: But you claim expert knowledge in the field and that due to your own estimation of your worth in the field
You made this personal, making it about me. I did not brag about being or not being an expert. I provided my assessment on the subject of the thread, and you reacted to it, without any request from me. Since when is chiming in on a topic in a discussion board tantamount to proclaiming one's "estimation of one's worth"? If this is what you base your flimsy charges on, then you are guilty of what you accuse me; so would any other respondent in this entire board, for that matter. News flash: this is a discussion board; people post and chime in on topics. It's not rocket science.
quote: --I should accept your claims without reservation.This is an ego trip. Everyone here has a right to their own opinion about a subject.
Bullshit. I could careless if you accept my claims. Rather, I am requesting you to invalidate it. So far, you've just been bickering off-tangent, offering emotionalism in lieu of scholarly to-the-point responses.
quote:
I provided proof that you are a ego-tripping coward who claims to be the master of genetics--and fighting the status quo--without one published article to back up your hollow claims.LOL
On the contrary, you've provided proof that you are dishonest coward, who dabbles in topics he has no grasp on, but ones which he isn't even prepared to learn. I've effortlessly rebutted every gobbledygook you've thrown my way; where are your's short of senseless nagging like a house wife?
quote: We can disagree but, you have no right to think you are superior to anyone if you are afraid to write a paper and see if it can be published.
Correction: I think my argument is superior to your's, because you are incapacitated to offer coherent reciprocation. You are reduced to bitching and cursing, and offering a priori tales about people you've never met in person, like above.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
We can disagree but, you have no right to think you are superior to anyone if you are afraid to write a paper and see if it can be published.
You are living proof that publishing something doesn't certify you as a knowledgeable. You have printed stuff, and in fact, was going to "publish" erroneous and grossly mis-understood stuff on R haplogroup, if you hadn't been corrected here on ES. Would publishing that would-be worthless and erroneous material have proven that you are superior to those of us who corrected you here, whom you suppose are afraid of writing papers and seeing to it that it be published? See if you are bright enough to answer that.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Explorer, what is the value of spending time here? Is it that more people are reading it?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I admit that I am no expert.
Then why do you stubbornly try to bicker with those who know the stuff, when they are correcting you, and thereby giving you an opportunity to fine tune your understanding of the subject?
quote: But you claim expert knowledge in the field and that due to your own estimation of your worth in the field
You made this personal, making it about me. I did not brag about being or not being an expert. I provided my assessment on the subject of the thread, and you reacted to it, without any request from me. Since when is chiming in on a topic in a discussion board tantamount to proclaiming one's "estimation of one's worth"? If this is what you base your flimsy charges on, then you are guilty of what you accuse me; so would any other respondent in this entire board, for that matter. News flash: this is a discussion board; people post and chime in on topics. It's not rocket science.
quote: --I should accept your claims without reservation.This is an ego trip. Everyone here has a right to their own opinion about a subject.
Bullshit. I could careless if you accept my claims. Rather, I am requesting you to invalidate it. So far, you've just been bickering off-tangent, offering emotionalism in lieu of scholarly to-the-point responses.
quote:
I provided proof that you are a ego-tripping coward who claims to be the master of genetics--and fighting the status quo--without one published article to back up your hollow claims.LOL
On the contrary, you've provided proof that you are dishonest coward, who dabbles in topics he has no grasp on, but ones which he isn't even prepared to learn. I've effortlessly rebutted every gobbledygook you've thrown my way; where are your's short of senseless nagging like a house wife?
quote: We can disagree but, you have no right to think you are superior to anyone if you are afraid to write a paper and see if it can be published.
Correction: I think my argument is superior to your's, because you are incapacitated to offer coherent reciprocation. You are reduced to bitching and cursing, and offering a priori tales about people you've never met in person, like above.
You're such a liar Explorer. LOL. My arguments were based on science.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I disagree. I believe that M1 did originate in East Africa and it early expanded to West Africa . I don't believe that hg M1c is the oldest M1 clade.
The available sample for M1c was complete sequences from individuals found in Jordan, Senegal, and Spain. The small data set make a precise estimation of the errors in the data uncertain.
You're putting stock in an M1 origin in eastern Africa on the basis of a belief; I'm making my assessment based on nucleotide information. Here's why I have had second thought about M1 origins in eastern Africa, while not totally ruling it out:
1)Maghrebi M1 clades largely fall into different M1 sub-branches from those popular in eastern Africa.
2) a: M1c is largely western African, with no distribution yet, detected in eastern Africa. M1a on the other hand, is very popular in eastern Africa and generally absent in western Africa. M1b is heavily represented in eastern Africa than western Africa, but the sub-clades of this lineage in western Africa fall into distinct clusters from the eastern African counterparts, per Gonzalez et al. (2007)
b: M1c is largely absent in Europe, except for very low incidence in Spain, which is right next to the Maghreb, where it likely came from. This distribution parallels that of U6, wherein U6a also sporadically in low frequencies, is found in the so-called "Near East" but rare in Europe. Presence of U6a is again relegated to the Iberian peninsula in the European sub-continent, which is next door to the Maghreb.
c: On the other hand, M1a and M1b clades largely parallel the distribution of historic centers of either proto-Afrisan distribution and/or the agro-based Neolithic cultural package. This distribution is best approximated by U6a1 in the U6 phylogeny. U6a1, like M1a, is relatively rare in larger Europe, but has wider distribution in this department than U6a; likewise M1a has a relatively wider distribution than M1c in Europe, even though M1 generally has low frequencies in Europe. To get an idea on these distributions, see Kivisild et al. (2004) and Gonzalez et al. (2007) for examples. In a theme reminiscent of the M1 distribution pattern described by Kivisild et al. (2004), Gonzalez et al. (2007) assess that...
On the contrary, Iberian Peninsula has significant differences with the rest of Europe. In turn, West Asia conforms an homogenous continuum with East Africa and Europe excepting Iberian Peninsula and the latter is not significantly different of western Africa. All these results can be explained as due to the differential radiation of M1a from East Africa and M1c from Northwest Africa, the Iberian Peninsula being mostly influenced by Northwest Africa and the rest of Europe and western Asia by East Africa. - Gonzalez et al. (2007)
3)Even though western Africa has lower M1 frequency than eastern Africa, M1 has greater diversity in western Africa by comparison. In western Africa, we have M1c, M1abde, and M1b, along with the M1-like L3 AF24 haplotype; whereas, in eastern Africa M1 clades generally fall into either M1a or M1b.
4)M1c separates from the basal M1 node by much fewer [mutational] steps than M1a and M1b. This may point to its relatively older genesis when compared to the latter two.
Conclusions:
Because of these fundamental points, I suspect that either M1 originated in the middle of the Sahara, OR its earliest expansions took place here rather than eastern Africa.
As I noted above, M clades in the so-called "Near East" are derivatives of African M1 clades and south Asian M clades, rather than unique "Near Eastern" branches of either clades. This is in addition to its low frequencies, if not patchy distribution, in the "Near East". In my book, these facts rule the "Near East" out as a likely point of origin.
Your argument favoring a West African origin for hg M1 is compelling—but it does not gel with the evidence. I do not base my identification of East Africa as the origin for M1 on belief. I base this conclusion on two main factors 1) the greatest diversity theory and 2) the spread of the Sangoan culture from East to West Africa.
You are correct in claiming that the M1 haplogroups in East Africa, vary from those found in North Africa. But the greatest diversity of M1 hgs are found in East Africa, this suggest that the origin of this haplogroup lie there instead of West Africa.
As I pointed out earlier, the small sample size for M1c, can not reliably be used to give a positive date for the appearance of hg M1c. This suggest that it may not be the oldest M1 hg. Given the limited sample we can not conclusively say the date assigned to M1c is correct.
Granted Af-24 is found among West Africans, but this alone can not support the origination of M1 in West Africa granted AF-24 is delieneated by DdeI site at 10394 and AluI site np at 10397, which points to its early association with hg LOd. But we also have to remember that basal L3 motif is characterized by the same sites as are those of M macrohaplogroup. Given the fact that LOd , I believe is also found in West Africa appears to represent a possible expansion of hg M from East Africa to Senegal during Sangoan times since LOd dates back to 106kya, and we see the spread of of Sangoan artifacts from East Africa to West Africa between 100-80 kya.
Finally the small sample size, great diversity in M1 clades in East Africa suggest that the homeland of this haplogroup is east Africa. This is supported by the spread hg M1 to India, and Gonder (2006) finding that Tanzanian M1 hg cluster with the people of Oceania.
The presence of Af-24 in Senegal is best explained by the expansion of LOd during the Sangoan period.
I discuss the possible spread of Af-24 and hg LOd in my blog:
^Haha, Clyde on robotic broken-record mode; this is what becomes of him, when he is totally incapacitated from arguing further.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Explorer, what is the value of spending time here? Is it that more people are reading it?
I could ask you the same question. Why do you spend time here?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: This is outdated material, conducted at a time when the M haplogroup phylogeny was just beginning to unravel; at that time, M1 phylogeny was not well define or resolved, and their M1 is not the same thing as the marker we now recognize as M1. You were told this by myself and others several years back, when you first posted it. Yet here you are again, regurgitating the same falsehoods. This is precisely what I mean: you hang onto false and grossly misunderstood data, and refuse to learn the correct way. If you refused to be corrected, then you are only doing yourself a disservice, because you'll forever be handicapped in debating those who know the stuff. That's clearly the path you've chosen for yourself.
This article is just as relevant today as it was in 1999.
The Eastern African hg M1, HVS-I signature motif is 16,129, 16,189, 16,223, 16,249, and 16,311. In the Kivisild et al figure below we see the same motif. The mutations are shown less 16,000.
.
Here you can clearly see:mutations 129,189, 223 and 311, in Indian M1.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Those are not characteristic mutations peculiar to M1. You were told this years ago, and you still can't grasp it.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: King, the acknowledgement of an African origin for M1 does not necessarily indicate impartiality on the part of researchers. It just underlies that ignoring empirical data cannot be tenable in the long run, as there are conflicting published data with respect to the likes of Gonzalez et al.(2007). So, even if the authors continued to bury their heads in the sand, there will be data out there that conflicts with their own, along with accompanying evidence.
I just read the other articles in the book (several articles including the OP are apart of a book) and it doesn't seem as if they are arguing an African origin. Especially in one article where they say that M1 in Arabia indicating a East African influence is not incompatible with the back-migration hypothesis. Although I personally believe your reply to Gonzalez et al. is still valid, I don't think she changed her mind.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^A statement denying M1 origins in Africans needs to be more definitive than that, however, it is clear that people can have differing views within a single book compilation, especially considering the diverse array of contributors. It is also clear that by calling East African M1 "autochthonous", they indeed believe that M1 emerged in East Africa (so it appears that she HAS changed her mind).
There was another thread on reloaded where someone asked why a book ("In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory") would include Keita and Turner's essays whose views and methodologies are so distinct. I think they expect us to be critical thinkers and by exposing us to different views, we actually have a choice to make up our own minds.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
I see. When reading it, I thought It had looked as if that was based solely on the '99 article they referenced thereafter.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^A statement denying M1 origins in Africans needs to be more definitive than that, however, it is clear that people can have differing views within a single book compilation, especially considering the diverse array of contributors. It is also clearly that by calling East African M1 "autochthonous", they indeed believe that M1 emerged in East Africa (so it appears that she HAS changed her mind).
There was another thread on reloaded where someone asked why a book ("In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory") would include Keita and Turner's essays whose views and methodologies are so distinct. I think they expect us to be critical thinkers and by exposing us to different views, we actually have a choice to make up our own minds.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^That's actually a good point. I notice they even cite her last study (addressed by The Explorer) with respect to the current Asian-centric view. You may be right but the overall tone seems to agree with Quintana-Murci et al., (1999), and this could simply be because Gonzalez, who still holds the Asian view, is not the 1rst author of the study, hence her broader interpretation may not matter as much on the issue.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Yea, overall it seems to compliment Quintana-Murci et al. (1999).
I would hope an article comes out soon presenting new research on the origins of M1. They do say however that L3 lineages were not fully M lineages by the time of the OOA expansion. I think Kivislid changed his mind in regards to M also
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
There seems to be a bit of ambiguity on the origin thing. See bolded below. They say below that M and N were "carried out" or "left" based on early analysis. Later analysis still speaks of being "carried out." So which is it as far as the current argument? Were indeed M and N "carried out" of Africa? In what sense do they mean this?
quote:
"In a similar vein, the first phylogeographic analysis using complete mitochondrial DNA genomic sequences confirmed that only two founder female mitochondrial lineages, named M and N, left Africa about 70–50 ka. Based on the geographic distribution of these lineages with M predominant in southern and eastern regions of Eurasia and N mainly in western and central Eurasia, it was proposed that M lineages expanded by the coastal southern route and N by the continental northern route (Maca-Meyer et al., 2001). However, the late detection of ancestral N lineages in south and Southeast Asia (Palanichamy et al., 2004; Macaulay et al., 2005) and in Australia (Ingman and Gyllensten, 2003) weakened the mitochondrial hypothesis (Tanaka et al., 2004). In addition, as the founder ages of M and N are very similar, it was hypothesized that both lineages were carried out in a unique migration (Forster et al., 2001), and, even more, that the southern coastal trail was the only route, being the western Eurasian colonization the result of an early offshoot of the southern radiation in India (Oppenheimer, 2003; Macaulay et al., 2005)."
^^Since Kivisild did this in 1999, is the current status then that M1 is NOT 15% in India, but something much smaller? Greater? What as to India?
^^Assuming for a moment the back migration theory, from whence would it have taken place? M is rare in Europe and the "Middle East" so they would have added little in any "back migration", but tropical India seems to be the locus of M divesity. SO then could the claimed "back migrants" have likely flowed back from tropical India? Ain't saying that this is so, just throwing out the questions.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Well, it looks like they present two scenarios. One, that M evolved in Africa, another which suggests the OOA migrants "were not yet ripe M and N lineages but their L3 ancestors". The article cited in your image states that M and N evolved outside of Africa and then L3 was lost (genetic drift I would guess in this case)
quote:but tropical India seems to be the locus of M divesity. SO then could the claimed "back migrants" have likely flowed back from tropical India? Ain't saying that this is so, just throwing out the questions.
Well, in regards to M1 there would be no evidence because an ancestor to M1 has not been found in India.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: There seems to be a bit of ambiguity on the origin thing. See bolded below. They say below that M and N were "carried out" or "left" based on early analysis. Later analysis still speaks of being "carried out." So which is it as far as the current argument? Were indeed M and N "carried out" of Africa? In what sense do they mean this?
quote:
"In a similar vein, the first phylogeographic analysis using complete mitochondrial DNA genomic sequences confirmed that only two founder female mitochondrial lineages, named M and N, left Africa about 70–50 ka. Based on the geographic distribution of these lineages with M predominant in southern and eastern regions of Eurasia and N mainly in western and central Eurasia, it was proposed that M lineages expanded by the coastal southern route and N by the continental northern route (Maca-Meyer et al., 2001). However, the late detection of ancestral N lineages in south and Southeast Asia (Palanichamy et al., 2004; Macaulay et al., 2005) and in Australia (Ingman and Gyllensten, 2003) weakened the mitochondrial hypothesis (Tanaka et al., 2004). In addition, as the founder ages of M and N are very similar, it was hypothesized that both lineages were carried out in a unique migration (Forster et al., 2001), and, even more, that the southern coastal trail was the only route, being the western Eurasian colonization the result of an early offshoot of the southern radiation in India (Oppenheimer, 2003; Macaulay et al., 2005)."
^^Since Kivisild did this in 1999, is the current status then that M1 is NOT 15% in India, but something much smaller? Greater? What as to India?
^^Assuming for a moment the back migration theory, from whence would it have taken place? M is rare in Europe and the "Middle East" so they would have added little in any "back migration", but tropical India seems to be the locus of M divesity. SO then could the claimed "back migrants" have likely flowed back from tropical India? Ain't saying that this is so, just throwing out the questions.
This is impossible. The Dravidians were part of the C-Group people and only arrived in India after 2800BC.
.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
This is impossible. The Dravidians were part of the C-Group people and only arrived in India after 2800BC.
What is the breakdown of Haplogroup "M" among the Dravidians? Is it your argument that they would have derived "M" from an out-migrating African ancestral group that left East Africa and eventually founded the early urban civilizations there? Would this include M1? If so what is today's Dravidian distribution of M1?
Cavalli-Sforza argues for the Dravidians being preceded by "an Austro-Asiatic people" followed by Indo-European speaking migrants. Exactly where these claimed Indo-European speakers came from is unknown. Does your approach forsee gene variants hiving off the original OOA migrants, into Austro- Asiatic groups, then on into India without the need for any additional Indo-Euro speaking "migrants"?
Also, if the Dravidians are descendants of the C-Group what kind of time frames for migration are you proposing? What would be the start time for such migration by the C-group and approximately how long did such proposed migrations take place before the elements of the distinctive Dravidian culture was in place?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Zarahan
quote:
Also, if the Dravidians are descendants of the C-Group what kind of time frames for migration are you proposing? What would be the start time for such migration by the C-group and approximately how long did such proposed migrations take place before the elements of the distinctive Dravidian culture was in place?
The Dravidians and Mande began to migrate out of Africa by 2800BC. They were part of the C-Group. They first settled in Iran and from here expanded into Central Asia and the Indus Valley.
B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.
. B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa . I call these people the Proto Saharans. I discuss their history here:
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).
There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1) .
There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups is called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .
Up until the South Indian megalithic period the Dravidians continued to use black-and-red ware and Libyco-Berber/Indus Valley writing. Under the influence of the Ethiopians the script changed into what it is today. The architecture of the Dravidians is an ornamented pyramid with statues and other featured added within the construction of the pyramid.
The architecture makes it clear that they have remained faithful to classical pyramid style.
Dravidians have a unique culture—but it is analogous to many culture presently found in Africa.
Clyde, the problem I see here is that you are using a single genetic marker to argue for a recent migration of the Dravidian peoples to India. In any event, M is s sign of early colonization by humans after they left Africa:
quote:Archaeological evidence advocates the settlement of India by modern humans, using Middle Palaeolithic tools, during the Late Pleistocene (1–5). The large number of deep-rooting, Indian-specific mtDNA lineages of macro haplogroups M and N, whose presence cannot be explained by a recent introduction from neighboring regions (6), is consistent with the archaeological data. These two lines of evidence suggest that the initial settlement, followed by local differentiation, has left a predominantly Late Pleistocene genetic signature in the maternal heritage of India (7–11). The initial settlement of South Asia, between 40,000 and 70,000 years ago, was most likely over the southern route from Africa because haplogroup M, which is the most frequent mtDNA component in India, is virtually absent in the Near East and Southwest Asia (6, 11–14).
--Sanghamitra Sahoo et al. 2006
From the above, you have the authors practically saying that M can not be associated with recent introduction because of all the deep-rooting clades as they are Indian specific. Not to mention the sheer frequency we see in India which is not indicative of recent introduction but rather a quick dispersal of Modern Humans who colonized India relatively fast.
Then you have R1a1a which expansion time correlates with the recession of the last glacial maximum and it reaches high frequencies in Dravidian speakers:
quote:Indo-Europeans
A final comment can be made concerning the relationship between R1a phylogeography and contested origin of Indo-Europeans that is generally, though not solely, attributed to either Anatolia, the South Caucasus or the North Pontic-Caspian regions (Gray and Atkinson56 and references therein). Haplogroup R1a1a occurs in all three of these areas and beyond at informative frequencies (Figure 1). Consistent with its wide geographic spread, the coalescent time estimates of R1a1a correlate with the timing of the recession of the Last Glacial Maximum and predate the upper bound of the age estimate of the Indo-European language tree. Although virtually absent among Romance, Celtic and Semitic speakers, the presence and overall frequency of haplogroup R1a does not distinguish Indo-Iranian, Finno-Ugric, Dravidianor Turkic speakers from each other. Some contrast, however, is unfolding in its subclade frequencies. Although the R1a1a* frequency and diversity is highest among Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers, the subhaplogroup R1a1a7-M458 frequency peaks among Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples. Although this distinction by geography is not directly informative about the internal divisions of these separate language families, it might bear some significance for assessing dispersal models that have been proposed to explain the spread of Indo-Aryan languages in South Asia as it would exclude any significant patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, at least since the mid-Holocene period.
--Underhill et al. 2010
So we have R1a1a with highest diversity and frequency in Dravidians which would signify longevity in the region (drift is ruled out by the fact that Drift causes a lack of genetic diversity). So I am not seeing a recent spread of Dravidians into India via Africans by the genetic evidence nor the archaeological evidence. Also to note from the first cited article:
quote:Phylogeography of the major Y-chromosomal haplogroups in India, genetic distance, and admixture analyses all indicate that the recent external contribution to Dravidian- and Hindi-speaking caste groups has been low. The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward.
--Sanghamitra Sahoo et al. 2006
More:
quote:Conclusion Our study suggests that the vast majority (>98%) of the Indian maternal gene pool that consists of the Dravidian and Indo-European speakers is genetically more similar, and received only minor gene flow with the recent invasions from both the West and the East, since their initial late Pleistocene settlement. On the other hand, the Indian Y-chromosome lineages show obvious difference in their distribution pattern among the tribal and caste populations. However, the lower castes, (backward classes and scheduled castes, as per the Indian Constitution) show striking similarity with the Indian tribal populations. These groups, which constitute more than 85% of the hierarchical Hindu caste system, have the indigenous M52, M95 and M89, as their major Y lineages. This result suggests that the Indian lower castes are genetically more associated with the tribal populations, than to the higher castes, an evocative of their tribal origins. The presence of these native haplogroups in the Indo-European nomads, who arrived ~3500 ybp and established themselves as upper castes, might be due to the recent admixture with the local populations. The presence of the so called west/ central Asian lineages like J2, R1 and R2 in most of the endogamous tribal populations, and its higher STR diversity indicates its presence in the sub-continent much before the arrival of the Indo-European pastoralists. In short, the impact of their arrival in the Indian sub-continent is rather social and political, than genetic.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
There is no problem in a recent African origin for the Dravidians. First of all, I am not depending on a single genetic marker to support the view that the Dravidians recently came to India I am using the abundance of archaeogical, linguistic and anthropological evidence supporting this fact.
The so called ancient lineages in India are not found among Dravidian speakers they are found among the Munda or Austro-Asiatic people.
In the Kivisild 1999 study while, 22% of the Dravidian speakers belonged to hg M2, 15% belonged to hg M1. This makes M1 a significant marker. The Hindutva (Hindu Nationalist) have tried to erase the evidence of M1 in India to make it appear Indo-Aryan speakers were in India during Harappan times.
Ray and Excoffier (2009) argue that to build a reliable model of population dispersal researchers must combine genetic data and archaeological (or historical and linguistic) data . Using the method of research advocated by Ray and Excoffier demands that we reconsider the origin of the Dravidian and Aryan populations of India.
The methods of Ray and Excoffier (2009) are in conformity with basic archaeogenetic research methods. The Archaeogentic method suggest that coupling the archaeological data with genetic data is a powerful way to infer population migration .
Geneticists maintain that the Dravidian speakers are aboriginal to India (Rajkumar et al, 2005; Thangaraj et al, 2006). These researchers base this conclusion solely on the analysis of genetic data. They support this view by showing how the Indian mtDNA belonging to the M haplomacrogroup must have developed in situ in India (Rajkumar et al, 2005). The alleged indigenous origin of the Dravidian and Aryan people led Rosenberg et al (2006) to argue that there is a low level of genetic divergence across geographically and linguistically diverse Indian populations based on their analysis solely of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers from India .
Use of genetic evidence alone to inform population movements in India conflicts with the proper population genetic method advocated by Ray and Excoffier (2009). This is especially true when the genetic data is incongruent with the archaeological data. This is what makes the archaeogenetic method to study ancient population movements a powerful tool to determine ancient Indian demographics.
Researchers have noted the absence of congruency between Indian population genetics and archaeological research (Tripathy & Reddy, 2008 ) As a result research into India population studies are not supported by historical, archaeological and linguistic evidences (Winters,2008). The archeological evidence indicated that the first settlers of India were probably Negritos and Austro-Asiatic, then Dravidian speakers and finally Southeast Asians (Cardaux et al, 2003; Kumar et al ,2007).
The HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium (HPASC, 2009) (Mapping Human Genetic Diversity in Asia ) Indian Genome Variation Consortium (IGVC,2009), and has done much to bring the genetic data for India in line with the archaeological, anthropological and linguistic data . The IGVC (2008) study of Indian populations found statistically significant patterns of genetic differentiation between Indian populations. In this study the researchers noted that the genetic evidence demonstrated genetic heterogeneity between Dravidian and Indo-European speaking populations (
There is mtDNA data uniting Africans and Dravidians.
Can Parallel Mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M haplogroup http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?hg07022
This makes it clear Dravidians do not have an in situ origin in India.They belonged to the C-group people.
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Sorry, wanted to reply on page two:
Clyde, the problem I see here is that you are using a single genetic marker to argue for a recent migration of the Dravidian peoples to India. In any event, M is s sign of early colonization by humans after they left Africa:
quote:Archaeological evidence advocates the settlement of India by modern humans, using Middle Palaeolithic tools, during the Late Pleistocene (1–5). The large number of deep-rooting, Indian-specific mtDNA lineages of macro haplogroups M and N, whose presence cannot be explained by a recent introduction from neighboring regions (6), is consistent with the archaeological data. These two lines of evidence suggest that the initial settlement, followed by local differentiation, has left a predominantly Late Pleistocene genetic signature in the maternal heritage of India (7–11). The initial settlement of South Asia, between 40,000 and 70,000 years ago, was most likely over the southern route from Africa because haplogroup M, which is the most frequent mtDNA component in India, is virtually absent in the Near East and Southwest Asia (6, 11–14).
--Sanghamitra Sahoo et al. 2006
From the above, you have the authors practically saying that M can not be associated with recent introduction because of all the deep-rooting clades as they are Indian specific. Not to mention the sheer frequency we see in India which is not indicative of recent introduction but rather a quick dispersal of Modern Humans who colonized India relatively fast.
Then you have R1a1a which expansion time correlates with the recession of the last glacial maximum and it reaches high frequencies in Dravidian speakers:
quote:Indo-Europeans
A final comment can be made concerning the relationship between R1a phylogeography and contested origin of Indo-Europeans that is generally, though not solely, attributed to either Anatolia, the South Caucasus or the North Pontic-Caspian regions (Gray and Atkinson56 and references therein). Haplogroup R1a1a occurs in all three of these areas and beyond at informative frequencies (Figure 1). Consistent with its wide geographic spread, the coalescent time estimates of R1a1a correlate with the timing of the recession of the Last Glacial Maximum and predate the upper bound of the age estimate of the Indo-European language tree. Although virtually absent among Romance, Celtic and Semitic speakers, the presence and overall frequency of haplogroup R1a does not distinguish Indo-Iranian, Finno-Ugric, Dravidianor Turkic speakers from each other. Some contrast, however, is unfolding in its subclade frequencies. Although the R1a1a* frequency and diversity is highest among Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers, the subhaplogroup R1a1a7-M458 frequency peaks among Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples. Although this distinction by geography is not directly informative about the internal divisions of these separate language families, it might bear some significance for assessing dispersal models that have been proposed to explain the spread of Indo-Aryan languages in South Asia as it would exclude any significant patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, at least since the mid-Holocene period.
--Underhill et al. 2010
So we have R1a1a with highest diversity and frequency in Dravidians which would signify longevity in the region (drift is ruled out by the fact that Drift causes a lack of genetic diversity). So I am not seeing a recent spread of Dravidians into India via Africans by the genetic evidence nor the archaeological evidence. Also to note from the first cited article:
quote:Phylogeography of the major Y-chromosomal haplogroups in India, genetic distance, and admixture analyses all indicate that the recent external contribution to Dravidian- and Hindi-speaking caste groups has been low. The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward.
--Sanghamitra Sahoo et al. 2006
More:
quote:Conclusion Our study suggests that the vast majority (>98%) of the Indian maternal gene pool that consists of the Dravidian and Indo-European speakers is genetically more similar, and received only minor gene flow with the recent invasions from both the West and the East, since their initial late Pleistocene settlement. On the other hand, the Indian Y-chromosome lineages show obvious difference in their distribution pattern among the tribal and caste populations. However, the lower castes, (backward classes and scheduled castes, as per the Indian Constitution) show striking similarity with the Indian tribal populations. These groups, which constitute more than 85% of the hierarchical Hindu caste system, have the indigenous M52, M95 and M89, as their major Y lineages. This result suggests that the Indian lower castes are genetically more associated with the tribal populations, than to the higher castes, an evocative of their tribal origins. The presence of these native haplogroups in the Indo-European nomads, who arrived ~3500 ybp and established themselves as upper castes, might be due to the recent admixture with the local populations. The presence of the so called west/ central Asian lineages like J2, R1 and R2 in most of the endogamous tribal populations, and its higher STR diversity indicates its presence in the sub-continent much before the arrival of the Indo-European pastoralists. In short, the impact of their arrival in the Indian sub-continent is rather social and political, than genetic.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Calabooz
quote: So we have R1a1a with highest diversity and frequency in Dravidians which would signify longevity in the region (drift is ruled out by the fact that Drift causes a lack of genetic diversity). So I am not seeing a recent spread of Dravidians into India via Africans by the genetic evidence nor the archaeological evidence.
R1 originated in Africa. Since the Dravidians originated in Africa finding Rla in India says nothing about its antiquity in India.
Please cite the archaeological data supporting your position.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Hey Clyde. I'll respond to your longer post in a bit, but to answer the following:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Calabooz
quote: So we have R1a1a with highest diversity and frequency in Dravidians which would signify longevity in the region (drift is ruled out by the fact that Drift causes a lack of genetic diversity). So I am not seeing a recent spread of Dravidians into India via Africans by the genetic evidence nor the archaeological evidence.
Please cite the archaeological data supporting your position.
It was in the article I cited wherein it was said that the genetic data they presented agreed with the archaeological record on the colonization of India.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Hey Clyde. I'll respond to your longer post in a bit, but to answer the following:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Calabooz
quote: So we have R1a1a with highest diversity and frequency in Dravidians which would signify longevity in the region (drift is ruled out by the fact that Drift causes a lack of genetic diversity). So I am not seeing a recent spread of Dravidians into India via Africans by the genetic evidence nor the archaeological evidence.
Please cite the archaeological data supporting your position.
It was in the article I cited wherein it was said that the genetic data they presented agreed with the archaeological record on the colonization of India.
I read this article. they cite no archaeological data because there is none. If you have any please cite the material.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:There is no problem in a recent African origin for the Dravidians.
I'm curious. Why do you think you are the only scholar to find a connection so far?
quote:First of all, I am not depending on a single genetic marker to support the view that the Dravidians recently came to India I am using the abundance of archaeogical, linguistic and anthropological evidence supporting this fact.
I understand that you are basing your claims on some other evidence. However, I was referring exclusively to the issue of genetics. M can not be seen as "Dravidian" migrations since it was introduced 50-70kya. Y chromosome R1a1a* also has high frequencies and diversity in Dravidians. So not indicative of recent introduction or even admixture for that matter.
quote:The so called ancient lineages in India are not found among Dravidian speakers they are found among the Munda or Austro-Asiatic people.
What do you mean? M is an ancient lineage that was one of the founder OOA lineages, not recent. R1a1a* IS in high frequencies in Dravidian speakers. I repeat:
quote:Indo-Europeans
A final comment can be made concerning the relationship between R1a phylogeography and contested origin of Indo-Europeans that is generally, though not solely, attributed to either Anatolia, the South Caucasus or the North Pontic-Caspian regions (Gray and Atkinson56 and references therein). Haplogroup R1a1a occurs in all three of these areas and beyond at informative frequencies (Figure 1). Consistent with its wide geographic spread, the coalescent time estimates of R1a1a correlate with the timing of the recession of the Last Glacial Maximum and predate the upper bound of the age estimate of the Indo-European language tree. Although virtually absent among Romance, Celtic and Semitic speakers, the presence and overall frequency of haplogroup R1a does not distinguish Indo-Iranian, Finno-Ugric, **Dravidian** or Turkic speakers from each other. Some contrast, however, is unfolding in its subclade frequencies. Although the R1a1a* frequency and diversity is highest among Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers, the subhaplogroup R1a1a7-M458 frequency peaks among Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples. Although this distinction by geography is not directly informative about the internal divisions of these separate language families, it might bear some significance for assessing dispersal models that have been proposed to explain the spread of Indo-Aryan languages in South Asia as it would exclude any significant patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, at least since the mid-Holocene period.
--Underhill et al. 2010
So yes, it is found at highest frequencies in Dravidians as well as greatest diversity.
quote:In the Kivisild 1999 study while, 22% of the Dravidian speakers belonged to hg M2, 15% belonged to hg M1. This makes M1 a significant marker. The Hindutva (Hindu Nationalist) have tried to erase the evidence of M1 in India to make it appear Indo-Aryan speakers were in India during Harappan times.
The Explorer explained this to you last page man... why don't you get it yet?
quote:Ray and Excoffier (2009) argue that to build a reliable model of population dispersal researchers must combine genetic data and archaeological (or historical and linguistic) data . Using the method of research advocated by Ray and Excoffier demands that we reconsider the origin of the Dravidian and Aryan populations of India.
Just looked through his 2009 articles (all of them) could find no mention of Dravidian in any of them. Cite the article and give me the title. I am also looking through his 2010 articles to be sure.
quote: Geneticists maintain that the Dravidian speakers are aboriginal to India (Rajkumar et al, 2005; Thangaraj et al, 2006). These researchers base this conclusion solely on the analysis of genetic data. They support this view by showing how the Indian mtDNA belonging to the M haplomacrogroup must have developed in situ in India (Rajkumar et al, 2005). The alleged indigenous origin of the Dravidian and Aryan people led Rosenberg et al (2006) to argue that there is a low level of genetic divergence across geographically and linguistically diverse Indian populations based on their analysis solely of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers from India .
Use of genetic evidence alone to inform population movements in India conflicts with the proper population genetic method advocated by Ray and Excoffier (2009). This is especially true when the genetic data is incongruent with the archaeological data. This is what makes the archaeogenetic method to study ancient population movements a powerful tool to determine ancient Indian demographics.
Researchers have noted the absence of congruency between Indian population genetics and archaeological research (Tripathy & Reddy, 2008 ) As a result research into India population studies are not supported by historical, archaeological and linguistic evidences (Winters,2008). The archeological evidence indicated that the first settlers of India were probably Negritos and Austro-Asiatic, then Dravidian speakers and finally Southeast Asians (Cardaux et al, 2003; Kumar et al ,2007).
So. you're saying that genetic research in India is wrong? Cite the 'Ray and Excoffier' paper exactly, word by word. The first settlers of India were Africans of course, but this happened 50-70kya ago. It wasn't a recent event.
quote:The HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium (HPASC, 2009) (Mapping Human Genetic Diversity in Asia ) Indian Genome Variation Consortium (IGVC,2009), and has done much to bring the genetic data for India in line with the archaeological, anthropological and linguistic data . The IGVC (2008) study of Indian populations found statistically significant patterns of genetic differentiation between Indian populations. In this study the researchers noted that the genetic evidence demonstrated genetic heterogeneity between Dravidian and Indo-European speaking populations
Upper caste populations, maybe. Because they are more recent. However, their presence was apparently more social and political than genetic. What's your point exactly?
quote:Conclusion Our study suggests that the vast majority (>98%) of the Indian maternal gene pool that consists of the Dravidian and Indo-European speakers is genetically more similar, and received only minor gene flow with the recent invasions from both the West and the East, since their initial late Pleistocene settlement. On the other hand, the Indian Y-chromosome lineages show obvious difference in their distribution pattern among the tribal and caste populations. However, the lower castes, (backward classes and scheduled castes, as per the Indian Constitution) show striking similarity with the Indian tribal populations. These groups, which constitute more than 85% of the hierarchical Hindu caste system, have the indigenous M52, M95 and M89, as their major Y lineages. This result suggests that the Indian lower castes are genetically more associated with the tribal populations, than to the higher castes, an evocative of their tribal origins. The presence of these native haplogroups in the Indo-European nomads, who arrived ~3500 ybp and established themselves as upper castes, might be due to the recent admixture with the local populations. The presence of the so called west/ central Asian lineages like J2, R1 and R2 in most of the endogamous tribal populations, and its higher STR diversity indicates its presence in the sub-continent much before the arrival of the Indo-European pastoralists. In short, the impact of their arrival in the Indian sub-continent is rather social and political, than genetic.
--Ismail Thanseem et al. 2006
All of the PDF files you directed me to were all written by YOU. Your critique of Sun et al. hardly even made any sense. And nothing you wrote refuted the fact that Sun et al. found no relationship with Indian M haplogroups.
quote:This makes it clear Dravidians do not have an in situ origin in India.They belonged to the C-group people.
All I see are a bunch of article that you wrote. You didn't provide any citations from the other articles you referenced, and you are the only one promoting this as far as I can see.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:I read this article. they cite no archaeological data because there is none. If you have any please cite the material.
If you disagree than refute it. BTW, the did cite archaeological studies. five of them (citations 1-5).
The videos are well done, even if I disagree. What software do you use anyways?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
It is clear you have not read my articles. They are full of citations proving that the Dravidians are of African origin. I have yet to see you dispute any of my citations therein which point to an African origin for the Dravidians.
Given the support of the African origin of the Dravidians, you should be asking the question why do the Europeans and Hindutva researchers deny this reality.
My work is supported by Dravidian scholars who were the first to see a relationship between Africans and themselves. If you are waiting for an article written by a European that supports this claim that is your problem.
It is clear that you do not respect research done by non-Europeans. If you are waiting, for Europeans, to support a position before you entertain it, you are a sad individual. As I stated earlier you have not provided any archaeological evidence supporting your claim of an in situ origin for the Dravidian people.
I have presented y-chromosome, sickle anemia, 9bp, HLA, and the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1, in addition to archaeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence yet you maintain I have only presented a single marker supporting my claim.
You present nothing to support your proposition, except the diversity of Rla, which you claim originated in India 50ky, yet you don't have any evidence to support this claim except the statements of a few Hindutva researchers and their teacher Kivisild.While I presented abundance of evidence showing that the Dravidians were still in Africa during the C-Group period, and that they don't appear in India until 2800BC.
Finally, if the genetic data is not supported by correseponding linguistic, anthropological, archaeological evidence it is just an opinion. All of my work is supported by this additional data.
The dates for this or that haplogroup are just conjectures based on statistical programs. None of these dates can be backed up with any archaeogenetic data.
If you don't have any archaeological evidence to back up the claims you made just admit it.
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:There is no problem in a recent African origin for the Dravidians.
I'm curious. Why do you think you are the only scholar to find a connection so far?
quote:First of all, I am not depending on a single genetic marker to support the view that the Dravidians recently came to India I am using the abundance of archaeogical, linguistic and anthropological evidence supporting this fact.
I understand that you are basing your claims on some other evidence. However, I was referring exclusively to the issue of genetics. M can not be seen as "Dravidian" migrations since it was introduced 50-70kya. Y chromosome R1a1a* also has high frequencies and diversity in Dravidians. So not indicative of recent introduction or even admixture for that matter.
quote:The so called ancient lineages in India are not found among Dravidian speakers they are found among the Munda or Austro-Asiatic people.
What do you mean? M is an ancient lineage that was one of the founder OOA lineages, not recent. R1a1a* IS in high frequencies in Dravidian speakers. I repeat:
quote:Indo-Europeans
A final comment can be made concerning the relationship between R1a phylogeography and contested origin of Indo-Europeans that is generally, though not solely, attributed to either Anatolia, the South Caucasus or the North Pontic-Caspian regions (Gray and Atkinson56 and references therein). Haplogroup R1a1a occurs in all three of these areas and beyond at informative frequencies (Figure 1). Consistent with its wide geographic spread, the coalescent time estimates of R1a1a correlate with the timing of the recession of the Last Glacial Maximum and predate the upper bound of the age estimate of the Indo-European language tree. Although virtually absent among Romance, Celtic and Semitic speakers, the presence and overall frequency of haplogroup R1a does not distinguish Indo-Iranian, Finno-Ugric, **Dravidian** or Turkic speakers from each other. Some contrast, however, is unfolding in its subclade frequencies. Although the R1a1a* frequency and diversity is highest among Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers, the subhaplogroup R1a1a7-M458 frequency peaks among Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples. Although this distinction by geography is not directly informative about the internal divisions of these separate language families, it might bear some significance for assessing dispersal models that have been proposed to explain the spread of Indo-Aryan languages in South Asia as it would exclude any significant patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, at least since the mid-Holocene period.
--Underhill et al. 2010
So yes, it is found at highest frequencies in Dravidians as well as greatest diversity.
quote:In the Kivisild 1999 study while, 22% of the Dravidian speakers belonged to hg M2, 15% belonged to hg M1. This makes M1 a significant marker. The Hindutva (Hindu Nationalist) have tried to erase the evidence of M1 in India to make it appear Indo-Aryan speakers were in India during Harappan times.
The Explorer explained this to you last page man... why don't you get it yet?
quote:Ray and Excoffier (2009) argue that to build a reliable model of population dispersal researchers must combine genetic data and archaeological (or historical and linguistic) data . Using the method of research advocated by Ray and Excoffier demands that we reconsider the origin of the Dravidian and Aryan populations of India.
Just looked through his 2009 articles (all of them) could find no mention of Dravidian in any of them. Cite the article and give me the title. I am also looking through his 2010 articles to be sure.
quote: Geneticists maintain that the Dravidian speakers are aboriginal to India (Rajkumar et al, 2005; Thangaraj et al, 2006). These researchers base this conclusion solely on the analysis of genetic data. They support this view by showing how the Indian mtDNA belonging to the M haplomacrogroup must have developed in situ in India (Rajkumar et al, 2005). The alleged indigenous origin of the Dravidian and Aryan people led Rosenberg et al (2006) to argue that there is a low level of genetic divergence across geographically and linguistically diverse Indian populations based on their analysis solely of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers from India .
Use of genetic evidence alone to inform population movements in India conflicts with the proper population genetic method advocated by Ray and Excoffier (2009). This is especially true when the genetic data is incongruent with the archaeological data. This is what makes the archaeogenetic method to study ancient population movements a powerful tool to determine ancient Indian demographics.
Researchers have noted the absence of congruency between Indian population genetics and archaeological research (Tripathy & Reddy, 2008 ) As a result research into India population studies are not supported by historical, archaeological and linguistic evidences (Winters,2008). The archeological evidence indicated that the first settlers of India were probably Negritos and Austro-Asiatic, then Dravidian speakers and finally Southeast Asians (Cardaux et al, 2003; Kumar et al ,2007).
So. you're saying that genetic research in India is wrong? Cite the 'Ray and Excoffier' paper exactly, word by word. The first settlers of India were Africans of course, but this happened 50-70kya ago. It wasn't a recent event.
quote:The HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium (HPASC, 2009) (Mapping Human Genetic Diversity in Asia ) Indian Genome Variation Consortium (IGVC,2009), and has done much to bring the genetic data for India in line with the archaeological, anthropological and linguistic data . The IGVC (2008) study of Indian populations found statistically significant patterns of genetic differentiation between Indian populations. In this study the researchers noted that the genetic evidence demonstrated genetic heterogeneity between Dravidian and Indo-European speaking populations
Upper caste populations, maybe. Because they are more recent. However, their presence was apparently more social and political than genetic. What's your point exactly?
quote:Conclusion Our study suggests that the vast majority (>98%) of the Indian maternal gene pool that consists of the Dravidian and Indo-European speakers is genetically more similar, and received only minor gene flow with the recent invasions from both the West and the East, since their initial late Pleistocene settlement. On the other hand, the Indian Y-chromosome lineages show obvious difference in their distribution pattern among the tribal and caste populations. However, the lower castes, (backward classes and scheduled castes, as per the Indian Constitution) show striking similarity with the Indian tribal populations. These groups, which constitute more than 85% of the hierarchical Hindu caste system, have the indigenous M52, M95 and M89, as their major Y lineages. This result suggests that the Indian lower castes are genetically more associated with the tribal populations, than to the higher castes, an evocative of their tribal origins. The presence of these native haplogroups in the Indo-European nomads, who arrived ~3500 ybp and established themselves as upper castes, might be due to the recent admixture with the local populations. The presence of the so called west/ central Asian lineages like J2, R1 and R2 in most of the endogamous tribal populations, and its higher STR diversity indicates its presence in the sub-continent much before the arrival of the Indo-European pastoralists. In short, the impact of their arrival in the Indian sub-continent is rather social and political, than genetic.
--Ismail Thanseem et al. 2006
All of the PDF files you directed me to were all written by YOU. Your critique of Sun et al. hardly even made any sense. And nothing you wrote refuted the fact that Sun et al. found no relationship with Indian M haplogroups.
quote:This makes it clear Dravidians do not have an in situ origin in India.They belonged to the C-group people.
All I see are a bunch of article that you wrote. You didn't provide any citations from the other articles you referenced, and you are the only one promoting this as far as I can see.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:It is clear you have not read my articles. They are full of citations proving that the Dravidians are of African origin. I have yet to see you dispute any of my citations therein which point to an African origin for the Dravidians.
No Clyde, they are full of citations that you interpret to support your case. If you cannot directly cite an article instead of throwing around links that you expect me to try and find what you want me to see, then you don't have an argument.
quote:Given the support of the African origin of the Dravidians, you should be asking the question why do the Europeans and Hindutva researchers deny this reality.
Because there is no evidence supported by the other numerous works.
quote:It is clear that you do not respect research done by non-Europeans. If you are waiting, for Europeans, to support a position before you entertain it, you are a sad individual.
To the contrary, I respect research that is valid. European researchers are usually Biased on several counts, so why you would accuse me of 'waiting for Europeans' is beyond me. In case you hadn't noticed, not everything I reference consists of all European descent individuals.
quote:As I stated earlier you have not provided any archaeological evidence supporting your claim of an in situ origin for the Dravidian people.
Pardon me? Could you not understand the following:
"Our study suggests that the vast majority (>98%) of the Indian maternal gene pool that consists of the Dravidian and Indo-European speakers is genetically more similar, and received only minor gene flow with the recent invasions from both the West and the East, since their initial late Pleistocene settlement."
quote:I have presented y-chromosome, sickle anemia, 9bp, HLA, and the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1, in addition to archaeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence yet you maintain I have only presented a single marker supporting my claim.
I seriously question your reading comprehension. You should have realized when I said this:
"I understand that you are basing your claims on some other evidence. However, I was referring exclusively to the issue of genetics."
Nothing supports your theory of a recent migration of Africans into India. Especially concerning hg M
quote:You present nothing to support your proposition, except the diversity of Rla, which you claim originated in India 50ky
Quote me. Where did I make that claim
quote:yet you don't have any evidence to support this claim except the statements of a few Hindutva researchers and their teacher Kivisild
Seeing as how I never even made that claim in the first place...
The diversity and frequency is however true. Unless you can refute the results
quote:I presented abundance of evidence showing that the Dravidians were still in Africa during the C-Group period, and that they don't appear in India until 2800BC.
You made a couple of articles based on research that you misinterpret. You cannot even tell me an exact quote for one of the references you posted earlier. So I'll assume you referenced it without reading it.
quote:Finally, if the genetic data is not supported by correseponding linguistic, anthropological, archaeological evidence it is just an opinion. All of my work is supported by this additional data.
That is one of the stupidest things I've heard in my life. Really? So you basically just don't like the genetic data, but turn to misinterpreting a bunch of articles?
quote:If you don't have any archaeological evidence to back up the claims you made just admit it.
Read the paper I cited. Population genetics in case you didn't know helps in determining population migrations etc., so if the genetic data doesn't support you, your are SOL Don't you remember:
"Archaeological evidence advocates the settlement of India by modern humans, using Middle Palaeolithic tools, during the Late Pleistocene (1–5). The large number of deep-rooting, Indian-specific mtDNA lineages of macro haplogroups M and N, whose presence cannot be explained by a recent introduction from neighboring regions (6), is consistent with the archaeological data."----Sanghamitra Sahoo et al. 2006
You can read the corresponding citations for the above statement as well
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Instead of reading material you opine on what you believe based on the mistaken belief that because a European or Hindutva researchers writes an article it must be valid and reliable. Thus you make statements like below
quote:No Clyde, they are full of citations that you interpret to support your case. If you cannot directly cite an article instead of throwing around links that you expect me to try and find what you want me to see, then you don't have an argument.
The articles are directly cited in my paper. You dispute the findings in my articles yet you provide no counter evidence only your opinion. The articles are cited all you have to do is read them. If you don’t read them you are talking out the side of your mouth. LOL You say:
quote: Because there is no evidence supported by the other numerous works.
As I said before you have not read my work. This is your opinion
quote:To the contrary, I respect research that is valid. European researchers are usually Biased on several counts, so why you would accuse me of 'waiting for Europeans' is beyond me. In case you hadn't noticed, not everything I reference consists of all European descent individuals.
Everything you post is either written by a European or Hindutva researcher. You fail to comment on any of the Dravidian scholars I mention in my post. Is it because they are Black, and the people you prefer to believe are Indo-European?
quote: Pardon me? Could you not understand the following:
"Our study suggests that the vast majority (>98%) of the Indian maternal gene pool that consists of the Dravidian and Indo-European speakers is genetically more similar, and received only minor gene flow with the recent invasions from both the West and the East, since their initial late Pleistocene settlement."
This is utterly false there is a clear difference between the genes. Moreover, there were no Dravidian or Indo-Aryan speakers in India during the Pleistocene. India at this time was occupied by negrito- Munda people.
The HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium (HPASC, 2009) (Mapping Human Genetic Diversity in Asia ) Indian Genome Variation Consortium (IGVC,2009), and has done much to bring the genetic data for India in line with the archaeological, anthropological and linguistic data . The IGVC (2008) study of Indian populations found statistically significant patterns of genetic differentiation between Indian populations. In this study the researchers noted that the genetic evidence demonstrated genetic heterogeneity between Dravidian and Indo-European speaking populations
Having said this, I have presented y-chromosome, sickle anemia, 9bp, HLA, and the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1, in addition to archaeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence yet you maintain I have only presented a single marker supporting my claim. You are such a liar. You are the one mentioning only one marker R1a
Your statement:
quote:
I seriously question your reading comprehension. You should have realized when I said this:
"I understand that you are basing your claims on some other evidence. However, I was referring exclusively to the issue of genetics."
Nothing supports your theory of a recent migration of Africans into India. Especially concerning hg M
Your answer is stupid.In research abundance of evidence confirms a hypothesis, unless you can show evidence disputing the confirmation data. You have presented nothing but a discussion of R1a. How can mention of a single haplogroup, hg R1a, supercede y-chromosome, sickle anemia, 9bp, HLA, and the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1. LOL.
quote: You made a couple of articles based on research that you misinterpret. You cannot even tell me an exact quote for one of the references you posted earlier. So I'll assume you referenced it without reading it. [quote] In anthropology you don’t cite exact quotes you cite papers. [quote] Read the paper I cited. Population genetics in case you didn't know helps in determining population migrations etc., so if the genetic data doesn't support you, your are SOL Don't you remember: "Archaeological evidence advocates the settlement of India by modern humans, using Middle Palaeolithic tools, during the Late Pleistocene (1–5). The large number of deep-rooting, Indian-specific mtDNA lineages of macro haplogroups M and N, whose presence cannot be explained by a recent introduction from neighboring regions (6), is consistent with the archaeological data."----Sanghamitra Sahoo et al. 2006 You can read the corresponding citations for the above statement as well
If you had checked the papers cited in this article (notes 1-5) you would have discovered that they mainly discuss Palaeolithic cultures in North India. The Dravidians live in South India. The first homonins in India were homo erectus. The second group during the Upper Palaeolithic were negrito—Munda folk. The Dravidian type does not appear until Neolithic times. In the paper you cite the’re talking about Dravidian people who carry R1a. The Dravidian archaeology dates back to Neolithic period. They used iron, made black-and-red ceramics, cultivated crops and had writing. These cultural elements all came from Africa. The names for the crops they used in Dravidian, are the same names used by speakers of the Niger-Congo languages , as were the names for animals.
The paper you cite is mainly propaganda to imply that the Indo-Aryan people have been in India before the Munda people.
Thus they write:
quote:”It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture. “ http://www.pnas.org/content/103/4/843.full
This is false the movement of Agriculture in India moves north to south. This is supported by Dr. V.N. Misra see: http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/nov2001/491.pdf Dr. Misra makes it clear that the Neolithic people possessed black-and-red ware. According to Dr. Misra they replaced people using drab grey colored ceramics (p.512).
This new pottery tradition appears around 2500 BC in South India. The change in ceramics is indicative of change in population. It also supports the migration of Dravidian speaking people into South India from Africa. This makes you’re claims hollow indeed. The paper you mention lacks any archaeological evidence relating to Dravidian people. Dravidians don’t enter the Indus Valley and South India until after 2800 as supported by the archaeology.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:European or Hindutva researchers writes an article it must be valid and reliable
I don't like responding to people who have a habit of repeating things. You just said that. You should know that there are numerous authors who contribute to articles with the 'et al.'
quote:Everything you post is either written by a European or Hindutva researcher. You fail to comment on any of the Dravidian scholars I mention in my post. Is it because they are Black, and the people you prefer to believe are Indo-European?
You are paranoid. I *DID* comment on the scholars you mentioned. I specifically asked you to cite them a task you have thus far failed to do.
quote:This is utterly false there is a clear difference between the genes
Only on the Y chromosome is there a difference between upper Caste and Tribal/Lower caste populations. Upper Caste populations effect was strictly political and social though. You saying it's wrong doesn't mean anything.
quote:Moreover, there were no Dravidian or Indo-Aryan speakers in India during the Pleistocene. India at this time was occupied by negrito- Munda people.
I wouldn't have thought you were so obtuse to make such an asinine statement. If you honestly don't understand the point the authors relayed, then ask for help. Come on Clyde, think before you speak. The citation only means that the population was in place and unaffected since the ancestral population settled in late Pleistocene.
quote:The HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium (HPASC, 2009) (Mapping Human Genetic Diversity in Asia ) Indian Genome Variation Consortium (IGVC,2009), and has done much to bring the genetic data for India in line with the archaeological, anthropological and linguistic data . The IGVC (2008) study of Indian populations found statistically significant patterns of genetic differentiation between Indian populations. In this study the researchers noted that the genetic evidence demonstrated genetic heterogeneity between Dravidian and Indo-European speaking populations
LMAO!You are obviously as blind as you are ignorant. The INDIAN GENOME VARIATION CONSORTIUM did NOT show genetic heterogeneity between the Dravidian and Indp-Europeans, they showed heterogeneity **AMONGST** Dravidian speakers and also amongst Indp-European speakers. You are a straight up liar. The Genetic heterogeneity among the Dravidian population they interpret as signs of admixture with the Indo-European then a retread southwards. Although they do show some differentiation between tribal and caste groups analyzed
quote:Having said this, I have presented y-chromosome, sickle anemia, 9bp, HLA, and the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1
Man, you are one of the most obtuse people on this forum. You keep reiterating your 15% M1 amongst Dravidian's claim; yet it has been told to you time and time again that the M1 in Kivislid et al. 1999 is not the same M1 known today. In case you forgot, Indian M lineages and African M1 have no relationship whatsoever:
quote:A particular case in question is the origin of haplogroup M1, which is mainly found in Northeast Africa and the Near East (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999). Due to the fact that M1 bears variant nucleotides, for example, at site 16311 in common with haplogroup M4, at 16129 with M5, and at 16249 with haplogroup M34, it has been proposed that M1 might have some affinity with Indian M haplogroups (Roychoudhury et al. 2001). This inference, however, could not receive support from our complete sequencing information. Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, that is, 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002). Therefore, those common mutations in the control region rather reflect random parallel mutations. There is no evidence whatsoever that M1 originated in India.
--Sun et al. 2006
Your article that criticized Sun et al. only really addressed the Random Parallel mutation statement, which you failed at miserably in any event.
quote:in addition to archaeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence yet you maintain I have only presented a single marker supporting my claim.
Lol... you continue to repeat yourself. Addressed already
quote:You are such a liar. You are the one mentioning only one marker R1a
Yes. Why did I mention it? Because of it's high frequency and diversity in India and relatively ancient coalescence time. Tell me, what genetic evidence to you have that Africans migrated to India recently to create Dravidians? Surely this would have left some genetic trace, right? If not then you have nothing.
quote:Your answer is stupid.In research abundance of evidence confirms a hypothesis, unless you can show evidence disputing the confirmation data. You have presented nothing but a discussion of R1a. How can mention of a single haplogroup, hg R1a, supercede y-chromosome, sickle anemia, 9bp, HLA, and the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1. LOL.
Not true at all.
What Y chromosomal evidence have you offered? None at all. I have, hence R1a.
1)15% of Dravidians do not carry M1 you retard.
2)Sickle Cell mutation arose independently in different areas
quote:If you had checked the papers cited in this article (notes 1-5) you would have discovered that they mainly discuss Palaeolithic cultures in North India.
The point was that haplogroups M and N can NOT be seen as recent introduction is supported by the archaeology.
quote:The Dravidians live in South India
Yes- they are now restricted to south Inida. However this was not the case prior to the arrival of Inod-Europeans
quote:These cultural elements all came from Africa.
E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E
quote:The paper you cite is mainly propaganda to imply that the Indo-Aryan people have been in India before the Munda people.
They never implied such a thing. They say that the tribal and caste populations derive from a common heritage in the late Pleistocene southern and western Asians with minimal gene flow since then.
quote:In anthropology you don’t cite exact quotes you cite papers.
In a debate you state in your own words what your argument is, then you back it up with a source. I checked some of your sources that don't support you at all. So you need to start quoting to prove your point.
quote:This is false the movement of Agriculture in India moves north to south
South Asia includes all of India. They were simply stating that when Agriculture arose in India, the paternal lineages could be considered south Asian in origin. Learn to read
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Calabooz’ Your answer is stupid.
You claim you checked my sources but you never name them. You never say where they are wrong and why.
You are a faker. You lack any understanding of Indian archaeology , history and etc. I will no longer discuss this issue with you due to your obvious ignorance.
As I said earlier your claim lacks merit and shows you can not interpret evidence—you rely on the method of research called authority, i.e., because a European says something is true it must be true.
I showed that the archaeological sources did not relate to Dravidian people and that they do not point to Dravidians existing in India before 2800. You have presented no counter evidence only opinions.
In research abundance of evidence confirms a hypothesis, unless you can show evidence disputing the confirmation data. You have presented nothing but a discussion of R1a. How can mention of a single haplogroup, hg R1a, supercede y-chromosome, sickle cell anemia, 9bp, HLA, and the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1. LOL.
Dr. Misra makes it clear that the Neolithic people possessed black-and-red ware. According to Dr. Misra they replaced people using drab grey colored ceramics (p.512).
Archaeology and anthropology 101 teaches you that a change in ceramic style shows a change in population: moron. If this pottery tradition occured earlier in a different location, the people using that tradition must have come from that region.
This new pottery tradition appears around 2500 BC in South India. The black-and-red pottery tradition originated in Nubia.
The change in ceramics is indicative of change in population. It also supports the migration of Dravidian speaking people into South India from Africa who used the same ceramic style.
This makes your claims hollow indeed. The paper you mention lacks any archaeological evidence relating to Dravidian people. Dravidians don’t enter the Indus Valley and South India until after 2800 BC as supported by the archaeology.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:You claim you checked my sources but you never name them. You never say where they are wrong and why.
I did point this out to you.
I also asked you to cite them, because I found them and they mention nothing you claim they do
quote:i.e., because a European says something is true it must be true.
Blah, blah, blah...
Repeat that accusation all you want. Doesn't change the result
quote:I showed that the archaeological sources did not relate to Dravidian people and that they do not point to Dravidians existing in India before 2800. You have presented no counter evidence only opinions.
They were preceded by Austro-Asiatic peoples. The ancestral population to Dravidians did exist, or do you think otherwise?
quote:In research abundance of evidence confirms a hypothesis, unless you can show evidence disputing the confirmation data. You have presented nothing but a discussion of R1a. How can mention of a single haplogroup, hg R1a, supercede y-chromosome, sickle cell anemia, 9bp, HLA, and the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1. LOL.
You are just a retard Clyde. The above statement was copied from your last post which I already responded to. I won't repeat myself
quote:The movement of Agriculture in India moves north to south. This is supported by Dr. V.N. Misra see:
Who said otherwise? Nobody did. What the article I cited is saying is:
quote:It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture
----Sanghamitra Sahoo et al. 2006
They were simply stating that when Agriculture arose in India, the paternal lineages of Indians could be considered south Asian in origin. Learn to read.
quote: Archaeology and anthropology 101 teaches you that a change in ceramic style shows a change in population: moron. If this pottery tradition occured earlier in a different location, the people using that tradition must have come from that region.
This new pottery tradition appears around 2500 BC in South India. The black-and-red pottery tradition originated in Nubia.
No evidence. Just a statement based on nothing.
Show me any type of evidence that Sudanese migrated en masse to India 2000b.c. and then see if it is supported by genetic evidence
quote:Dravidians don’t enter the Indus Valley and South India until after 2800 BC as supported by the archaeology
Dravidian peoples are simply people who speak Dravidian languages. That doesn't mean they weren't descended from a native Indian population, which they are as revealed by Genetics
quote:The paper you mention lacks any archaeological evidence relating to Dravidian people
Because I cited genetic articles LOL! Which show the populations to have been little effect by recent events and that they have been in place since the ancestral population's settlement
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:You claim you checked my sources but you never name them. You never say where they are wrong and why.
I did point this out to you.
I also asked you to cite them, because I found them and they mention nothing you claim they do
quote:i.e., because a European says something is true it must be true.
Blah, blah, blah...
Repeat that accusation all you want. Doesn't change the result
quote:I showed that the archaeological sources did not relate to Dravidian people and that they do not point to Dravidians existing in India before 2800. You have presented no counter evidence only opinions.
They were preceded by Austro-Asiatic peoples. The ancestral population to Dravidians did exist, or do you think otherwise?
quote:In research abundance of evidence confirms a hypothesis, unless you can show evidence disputing the confirmation data. You have presented nothing but a discussion of R1a. How can mention of a single haplogroup, hg R1a, supercede y-chromosome, sickle cell anemia, 9bp, HLA, and the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1. LOL.
You are just a retard Clyde. The above statement was copied from your last post which I already responded to. I won't repeat myself
quote:The movement of Agriculture in India moves north to south. This is supported by Dr. V.N. Misra see:
Who said otherwise? Nobody did. What the article I cited is saying is:
quote:It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture
----Sanghamitra Sahoo et al. 2006
They were simply stating that when Agriculture arose in India, the paternal lineages of Indians could be considered south Asian in origin. Learn to read.
quote: Archaeology and anthropology 101 teaches you that a change in ceramic style shows a change in population: moron. If this pottery tradition occured earlier in a different location, the people using that tradition must have come from that region.
This new pottery tradition appears around 2500 BC in South India. The black-and-red pottery tradition originated in Nubia.
No evidence. Just a statement based on nothing.
Show me any type of evidence that Sudanese migrated en masse to India 2000b.c. and then see if it is supported by genetic evidence
quote:Dravidians don’t enter the Indus Valley and South India until after 2800 BC as supported by the archaeology
Dravidian peoples are simply people who speak Dravidian languages. That doesn't mean they weren't descended from a native Indian population, which they are as revealed by Genetics
quote:The paper you mention lacks any archaeological evidence relating to Dravidian people
Because I cited genetic articles LOL! Which show the populations to have been little effect by recent events and that they have been in place since the ancestral population's settlement
Calabooz’ I am a teacher. As a result I try to have patience with young people when they show respect. Your answer is stupid and disrespectful.
Your answer is ignorant and reflect the lack of bakground in the subject we are trying to discuss.It shows you are a fool. The comments you make indicate you have no background in anthropology, population genetics or archaeology.
Genetics articles without linguistic or archeaological evidence is opinion only. I have illustrated that achaeoligical sources cited in the article you base your conclusions on have nothing to do with Dravidian areas.
Your own words show what a foolish and ignorant person you are. You said:
quote:Because I cited genetic articles LOL! Which show the populations to have been little effect by recent events and that they have been in place since the ancestral population's settlement
LOL. Fool.GENETICS CAN NOT SHOW HOW LONG A PEOPLE LIVED IN AN AREA.GENETICS ONLY SHOW THE DNA OF THE PEOPLE LIVING IN A SPECIFIC AREA TODAY.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DNA OF PEOPLE IN NEW YORK TODAY YOU WOULD FIND AFRICAN, LATINO AND EUROPEAN DNA. GRANTED WE HAVE FOUND THIS DNA, IT WOULD REFLECT CONTEMPORARY POPULATIONS--NOT THE ANCIENT PEOPLE OF NEW YORK.THEY DO NOT REFLECT THE ANCESTRAL POPULATION--NATIVE AMERICAN-- BECAUSE THE ANCESTRAL POPULATION HAS BEEN REPLACED.
This means that to determine who lived in prehistoric New York we would have to look at skeletal and archaeological evidence to confirm or disconfirm the genetic material collected from contemporary populations. As you know the skeletal evidence does not document Europeans or Latinos.The archeology of Native Americans would not support a European presence either.
The failure to find skeletal or archaeological evidence supporting the contemporary dna disconfirms the hypothesis that the prehistoric population of New York was made up of Europeans.
This shows why your statement:
quote:Because I cited genetic articles LOL! Which show the populations to have been little effect by recent events and that they have been in place since the ancestral population's settlement
This is the statement of a novice, or moron. As discussed above genetics only tell us the dna of a population, not the language and culture--unless the dna was extracted from a skeleton associated with a specific culture. Your statements are based on illiteracy of population genetics, archaeology, linguistics and anthropology.
In my post I have shown using archaeological and anthropological evidence to show popultion change in India.
Dr. Misra makes it clear that the Neolithic people possessed black-and-red ware. According to Dr. Misra they replaced people using drab grey colored ceramics (p.512).
Archaeology and anthropology 101 teaches you that a change in ceramic style shows a change in population: moron. If this pottery tradition occured earlier in a different location, the people using that tradition must have come from that region.
This new pottery tradition appears around 2500 BC in South India. The black-and-red pottery tradition originated in Nubia.
The change in ceramics is indicative of change in population. It also supports the migration of Dravidian speaking people into South India from Africa who used the same ceramic style.
The new pottery tradition indicates a change in the population of india by people using black-and-red ware.
This makes your claims hollow indeed. The paper you mention lacks any archaeological evidence relating to Dravidian people. Dravidians don’t enter the Indus Valley and South India until after 2800 BC as supported by the archaeology.
I don't know what field you are studying because anthroplogy and archaeological researchers make it clear that when you see a change in cultural practices there is usually a change in population. Your failure to acknowledge this leads me to the belief you know nothing of the field. LOL
You are a faker. You lack any understanding of Indian archaeology , history and etc. I will no longer discuss this issue with you due to your obvious ignorance.I will comment, like now when you make ignorant statements that prove your illiteracy to matters of population genetics, anthropology and archaeology.
Your claim lacks merit and shows you can not interpret evidence—you rely on the method of research called authority, i.e., you believe that because a European says something is true it must be true.What a fool you are. LOL
I showed that the archaeological sources did not relate to Dravidian people and that they do not point to Dravidians existing in India before 2800. You have presented no counter evidence only opinions.
In research abundance of evidence confirms a hypothesis, unless you can show evidence disputing the confirmation data. You have presented nothing but a discussion of R1a. How can mention of a single haplogroup, hg R1a, supercede y-chromosome, sickle cell anemia, 9bp, HLA, and the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1. LOL.
Your statements show that you are the retard, not I. LOL.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:LOL. Fool.GENETICS CAN NOT SHOW HOW LONG A PEOPLE LIVED IN AN AREA.GENETICS ONLY SHOW THE DNA OF THE PEOPLE LIVING IN A SPECIFIC AREA TODAY.
Population genetics goes beyond that. But how would you know? Just look at your statement:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I will admit I am still a novice in this area.
Yet, somewhere along the line you thought yourself better and more knowledgeable than actual geneticists, to critique them and write articles on genetics? Sorry Clyde, I don't think so. Several authors have even responded to you to show how much of a fool you were.
quote:Genetics articles without linguistic or archeaological evidence is opinion only. I have illustrated that achaeoligical sources cited in the article you base your conclusions on have nothing to do with Dravidian areas.
Clyde, that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. What exactly do you think we use population genetics for? Why don't you learn:
It is used also for determining human migrations. It can lend support to arguments outside of it's field, but it cannot create them. That is true. But population genetics is not restricted to simply determining the composition of a population.
quote:This means that to determine who lived in prehistoric New York we would have to look at skeletal and archaeological evidence to confirm or disconfirm the genetic material collected from contemporary populations. As you know the skeletal evidence does not document Europeans or Latinos.The archeology of Native Americans would not support a European presence either.
The failure to find skeletal or archaeological evidence supporting the contemporary dna disconfirms the hypothesis that the prehistoric population of New York was made up of Europeans.
Clyde, the above would only make sense if there was genetic data to support Europeans in America. However, the skeletal and archaeological data is in agreement with the genetic data. Geneticists wouldn't look at European descent New Yorkers if they have native American populations, because they know that there was replacement of the native population. So let me revise your statement:
The failure to find skeletal, archaeological or genetic evidence supporting the contemporary DNA disconfirms the hypothesis that the prehistoric population of New York was made up of Europeans.
All lines of evidence are in agreement. In this case, no lines of evidence support a recent migration of Dravidians to India
quote:This is the statement of a novice, or moron. As discussed above genetics only tell us the dna of a population, not the language and culture--unless the dna was extracted from a skeleton associated with a specific culture. Your statements are based on illiteracy of population genetics, archaeology, linguistics and anthropology.
Clyde, my saying that the statement is the statement of a novice then you are claiming that the peer-reviewed article from which my statement derived from was written by novices. Their conclusions, not mine. Genetic research can infer demographic events, expansion times of lineages etc., to deny this you are openly admitting you have no idea what you are talking about and are claiming numerous genetic research inferring human migrations are incorrect. Hence the following:
"Demographic models built from genetic data play important roles in illuminating prehistorical events and serving as null models in genome scans for selection.--RN Gutenkunst et al. 2009
quote:For exmple,I have shown that the movement of Agriculture in India moves north to south.
Clyde, this doesn't prove anything. Don't you know that prior to the arrival of Indo-Europeans, the Dravidian speakers were more widely distributed in India, followed by a period of gene flow and recession into southern India?
quote:change in ceramic style shows a change in population
That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. At the very least it signifies adoption of ceramics. If there was a hiatus in the archaeological record that would signify abandonment and re-settlement can be inferred. As is the case in Egypt, there was a hiatus so we know the Nile Valley was settled by migrants, supported by genetic data. A change in ceramics does not signify population replacement at all.
quote:Dr. Misra makes it clear that the Neolithic people possessed black-and-red ware. According to Dr. Misra they replaced people using drab grey colored ceramics (p.512).
Yet he never says they were the result of C-Group Nubians migrating to India; he doesn't even say that they were introduced. It is clear that is not his position, so citing him is of no use to you.
quote:This new pottery tradition appears around 2500 BC in South India. The black-and-red pottery tradition originated in Nubia.
You have no evidence it originated solely in one place as opposed to different places. That's like me saying hieroglyphics in the Americas were introduced by Egyptians. Fail
quote:The change in ceramics is indicative of change in population. It also supports the migration of Dravidian speaking people into South India from Africa who used the same ceramic style.
The author never says that. Change in Ceramics is indicative of adoption, maybe or maybe not introduced from elsewhere. It is not a sign of replacement.
quote:I don't know what field you are studying because anthroplogy and archaeological researchers make it clear that when you see a change in cultural practices there is usually a change in population.
That is not true. That indicates adoption or in situ evolution. Not replacement, maybe migration.
quote:I showed that the archaeological sources did not relate to Dravidian people and that they do not point to Dravidians existing in India before 2800.
Maybe not the Dravidian languages, but the ancestral population certainly did exist in India and it was an indigenous population at the beginning of agriculture (Neolithic)
quote: It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture
--Sanghamitra Sahoo et al. 2006
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Calabooz'
quote:
It is used also for determining human migrations. It can lend support to arguments outside of it's field, but it cannot create them. That is true. But population genetics is not restricted to simply determining the composition of a population.
Correct.Therefore, the absence of archaeological evidence for Dravidians in India before 2800 BC shows that Sanghamitra Sahoo et al is not supported by the evidence.
You claim that the introduction of black-and-red ware into India:
quote:... indicates adoption or in situ evolution. Not replacement, maybe migration.
LOL. As I said you know nothing about anthropology. LOL
Ha, haaah Calabooz', you're very funny. You write:
quote: Simpleton you have no evidence it originated solely in one place as opposed to different places. That's like me saying hieroglyphics in the Americas were introduced by Egyptians. Fail
LOL.
Fool, I would not have papers published in peer reviewed journals if I made statements I could not back up. In archaeology ceramics are like a fingerprint. Everyone who studies black-and -red ware know this ceramic style originated in Nubia, imbecile.
B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) also believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India.
The evidence is clear black-and-red ware came from Nubia. I pass, you fail nincompoop.
You wrote
quote: Maybe not the Dravidian languages, but the ancestral population certainly did exist in India and it was an indigenous population at the beginning of agriculture (Neolithic)
This is a moronic statement if the Dravidian speakers were the ancestral population in India why would they have spoken any other language than Dravidian. Don't you ever think before you write?
You're so stupid: Fool LOL
.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Correct.Therefore, the absence of archaeological evidence for Dravidians in India before 2800 BC shows that Sanghamitra Sahoo et al is not supported by the evidence.
Not at all. You are confusing a language group with populations. The ancestral population to Dravidians has been in India. Which is supported.
quote:You claim that the introduction of black-and-red ware into India:
You said that, not I.
quote:LOL. As I said you know nothing about anthropology. LOL
Ha, haaah Calabooz', you're very funny. You write:
I noticed that you intentionally added words to my quote that I actually didn't say. More dishonesty.
quote:Fool, I would not have papers published in peer reviewed journals if I made statements I could not back up. In archaeology ceramics are like a fingerprint. Everyone who studies black-and -red ware know this ceramic style originated in Nubia, imbecile.
If that is the case then back it up with a source, aside from your own. These types of things hardly have one origin alone. You have no evidence that this type of ceramics originated solely in Nubia
quote: B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) also believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India.
Clyde, you need to cite the actual source. The only Bing and Google results lead back to all of your papers. Tell me why the only record of this is on your papers? Give me a direct citation
quote:This is a moronic statement if the Dravidian speakers were the ancestral population in India why would they have spoken any other language than Dravidian
You dumb ****. Can you not read properly? Of course you can't because every article you cite says the opposite of what you claim.
YOU should think before YOU write, why the hell would I say the ancestral population to Dravidians peoples, were Dravidians? That makes no phucking sense and I never said that. I said the ancestral population to Dravidians. How the hell could a population be its own ancestor? I never said that, and it makes no sense you retard.
[quote]
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Edit: meant to say differences between Nubian/Egyptian black and red ware vs. Indian
An encyclopaedia of Indian archaeology By A. Ghosh
Read the top of page 16...
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
You're both forgetting the most likely explaination; indirect or direct trade.
Both Syrian and Lower Egyptian pottery occurs in the A-group, why is that not indicative of Syrian and lower Egyptian migration Clyde?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: You're both forgetting the most likely explaination; indirect or direct trade.
Both Syrian and Lower Egyptian pottery occurs in the A-group, why is that not indicative of Syrian and lower Egyptian migration Clyde?
This a problem you will have to answer. I have never studied the issue so I can't comment.
.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Well, you don't have problems linking nilotic pottery similarities in South Asia to nilotic migration. What does it say about your agenda, that you are reluctant to do the same when the foreign pottery is found along the Nile?
Also remarkable; you didn't know that West Asian pottery was found along the Nile in proto-dynastic times?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Edit: meant to say differences between Nubian/Egyptian black and red ware vs. Indian
An encyclopaedia of Indian archaeology By A. Ghosh
Read the top of page 16...
I am talking about the C-Group not Egyptians.
. Indian black-and-red ware was identical C-Group ware.
The earliest use of this BRW was during the Amratian period (c.4000 3500 BC). The users of the BRW were usually called Kushites.
The C-Group people used a common black and red ware that has been found from the Sudan, across Southwest Asia and the Indian Subcontinent all the way to China (Singh 1982).
B.B. Lal (1963) proved conclusively that the Dravidians were genetically related to the C group of Nubia, given the fact that both groups used 1) a common black-and-red ware (BRW), 2) a common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures and 3) a common type of rock cut sepulchre. The BRW industry diffused from Nubia, across West Asia into Rajastan, and thence to East Central and South India (Rao 1972).
B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India.
References:
Lal BB. 1963. “The Only Asian Expedition in threatened Nubia: Work by an India Mission at Afyeh and Tumas”. The Illustrated Times, London 20 April.
Singh, H.N. 1982. History and archaeology of Blackand Red ware. Vedic Books.net: Manchester.
Rao,B.K.G. 1972.The Megalithic Culture in South India. Mysore.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^Well, you don't have problems linking nilotic pottery similarities in South Asia to nilotic migration. What does it say about your agenda, that you are reluctant to do the same when the foreign pottery is found along the Nile?
Also remarkable; you didn't know that West Asian pottery was found along the Nile in proto-dynastic times?
I am a falsificationist. As a result , a hypothesis can either be confirmed or disconfirmed. To confirm a hypothesis you must present evidence.
The Classical writers claimed that the Indians were descendants of the Kushites. This led to a series of hypotheses :
1. There is a relationship between the Kushites of Nubia and Indian populations.
2. If the Kushites lived in India there will be a genetic relationship between Indian and African languages.
3.If the Kushites lived in India, there will be cultural and genetic evidence supporting this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1 was confirmed when B.B. Lal proved conclusively that the Dravidians were related to the C group of Nubia.
Hypothesis 2 was confirmed, Dravidian languages are genetically related to the Niger-Congo group . See: Aravanan 1979, 1980 ; Homburger 1948, 1957; Upadhyaya and Upadhyaya, 1976, 1979; Winters 1985, 1988, 1989,2007,2007a,2008,2008a.
Hypothesis 3 was confirmed.Anthropological evidence provided by Aravanan 1980, Sergent 1992, Winters 2007, Lahavory 1963; Sistri 1966, and osteological evidence by Lahovary 1963, Sastri 1966, Sjoberg 1971,support an African origin of the Dravidian speakers
There are genetic markers which point to a relationship between South Indians and Africans. Cordaux et al. in a study of 370bp of the HVS-I control region found that although Indians were closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool, it was noted in Figure 5,that clusters I,II, VII,IX, X, XI,XII,and XIV are found in Africa and India. I have presented y-chromosome, sickle anemia, 9bp, HLA, and the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1.
The cultural evidence comes from the research of B B Lal he showed that both groups used 1) a common black-and-red ware (BRW), 2) a common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures and 3) a common type of rock cut sepulchre.
Given the confirmation of these hypotheses it is clear that the hypothesis that the Dravidians were related to the Kushites is confirmed.Until these hypotheses are falsified they remain valid.
Can you do the same thing relating to a relationship between Syria and Egypt?
.
REFERENCES Aravanan KP 1979. Dravidians and Africans. Madras: Paari Nilayam.
Aravanan KP 1980). Notable Negroid elements in Dravidian India. J Tam Stud, 17: 20-45.
Cordaux R, Saha N, Bentley G R, Aunger R, Sirajuddin SM, Stoneking M. 2003. Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals diverse histories of tribal populations from India. Eur J Hum Genet, 11: 253–264. Retrieved 4/8/2008 http://www.nature.com./ejhg/journal/v11/n3/full/5200949a.html
Homburger L. 1948. Elements Dravidiens en peul. J.Soc Afr, 18(2): 135-143.
Homburger L 1957. Les Langues Negro-Africaines et les peoples qui les parlent. Paris: Payot.
Lahovary N 1963. Dravidian Origins and the West. Madras: Longmans.
Lal BB. 1963. “The Only Asian Expedition in threatened Nubia: Work by an India Mission at Afyeh and Tumas”. The Illustrated Times, London 20 April.
Rao,B.K.G. 1972.The Megalithic Culture in South India. Mysore.
Sastri, Nulakanta. 1966. History of South India. Madras: Oxford University Press.
Sergent , B. 1992. Genèse de L’Inde. Paris: Payot.
Singh, H.N. 1982. History and archaeology of Black and Red ware. Vedic Books.net: Manchester.
Upadhyaya P, Upadhyaya SP 1979. Les liens entre Kerala et l”Afrique tels qu’ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques. Bull. de L’IFAN, 1: 100-132.
Upadhyaya P, Upadhyaya SP 1976. Affinites ethnolinguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain. Bull.de L’IFAN, 1: 127-157.
Winters CA 1985. The Proto Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians. Tam Civ, 3(1):l 9.
Winters CA 1988.Common African and Dravidian Place Name Elements. Sou As Anth, 9(1): 33-36.
Winters CA 1989. Tamil, Sumerian,Manding and the Genetic Model. Int J Dr Ling, 18(1): 67-91.
Winters CA 2007. Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa? BioEssays, 27(5): 497-498.
Winters CA 2007b. High Levels of Genetic Divergence across Indian Populations. PloS Genetics. Retrieved 4/8/2008 http://www.plosgenetics . Winters CA 2008. Can parallel mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M Haplogroups. Int J Hum Genet, 13(3): 93-96.
Lets not forget many Kushites or Nubians migrated into Asia. The Proto-Dravidian speakers probably migrated across Arabia to reach India.
The first civilization in Arabia was the Tihama culture. The Tihama civilization probably originated in Nubia (Fattovish 2008). It is characterized by the cheesecake or pillbox burial monuments which extend from Dhofar in Nubia, the Gara mountains to Adulis on the Gulf of Zula, to Hadramaut, Qataban, Ausan, Asir, the Main area and Tihama in Arabia. At Tihama and other sites in Arabia we find pottery related to the C-Group people of Nubia (Keall 2000; 2008; Fattovish 2008; Giumlia-Mair 2002).
Giumlia-Mair A, Keall EJ, Shugar A, Stock S 2002. Investigation of a Copper-based Hoard from the Megalithic Site of al-Midamman, Yemen: An Interdisciplinary Approach. J Arch Sci, 29: 195-209.
Keall EJ 2000 .Changing Settlement along the Red Sea Coast of Yemen in the Bronze Age, First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: Rome May 18-23, 1998 Proceedings,pp.719-31.
Keall EJ 2002.Contact across the Red Sea (between Arabia and Africa) in the 2nd millennium BC: Circumstantial evidence from the archaeological site of al-Midamman, Tihama coast of Yemen, and Dahlak Kabir Island, Eritrea .
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:I am talking about the C-Group not Egyptians
The book I posted seemed to be using Nubia interchangeably with Egypt. They were talking about Lal's finding though.
quote:The C-Group people used a common black and red ware that has been found from the Sudan, across Southwest Asia and the Indian Subcontinent all the way to China (Singh 1982).
Exactly, it was common. Therefore you cannot use it to suggest population replacement. Are you saying the Chinese were C-Group as well? Lol
quote:B.B. Lal (1963) proved conclusively that the Dravidians were genetically related to the C group of Nubia, given the fact that both groups used 1) a common black-and-red ware (BRW), 2) a common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures and 3) a common type of rock cut sepulchre. The BRW industry diffused from Nubia, across West Asia into Rajastan, and thence to East Central and South India (Rao 1972).
The book I posted already addressed this Clyde.
quote:the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1.
Notice how Clyde repeats that over and over again. It isn't even true. He is basing it on Kivislid et al. 1999 but the M1 known then is not the same M1 known now!
quote:Cordaux et al. in a study of 370bp of the HVS-I control region found that although Indians were closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool, it was noted in Figure 5,that clusters I,II, VII,IX, X, XI,XII,and XIV are found in Africa and India.
That's not all, it proved my earlier point that tribal and caste populations are indeed related:
quote:Cordaux et al. (2003) analyzed 370 bp of the first hypervariable region of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region in 752 individuals from 17 tribal and four non-tribal groups from the Indian subcontinent. Southern Indian tribes showed reduced diversity and large genetic distances. By contrast, northern groups exhibited more diversity. Phylogenetic analyses revealed that southern and northern groups (except north- eastern ones) have related mtDNA sequences albeit at different frequencies. Within India, northeastern tribes are quite distinct from other groups. The Indian mtDNA gene pool appears to be more closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool than the west Eurasian one. Overall, analyses of molecular variance suggested that caste and tribal groups are genetically similar with respect to mtDNA
--Vikal Tripathy et al. 2008
You tried to deny this earlier. Yet you cite a paper that shows it to be true? You got problems
Lets look at the Courdax et al. paper, shall we Clyde?
quote:Otherwise, mtDNA haplotypes in South Asian ethnic groups are most closely related to east Eurasians and do not show any particular ties to African or PNG populations (Kivisild et al. 2003; Cordaux et al. 2003). In addition, an mtDNA control region motif proposed by Forster et al. (2001) to represent a signature of an early migration from Africa to Sahul through the southern route is not found in South Asia (Cordaux et al. 2003). In summary, there is no convincing support to date for a Middle Paleolithic genetic contribution to South Asia by migrants from Africa to Sahul along the southern route.
--Richard Cordaux
To make it clearer for you:
"The South Asian mtDNA gene pool does not show close affinities to either Africa or PNG"--Richard Cordaux et al.
Further evidence that you do not understand the studies you are reading else you wouldn't cite a study that specifically refutes your claims.
BTW, African M lineages show close affinities with Australians, but there is no evidence that Australians have a specific relationship to Indians in regards
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
A history of ancient and early medieval India: from the Stone Age to the By Upinder Singh
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:I am talking about the C-Group not Egyptians
The book I posted seemed to be using Nubia interchangeably with Egypt. They were talking about Lal's finding though.
quote:The C-Group people used a common black and red ware that has been found from the Sudan, across Southwest Asia and the Indian Subcontinent all the way to China (Singh 1982).
Exactly, it was common. Therefore you cannot use it to suggest population replacement. Are you saying the Chinese were C-Group as well? Lol
quote:B.B. Lal (1963) proved conclusively that the Dravidians were genetically related to the C group of Nubia, given the fact that both groups used 1) a common black-and-red ware (BRW), 2) a common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures and 3) a common type of rock cut sepulchre. The BRW industry diffused from Nubia, across West Asia into Rajastan, and thence to East Central and South India (Rao 1972).
The book I posted already addressed this Clyde.
quote:the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1.
Notice how Clyde repeats that over and over again. It isn't even true. He is basing it on Kivislid et al. 1999 but the M1 known then is not the same M1 known now!
quote:Cordaux et al. in a study of 370bp of the HVS-I control region found that although Indians were closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool, it was noted in Figure 5,that clusters I,II, VII,IX, X, XI,XII,and XIV are found in Africa and India.
That's not all, it proved my earlier point that tribal and caste populations are indeed related:
quote:Cordaux et al. (2003) analyzed 370 bp of the first hypervariable region of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region in 752 individuals from 17 tribal and four non-tribal groups from the Indian subcontinent. Southern Indian tribes showed reduced diversity and large genetic distances. By contrast, northern groups exhibited more diversity. Phylogenetic analyses revealed that southern and northern groups (except north- eastern ones) have related mtDNA sequences albeit at different frequencies. Within India, northeastern tribes are quite distinct from other groups. The Indian mtDNA gene pool appears to be more closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool than the west Eurasian one. Overall, analyses of molecular variance suggested that caste and tribal groups are genetically similar with respect to mtDNA
--Vikal Tripathy et al. 2008
You tried to deny this earlier. Yet you cite a paper that shows it to be true? You got problems
Lets look at the Courdax et al. paper, shall we Clyde?
quote:Otherwise, mtDNA haplotypes in South Asian ethnic groups are most closely related to east Eurasians and do not show any particular ties to African or PNG populations (Kivisild et al. 2003; Cordaux et al. 2003). In addition, an mtDNA control region motif proposed by Forster et al. (2001) to represent a signature of an early migration from Africa to Sahul through the southern route is not found in South Asia (Cordaux et al. 2003). In summary, there is no convincing support to date for a Middle Paleolithic genetic contribution to South Asia by migrants from Africa to Sahul along the southern route.
--Richard Cordaux
To make it clearer for you:
"The South Asian mtDNA gene pool does not show close affinities to either Africa or PNG"--Richard Cordaux et al.
Further evidence that you do not understand the studies you are reading else you wouldn't cite a study that specifically refutes your claims.
BTW, African M lineages show close affinities with Australians, but there is no evidence that Australians have a specific relationship to Indians in regards
You're so stupid. Carriers of black-and-red ware to China were Kushites. This was the Xia people--who were of Mande origin.
You are illiterate. How can the mtDNA hg M1 be different in India from hg M1 in India when they have the same make up. LOL
The chart I posted speaks for itself fool. You can't deny the evidence .
You idiot, black-and-red ware was common after the Kushites spread the ceramic style into Asia.LOL
You presented no evidence disconfirming any of my hypotheses.
I am a falsificationist. As a result , a hypothesis can either be confirmed or disconfirmed. To confirm a hypothesis you must present evidence.
The Classical writers claimed that the Indians were descendants of the Kushites. This led to a series of hypotheses :
1. There is a relationship between the Kushites of Nubia and Indian populations.
2. If the Kushites lived in India there will be a genetic relationship between Indian and African languages.
3.If the Kushites lived in India, there will be cultural and genetic evidence supporting this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1 was confirmed when B.B. Lal proved conclusively that the Dravidians were related to the C group of Nubia.
Hypothesis 2 was confirmed, Dravidian languages are genetically related to the Niger-Congo group . See: Aravanan 1979, 1980 ; Homburger 1948, 1957; Upadhyaya and Upadhyaya, 1976, 1979; Winters 1985, 1988, 1989,2007,2007a,2008,2008a.
Hypothesis 3 was confirmed.Anthropological evidence provided by Aravanan 1980, Sergent 1992, Winters 2007, Lahavory 1963; Sistri 1966, and osteological evidence by Lahovary 1963, Sastri 1966, Sjoberg 1971,support an African origin of the Dravidian speakers
There are genetic markers which point to a relationship between South Indians and Africans. Cordaux et al. in a study of 370bp of the HVS-I control region found that although Indians were closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool, it was noted in Figure 5,that clusters I,II, VII,IX, X, XI,XII,and XIV are found in Africa and India. I have presented y-chromosome, sickle anemia, 9bp, HLA, and the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1.
The cultural evidence comes from the research of B B Lal he showed that both groups used 1) a common black-and-red ware (BRW), 2) a common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures and 3) a common type of rock cut sepulchre.
Given the confirmation of these hypotheses it is clear that the hypothesis that the Dravidians were related to the Kushites is confirmed.Until these hypotheses are falsified they remain valid.
Can you do the same thing relating to a relationship between Syria and Egypt?
.
REFERENCES Aravanan KP 1979. Dravidians and Africans. Madras: Paari Nilayam.
Aravanan KP 1980). Notable Negroid elements in Dravidian India. J Tam Stud, 17: 20-45.
Cordaux R, Saha N, Bentley G R, Aunger R, Sirajuddin SM, Stoneking M. 2003. Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals diverse histories of tribal populations from India. Eur J Hum Genet, 11: 253–264. Retrieved 4/8/2008 http://www.nature.com./ejhg/journal/v11/n3/full/5200949a.html
Homburger L. 1948. Elements Dravidiens en peul. J.Soc Afr, 18(2): 135-143.
Homburger L 1957. Les Langues Negro-Africaines et les peoples qui les parlent. Paris: Payot.
Lahovary N 1963. Dravidian Origins and the West. Madras: Longmans.
Lal BB. 1963. “The Only Asian Expedition in threatened Nubia: Work by an India Mission at Afyeh and Tumas”. The Illustrated Times, London 20 April.
Rao,B.K.G. 1972.The Megalithic Culture in South India. Mysore.
Sastri, Nulakanta. 1966. History of South India. Madras: Oxford University Press.
Sergent , B. 1992. Genèse de L’Inde. Paris: Payot.
Singh, H.N. 1982. History and archaeology of Black and Red ware. Vedic Books.net: Manchester.
Upadhyaya P, Upadhyaya SP 1979. Les liens entre Kerala et l”Afrique tels qu’ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques. Bull. de L’IFAN, 1: 100-132.
Upadhyaya P, Upadhyaya SP 1976. Affinites ethnolinguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain. Bull.de L’IFAN, 1: 127-157.
Winters CA 1985. The Proto Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians. Tam Civ, 3(1):l 9.
Winters CA 1988.Common African and Dravidian Place Name Elements. Sou As Anth, 9(1): 33-36.
Winters CA 1989. Tamil, Sumerian,Manding and the Genetic Model. Int J Dr Ling, 18(1): 67-91.
Winters CA 2007. Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa? BioEssays, 27(5): 497-498.
Winters CA 2007b. High Levels of Genetic Divergence across Indian Populations. PloS Genetics. Retrieved 4/8/2008 http://www.plosgenetics . Winters CA 2008. Can parallel mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M Haplogroups. Int J Hum Genet, 13(3): 93-96.
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': A history of ancient and early medieval India: from the Stone Age to the By Upinder Singh
This ]text only relates to the variety of BRW found in India. It does not relate to the relationship between Nubian and Dravidian pottery. Also this passage is an interpretation of Singh's 1979 work, my source is Singh 1982.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Calabooz'
quote:
BTW, African M lineages show close affinities with Australians, but there is no evidence that Australians have a specific relationship to Indians in regards
Wrong again. Pater Wilhelm Schmidt was sure that Dravidians settled Australia when they spread throughout the Pacific from Southeast Asia. This view is supported by linguistic evidence and finding M130 among Australians and South Indians.
.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:You are illiterate. How can the mtDNA hg M1 be different in India from hg M1 in India when they have the same make up. LOL
Dude, stop spamming the same Kivislid 1999 image. We have told you so many times that the M1 in that study is *not the same M1 we know today. Geez
quote:You're so stupid. Carriers of black-and-red ware to China were Kushites. This was the Xia people--who were of Mande origin.
Sure they were Clyde, sure they were.
quote:You are illiterate. How can the mtDNA hg M1 be different in India from hg M1 in India when they have the same make up. LOL
I didn't say the Indian M1 was different from the Indian M1, that doesn't even make any sense.
I already addressed your BS. I even debunked you with your own source- Courdaux et al. Which specifically states a connection to East Asians but not with Africans. But you keep copying your previous replies as if you are actually debating, but you offer no new info. You just repeat the same crap
quote:This ]text only relates to the variety of BRW found in India. It does not relate to the relationship between Nubian and Dravidian pottery. Also this passage is an interpretation of Singh's 1979 work, my source is Singh 1982.
Dravidians are Indian... what you talkin about?
quote:Wrong again. Pater Wilhelm Schmidt was sure that Dravidians settled Australia when they spread throughout the Pacific from Southeast Asia. This view is supported by linguistic evidence and finding M130 among Australians and South Indians.
I was referring to the following:
quote:Results and Discussion African Ancestry of Australian and NG Y and mtDNA Types.
We carried out a phylogenetic analysis of our Australian and NG complete mtDNA sequences and compared the resulting branches with the Asian mtDNA tree, as known so far (Fig. 2). The result confirms that both Australian and NG maternal lineages consist exclusively of the known out-of-Africa founder types M and N, dated to ≈50–70,000 years ago, and their derivatives (24–27, 29, 30, 33–37). This mitochondrial finding is mirrored in our Y chromosome data (Fig. 3), where we observe the paternal lineages in Australians and New Guineans to fall into either branches C or F, proposed to be the earliest out-of-Africa founder types (31). These results indicate that Australians and New Guineans are ultimately descended from the same African emigrant group 50–70,000 years ago, as all other Eurasians. In other words, these data provide further evidence that local H. erectus or archaic Homo sapiens populations did not contribute to the modern aboriginal Australian gene pool, nor did Australians and New Guineans derive from a hypothetical second migration out of Africa (38), nor is there any suggestion of a specific relationship with India (9, 21, 22).
I'm done with you Clyde. All you are doing is copying and pasting from your own posts even though I have addressed all of your BS, you just keep posting it again. The reader can think for themselves.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Dravidian Albinos who had originally migrated from Africa into India and then continued North into Central Asia, to escape the Burning Sunshine found at lower latitudes returned to India.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I'm telling you guys, y'all are wasting your time. Clyde is one of those close-minded ignoramuses who thinks they know what they're talking about. We've tried to reason with him before but to no avail. Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Calabooz' you have not addressed any of my post. All you do is parrot what you have read without any interpretation of what you read. This is not science, it is the method of authority, i.e., if an authority writes a piece it must be correct since it has been published.
Calabooz’ you’re such a liar. You wrote:
quote: Notice how Clyde repeats that over and over again. It isn't even true. He is basing it on Kivislid et al. 1999 but the M1 known then is not the same M1 known now!
It is clear from this statement that you are saying that hg M1 in 1999, is different from hg M1 now. Yet above you claim you never said this. You fake. Look at the figure below you see the same transitions for hg M1 in India, that you find in African M1. LOL
.
.
Lying is a major characteristic of your discourse when your ideas are found to be Just false.
Your next character trait is name calling e.g., retard and etc. Just because some of the people on this forum entertain your method of argument-- in the scholarly world it would go no where.
It would go nowhere because you don't have any clue to the basics of critiquing a research article. That is why your friends tell you they are trying to teach something--yet they have never published a research article in their life.
You are awed that I can get articles published in peer reviewed journals that criticize the work of other geneticist. If you knew anything about research you would not be surprised.
You would not be surprised because Research is hypotheses testing. You build up a body of knowledge, based on confirming and disconfirming research.
I m a falsificationist. As a result, I believe that you can not prove a hypothesis is true, but you can prove it to be false. Here is an example:
When a hypothesis is true X will be observed. X was not observed. As a result the hypothesis is not true.
You appeared awed by the fact that I can publish articles criticizing geneticists in peer reviewed journals. When critiquing research you have to answer the following questions
1. What was the rationale for the study?
2. What were the purposes of the study?
3. Since genetic data alone can not solely be used to identify populations in the real world you have to determine if the review of literature supports the hypothesis.
4. What were the major conclusions of the researchers?
5. Are these conclusions justified?
6. Can any other factors account for the results?
It was easy to falsify Sanghamitra Sahoo et al. 2006 . It could be falsified because the authors had 1) ignored the research of Dravidian scholars and 2) the anthropology, 3) linguistic, and archaeological data, which proved that they were not native to India. If Sahoo et al had done an adequate review of literature they would have known that the Dravidians only recently settled India.Failure to perform a satisfactory review of literature meant that their conclusions would not be valid, and thus can be and was falsified.
In science hypotheses are self-generating. In other words, one hypothesis should lead to another hypothesis which can either be confirmed of disconfirmed (falsified).
Due to your foolishness and belief that Afrocentricism is not a social science you mistakenly thought you could make illiterate claims herein and not be challenged. The idea that Dravidians are genetically related to Africans is not a new Afrocentric paradigm. This paradigm was thoroughly researched by J.A. Rogers, Diop, Obenga and DuBois and others so it is nothing new. Due to your ignorance and disrespect for Black scholars you thought you could get away with dismissing this reality because a geneticist wrote this or that article.
Fool European geneticist are researchers not God. They bring their own biases to the research they conduct. Biases which my influence their research if the researcher does not provide the proper controls over their research.
You were proven wrong, because as a novice you don't understand that any scientific literature should be examined to determine its validity and reliability.
But you wouldn’t know this because you are a disrespectful moron. I set forth my hypothesis and you failed to falsify any.
A hypothesis can either be confirmed or disconfirmed. To confirm a hypothesis you must present evidence.
The Classical writers claimed that the Indians were descendants of the Kushites. This led to a series of hypotheses :
1. There is a relationship between the Kushites of Nubia and Indian populations.
2. If the Kushites lived in India there will be a genetic relationship between Indian and African languages.
3.If the Kushites lived in India, there will be cultural and genetic evidence supporting this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1 was confirmed when B.B. Lal proved conclusively that the Dravidians were related to the C group of Nubia.
Hypothesis 2 was confirmed, Dravidian languages are genetically related to the Niger-Congo group . See: Aravanan 1979, 1980 ; Homburger 1948, 1957; Upadhyaya and Upadhyaya, 1976, 1979; Winters 1985, 1988, 1989,2007,2007a,2008,2008a.
Hypothesis 3 was confirmed.Anthropological evidence provided by Aravanan 1980, Sergent 1992, Winters 2007, Lahavory 1963; Sistri 1966, and osteological evidence by Lahovary 1963, Sastri 1966, Sjoberg 1971,support an African origin of the Dravidian speakers
There are genetic markers which point to a relationship between South Indians and Africans. Cordaux et al. in a study of 370bp of the HVS-I control region found that although Indians were closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool, it was noted in Figure 5,that clusters I,II, VII,IX, X, XI,XII,and XIV are found in Africa and India. I have presented y-chromosome, sickle anemia, 9bp, HLA, and the fact that 15% of Dravidians carry hg M1.
The cultural evidence comes from the research of B B Lal he showed that both groups used 1) a common black-and-red ware (BRW), 2) a common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures and 3) a common type of rock cut sepulchre.
Given the confirmation of these hypotheses it is clear that the hypothesis that the Dravidians were related to the Kushites is confirmed.Until these hypotheses are falsified they remain valid. .
REFERENCES Aravanan KP 1979. Dravidians and Africans. Madras: Paari Nilayam.
Aravanan KP 1980). Notable Negroid elements in Dravidian India. J Tam Stud, 17: 20-45.
Cordaux R, Saha N, Bentley G R, Aunger R, Sirajuddin SM, Stoneking M. 2003. Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals diverse histories of tribal populations from India. Eur J Hum Genet, 11: 253–264. Retrieved 4/8/2008 http://www.nature.com./ejhg/journal/v11/n3/full/5200949a.html
Homburger L. 1948. Elements Dravidiens en peul. J.Soc Afr, 18(2): 135-143.
Homburger L 1957. Les Langues Negro-Africaines et les peoples qui les parlent. Paris: Payot.
Lahovary N 1963. Dravidian Origins and the West. Madras: Longmans.
Lal BB. 1963. “The Only Asian Expedition in threatened Nubia: Work by an India Mission at Afyeh and Tumas”. The Illustrated Times, London 20 April.
Rao,B.K.G. 1972.The Megalithic Culture in South India. Mysore.
Sastri, Nulakanta. 1966. History of South India. Madras: Oxford University Press.
Sergent , B. 1992. Genèse de L’Inde. Paris: Payot.
Singh, H.N. 1982. History and archaeology of Black and Red ware. Vedic Books.net: Manchester.
Upadhyaya P, Upadhyaya SP 1979. Les liens entre Kerala et l”Afrique tels qu’ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques. Bull. de L’IFAN, 1: 100-132.
Upadhyaya P, Upadhyaya SP 1976. Affinites ethnolinguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain. Bull.de L’IFAN, 1: 127-157.
Winters CA 1985. The Proto Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians. Tam Civ, 3(1):l 9.
Winters CA 1988.Common African and Dravidian Place Name Elements. Sou As Anth, 9(1): 33-36.
Winters CA 1989. Tamil, Sumerian,Manding and the Genetic Model. Int J Dr Ling, 18(1): 67-91.
Winters CA 2007. Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa? BioEssays, 27(5): 497-498.
Winters CA 2007b. High Levels of Genetic Divergence across Indian Populations. PloS Genetics. Retrieved 4/8/2008 http://www.plosgenetics . Winters CA 2008. Can parallel mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M Haplogroups. Int J Hum Genet, 13(3): 93-96.
I have peer reviewed numerous research articles and I don’t know what you plan to do in the future but if you think you can get published without critically examining research—knowledge—you will have a rude awakening. Moreover, you will never get a terminal degree if you don't learn the basics of critiquing and interpreting research.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)