posted
This is Charlie Bass. I recently emailed Dr Underhill about E-M81 and this was his reply:
My email to him:
Dear Dr. Underhill,
I have a question about E3b-M81. In published literature from Semino and Cruciani et al, it has been described as having a North African origin and distribution geographically. It also appears in very high frequencies in Ethiopia amongst the Falasha Jews[Lucotte G, Smets P. 1999. Origins of Falasha Jews studied by haplotypes of Y chromosome. Hum Biol 71:989–993.],that is if Haplotype V corresponds roughly with E-M81. My question is basically is it possible that E-M81 may have arisen multiple times into different variants like E-M78 did in the Levant and the Balkans? Falasha Jews have had no historical mixture and contact with North Africans yet they have high frequencies of E-M81, that is, if E-M81 corresponds with haplotype V by Lucotte et al. I seek your guidance and comments on this question. Thanks in advance.
Best Regards,
Charles Rigaud
His reply:
Charles, My best guess is that hg E-M81 originated sometiime within Holocene pre-history perhaps 8,000 years ago. NE Africa is a reasonable guess as to its point of origin. This is a very crude temporal estimate, but the origin of the common ancestor was enough time ago in the past to help explain the accumulated YSTR diversity and widespread geographic distribution which could be the net effect of multiple dispersal events some early and some later. So overlapping some not. The point is that one should be careful not to assume that all M81 chromosomes are recently closely related. Closely matching localized YSTR haplotypes do exist indicative of a recent founder effect, but enough YSTR diversity exists on the overall hg E-M81 background to unscore the pre-historic molecular antiquity of this binary mutation, subsets of which may have participated in recent demographic events, perhaps some even during historical times. I can't confirm that Luccote's hg V is actually M81 (He refuses to use other Y markers) but I assume this is feasible given the known distributions of M81 cataloged populations in other studies.
It is import to recognize that M81 probably does not truly occupy a "tip" in the Y tree even if depicted as such in some data sets. Rather it is likely that downstream markers (as yet undiscovered) exist at informative frequencies that will fractionate the M81 background further. Someday, these new markers will be revealed. In the meantime, YSTR patterns will have to suffice as to how closely currently defined ethnic groups are related and whenever the M81 landscape reflects overlapping migrations of different M81 chromosomal gene flows in certain regions. More binary markers are the best way forward.
Peter
Any comments?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to the question of the title, I am not sure that this exchange has put forth information, additional to what has been discussed. Is this useful in any case, as a message on how to approach the information gathered thus far on the said lineages? Yes.
Has E-M81 finally been explained by this, at least to the extent of what is already known? Not necessarily.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks to me like the guy said he really wasn't sure. In any event it was so long ago it would have little or nothing to do with anything in the historical era,
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Looks to me like the guy said he really wasn't sure. In any event it was so long ago it would have little or nothing to do with anything in the historical era,
The point is that E-M81 isn't necessarily a "North African" haplotype, but one that could be paraphyletic. Its origin is in Northeast Africa where its more diverse and older. The fact that it appears in Falasha Jews in high frequencies seems to refute it being an exclusively "Berber" haplotype.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its 8000 years ago, whats the point? I be pretty careful before I drew any real conclusions off that, one way or the other. That something existed that long ago is one thing, trying to do much with it is quite another.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
It is import to recognize that M81 probably does not truly occupy a "tip" in the Y tree even if depicted as such in some data sets. Rather it is likely that downstream markers (as yet undiscovered) exist at informative frequencies that will fractionate the M81 background further.
Someday, these new markers will be revealed.
...a potential project for you and other bio-anthropologist aspirants,...needless to say, after putting funding issues behind you, in relation to the costs associated with traveling, equipment et al., and voilà! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Its 8000 years ago, whats the point? I be pretty careful before I drew any real conclusions off that, one way or the other. That something existed that long ago is one thing, trying to do much with it is quite another.
The point is to put to rest nonsensical claims of North African "caucasoids" spouted by people like YOU. E3b-M81 is a clade with many varieties but ultimately stems from the Northeast African area. The Falasha or Black Jews of Ethiopia carry a marker usually associated with 'Berber' peoples (which pretty much puts to rest the theory that their ancestors were Jews from the Middle East). E3b is found in the Levant, indicating a prehistoric emigration from Africa there. It is also found in other parts of the eastern Mediterranean including Greece.
The date of the mutation as well as anthropological evidence suggests the marker arrived by people who spread Neolithic technology.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Underhill's comments were informative and consistent with the known data.
I understood his answer perhaps a little bit better than I understood the question:
quote:Question: Is it possible that E-M81 may have arisen multiple times into different variants like E-M78 did in the Levant and the Balkans.
The different variants of E-M78 are clusters, which all descend from the same underived E-M78 lineage - in other words, different brothers from the same paternal lineage. [note: you can cluster brothers into sub-groups, but the clusters are not lineages] M78 itself is a single event polymorphism, as is M81, meaning they occur 1 time only. Clusters are not single event polymorphisms, and so, technically not lineages in the strictist sense.
The issue with "Berber" halplotype M81 of course - is that it is found in the NorthWest African Berber and based upon Nucledotide diversity is of fairly recent provinence.
Yet in North East Africa it is of far older provinence.
Meanwhile in SouthWest Asia M-81 is rare, and it's parent hapolotype - M-35 underived is all but non-exisent.
Now we have Underhill's reply which makes very good sense...
quote:Charles, My best guess is that hg E-M81 originated sometiime within Holocene pre-history perhaps 8,000 years ago.
-> consistent with it's expansion date in NorthEast Africa, in North West Africa E-M81's expansion is only 2000 years[!]
Hence.....
quote: NE Africa is a reasonable guess as to its point of origin.
quote: This is a very crude temporal estimate, but the origin of the common ancestor was enough time ago in the past to help explain the accumulated YSTR diversity and widespread geographic distribution which could be the net effect of multiple dispersal events some early and some later.
translation: it's old enough to been derived in the lower nile valley in the holocene, and spread to the magrheb in the neolithic.
quote:The point is that one should be careful not to assume that all M81 chromosomes are recently closely related.
This is what Keita is noting about halplotype V in Ethiopia among Falasha - E3b-M81 and underived E3b [the daddy lineage] but...NO J [southwest Asia].
quote: Closely matching localized YSTR haplotypes do exist indicative of a recent founder effect,
Hence the NorthWest African Berber lineages.
quote: but enough YSTR diversity exists on the overall hg E-M81 background to unscore the pre-historic molecular antiquity of this binary mutation, subsets of which may have participated in recent demographic events, perhaps some even during historical times.
So Charles: I think Underhill is saying that E3b1 does not need to have a poly-genic origin to explain the current data.
quote: I can't confirm that Luccote's hg V is actually M81 (He refuses to use other Y markers) but I assume this is feasible given the known distributions of M81 cataloged populations in other studies.
This is what I want to know as well, and this question appears to be unanswered.
Anyway, that's my opinion. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
M78 itself is a single event polymorphism, as is M81, meaning they occur 1 time only. Clusters are not single event polymorphisms, and so, technically not lineages in the strictist sense.
For the sake of elaborating, so as to get as many minds as possible to grasp…
It goes without saying, that a 'cluster' entails the "gathering" of similar or related (basically, a series of repeating alleles at a DNA site/locus) alleles on a chromosome carrying a designated SNP as the most recent single nucleotide polymorphism, e.g. M78 or M81, and so,
when you claim that DNA clusters are "technically" not “lineages" or not “lineages in the strictest sense”, you are saying so, under the premises that these mutations “repeat”, in contrast to the single nucleotide polymorphisms, whereby a nucleotide is modified via replacement/change of a single base, that doesn‘t “repeat”, and ultimately reaches [without much generational alteration] the sort of frequencies [in a populace] deemed sufficient enough to uphold the status as SNPs?!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would liken a Y chromosome clade or lineage denoted by single nucleotide polymorphisms to a direct statement that several full-brothers have by definition, a common father, represented by their Y chromosome.
I would liken a cluster denoted by a common groups of allele repeats at various loci to a statement that these brothers [or clade] can be further sub divided or 'clustered' genetically in various ways [say for instance, trait for left handedness in some, and right handedness in others], but not *necessarily* in ways that denote a single undifferentiated ancestor within the clade.
E3 pn2 - clade
E3a or E3b - clade/sub-clade,
E3b1 - clade/sub-clade
E3b1 alpha....cluster, not necessarily a clade.
Simply put:
Clade defines a single undifferentiated ancestor.
Cluster defines similar elements within a group. That group may be within a defined clade, consist of many differnt clades, or not be associable with clades at all.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Cluster defines similar elements within a group. That group may be within a defined clade, consist of many differnt clades, or not be associable with clades at all.
...would be consistent with my understanding of what a "cluster" is, as I hinted to in my earlier post.
Just trying to gauge where you were coming from, when you said "single event polymorphism", along with "clusters" not "technically" being "lineages". So all along, the context in which you were referencing the term "lineage", if I'm not mistaken, is with regards to the DNA carrying just the SNP of a specific designation [i.e., in its earliest stage, when that mutation first occurred(?)...or to put it another way, the mutation (designated one-time SNP or unique event mutation [UEM]) identified at the root of upstream sequencing of "clusters"/variants of a said lineage], barring any additional alleles [aka downstream mutations], like the tandem repeats of M78 for example, designated as alpha, beta, and gamma clusters?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So all along, the context in which you were referencing the term "lineage", if I'm not mistaken, is with regards to the DNA carrying just the SNP of a specific designation
Clade here is synonymous with lineage and is defined as - a single line of ancestry going back to a single common ancestor.
SNP markers would then be a method of denoting clades or lineages.
Cluster is a more loosely defined concept sometimes based on common groups of STR's and don't necessarily denote markers which lead back to single common ancestor.
STR's are often most useful for assessing population expansions as opposed to denoting lineage origins.
Some examples of relevance to various ES conversations:
quote:Melanesian origin of Polynesian Y chromosomes: Background: Two competing hypotheses for the origins of Polynesians are the ‘express-train’ model, which supposes a recent and rapid expansion of Polynesian ancestors from Asia/Taiwan via coastal and island Melanesia, and the ‘entangled-bank’ model, which supposes a long history of cultural and genetic interactions among Southeast Asians, Melanesians and Polynesians. Most genetic data, especially analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation, support the express-train model, as does linguistic and archaeological evidence. Here, we used Y-chromosome polymorphisms to investigate the origins of Polynesians.
Results: We analysed eight single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and seven short tandem repeat (STR) loci on the Y chromosome in 28 Cook Islanders from Polynesia and 583 males from 17 Melanesian, Asian and Australian populations. We found that all Polynesians belong to just three Y-chromosome haplotypes, as defined by unique event polymorphisms.
The major Y haplotype in Polynesians (82% frequency) was restricted to Melanesia and eastern Indonesia and most probably arose in Melanesia. Coalescence analysis of associated Y-STR haplotypes showed evidence of a population expansion in Polynesians, beginning about 2,200 years ago. The other two Polynesian Y haplotypes were widespread in Asia but were also found in Melanesia.
Conclusions: All Polynesian Y chromosomes can be traced back to Melanesia, although some of these Y-chromosome types originated in Asia. Together with other genetic and cultural evidence, we propose a new model of Polynesian origins that we call the ‘slow-boat’ model: Polynesian ancestors did originate from Asia/Taiwan but did not move rapidly through Melanesia; rather, they interacted with and mixed extensively with Melanesians, leaving behind their genes and incorporating many Melanesian genes before colonising the Pacific.
quote: Recent phylogeographic analyses of Y chromosome E and J haplogroups indicate that southern Europe and the Balkans indeed could have been both the receptors and sources of gene flow during and after the Neolithic (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004). The STR haplotype diversity of these two haplogroups is considerably younger than that of other Y chromosome haplogroups spread in Europe.
Expansion ranges were expressed as the age of STR variation estimated as the average squared difference in the number of repeats of seven STRs (DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, and DYS393) between all sampled chromosomes and the founder haplotype divided by w (effective mutation rate of 0.00069 per locus per 25 years) (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004).
posted
None of this had anything at all to do with the historical era and some of it is speculation.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it does -> E3b1 East Africans carried the Neolithic agriculature and animal domestication [alpha cluster] into Europe, whose population consisted previously of simple hunter gatherer folk.
This ushered in the 'historical era' in Europe.
To this day E3b1 is the predominent paternal lineage in Greece, reflecting this biological history in living populations.
Anyone who doesn't understand the above, doesn't really understand the origin of Greek, or 'European' civilisation - although they might falsely imagine otherwise.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is speculation and its way to early to have any impact on historical europe. What you have actually done is take a hodge podge of speculation and possibilities and fused it into a system to make a point. There is no African blood in historical Greece, its pure garble.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no African blood in historical Greece
You wish, unfortunately geneticists disagree with you, leaving you to make empty noisemaking claims - completely devoid of supporting data/references...as usual.
quote:That is speculation and its way to early to have any impact on historical europe.
I suggest you follow Charles' lead, and write anthropologist CL Brace, linguist Christopher Ehret, and geneticists PA Underhill then and tell them that.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have read all that , in addition to your responses to it....again, you substituted 'fact' for possibilities...you know that. Brace did not go nearly as far as you are willing to go.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This info is important because people like Passarino et al in his study that Evil Euro once spammed used the haplotype V/E-M81 to denote "Caucasoid" ancestry in Ethiopians, thus contributing to the flawed and overstated 40% "Caucasoid" estimate. I think the new data on E3b, expected to be published later this year, will shed light on E-M81.When we look at this:
We see that Falashas have haplotype V in frequencies almost as high as Moroocan Berbers. There is no historical data nor archaeological evidence that suggests the Horn was overran by North Africans carrying a "Berber" male lineage. It seems to me that E-M81 originated someplace in Northeast Africa like Underhill stated, but that it traveled down the Nile and then West into Northwest Africa.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Lucotte's V travelled from the Middle Nile Valley to the Sahara and from there to NorthWest Africa rather than from the Delta and along the seaboard, but who knows for sure. Just presenting an alternate route that also deserves consideration.
Cruciani (2004 Table 1) and Semino (2004 p.1024) failed to list E3b2-M81 in Eastern Africa though Cruciani (2002 Figure 2) does list low frequencies of it in Sudan without specifying the precise population. Luis (2004 Figure 1) finds it in his Egyptian "Arabs."
The Beta Israel (Falasha is a pejorative the Ethiopian non-Jews labeled them) do have E3b-M35 and E3b1-M78. I couldn't find a study listing them as having E3b2-M81. So far it looks like that haplogroup isn't what makes Lucotte assign them within his haplotype V.
Lucotte's V doesn't easily transfer into the accepted YCC conventions. It's broader than E3b2-M81.
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: It seems to me that E-M81 originated someplace in Northeast Africa like Underhill stated, but that it traveled down the Nile and then West into Northwest Africa.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Clade here is synonymous with lineage and is defined as - a single line of ancestry going back to a single common ancestor.
SNP markers would then be a method of denoting clades or lineages.
Cluster is a more loosely defined concept sometimes based on common groups of STR's and don't necessarily denote markers which lead back to single common ancestor.
STR's are often most useful for assessing population expansions as opposed to denoting lineage origins.
Gotcha. Just as well, another way of putting your already concise presentation, in a “back-to-the-basics” sort of a diagrammatical manner:
Lineage = haplogroups = group of individual chromosomes exhibiting their respective unique set of nucleotide sequencing patterns (generally exhibiting a number of tandem repeats) at particular loci, while sharing a series of identified unique event single nucleotide polymorphisms at certain alleles, characterized as designated SNPs, with all other member chromosomes of the group.
From above, common ancestor = characterization by shared SNPs down to the most recent SNP, with latter used to designate a lineage or haplo group.
“Clusters“, in bio-anthropology, can reference grouping of populations based on frequency percentages of designated lineages extant in the said populations, but for our context, this will be narrowed down to the genetic level, so that we have:
Clusters of haplogroups = “individual” member haplotypes [i.e. chromosomes characterized by their own unique set of STRs or alleles] but sharing a common pattern of unique event mutations (SNPs) down to the most recent SNP.
And on a more microscopic level…
Clusters of alleles: grouping of nucleotides, usually exhibiting tandem repeats.
quote: Rigaud:
This info is important because people like Passarino et al in his study that Evil Euro once spammed used the haplotype V/E-M81 to denote "Caucasoid" ancestry in Ethiopians, thus contributing to the flawed and overstated 40% "Caucasoid" estimate.
Even if we were to assume that E-M81 were of North African derivation and restricted to those regions, which we know not to be the case, how does this justify the use of “Caucasoid”?
Putting Lucotte et al. aside, the presence of E-M81 has been acknowledged by other bio-anthropologists…
The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations
Since the E3b*-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages. These include E3b1-M78, a haplogroup especially common in Ethiopia (23%), and, perhaps, E3b2-M123 (2%), which is present as well (Underhill et al.2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002). The data suggest that two later expansions may have followed: one eastward along the Levantine corridor into the Near East and the other toward northwestern Africa.
The extant North African and Middle Eastern distribution (Underhill et al. 2001b; Cruciani et al. 2002; present study) of these lineages suggests that both routes are associated with the dissemination of E3b1-M78. However, the E3b3-M123 chromosomes may have spread predominantly toward the east, whereas E3b2- M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco (33% and 69% in Moroccan Arabs and Moroccan Berbers, respectively [Cruciani et al. 2002]), dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in accordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa ~ 2 ky ago (Cru- ciani et al. 2002). The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 ky ago) is also compatible with this scenario. - Luis et al.
And from Keita,
M81 found in the Maghreb predominantly amongst Amazigh (Berber) speakers. (Some M81 can be found in samples from the Sudan (Underhill and Muntaser, personal communication), and Ethiopia; this would be consistent with this region being a possible area of origin, with founder effect explaining the high frequencies in Berber speakers in the Sahara and supra-Saharan Africa.)…
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if we were to assume that E-M81 were of North African derivation and restricted to those regions, which we know not to be the case, how does this justify the use of “Caucasoid”?
Good question Supercar, and of course...it doesn't.
The original, and proper use of the term caucasian is as follows:
A native or inhabitant of Caucasia - a mountain region of SouthWest Russia, Georgia, Armenia - their languages and cultures.
The recently invented notion of using this term to denote a racial classification is invalid.
Caucasians are not a distinct race, nor is Caucasia the primary source origin for non caucasian peoples and lineages.
Caucas"oid" - wherein oid denotes appears as or resembles and is erroneously used to denote a 'morphology' is equally invalid, and intentionally misleading.
In addition to the fact that the term does not actually discribe a specific morphology [unlike negroid derives from 'black' for example], and which is critical, since it then allows the user of the term to then append any arbitrary morphological feature to it -
it also implies European propriety, origin and ownership of physical characteristics that in fact do not, in any way, belong to caucasia or Europe.
Example - referring to wavy hair as caucasoid is falsified by the fact that many Australian natives have wavy hair.
They do not get their wavy hair from Europeans. In fact Australia was settled by modern humans at least 20,000 years before Europeans existed.
When Australia was settled by wavy haired black peoples - only Neanderthal lived in caucasia.
Probably wavy hair existed in some Africans prior to out of Africa - and still does today for that reason.
Caucasians/Europeans are provably not the 1st wavy haired people, so wavy hair is not a caucaZoid trait, and caucaZoid is not a valid morphology.
Many physical anthropologist admit the above, and even more know it to be true.
Terms like caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid - are worse than useless - CL Brace.
They are worse than useless because they are misleading.
Oh, and...we know M-81 isn't cacauZoid, because it doesn't originate in caucasia....period. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well rasol, we can pick academic nits all we want but all of us know that in practical fact there is such a thing as a caucasian and race is hardly obsolete. If we all have 99.4 % of the same DNA then the difference is the other 0.6%. That 0.6% is what drives this particular board day in and day out.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
yuns got to be joking! you stated "If we all have 99.4 % of the same DNA then the difference is the other 0.6%". HArdly, Abuse and hegemony to take property, person from its owners and pretend to discover that which is stolen is not 0.6% of anything. the 99.4% has to do with deceit, purposeful attempts to destroy so its comes down to morality or lacktherof. Anything else is bogus despite its social constructs!
Libertad pa'to'el mundo! Freedom for all
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Well rasol, we can pick academic nits
Actually I asked you a question regarding your statements on the opinion of CL Brace:
Can you be specific?
If your non-answer means - no you can't be specific, then in fact, you have no nits to pick and our conversation concludes.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
M81 found in the Maghreb predominantly amongst Amazigh (Berber) speakers. (Some M81 can be found in samples from the Sudan (Underhill and Muntaser, personal communication), and Ethiopia; this would be consistent with this region being a possible area of origin, with founder effect explaining the high frequencies in Berber speakers in the Sahara and supra-Saharan Africa.)…
Interesting you would mention Keita because Underhill emailed me a copy of Keita's study that covered Haplotype V/E-M81. When I asked him whether he thought Keita's points were plausible and whether he agreed with them or not[since people attack Keita as an Afrocentrist, essentially a strawman argument], Underhill had this to say:
Charles, Yes I am more in agreement with his interpretation than Lucote's. I had lots of email discussion with Keita prior to the manuscript being submitted. Note that I was mentioned in the Acknowledgements.
best wishes, Peter
Does this finally answer this question about Haplotype V/E-M81? I hope I provided some answers via communication with Underhill.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol, I am assuming you are talking about his work on the Natufians? Note that he said 'possibly' in the comments that he made on the very very small sample used. I would be very cautious before I made any sweeping statements based on minute data that involves the entire history of the region. Even if it was correct it would be much to ancient to impact the historical era. If every person in Europe was stone black in 30,000 BC it would have little if any impact on historical Europe.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your email correspondance to scholars are among the best reasons to log on to Egyptsearch Charles - appreciate it.
By the way - the Berta and Surma of Sudan and Ethiopia are I believe, among the populations confirmed to carry E-M81 lineages.
More work needs to be done to document the lienages of the Ethiopian Jews, and before they it's 'too late' as many have migrated to Isreal and the original genetic frequencies may soon be lost.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: rasol, I am assuming you are talking about his work on the Natufians?
I don't know, because you were not specific as to what you are referencing. But if that's it, then fine....
quote: Note that he said 'possibly' in the comments that he made on the very very small sample used.
I'm looking at Brace Natufian study right now - I can't find the world possibly anywhere - however, I found the world CLEARLY not once, but 7 times.
Can you provide the source/quote for: "possibly".
It's odd that you refer to picking nits - yet you attempt to deny Brace clear conclusions based upon the weasel word - possibly, and even then - you have not actually provided the word in question.
->In other words, you are trying to pick nits, but don't appear to actually have the nit you are trying to pick. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.
"Brace et al. also combined samples into regional groups. The canonical variate plot again shows the separate of the Niger-Congo group, and the intermediacy of the Natufians between West Eurasians and North/East Africans and Eurasians."
Again "may have been"
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again rasol, it would have no impact on historical Europe. let us say, for sake of discussion that we were 100% sure they were from northeast Africa. Now we have a different problem. There are not two cultures 'more different' than historical Greece and historical northeast Africa, especially Egypt.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yes, in reference to a particular piece of evidence, NOT as a sweeping qualifier or disclaimer for everything said in the study, as you would PRETEND out of a desparate need to run away from conclusions that you don't like....
Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufian
Here, my opinion differs from Braces here only in that I don't ascribe to the mis-definition of Sub-saharan, which is not a term I ordinarily use at any rate - so, what is your point.
I concur with Brace conclusions pertaining the following: If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub- Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
This picture of a mixture between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been spported by the archaeological record alone , but this view is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared.
- CL Brace.
You have still not shown in distinction between Brace conclusions and anything said in this thread.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He did say "IF it was the source" did he not? There is not enough data here rasol. What you say may well have been true but we can't establish that based on this.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've had these arguments before, about selective interpretations of experts' use of words like "possibly", "clearly", "small Natufian samples sizes", and what not, and so, I'll just repeat my postings on both the Nile Valley forum and Egyptsearch on the issue:
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - Angel
This was once again, more recently, observed by Brace et al.:
"...the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that,...
while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it." - Brace et al.
Not to mention...
"If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of **almost equal importance** as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.” - Brace et al.
It also has to be recognized that Brace is just another expert, who has reached the same conclusion about the Natufians, as others BEFORE him and his partners. For example...
"[The caves of Erq-el-Ahmar] . . . produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm.* and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding..." - Furon.
What I am getting at here, is that, notwithstanding Brace's rather smaller collection, others before him, who collected varying numbers of Natufian remains, had reached the same conclusion. As you can see, Miss Garrod's collection was much larger than Brace's. Thus, Brace et al.'s work, should simply seen as another re-confirmation of an earlier discovery, although Brace has the advantage of working with molecular geneticists to build a more complete thesis or the broader picture, than those who had to work with what was available to them at the time, i.e., archeology, including skeletal remains, and linguistics. Molecular genetics is much more prevalent now, and Brace can correlate his findings with this discipline.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He did say "IF it was the source" did he not?
[If] references the Natufians as the source of the Neolithic - that is not something that Brace study attempts to address - however Peter Underhill does address this:
About 8,000 years ago, a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life: agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration. - Underhill
So what Brace does not address, Underhill does.
You can run but you can't hide.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
he does not reconfirm it Super Car, he clearly says 'might have been.' There are also other elemnts involved with these people. This level of evidence would not be acceptable in any other historical question. After we pass this questions the others that follow become even more of a problem.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - Angel
This was once again, more recently, observed by Brace et al.:
"...the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that,...
while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it." - Brace et al.
Not to mention...
"If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of **almost equal importance** as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.” - Brace et al.
The idea of the significance of these findings having no bearings on the historical periods, can only be the deductions of someone devoid of the knowledge of what one's talking about. These groups brought cultural elements as mentioned by the above experts; its not a simple issue of the physical anthropology and genealogy of the subjects in question, but what cultural elements they spread to other regions. Human culture is the culmination of social evolution/processes, not single events. Of course, agriculture and new tool making, has significant bearings on the social development of "cave dwelling" [not my words, but that of one expert] inhabitants of Europe.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are these cultural elements super car?historical greece has nothing in common culturally with northeast Africa...zippo. You guys are on an easter egg hunt.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: he does not reconfirm it Super Car, he clearly says 'might have been.' There are also other elemnts involved with these people. This level of evidence would not be acceptable in any other historical question. After we pass this questions the others that follow become even more of a problem.
Tell me that you are just being humorous.
"Read" again:
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - Angel
This was once again, more recently, observed by Brace et al.:
"...the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that,...
while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it." - Brace et al.
Not to mention...
"If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of **almost equal importance** as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.” - Brace et al.
The subjects are Natufians, and the results pertain to biological affinities, in conjunction with genetics, linguistics and archeology.
Thus, Brace is reconfirming what others before him had already observed about the Natufians.
All it takes, is simple reading.
Now, lets get back to the topic at hand, about E-M81!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are going to give me a quote from 1939 ? I would not use a '39 quote on a civil war paper and that was 151 years ago, not 30,000. You are wrapping all of that up in a neat package based on very little real data and the data you have is incomplete. Again...it has no bearing on historical Europe. What cultural traits existed? You never answered that question.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: You are going to give me a quote from 1939 ?
What university or institution let you in without your having the tools to be able to read?
Garrod was the first to use the term "Natufian" in reference to the subjects/specimens in question...McCown has no bearings on this. McCown, the person you decided to focus your short attention span to, again, has no bearings on Angel's own analysis and findings on the said Natufian samples/specimens in the 70s. Experts cite other experts on an issue, to compare a previous finding or claim with their own findings, i.e., gauge the parities and disparities...nothing new. Angel did his own testings, and came to the conclusions cited. Do you have evidence to the contrary? If so, provide it. If not, let's move onto the subject at hand, i.e., E-M81!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen any evidence yet SC. The burden of proof is on you since you are making the claim that it is correct. I conceded that it is 'possible'but you are way out there on this. You have taken a 'scrap' of possible evidence and put together an entire history. No European textbook is going to show this. Further, what are the cultural aspects of this you mentioned that I can tie to historical Europe?
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Today we have evidence of Y-chromosome E3b derived haplotypes in the Eastern Mediterranean i.e. the Levant, Aegean area as well as Greece itself. The measured rate of mutation show they derive from a common ancestor somewhere in Northeast Africa. And that the carriers of these lineages entered Eurasia around the Mesolithic right before the Neolithic or New Stone Age.
Before the advent of genetics and bio-molecular science, WESTERN anthropologists have been noting for a while that skeletal remains dating from the Mesolithic show marked "NEGROID" features.
All you have to do is put 2 and 2 together. It's not that hard professor!
As for the cultural and historical impact,...
It has been repeated ad-nasium that the Natufians were the founders of the Neolithic i.e. agriculture and animal domestication!! It was agriculture that made the once hunter-gatherer peoples finally settle down and create sedentary communities. With communities being settled came permanent dwellings like buildings and eventually cities. The regulation of agriculture and other land resources and goods led to more organization and thus.. CIVILIZATION!! And the rest is, as we say, HISTORY.
No nitpicking in the world can help change this FACT.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's funny is that while professor Hore does not yet get it (or tries hard not to), other white racists, especially those from the Mediterranean do!!
Thus we have Dienekes Pontikos and his cult of stubborn, ignorant, nutcase followers who no longer deny the FACTS but try hard to twist them. But to no avail.
They know that both archaeo-anthropology as well as genetics show a migration from Northeast Africa to the Near East and ultimately to Europe and that such a migration corresponds strongly with the spread of the Neolithic-- which then ultimately spawned civilizations.
So now their last and only resort is to say that these Africans were not black!!
posted
Djehuti, certainly the Brace study does not say that and to imply that the natifians form the foundation of european society is problematical, again Euro texts will not go out on that limb. I'll look but I'll be suprised if I find that. You are saying that 30,000 years ago a group of people began to farm and are morphing that into an entire civilization. Do you have any idea how much time that is? Thats ten times the amount of time between now and king Tut. Here is the point...ancient Greece and Egyptian or northeast Africans are as opposite as any two cultures could possibly be. There is no ancient culture more conservative than Egypt and none more dynamic than Greece.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: There are not two cultures 'more different' than historical Greece and historical northeast Africa, especially Egypt.
Horemheb, what logic do you use to objectively validate this statement?
Honestly we all know what this is about.
It's called cultural bigotry.
Ancient Greece is considered to be the first civilization in Europe and the heart of Western Civilization.
If Ancient Egypt had a significant cultural influence on Greece that would mean that Africans brought important cultural elements to (i.e. civilized) Europeans.
Obviously to many, especially right wing conservatives, this is ideological blasphemy.
But you know, I don't see Rasol and the others talk about that subject much at all on Egyptsearch. Anytime Southern Europe is brought it usually has to do with Y-chromosome haplogroups and their origins being derived from Africa not Greek or Western Civilization.
Anytime posters such as Lion! brought up the subject of Egyptians influencing Greece posters such as Djehuti criticized them.
I've read Richard Poe's book Black Spark, White Fire and while the idea of the Ancient Egyptians colonizing and civilizing the Greeks may be baffling to even the most open-minded liberal the historical and archeological evidence for at the very least a significant cultural influence is undeniable.
It's a long book to summarize in one shot and there are a plethora of sources throughout it that I'll have to look over before coming to definite conclusions on the subject but I do know one thng for sure....
This subject was not taken seriously by mainstream academics until the writings of Martin Bernal in Black Athena when other scholars had been writng about it for years. All of a sudden a British man with scholarly credentials writes about Black Egyptian civilization influencing White Greek civilization and a scare runs across the Western academic community that such a proposal would no longer be viewed as the opinions of a bunch of looney Afrocentrists. It would no longer be "a black thing".
Horemheb, you talk about people on this board losing credibility by "going to far" with their claims about African Civilization.
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb:...Africa is and always has been the sewer of mankind.
Is this as far as it should go?
If this kind of statement is representative of what mainstream Western academics really think of Africa, its people and its cultures then it's no wonder even the slighest comparison between Africa and Europe is met with sharp criticism.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Interesting you would mention Keita because Underhill emailed me a copy of Keita's study that covered Haplotype V/E-M81. When I asked him whether he thought Keita's points were plausible and whether he agreed with them or not[since people attack Keita as an Afrocentrist, essentially a strawman argument], Underhill had this to say:
Charles, Yes I am more in agreement with his interpretation than Lucote's. I had lots of email discussion with Keita prior to the manuscript being submitted. Note that I was mentioned in the Acknowledgements.
best wishes, Peter
Does this finally answer this question about Haplotype V/E-M81? I hope I provided some answers via communication with Underhill.
posted
Why is it that every time someone disagrees with you guys the race card pops up, it gets very old. Bernal is a full blown nut, any well read person who has read any amount of Greek knows that. In 3000 years of ancient Egyptian history there was very little change in all the basic institutions. Art, religion, politics etc were more consistent in AE than in any ancient culture I can think of. Can you just imagine someone like Pericles coming along in northeast Africa? The central thrust of each culture had nothing in common.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
IF IT WAS NOT WHITE, AND ITS GREATNESS IS UNDENIABLE, THEN IT MUST BE DEPRECATED IN SOME WAY: Example:The Epic of Man, published in the '60s by Time/Life Books, says of the advanced civilization of ancient Pakistan: "It is known that a static and sterile quality pervaded Indus society." It used to be the academic fashion to call ancient Egypt a "moribund" civilization which "stifled creativity." Similar writings dismissed the "Incas" (Quechua) as "totalitarian," or the Chinese as "isolated" and "resistant to change."
Horemheb, you always say that no evidence is ever presented for an Egyptian influence on Greece, well in the interest of being objective why don't you read this page and get back to us with your scholarly opinions (be they acknowledgements or criticisms of the material).
It's a shame that the more up to date page no longer exists, I could only find the web archive.
I've posted this before and never gotten a response.
It should be interesting to note that while the author is critical of Martin Bernal to an extent he is just as if not more critical of Mary Lefkowitz and attempts to offer a middle ground between the two views.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic