This is topic E-M81 finally explained? in forum Egyptology at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003400
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
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,
 
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
quote:
Underhill:

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! [Smile]
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
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.
[Smile]

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. [Smile]
 
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

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?!
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

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.
...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?
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
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.
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Kay_CurrBiol_2000.pdf


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).
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964

Cluster's denoted by short tandom repeats help tell us 'when' a lineage expanded within a given population. They do not necessarily define the clade.

And analogy would be: "Nigerian" and "Indian" cluster of the English language clade.
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
None of this had anything at all to do with the historical era and some of it is speculation.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
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. [Frown]

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.
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
quote:
Brace did not go nearly as far as you are willing to go.
Can you be specific?
 
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
I agree Charles. That is consistent with all the data presented at this time.
 
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
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.

 
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
quote:
rasol:

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.)…
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
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. [Cool]
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
 
Horemheb,

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
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:


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.)…
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 by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
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. [Cool]
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
According to Brace et al:

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"
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
quote:
Again "may have been"
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.
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^^On the contrary, 'professor'.

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! [Roll Eyes]

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.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
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!! [Eek!]

Thus our past Troll par exemplar Evil-Euro who claims the existance of prehistoric East African Caucasoids !!! ROTFLMAO [Big Grin] [Razz]
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mansa Musa (Member # 6800) on :
 
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.

What is too far?

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001543.html

quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:...Africa is and always has been the sewer of mankind.
Is this as far as it should go? [Roll Eyes]


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.
 
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rigaud:

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.
As always.
 
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mansa Musa (Member # 6800) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
There is no ancient culture more conservative than Egypt and none more dynamic than Greece.
^^

quote:
Eurocentrism 101: Racism, History and Lies


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).

The impact of Ancient Egypt on Greek Philosophy

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.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rigaud:

[since people attack Keita as an Afrocentrist, essentially a strawman argument],
No scholar or scientist attacks Dr. Keita's credentials or objectivity. Dienekes, et al, are not scientists and have no credibility or credentials. They merely have a miseducated fan club filled with people who couldn't pass a public school biology exam.

They won't even confer with lettered scholars as you have, because they know the answers they get will refute their lies.

They are still trying to recover from Brace Natufian study - because they relied heavily on mis-interpretations of his work in the past.

What we now have pertaining to these issues is more agreement than not between Keita, Underhill, Brace, Wells, Ehret and others.

Thus they are forced to go back to quoting Carlton Coon's nazi era [race anthropology].

They are little more than cowards, and if they were not motivated by hatred and misanthropoic malice, you'd almost feel sorry for them.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
But Mansa, no one denies Egyptian influence on Greece. There is various evidence including the Korou statues of archaic times.

What we deny is the other stuff, like Greece being "colonized" by Egyptians. There is no evidence to support this. BUT evidence does support that common ancestors of both the Egyptians and Greeks spread throughout the eastern Mediiterranean.

The very use of agriculture was one of the technologies that these people brought and which had a profound impact on the areas of Western Asia and Europe.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

No scholar or scientist attacks Dr. Keita's credentials or objectivity. Dienekes, et al, are not scientists and have no credibility or credentials. They merely have a miseducated fan club filled with people who couldn't pass a public school biology exam.

They won't even confer with lettered scholars as you have, because they know the answers they get will refute their lies.

They are still trying to recover from Brace Natufian study - because they relied heavily on mis-interpretations of his work in the past.

What we now have pertaining to these issues is more agreement than not between Keita, Underhill, Brace, Wells, Ehret and others.

Thus they are forced to go back to quoting Carlton Coon's nazi era [race anthropology].

They are little more than cowards, and if they were not motivated by hatred and misanthropoic malice, you'd almost feel sorry for them.
[Big Grin] They are nothing more than bumbling idiots, if you ask me!!

Citing Carleton Coon!.. ROTLH [Big Grin]

These people pose a threat to no one but themselves.

As you say Rasol, we should just let them be to wallow in their own waste. [Wink]
 
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
 
Everyone here knows I'm no geneticist...so I'm not going to pretend that I am. But I'd like to clear up the African Jews thing. I'm under the impression that some of you think it's some sort of eurocentrict distortion.

Firstly, there are cultural similarities between the Falasha, Lemba, and (I forgot the West African tribe name). There is supposedly a manuscript from Ancient Timbuktu that expresses how some people came over from East Africa and set up their Israelite traditions there (my memory is spotty on this whole subject so bear with me).

How do you explain the cultural and for some linguistic similarities? It's not like European scholars are purporting this...these are centuries old customs and beliefs held by the tribes themselves. There is also ancient evidence that a large portion of the Ancient Israelites may have been dark-skinned anyway.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^^ And there are people in Africa as well as peoples in across the globe to Indonesia and the Philippines who speak Arabic and practice Arab/Islamic traditions...

So does this mean all these people have Arab ancestry as well??

Genetic research show that the Falasha or 'Black Jews' of Ethiopia carry nil J derived haplotypes.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
Everyone here knows I'm no geneticist...so I'm not going to pretend that I am. But I'd like to clear up the African Jews thing. I'm under the impression that some of you think it's some sort of eurocentrict distortion.
What gives you that impression?

Jew is not a genetic catagory - it's a religion.

quote:

Firstly, there are cultural similarities between the Falasha, Lemba, and (I forgot the West African tribe name). There is supposedly a manuscript from Ancient Timbuktu that expresses how some people came over from East Africa and set up their Israelite traditions there (my memory is spotty on this whole subject so bear with me).

How do you explain the cultural and for some linguistic similarities?
^ What does that have to do with genetics?

Semitic languages are thought by some linguists to originate either in Ethiopia or the lower Nile Valley. Ethiopia has more semitic languages than Isreal, Saudi Arabia or any other country. So semitic language cannot prove and Isreali origin.

quote:
There is also ancient evidence that a large portion of the Ancient Israelites may have been dark-skinned anyway.
Ok?

What is proven about the Ethiopian Jews genetically is that they are African in origin.

They are not West Asian - and there is no proof of any kind that they ever lived in Isreal, if that's what you're trying to suggest.

These data, together with those reported elsewhere (Ritte et al. 1993a, 1993b; Hammer et al. 2000) suggest that the Ethiopian Jews acquired their religion without substantial genetic admixture from Middle Eastern peoples and that they can be considered an ethnic group with essentially a continental African genetic composition. - Cruciani, et. al.
 
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
 
Djehuti stated "Genetic research show that the Falasha or 'Black Jews' of Ethiopia carry nil J derived haplotypes" which is correct but that is only 1 variable. My view has been to look at the cohanim gene expressed by the Lemba and hypothesize how the present Askenazi origin Jews came by it.

My hypothesis is that the founder cohanim gene originated from that group in Judea? (where all the Biblical stuff took place) and they migrated to various part of Africa. Some breakoff group left and set themselves in the Europe of the day and the gene prolifereated amongst that group in the percentage that is does.
In short, the trick bacfired on those (as it usually does) based on the constructs of deceit and social position. The Lemba and Falasha have always stated that they were Jews due to the traditions they followed bu they were always ridiculed by the European Jewry. Their neighbours also knew them to be different so in that aspect, they were odd but they were part of a greater community. Lo and behold, some of the Euro Jews wanted them (Lemba) tested to verify that 200 years assertion? and found that they do indeed posses that genetic characteristics at a higher frequency! Nothing has changed? Despite the leadership and status of high priest, the Lemba would still be "sun-Saharan negroes" (I am being polite here) if they were to take up their exalted position in modern day Israel!
 
Posted by Mansa Musa (Member # 6800) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by yazid904:
Nothing has changed? Despite the leadership and status of high priest, the Lemba would still be "sun-Saharan negroes" (I am being polite here)
Is Negro considered to be polite terminology in your culture?

In American culture it lost its polite edge several decades ago and is now considered to be pejorative.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
The Black Lemba Jews are South African and Zimbabwean.

They should not be confused with the Black Ethiopian Jews.

The Black Jews of South Africa carry the so called coheniem haplotype.

The Black Ethiopian Jews do not.

Many white Jews of Europe also, do not.

This issue gets confused time and again because people ignore basic facts in order to pursue race-folklore.

The facts are - Jew is not a gene, and Jews are not a race.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^^ okay, regardless of it's connotations 'negro' is still an inaccurate word anyway. And what about the Falashas? Can't a people practice the religions and customs of another without having any ancestry of those people?
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Unfortunately in modern history, many Africans have lost confidence in their own contributions to history - even to such things as the Arbrahmic faiths [via Kemet], and so are ever tempted to claim so sort of relationship to ancient Israelites, Mohammad, Jesus, which is too often seen as a way of elevating one's standing.

In the case of the Falasha it must also be kept in mind that they have been victims of vicious religous descrimination in modern Ethiopia.

As AlTakruri correctly pointed out - the term Falasha itself means 'stranger' in Ge'ez and so isn't and indigenous reference:


The Beta Israel of Ethiopia
The word, "Falasha," means "stranger" or "immigrant" in Ge’ez, the classical ecclesiastical tongue of Ethiopia. Though the Ethiopian Jews prefer to call themselves Beta Israel (the House of Israel), "Falasha" is an apt way to characterize their community’s role as an interminable outsider since its inception nearly two millennia ago. Only since the Israeli government accepted the Falashas as "official" Jews in 1975 has this unlikely community begun to find some of the acceptance that it has sought.
 
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:
Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
Everyone here knows I'm no geneticist...so I'm not going to pretend that I am. But I'd like to clear up the African Jews thing. I'm under the impression that some of you think it's some sort of eurocentrict distortion.
What gives you that impression?

Jew is not a genetic catagory - it's a religion.

quote:

Firstly, there are cultural similarities between the Falasha, Lemba, and (I forgot the West African tribe name). There is supposedly a manuscript from Ancient Timbuktu that expresses how some people came over from East Africa and set up their Israelite traditions there (my memory is spotty on this whole subject so bear with me).

How do you explain the cultural and for some linguistic similarities?
^ What does that have to do with genetics?

Semitic languages are thought by some linguists to originate either in Ethiopia or the lower Nile Valley. Ethiopia has more semitic languages than Isreal, Saudi Arabia or any other country. So semitic language cannot prove and Isreali origin.

quote:
There is also ancient evidence that a large portion of the Ancient Israelites may have been dark-skinned anyway.
Ok?

What is proven about the Ethiopian Jews genetically is that they are African in origin.

They are not West Asian - and there is no proof of any kind that they ever lived in Isreal, if that's what you're trying to suggest.

These data, together with those reported elsewhere (Ritte et al. 1993a, 1993b; Hammer et al. 2000) suggest that the Ethiopian Jews acquired their religion without substantial genetic admixture from Middle Eastern peoples and that they can be considered an ethnic group with essentially a continental African genetic composition. - Cruciani, et. al.
I agree with you, I do think the research supports the idea that the semitic language may have began in East Africa. This actually supports what I'm saying. Let's take the Biblical account of the Ancient Israelites...how the Bible refers to them as Ethiopia (and numerous other referances I can get to you if you want). Let's also not forget the deep Solomonic history Ethiopia has...that goes all the way back to Biblical days. Let's also not forget that Asiatic doesn't neccessarily mean non-black. At one point in time, there were african tribes sprinkled all around what we now call the Middle East. I believe the African influence in "Jewish" history is the most distorted thing ever...moreso than Egypt!!!!


^^ And there are people in Africa as well as peoples in across the globe to Indonesia and the Philippines who speak Arabic and practice Arab/Islamic traditions...

So does this mean all these people have Arab ancestry as well??

Genetic research show that the Falasha or 'Black Jews' of Ethiopia carry nil J derived haplotypes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think getting genetic with this is going a little far. I even think sometimes it just confuses the matter. Let's take for instance, the Isrealite diaspora by the Assyrians. They were quite literally thrown to the corners of the Earth...it's totally possible that some may have went into Africa...I'm gonna find that webpage that better explains my position.
 
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
 
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/occultic/hebrew.html

http://www.hebrewisraelites.org/

I hate how the Hebrew Israelites have become black extremists...instead of spreading the message through historical texts, archeology, and science. They just shot themselves in the foot, now nobody is gonna believe them.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
quote:
I think getting genetic with this is going a little far.
Well - the thread is actually about genetics. It is not specifically about the Ethiopian Jews.

I think the subject you are broaching is very interesting - but for another topic.

quote:
I even think sometimes it just confuses the matter. Let's take for instance, the Isrealite diaspora by the Assyrians. They were quite literally thrown to the corners of the Earth...it's totally possible that some may have went into Africa...I'm gonna find that webpage that better explains my position.
My opinion is that you should start another thread to address this topic.
 
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:
I think getting genetic with this is going a little far.
Well - the thread is actually about genetics. It is not specifically about the Ethiopian Jews.

I think the subject you are broaching is very interesting - but for another topic.

quote:
I even think sometimes it just confuses the matter. Let's take for instance, the Isrealite diaspora by the Assyrians. They were quite literally thrown to the corners of the Earth...it's totally possible that some may have went into Africa...I'm gonna find that webpage that better explains my position.
My opinion is that you should start another thread to address this topic.
I think I will.
 
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
 
Just an update, M81 is now conidered to be just another cluster of E3b1, now called E3b1b

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpE.html
 
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rigaud:
Just an update, M81 is now conidered to be just another cluster of E3b1, now called E3b1b

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpE.html
Should have been the case all along; any details on what spawned this move?
 
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:
Originally posted by Rigaud:
Just an update, M81 is now conidered to be just another cluster of E3b1, now called E3b1b

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpE.html
Should have been the case all along; any details on what spawned this move?
I really don't know, but this I do know from some personal communications, that there are some interesting new papers coming out about African Y-chromosone lineages. Thats why you saw new clades like E3c and E4 on the new updated list. Even the update it was widely perceived that M81 was derived on a lineage from E3b1.
 
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
 
Just to add to this, this may have been the reason what was perceived as M-81 in Falashas might in fact be just another underived cluster of E3b1, which wouldn't be surprising since E3b1 originated in East Africa. Thus Luis et in his 2004 study was correct, just slightly off on the nomenclature. Its seems now that the initial migrations north brought derived clusters of E3b1, not two separate clades as once believed.
 
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rigaud:

I really don't know, but this I do know from some personal communications, that there are some interesting new papers coming out about African Y-chromosone lineages. Thats why you saw new clades like E3c and E4 on the new updated list. Even the update it was widely perceived that M81 was derived on a lineage from E3b1.
I certainly intend to keep an eye on these "updates".
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Good stuff.

Of interest:

E3a is an African lineage that probably expanded FROM northern Africa TO sub-Saharan and equatorial Africa with the Bantu agricultural expansion.

I've heard E3a described before, by Spencer Wells and SOY Keita as possibly having originated in the Holocene phase of the less arid North Africa.

Keep this in mind when considering the following comment....

E3b probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Middle East

Linguistic slieght of hand. "Evolved in" (???). What does that mean? It means nothing.

It is deparate means of intejecting the "Middle East" and evading the fact that E3b ORIGINATED in tropical Africa, and possibly south of the horn where the lineage is most commmon.

In fact E3b, especially defined as M215 sans M35, as Isoog.org defines it - is significant only in tropical Africa and is *NOT* significant in the Levantine -> Cruciani et al saw E3b* at high frequencies in East Africa (up to 17%) and South Africa (up to 30%). - http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dgarvey/DNA/hg/E3b.html

Therefore note the irony: E3b - M215 is a paleothic Eastern/south Eastern and Southern African lineage that would have been present in the Nilo Saharan, Kushitic and Khoisan speakers - PRIOR to the very recent [historical era] introduction of E3a into the region as a consequence of the Bantu expansion.

What i'm driving at is this:

The ideological goal of making E3b mid eastern and E3a sub-saharan is completely contradicted by the actual evidence on both fronts:

Possibly E3a originated in Holocene North Africa, whereas E3b originated in Paleolithic South East Africa, and both split from E3 underived in paleolithic horn Africa - underived E3 is found only in Ehiopia and....Senegal!

The only thing that is "evolving" is the obfuscations used to hide the above facts. [Cool]
 
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
 
E3c is actually the M281 mutation:

"The SNPs we use are M35-E3b*(E3b1*), M78-E3b1(E3b1a), M81-E3b2(E3b1b), M123-E3b3 (E3b1c), M34-E3b3a(E3b1c1), M281-E3c(E3b1d).

http://www.ethnoancestry.com/prod13.html
 
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Who "perceived" M81 in the Beta Israel? [Please note
falasha is a byword they don't appreciate.] They have
M35, M78, and M34 lineages and that's what associates
with haplotype 5. M81 is also downstream from M215
and thus associates with haplotype 5 too, but unless
I missed it there's no report of Beta Israel M81.

Neither Shen nor Cruciani report M81 for the Beta Israel
in their very meagre (17 and 22 contributors respectively)
samples. Beta Israel do carry M35, M34, and M78. [Incidently,
M78 shows up in the Samaritan priestly family surnamed Cohen.
The Shomronim are a local, endogamous, patrilineal people
whose inception dates to the 8th century BCE Levant as an
amalgam of northern Israelites with Assyrian deportee war
captives having multiple Levantine/Mesopotamian origins.]
code:
YCC    SNP         SHEN            CRUCIANI       ISOGG   CRU2004f1
-----  ----------  ------------    ------------   ------  ---------
                                                
E3*    PN2         3/17 (17.6%)                   E3*     P2

E3b*   M215 (M35)  1/17 ( 5.8%)         
                                    -             E3b*    E-M215*
                                   2/22 ( 9.1%)   E3b1*   E-M35*

E3b1   M78         2/17 (11.8%)    2/22 ( 9.1%)   E3b1a   E-M78γ

E3b2*  M81          -               -             E3b1b   E-M81

E3b3   M123                         -             E3b1c*  E-M123*
E3b3a  M34         2/17 (11.8%)    3/22 (13.6%)   E3b1c1  E-M34
TABLE 1. Two 2004 reports on NRY E haplogroups in Beta Israel donors.
Indicators: dash = SNP tested but not found; blank = no data given.
CRU2004f1 column: lists Hg-SNP as in Cruciani 2004 figure 1.


TaqI p49a,f Y-chromosome haplotype 5 showed up in 23 out of the 38
Beta Israel donors contributing samples to Lucotte and Smets' (1999)
report as shown in Keita's (2004)/Keita and Boyce's (2005) Table 2B.

Al~Zahery (2003) gives the haplotype 5 bands (A2,C0,D0,F1,I1) and
associates it with E-M35 while Keita (2004) notes the association
as M35/M215. If neither is restricting association solely to M35
then haplotype 5 in Africa includes M136, M34, M123, M148, M224,
M78, M107, M165, M81, M281, M35, M215, etc.; in short, everything
under the E3b umbrella.

M35, M34, and M78γ are the only downstream M215 bi-allelic markers
found in the Beta Israel. They all correspond to the TaqI p49a,f
defined haplotype 5. M81 remains undetected in Beta Israel and has
nothing to do with their haplotype 5 inclusion.

M81 doesn't equal haplotype 5. It's just one of the SNPs that fits.

The ISOGG Haplogroup E Tree's E3b updates over the YCC2003 tree
is partially based on Cruciani (2004 p.1015c and Figure 1).


quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:
Originally posted by Rigaud:
Just an update, M81 is now conidered to be just another cluster of E3b1, now called E3b1b

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpE.html
Should have been the case all along; any details on what spawned this move?
quote:
Originally posted by Rigaud:
Just to add to this, this may have been the reason what was perceived as M-81 in Falashas might in fact be just another underived cluster of E3b1,

 
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Who "perceived" M81 in the Beta Israel? [Please note
falasha is a byword they don't appreciate.] They have
M35, M78, and M34 lineages and that's what associates
with haplotype 5. M81 is also downstream from M215
and thus associates with haplotype 5 too, but unless
I missed it there's no report of Beta Israel M81.

Neither Shen nor Cruciani report M81 for the Beta Israel
in their very meagre (17 and 22 contributors respectively)
samples. Beta Israel do carry M35, M34, and M78. [Incidently,
M78 shows up in the Samaritan priestly family surnamed Cohen.
The Shomronim are a local, endogamous, patrilineal people
whose inception dates to the 8th century BCE Levant as an
amalgam of northern Israelites with Assyrian deportee war
captives having multiple Levantine/Mesopotamian origins.]
code:
YCC    SNP         SHEN            CRUCIANI       ISOGG   CRU2004f1
-----  ----------  ------------    ------------   ------  ---------
                                                
E3*    PN2         3/17 (17.6%)                   E3*     P2

E3b*   M215 (M35)  1/17 ( 5.8%)         
                                    -             E3b*    E-M215*
                                   2/22 ( 9.1%)   E3b1*   E-M35*

E3b1   M78         2/17 (11.8%)    2/22 ( 9.1%)   E3b1a   E-M78γ

E3b2*  M81          -               -             E3b1b   E-M81

E3b3   M123                         -             E3b1c*  E-M123*
E3b3a  M34         2/17 (11.8%)    3/22 (13.6%)   E3b1c1  E-M34
TABLE 1. Two 2004 reports on NRY E haplogroups in Beta Israel donors.
Indicators: dash = SNP tested but not found; blank = no data given.
CRU2004f1 column: lists Hg-SNP as in Cruciani 2004 figure 1.


TaqI p49a,f Y-chromosome haplotype 5 showed up in 23 out of the 38
Beta Israel donors contributing samples to Lucotte and Smets' (1999)
report as shown in Keita's (2004)/Keita and Boyce's (2005) Table 2B.

Al~Zahery (2003) gives the haplotype 5 bands (A2,C0,D0,F1,I1) and
associates it with E-M35 while Keita (2004) notes the association
as M35/M215. If neither is restricting association solely to M35
then haplotype 5 in Africa includes M136, M34, M123, M148, M224,
M78, M107, M165, M81, M281, M35, M215, etc.; in short, everything
under the E3b umbrella.

M35, M34, and M78γ are the only downstream M215 bi-allelic markers
found in the Beta Israel. They all correspond to the TaqI p49a,f
defined haplotype 5. M81 remains undetected in Beta Israel and has
nothing to do with their haplotype 5 inclusion.

M81 doesn't equal haplotype 5. It's just one of the SNPs that fits.

[/QB][/QUOTE]


I have just one problem with this, if haplotype V isn't E-M81 why do Berbers have high frequencies of haplotype V? Berbers don't have high frequencies of M78, M34, and M35, even if you add all´three of those together Haplotype V in Beta Israel may well be a separate cluster of E-M81 or just another downstream marker closely related to E-M81.
 
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:

Who "perceived" M81 in the Beta Israel? [Please note
falasha is a byword they don't appreciate.] They have
M35, M78, and M34 lineages and that's what associates
with haplotype 5. M81 is also downstream from M215
and thus associates with haplotype 5 too, but unless
I missed it there's no report of Beta Israel M81.

Neither Shen nor Cruciani report M81 for the Beta Israel
in their very meagre (17 and 22 contributors respectively)
samples...
Again:

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.)…
 
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Making it short, they're from different modes of genotyping
and so can't be the same thing. Still, M81 does correlate to
Lucotte's haplotype V but it's not alone in such correlation.

M81 is defined by PCR amplification and DHPLC heteroduplex analysis.
Haplotype V is defined by 49a and 49f probes after digesting Taq I.

M81 is a biallelic marker.
Haplotype V is a Taq I p49a,f variance.

Keita associates haplotype V with M35/M215.
Al~Zahery associates haplotype V with M35.

M35 is recognized as associated with haplotype V.
M78 and M81 are sub-clades of M35.
All M35 sub-clades associate with haplotype V.

Judging from published reports:
Beta Israel haplotype V correlates to M78;
Amazigh haplotype V correlates to M81.


Haplotype V associates with each and every
M35/M215 derivative, not with just one of
them to the exclusion of the rest.

[Note that some Taq I 49a,f haplotypes have arisen more
than once and require other information in understanding
their significance for population relationships. Haplotype
V is one of them. In Africa it associates with E3b but in Asia
(outside of the far northeast extension of Africa misnomered
as the Middle-East) haplotype V associates with R1a1.]


quote:
Originally posted by Rigaud:
I have just one problem with this, if haplotype V isn't E-M81 why do Berbers have high frequencies of haplotype V?

 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Good post AlTakruri. [Cool]
 
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Neither Luis nor Keita say anything about M81 in Beta Israel.

Keita tables Beta Israel haplotype V frequencies not M81 occurences.

Luis (2004 Table 1) refers to Cruciani (2002) for Beta Israel analyzation.

We've already seen Cruciani (2004) found no M81 in Beta Israel.

What Cruciani (2002 Table 2) did find in 22 Beta Israel donors is:
code:
SNP   %   Underhill haplotype 
---  ---  -------------------
PN2  18%  28
M35   9%  35
M78   9%  33
M34  14%  30
TABLE 1. Beta Israel Group III frequencies


quote:

Originally posted by Supercar:
Reiterating:

The presence of E-M81 has been acknowledged by other bio-anthropologists…


 
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Thank you. I diligently researched and reread it before posting.


quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Good post AlTakruri. [Cool]

 
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Neither Luis nor Keita say anything about M81 in Beta Israel.


--- ---
My Bad. I should have paid more attention to the detail. I was more concerned about E-M81 found in the African Horn; whether this happens to be among the so-called Beta Israel groups, I know not!


Not that it matters anyway, since now, the classification has been updated, from E3b2 to now being an E3b1 member!
 


(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3