tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post5478434635944163346..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Age and origin of 17q21 inversion in humansDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31305424579260218172010-04-18T14:48:38.533+03:002010-04-18T14:48:38.533+03:00Ha, I need a couple of hours and a couple of cups ...Ha, I need a couple of hours and a couple of cups of coffee to properly wake up, myself.<br /><br />Yes, the dryness was likely much more of a factor in the west and reaching into Pakistan and Afghanistan.<br /><br />I am sure there will be better and more extensive data available in the future - I just wanted to add a bit of this here so people (when thinking about AMH migrations and expansions) keep in mind that there have been significant climate differences over the past ~120,000 years, and not all of them pertain to extreme cold in the North.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48139568339100862232010-04-17T17:00:52.389+03:002010-04-17T17:00:52.389+03:00"That's interesting, Ebizur, thanks"..."That's interesting, Ebizur, thanks".<br /><br />Ahem. Eurologist, I meant, of course. I just woke up and I'm drinking my coffee - may count as excuse, right?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19707194278685366802010-04-17T16:59:48.345+03:002010-04-17T16:59:48.345+03:00That's interesting, Ebizur, thanks.
Still, d...That's interesting, Ebizur, thanks. <br /><br />Still, deforestation reduces rain (tropical forests generate their own rain or almost) and maybe even more important is to understand monsoon in the Ice Age, which, if I'm correct largely depends on the Tibet plateau being heated in summer, what probably did not happen when it was under a thick ice sheet. <br /><br />Another important think is that Northern Portugal is quite rainy, not as much as the Cantabrian strip but this is one of the most rainy places in the temperate world (my English roommate is outraged: "woot, here it rains more than in London!"). <br /><br />In fact, the area with present day greatest rainfall in Central-East India, is precisely, excluding the Ganges banks, the area I mentioned as an apparent low density/late colonization area. So it's likely that people preferred something less humid or maybe more likely that the thick forest that rain would create acted as such partial barrier, much as the Congo forest in Africa. <br /><br />Can't say. It's a very complex matter but it certainly would seem as if South Asia has two halves: a wet one by the east and a drier one by the west. However DNA data (and to a large extent archaeological data too) suggest that people preferred the West to the East (only in general: riverine/coastal migration routes excepted).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12935465182767348642010-04-17T08:02:25.846+03:002010-04-17T08:02:25.846+03:00Well, only about 1/2 of India is in the tropics se...Well, only about 1/2 of India is in the tropics <i>sensu stricto:</i><br /><br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/World_map_torrid.svg/800px-World_map_torrid.svg.png<br /><br />...and only about 1/2 of India - mostly the Northeast and a thin strip on the coasts and along the Himalaya - receives reasonably large amounts of rainfall, even today:<br /><br />http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/india-map-annualrainfall.jpg<br /><br />For example, just arbitrarily take the green and above amounts of rainfall (>1000mm/year, roughly equivalent to the northern half of Portugal) as required for a lush plant and wild life. Then, during times when rainfall is only 1/2 of average (using today's numbers as a general proxy), you'll find that virtually no such zones exist, any longer (pink and above restricted to the immediate west coast).<br /><br />Even today, in much of India, agriculture depends on unsustainable usage of pumped well water. India's plant and wildlife is clearly highly susceptible to decreased rain amounts, as they occur when the Monsoon (that delivers the vast majority of rainfall) is even marginally disrupted.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-9501608351661706572010-04-17T03:15:48.096+03:002010-04-17T03:15:48.096+03:00Erratum: "shrubs, which are normally C4 plant...Erratum: "shrubs, which are normally C4 plants?" should read "shrubs, which are normally <b>C3</b> plants?"<br /><br />The demonstration that I'm not any expert in ecology... hehe!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-89464902192194843882010-04-17T02:51:32.073+03:002010-04-17T02:51:32.073+03:00Maybe you're right about grasslands (prairie) ...Maybe you're right about grasslands (prairie) instead of savanna, however I find difficult to imagine steppe so far south... unless it's indeed semi-desert. I'm not any ecological expert but aren't semi-deserts dominated by shrubs, which are normally C4 plants?<br /><br />"I am also quite certain that even from 25,000 to 55,000 conditions were cooler and dryer than today, and fairly variable".<br /><br />In this you're surely right, conditions must have been cooler back then but still we're talking of the Tropics...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38007032218388690592010-04-17T01:27:36.562+03:002010-04-17T01:27:36.562+03:00Yes, I think the extent of arid semi-deserts vs. g...Yes, I think the extent of arid semi-deserts vs. grasslands is still not clear, but the pollen studies show that at times there were literally no trees (i.e., not a savanna in the common sense). <br /><br />I'll try to find some of the more recent pollen studies.<br /><br />Conversely, at times of savanna-like conditions, India could have of course supported quite large human populations, which seems to be reflected in the multitude of haplogroups originating from that general region.<br /><br />I am also quite certain that even from 25,000 to 55,000 conditions were cooler and dryer than today, and fairly variable.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43585916572522091672010-04-16T14:01:54.497+03:002010-04-16T14:01:54.497+03:00IDK: it's hard to judge based only on an abstr...IDK: it's hard to judge based only on an abstract. In any case they mention that:<br /><br />"Conversely, 25,000–60,000-yr-old calcretes (eolian units II and III) probably formed under monsoonal conditions."<br /><br />So in that period South Asia had a climate somewhat like today. <br /><br />Also, does the "widespread aridity" mentioned for IS2 and IS4 mean desertic barriers or does it mean a mere decay of jungle ecology into savanna? It's all a matter of degree. From memory I have read about savanna conditions also before 60 Ka and never read anything specifically mentioning large deserts or semideserts (the Thar excepted). <br /><br />And the abstract seems to confirm they talk about grasslands and not desertization:<br /><br />"This is best explained by expansion of C4grasses at the expense of C3plants at low latitudes during glacial periods when atmosphericpCO2was lowered".Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84426823822062399552010-04-16T11:35:48.915+03:002010-04-16T11:35:48.915+03:00I think the consensus from sediments, pollen data,...I think the consensus from sediments, pollen data, foraminifera etc. for India away from the coasts is (in years BP):<br /><br />~55,000 - 75,000 no Monsoon, very dry<br /><br />~25,000 - 55,000 Monsoon, moderately dry, but variable<br /><br />~11,000 - 25,000 no Monsoon, extremely dry<br /><br />Truly large, expanding populations were likely impossible before ~55,000 years ago, although migration to the north along the two main rivers would have been feasible. The data suggest that AMHs after that would have been able to thrive in India for roughly 10,000 years before wetter conditions extended grass lands to the west (~50,000 to 45,000), and treks to Europe became feasible. India and adjacent regions then would have been a pool for people expanding and moving west (and east) for another twenty millennia of favorable conditions - a time frame that coincides with known migrations into and newly-evolving cultures in Europe. Then again, for ~15,000 years around LGM, the North would have been essentially cut off from the south.<br /><br />There is a brief summary of available data in:<br /><br />Quaternary Research<br />Volume 50, Issue 3, November 1998, Pages 240-251<br />doi:10.1006/qres.1998.2002 <br /><br />Do Stable Isotope Data from Calcrete Record Late Pleistocene Monsoonal Climate Variation in the Thar Desert of India?*1<br /><br />Julian E. Andrewsa, Ashok K. Singhvib, Ansu J. Kailathb, Ralph Kuhnc, Paul F. Dennisd, Sampat K. Tandone and Ram P. Dhirf<br /><br /><br />"The two periods of weakened monsoon are consistent with other paleoclimatic data from India and may represent widespread aridity on the Indian subcontinent during isotope stages 2 and 4."<br /><br />There are some much newer pollen studies that I have to try and find again.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22994581185970639682010-04-15T17:45:10.368+03:002010-04-15T17:45:10.368+03:00I haven't ever seen such thing. For example I ...I haven't ever seen such thing. For example I have <a href="http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercEURASIA.html" rel="nofollow">this reference</a>, which shows that South Asia was essentially savanna/grassland or forest, depending on the period. <br /><br />However, based on mtDNA distribution and archaeological data, I suspect that the Central-East (from inner Maharastra to Orissa) was scarcely populated or was colonized mostly in a relatively late date, being maybe a quasi-barrier of some sort (dense jungle?) but almost for sure permeable by the coastal routes anyhow, specially the Western one. Similarly the Thar Desert may have been a partial barrier between the Indus and Northern India (but again permeable north and south of it). <br /><br />"In other words, you don't only have to rely on later back migrations to explain some of the Indian phenotypes and Haplogroup idiosyncrasies".<br /><br />I agree with that. However I would rather think of a phenotype continuum through southern Asia that we could well call "proto-Australo-Caucasoid". Sincerely I fail to see a clear divide between these two categories, specially when the term "Australoid" is used in a classical but utterly ambiguous sense, including all kind of "archaic-looking" morphotypes that do not fit into the usual two main categories of "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" (i.e. including Ainu, many South Asians, Papuans, Negritos, etc., as well as most fossil skulls). <br /><br />I think that all these variants are related but in a very ancestral sense, i.e.: the morphotype would be typical of early Eurasians in general and what we see are local variants of it, most of which are very localized.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32838506519604462942010-04-15T11:37:37.756+03:002010-04-15T11:37:37.756+03:00I am not aware of such barriers within South Asia....<i>I am not aware of such barriers within South Asia. I'd agree that there would have been some (many?) different groups in such a huge subcontinent but I can't identify any single barrier. Even the Thar Desert is only a partial barrier. </i><br /><br />The paleoclimate data/maps I have seen show that much of India was semi-desert with few or no trees for much of the time ~100,000 to ~15,000 years ago, except for the very south and south-east (maintaining rain forest) and a fairly narrow strip south of the Himalayas (which would have at least provided fertile river valleys). So, humans would have been able to migrate up the Indus river valley and the Ganges river, but not much in between. My bet is that by the time these two populations met again some place south of the Himalayas, the former group would have developed an advantage in having already adapted to the cooler, dryer climate and appropriate survival and hunting methods.<br /><br />At any rate, I see a good possibility of a northern Indian (and stretching into nowadays Pakistan and Afghanistan) population that would have been somewhat isolated from the south and east and perhaps, over 10,000 to 20,000 years or so, developed some of the "Caucasian" characteristics that are common from India to NW Europe. In other words, you don't only have to rely on later back migrations to explain some of the Indian phenotypes and Haplogroup idiosyncrasies.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-57108190601848415782010-04-14T16:12:09.202+03:002010-04-14T16:12:09.202+03:00"Thanks, Maju, very nice write-up. I agree wi..."Thanks, Maju, very nice write-up. I agree with most of it".<br /><br />I'm glad you found it useful.<br /><br />"The most serious criticism often promulgated is why R mutated so quickly down the ladder..."<br /><br />It may be just that it's over-researched in comparison to other lineages... but only at the stem level. We know that very little work has been done to understand the downstream structure of R1b and in particular of R1b1b2a1. <br /><br />The number of SNPs can hence be just an illusion. <br /><br />"Again, I don't think this is a serious problem".<br /><br />Not necesarily. I have the impression (and have read some peer-reviewed references that seem to confirm it) that large haplogroups appear to mutate more slowly than small ones. This might be a mere effect of drift, as novel mutations would be mostly absorbed or kept at bay (i.e. as "private" lineages) in large populations (more mutations would happen but they'd have very limited effect). <br /><br />"I have pointed out before the likelihood of a different (from the South) population of humans in Northern India and Pakistan - separated from the South by huge deserts and uninhabitable zones".<br /><br />I am not aware of such barriers within South Asia. I'd agree that there would have been some (many?) different groups in such a huge subcontinent but I can't identify any single barrier. Even the Thar Desert is only a partial barrier. <br /><br />However I do identify at least two different scatter routes: the Narmada-Son-Ganges and the southern one. More in detail I could think of five different scatter routes: Indus river, along the eastern border of the Thar Desert, Narmada-Son-Lower Ganges, West Coast plus Krishna river and finally the purely coastal one. These distinct routes (as well as the E-W Ganges axis) could have provided for some differentiation patterns but the various populations would have also been able to remix. <br /><br />In contrast the Iranian deserts and the NE India hill-jungle country provide for low density buffers that would act as real barriers after the initial flows. <br /><br />"This would have been the collective, rich niche for both R1a and R1b"...<br /><br />While I can tentatively agree with a South Asian origin for R1a, R1b clearly coalesced already in West Eurasia. This migration leading to R1b happened at the R1 stage probably (assuming a SA homeland for R1a) or at the R stage (if R1a coalesced in West Eurasia after all). <br /><br />"So, from the get-go, only a few of the deriving sub-groups of these would have participated and would have made it into Europe - where rather shortly after arrival conditions turned worse, and the total population number became rather small, again. And of what remained, only a few Y-lineages where the lucky ones to exponentially dominate the growth after LGM".<br /><br />I have two issues with this explanation:<br /><br />1. The UP population of Europe appears to have been low all the way into the LGM. Only with the post-LGM expansion it shows clear signs of demographic explosion, whatever the reasons (see: <a href="http://www.ohll.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/pages/documents_Aussois_2005/pdf/Jean-Pierre_Bocquet-Appel.pdf" rel="nofollow">Bocquet-Appel 2005</a>). <br /><br />2. What about mtDNA H? In order to have reached NW Africa in the Solutrean period (right in the LGM phase), which is the only reasonable possibility I can think of, it must have existed, not just as H but also as H1, H3, H4 and H7, already by that time. That makes its latest possible date to be the Gravettian expansion. <br /><br />But, considering the huge dimensions of the H star-like structure, only comparable to M, I am really tempted to consider the Aurignacian expansion (i.e. the original colonization of Europe by H. sapiens) as the real moment. <br /><br />Also, counting mutations from the root, I always come up with R0 and H being older than other WEA and Euro lineages respectively. There is the problem of the downstream mutation count but I have commented on that issue above.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32788057573135128652010-04-14T13:03:22.226+03:002010-04-14T13:03:22.226+03:00Thanks, Maju, very nice write-up. I agree with mo...Thanks, Maju, very nice write-up. I agree with most of it.<br /><br />Obviously, one of the main questions is at which level R migrated into West Asia and then into Europe, and with how many sub-groups (and which ones, exactly). I think it is easily explained (through the LGM population bottle-neck) why only few sub-sub-groups survived (and why R1a kind of mirrors this, in the East).<br /><br />The most serious criticism often promulgated is why R mutated so quickly down the ladder in perhaps as little as 10,000 to 20,000 year in Asia, and then a particular sub-group got the advantage perhaps 14,000 or 12,000 years ago (or earlier) and has changed little, after. Again, I don't think this is a serious problem.<br /><br />The initial population in Asia would have been huge, in comparison. I have pointed out before the likelihood of a different (from the South) population of humans in Northern India and Pakistan - separated from the South by huge deserts and uninhabitable zones. This would have been the collective, rich niche for both R1a and R1b just before the climate changed and migration to Europe (and overwhelming the indigenous Neanderthal population) became feasible.<br /><br />So, from the get-go, only a few of the deriving sub-groups of these would have participated and would have made it into Europe - where rather shortly after arrival conditions turned worse, and the total population number became rather small, again. And of what remained, only a few Y-lineages where the lucky ones to exponentially dominate the growth after LGM.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-29791974258362270162010-04-13T05:45:03.983+03:002010-04-13T05:45:03.983+03:00Btw, Ebizur, I have just made a long post on why R...Btw, Ebizur, I have just made <a href="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/04/again-on-neolithic-and-european-y-dna.html" rel="nofollow">a long post on why R1b1b2a1 just cannot be Neolithic</a> (hopefully the definitive reference so I don't have to explain again and again). I'd suggest further discussion on this matter to have it there. Up to you anyhow.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54678863212069723202010-04-13T01:26:12.508+03:002010-04-13T01:26:12.508+03:00"By the way, I do believe that haplogroup R1b..."By the way, I do believe that haplogroup R1b is originally Western Eurasian, but I do not believe that haplogroup E1b1b is originally Western Eurasian or Sub-Saharan African. If anything, it is probably from some ancient South/East Eurasian population."<br /><br />E1b1b? You must be kidding! E has a very clear African origin. In fact it's the representative of the C'D'E'F that did not left Africa and for some reason was swept to fixation in that population (F was swept to fixation in South Asia and C and D survived in the Eastern frontier only). <br /><br />E1b1b is very clearly of NW African origin (Sudan or nearby). <br /><br />"Suffice it to say that it is not parsimonious to suppose that R1b should be divided into one originally "Caucasoid" subclade that has developed in the Palaeolithic population of the Franco-Cantabrian refugium (as you are apt to claim) and another originally "Negroid" subclade that has developed in a Palaeolithic population of what is now the Sahara Desert or vicinity".<br /><br />For me haplogroups are color blind. You can be "white" and have Y-DNA A and you can be "black" and have Y-DNA Z. Phenotype is not defined by patrilineal ancestry, obviously. Much less after dozens of millennia. <br /><br />I insist that I am not sure how R1b1b2a1 was swept to fixation and expanded in star-like pattern (very fast) in Europe. It can be Magdalenian or Gravettian or even Aurignacian (but cannot be Neolithic because the pattern doesn't fit - much less Indoeuropean). <br /><br />Such sweeping to fixation can only have happened under very low population levels, i.e. before the post-LGM expansion (which was maybe more important than the Neolithic expansion, at least in proportion to what existed before). <br /><br />Also it's a lot easier to explain other R1b offshoots such as the ones in Central Africa and Central Asia if they expanded early on, in UP times, when population was low. <br /><br />Also, as P and R coalesced surely in South Asia (and possibly also R1) it's easier to explain their migration from South Asia in the general context of the colonization of West Eurasia.<br /><br />So all that gets us with R1b in West (Eur-)Asia c. 40 or at most 30 Ka ago. So it's not "recent". <br /><br />"but it does not change the fact that the presence of any sort of haplogroup R1b Y-DNA pretty much proves that there has been a certain degree of recent geneflow from (Western) Eurasia to Central Africa".<br /><br />What I say is that is is surely not "recent" at all. There has been some gene flow between West Eurasia and the Sahel... in both directions... but mostly it does not look recent.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48758978021370404122010-04-13T01:26:00.989+03:002010-04-13T01:26:00.989+03:00"How are you replying to text that should not..."How are you replying to text that should not have been posted for more than one minute? It is very strange".<br /><br />Probably because I read the comments in my email account, so even if you delete, I get an email with the original message and, sure, I don't bother making sure if the message is still there or not (normally they are). <br /><br />"You have no basis but your own prejudiced zeal for the hypothesis of an almost "pristinely Palaeolithic" Franco-Cantabrian origin of the Basque gene pool to support your claim that haplogroup R1b is 30,000 or 40,000 years old". <br /><br />Well, I'm not sure if the origin (or R1b1b2a1 if anything) is at the FC region or in Central Europe but that's pretty irrelevant. <br /><br />It is beyond the scope of this discussion and I'd find very difficult to explain to you in a mere comment why I suspect that R1b1b2a1 should be Paleolithic (it has to do with star-like expansions and mtDNA H or H1) but what is clear is that the arrival of R1 leading to R1b as a whole to West Eurasia must have happened along with the main flow from South Asia in the 50-40 Ka window. Hence the R1b scatter into Europe and Africa should belong to the immediate pre-LGM window. <br /><br />"If R1b were really so old, don't you think we should expect to see greater morphological and autosomal genetic differentiation between modern populations that are mainly R1b (e.g. Dutch people) and those that are mainly R1a (e.g. Polish people)?"<br /><br />No because of three reasons:<br /><br />1. It's Y-DNA and Y-DNA does not typically reflect but a minor apportion of ancestry. This is the main reason: the same that make Greek or Albanians or Moroccans look clearly West Eurasian in spite of being largely E1b1b1. The same that makes Chadic peoples from North Cameroon indistinct from their neighbors in spite of being largely R1b1a. <br /><br />2. It's still possible that R1a coalesced in Europe or West/Central Asia. It is probably the case for its main subclade. <br /><br />3. <a href="http://anthroeurope.blogspot.com/search/label/Poland%20%3A%20Red%20Ruthenia" rel="nofollow">Polish</a> and <a href="http://anthroeurope.blogspot.com/search/label/Belgium%20%3A%20Flanders" rel="nofollow">Dutch</a> look very different to my eyes (even if autosomally they are more similar, it seems). Indians and Europeans do not look that different and are quite close autosomally speaking too. There's been some differentiation since 50 Ka ago but not that much. <br /><br />"In reality, most ethnic groups that have mostly R1a or R1b Y-DNA are morphologically, autosomally, and even linguistically homogeneous".<br /><br />That's over-simplistic. It's like saying that J1 is "Semitic" or "Arabic". It's not that simple because we know that there was very limited Semitic or Arabic demic flow into North Africa and still J1 is very high there. In fact it looks like of much older origin. <br /><br />Equating languages (which are lost and learnt) with genes (which persist through generations regardless of cultural or linguistic changes) is a waste of time - at least in most cases. Languages are all very recent (none has been tracked to before the Epipaleolithic) while haplogroups are in most cases much older.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84983905924535838892010-04-12T22:25:51.137+03:002010-04-12T22:25:51.137+03:00Maju said,
""Recent"? Probably not...Maju said,<br /><br />""Recent"? Probably not. It seems quite old to me. 30 or 40 Ka ago is not "recent". <br /><br />Calling R1b "Caucasoid" is like saying that E1b1b is "Negroid": meaningless."<br /><br />You have no basis but your own prejudiced zeal for the hypothesis of an almost "pristinely Palaeolithic" Franco-Cantabrian origin of the Basque gene pool to support your claim that haplogroup R1b is 30,000 or 40,000 years old. If R1b were really so old, don't you think we should expect to see greater morphological and autosomal genetic differentiation between modern populations that are mainly R1b (e.g. Dutch people) and those that are mainly R1a (e.g. Polish people)? In reality, most ethnic groups that have mostly R1a or R1b Y-DNA are morphologically, autosomally, and even linguistically homogeneous.<br /><br />By the way, I do believe that haplogroup R1b is originally Western Eurasian, but I do not believe that haplogroup E1b1b is originally Western Eurasian <i>or</i> Sub-Saharan African. If anything, it is probably from some ancient South/East Eurasian population.<br /><br />Maju asked,<br /><br />"How can this contradict the previous?"<br /><br />How are you replying to text that should not have been posted for more than one minute? It is very strange.<br /><br />I wanted to avoid getting bogged down in an argument about the variance and phylogenetic origin of haplogroup R1b and how both suggest a recent Eurasian origin of this haplogroup despite the high frequency of R1b1a-V88 in some populations of the Sahel and northern Cameroon, but it looks like my effort has failed to achieve the desired effect. Suffice it to say that it is not parsimonious to suppose that R1b should be divided into one originally "Caucasoid" subclade that has developed in the Palaeolithic population of the Franco-Cantabrian refugium (as you are apt to claim) and another originally "Negroid" subclade that has developed in a Palaeolithic population of what is now the Sahara Desert or vicinity.<br /><br />Maju said,<br /><br />"If you see it in terms of "races", who knows? But the center of R1b in Africa is south of Lake Chad, much closer to Western Pygmies than to the Mbuti. <br /><br />So I doubt that the Mbuti have R1b in their gene pool. I also think that the erratics you mention of R1b among Western Pygmies are not of any Caucasoid origin but of Chadic (Negroid) origin."<br /><br />I do not have any direct evidence of a presence of haplogroup R1b in the Mbuti or other pygmies of eastern Central Africa, but it is a fact that R1b has been found in pygmies of western Central Africa, which probably indicates recent geneflow into the pygmies of western Central Africa from neighboring Bantu populations. Of course, these Bantu populations may have acquired some R1b1a-V88 Y-DNA through geneflow from speakers of Chadic, Adamawa, Central Sudanic, or Saharan languages further north in Central Africa, but it does not change the fact that the presence of any sort of haplogroup R1b Y-DNA pretty much proves that there has been a certain degree of recent geneflow from (Western) Eurasia to Central Africa.Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46458743397550868892010-04-12T21:07:41.157+03:002010-04-12T21:07:41.157+03:00"Are you suggesting that haplogroup R1b is no..."Are you suggesting that haplogroup R1b is not of recent Western Eurasian origin in its entirety?"<br /><br />"Recent"? Probably not. It seems quite old to me. 30 or 40 Ka ago is not "recent". <br /><br />Calling R1b "Caucasoid" is like saying that E1b1b is "Negroid": meaningless. <br /><br />"And yet you insist that a majority of European R1b1b2 is of Paleolithic "proto-Basque" origin in the Franco-Cantabrian refugium".<br /><br />How can this contradict the previous?<br /><br />"That makes it even more likely that the Mbuti should have Caucasoid admixture"...<br /><br />If you see it in terms of "races", who knows? But the center of R1b in Africa is south of Lake Chad, much closer to Western Pygmies than to the Mbuti. <br /><br />So I doubt that the Mbuti have R1b in their gene pool. I also think that the erratics you mention of R1b among Western Pygmies are not of any Caucasoid origin but of Chadic (Negroid) origin.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7065589731327166892010-04-12T19:35:45.587+03:002010-04-12T19:35:45.587+03:00Maju said,
"R1b1a in most subclades is Centr...Maju said,<br /><br />"R1b1a in most subclades is Central African, not "Caucasoid"."<br /><br />Are you suggesting that haplogroup R1b is not of recent Eurasian origin in its entirety?<br /><br />Maju said,<br /><br />"The Mbuti are not from Western Central Africa but from the Ituri forest, towards the East."<br /><br />That makes it even more likely that the Mbuti should have Caucasoid admixture, since they are in closer proximity to some heavily Caucasoid-admixed Semitic, Cushitic, and Nilotic peoples of East Africa. Please keep in mind that the various pygmy groups speak the languages of their taller neighbors, so there is no linguistic barrier to prevent geneflow from a hypothetically Caucasoid-admixed Central Sudanic-speaking population (Lese) to the Mbuti, for example.Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-40988368507934563722010-04-12T19:34:20.501+03:002010-04-12T19:34:20.501+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-29415104596967621832010-04-12T16:21:10.827+03:002010-04-12T16:21:10.827+03:00"They probably are. According to some data in..."They probably are. According to some data in my possession, even representatives of Y-DNA haplogroup R1b have been found in at least two pygmy tribes in two different countries of western Central Africa"<br /><br />R1b1a in most subclades is Central African, not "Caucasoid". <br /><br />The Mbuti are not from Western Central Africa but from the Ituri forest, towards the East. <br /><br />...<br /><br />@Ren: even when you are right, you manage to be wrong by going personal.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-208775157411308112010-04-12T14:19:40.154+03:002010-04-12T14:19:40.154+03:00The Mbuti are admixed with "Caucasoid"?
...<i>The Mbuti are admixed with "Caucasoid"?</i><br /><br />You have a vivid imagination.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-81068286971204689122010-04-12T08:32:06.191+03:002010-04-12T08:32:06.191+03:00ren said,
"The Mbuti are admixed with "...ren said,<br /><br />"The Mbuti are admixed with "Caucasoid"?"<br /><br />They probably are. According to some data in my possession, even representatives of Y-DNA haplogroup R1b have been found in at least two pygmy tribes in two different countries of western Central Africa.Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20475360579753306912010-04-12T05:49:04.495+03:002010-04-12T05:49:04.495+03:00Just because the 13,600 to 108,400 years estimate ...Just because the 13,600 to 108,400 years estimate makes it possible that Meds are heavily mixed with some pre-Neolithic African element..renhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04377460204421275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25226359382173800832010-04-09T19:10:31.255+03:002010-04-09T19:10:31.255+03:00@eurologist
The only way for old genetic traits ...@eurologist <br /><br />The only way for old genetic traits to remain highly organized, and not be diffuse, is if there wasn't common significant population movements. If polpulation movement is common then an old genetic traits whether originally exhibiting spatial organization or not will become diffuse. <br /><br />You will see highly organized distribution payterns of genetic traits after few migrations of a new genetic trait but not many.princenuadhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02165977957244158593noreply@blogger.com