tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post7081220517105016774..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: World map of Y-chromosome haplogroupsDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45050653496622683672013-12-31T07:27:24.301+02:002013-12-31T07:27:24.301+02:00I note that none of the DnA "Maps" consi...I note that none of the DnA "Maps" consider the expansion of Pangea over the much shorter time period of 440, 000 years as opposed to millions.<br />Further I note that the DnA maps virtually preclude the timing of Jewish Exodus thereby calling into question the entire biblical historical version of events and;<br />Matriarchal would appear to be the result of Y Chrome demise from hunting wars; and from Y moving to the parents hut of X. Thomas Koltai on The Nethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998427228188454909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-87327133693874474402013-12-12T15:50:47.085+02:002013-12-12T15:50:47.085+02:00It is amazing that so many people has questioned t...It is amazing that so many people has questioned the most likely explanation of R1b presence in amerindians. Despite that the overwhelming evidence clearly indicates that those are the result of european males during the colony mixing with female amerindians. The problem in their minds is that they seem unable to accept that fact, perhaps because of racial prejudism (e.g., many "whites" despise "inferior" colored races). Well, shockingly enough for them, whites found female indians quite atractive, and messed with them at times when not enough european women were available. In latin america that was exactly the problem for spaniards, perhaps even more acute; so the vast majority of people nowdays have european ancestry: for example, in mexico, 80% are mostly R1b but their mitDNA is almost all either A or B.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24551991790185163632013-09-18T18:31:42.317+03:002013-09-18T18:31:42.317+03:00@Kurti please post any concerns directly on Wikipe...@Kurti please post any concerns directly on Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png. I have merely facilitated wider input there and am no longer directly involved. I do not have the power or the knowledge to do more than that.Helenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02375851395909592230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36873314228730444792013-09-18T16:03:52.233+03:002013-09-18T16:03:52.233+03:00@Helen sorry for answering so late.
There is anot...@Helen sorry for answering so late.<br /><br />There is another huge Mistake on the map.<br /><br />R1a in Central Asia is listed as "South Central Asian Turkic" There is absolutely nothing Turkic about this lineages because 1. It is absolutely doubtful that Turkic tribes spread it around all the way to South Asia.<br /><br />2. R1a in Turkic tribes is obviously of Iranian origin.<br /><br />3. The same R1a found in Turkic tribes is also frequent among Pashtuns and Tajiks which are according to this map labeled as Turkic too while only The R1a in North India seems to have been labeled as Indo-Iranian giving the impression that R1a was spread by Turkic groups.Kurtihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15370578131814705759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38965702853395345952013-09-17T23:14:20.362+03:002013-09-17T23:14:20.362+03:00I really don't see how that dispels the idea o...I really don't see how that dispels the idea of transatlantic pre-columbian contact.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03930908687460534544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-89723849244989848122013-09-17T17:39:47.080+03:002013-09-17T17:39:47.080+03:00Gary Moore,
You forgot to mention Korean...:
1: ...Gary Moore,<br /><br />You forgot to mention Korean...:<br /><br />1: hɔn ("hawn") > han (prenominal/adjectival/determinative), hɔnah > hana (nominal/substantive)<br />2: tu (prenominal/adjectival/determinative), *tupɨlh > tulh > tul (nominal/substantive)<br />3: sey > se (prenominal/adjectival/determinative), seys > set ~ ses- (nominal/substantive)<br /><br />...or Ainu:<br /><br />1: /sine/ [ʃine] (quite possibly from an earlier */hine/, as the */h-i/ > /si/ [ʃi] sound change is prevalent and even somewhat synchronic or historically attested in Ainu)<br />2: /tu/<br />3: /re/ ~ (some remote dialects) /te/ ~ /ʧe/<br /><br />The Korean and Ainu numerals look superficially much more similar to the Indo-European numerals 1, 2, and 3, but they are not necessarily cognate. Your examples of North American indigenous words for 1, 2, and 3 do not even look vaguely similar in any way.Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85433097172280925162013-09-15T09:12:16.632+03:002013-09-15T09:12:16.632+03:00Hopefully, the following should dispel any suggest...Hopefully, the following should dispel any suggestion that R1 (or mtDNA X) arrived with the Solutreans, or as a result of any Pre-Columbian transatlantic migration. The Iroquoian languages not only share a deep affinity with IE, but share specific resemblances to West Iranian languages.<br /><br />English (Français) One (Un)<br />Cayuga Sga:t Persian 'yek' <br />Mohawk Enhskat Kurdish 'yek', 'ek'<br />Oneida Úska Sanskrit'ḗkas', 'sa-kṛ́t' <br />,Onondaga Sgá:dah<br />Seneca Ska:t<br />Tuscarora Ę:chi<br />Cherokee Sa(g)wu<br />Laurentian Segada<br />Nottoway Unte<br />Susquehannock Onskat<br />Wyandot (Huron) Skat<br /><br />Note the resemblance of 'skat/sgat' in the Iroquoian languages to Sanskrit 'sa-kṛ́t'. Proto-IE forms for 'one' include '**(H)óynos, *(H)óykos, *(H)óywos;' as well as '*sḗm'. In Tocharian A, 'one' is 'sas' and two is 'wu'. In Tocharian B, 'one' is 'sa'.<br /><br /><br />English (Français) Two (Deux)<br />Cayuga Dekni: Persian 'do' <br />Mohawk Tekeni Kurdish 'du'<br />Oneida Tékeni Sanskrit'dvá̄'<br />Onondaga Dégnih<br />Seneca Tekhni:h<br />Tuscarora Né:kti:<br />Cherokee Ta'li<br />Laurentian Tigneny<br />Nottoway Dekanee<br />Susquehannock Tiggene<br />Wyandot (Huron) Tindee<br /><br />Note that the particle '-ek-', which is 'one' in many Indo-Iranian languages, is a component of many of the Iroquoian words for 'two'. The 't-' or 'd-' in the Iroquoian words may indicate duplication or a repeated action. Cherokee stands out as an exception: 'tali' is ofter written as 'dhal', which resembles the word for 'two' in several IE languages.<br /><br /><br />English (Français) Three (Trois)<br />Cayuga Ahsenh Persian 'se' <br />Mohawk Ahsen Kurdish 'se'<br />Oneida Áhsv Sanskrit'tráyas, tri'<br />Onondaga Áhsęh<br />Seneca Sëh<br />Tuscarora Áhsę<br />Cherokee Tso'i<br />Laurentian Asche<br />Nottoway Arsa<br />Susquehannock Axe<br />Wyandot (Huron) Shenk<br /><br />Things get very interesting here because the word for 'three' is nearly the same in Persian and Kurdish as some of the Iroquoian languages. The word for 'three' in these West Iranian languages differs significantly from most other IE languages, and it may be because this original word became so sacred in IE languages that it was replaced with another word for everyday use. This phenomenon has been noted in Cherokee, where the word for 'seven' appears to be a borrow word from a Muskogean language because the original form came to be regarded as unutterable.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06029565423493357259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67816641932387877662013-09-15T02:45:56.147+03:002013-09-15T02:45:56.147+03:00"Neandethals are found to hunt marine mammals..."Neandethals are found to hunt marine mammals, they and Homo erectus apparently sailed in the Mediterranean and SE Asia to reach remote islands, and early Homo sapiens reached Australia. The invention of boats and navigation must have been earlier than we assumed". <br /><br />The invention of boats need not be much before humans reached Australia, although it is extremely likely humans used some sort of boats on calm stretches of water before they reached anywhere near SE Asia. That Neanderthals ate (not necessarily 'hunted') marine animals does not prove their boating ability. Likewise with Homo ersectus. The mediterranean islands are amazingly lacking in human habitation until some time around 10,000 years ago, and islands were they are present also show evidence of faunal interchange. That mean humans need not necessarily arrived by boat becaus eother animals arrived at the same time. <br /><br />"Yes, rivers can be pretty rough, but I've an impression that they were also very important. Major civilizations were built along rivers" <br /><br />But thiose civilizations appeared long after humans had reached Australia, and even after humans had occupied all the Mediterranean islands. Their development can hardly be used as proof of early boating ability. <br /><br />None of the haplogroups you list is in any way confined to the coast, nor is it automatically so that they developed anywhere near it. I agree they may have become concentrated in river valleys as they are usually more productive in resources than are regions more distant from those valleys. But that in turn does not automatically imply use of boats. On the other hand I would expect boating to have first developed along a quiet stretch of river or on a shallow lake. The coast would have been the last region exploited by boats as it is a much more difficult environment to utilise. <br /><br />"as I have argued before, D is a remnant population - earlier and originally much more widespread than C an Q and others". <br /><br />I'm inclined to agree with that although it may be no more ancient that C as a whole. Certainly more ancient than C3's expansion though. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24315093147777291782013-09-14T06:03:14.140+03:002013-09-14T06:03:14.140+03:00THis is just dumb in my opinion. Y DNa is just a d...THis is just dumb in my opinion. Y DNa is just a direct male line. R1b in west Europe is almost all under deep subclade R1b1a2a1 L51<br /><br />copy and paste for were it came from<br />http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?93100-Germanic-Italo-Celts<br /><br />It arrived with Germanic Italo Celts and the bronze age 5,000ybp. Indo European languages spread tons of Y DNa that was not there before the bronze age. <br /><br />copy and paste this for y dna spread by indo Europeans<br />http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?91971-Y-DNA-spread-by-Indo-Europeans-(R1a1a1-M417-R1b1a2a1-L51)-(R1b1a2a-L23-R1b1a1-M73-Etc-). U cant just show how all Y DNa spread because in Europe and asia so much of it is so recent and it gets really complicated.<br /><br />Y DNA is just a direct male line it does not define human families. Aust DNA does i am sick of y DNA migration routes there need to be some aust dna ones it really shows how people are related and how humans spread.Krefterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055804913528477710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47979734547134934282013-09-13T16:21:01.784+03:002013-09-13T16:21:01.784+03:00"Yes it's possible that D went from Tibet..."Yes it's possible that D went from Tibet to Japan through rivers (much like O3e), but how did it arrive Tibet in the first place, which is surrounded by Tien Shan and the Himalayas? "<br /><br />Or, as I have argued before, D is a <i>remnant</i> population - <i>earlier</i> and originally much more widespread than C an Q and others. eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-23081662120008502952013-09-13T07:17:35.249+03:002013-09-13T07:17:35.249+03:00> What makes you so sure rivers were important?...> What makes you so sure rivers were important?<br /><br />There is still hot debate on HOW important was water to early human subsistence and dispersal. The controversy can go way back to the evolution of Homo.<br />But one thing is clear -- our ancestors were more skillful and more rely on water resources than we thought. Neandethals are found to hunt marine mammals, they and <i>Homo erectus</i> apparently sailed in the Mediterranean and SE Asia to reach remote islands, and early <i>Homo sapiens</i> reached Australia. The invention of boats and navigation must have been earlier than we assumed.<br />Yes, rivers can be pretty rough, but I've an impression that they were also very important. Major civilizations were built along rivers, and a few coastal-to-inland connections can be made:<br />- IJ* near Iran coast >> (along Euphrates/Tigris?) >> origin of J* in eastern Turkey, I* near Black Sea<br />- L all along W India coastline and Indus<br />- Q* and R* found along Indus (Pashtun, Gujarat, Burusho, Kalash)<br />- R1a originated (highest diversity) in Pakistan coast >> (along Indus?) >> C Asia<br />- D* in Andaman coast >> (along Irrawaddy/Salween?) >> Tibet<br />- Maritime O3a2 >> (along Irrawaddy/Salween?) >> origin of Tibeto-Burmen (O3a2c) in Yunnan<br />- C coastal migration >> (along Amur?) >> origin of Mongolic (C3*/C3d) and Tungusic (C3c) languages in upper AmurChakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05380415122813628712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45738505360849080152013-09-12T05:24:35.175+03:002013-09-12T05:24:35.175+03:00"it's supposed to be solutrean adventurer..."it's supposed to be solutrean adventurers making a western crossing that founded the iroquois as this should have been very possible (by walking over ice) at the time". <br /><br />That scenario is very unlikely. You have to imagine a group of people moving all that way along an ice shelf with nothing to eat along the way and with no idea of what they would find at the other end. People ar eoften stupid, but not usually that stupid.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71503531188732442942013-09-12T04:02:35.149+03:002013-09-12T04:02:35.149+03:00sible check for R1 origin in native North American...sible check for R1 origin in native North American populations could be to compare haplogroup distributions according to references like that provided by Ilija Petrovic above with expected Haplogroup distributions in these populations based on weighted European source populations.<br />E.g. (made up numbers) Brits are 65% R1b, 10% R1a, 5% G, 5% I etc etc and comprise 50% of the European colonial source population and Germans are 50% R1b, 15% R1a etc and comprise 25% of the source population and so on. The bottom line is that the Native American groups should have similar ratios of European sourced haplogroups to their host colonial populations at the time of admixture. Assuming the original Native North American population was all Q, does a simple admixture model adequately represent the haplogroup frequencies observed in the current Native population? If they come out, for instance, almost completely lacking in R1a or I or whatever you would think something is up and some variants of R were likely present before European colonization. If the ratios come out as expected then colonial input is a satisfactory answer.Black Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12608950569578025238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6343294436389553272013-09-12T04:01:28.033+03:002013-09-12T04:01:28.033+03:00A possible check for R1 origin in native North Ame...A possible check for R1 origin in native North American populations could be to compare haplogroup distributions according to references like that provided by Ilija Petrovic above with expected Haplogroup distributions in these populations based on weighted European source populations.<br />E.g. (made up numbers) Brits are 65% R1b, 10% R1a, 5% G, 5% I etc etc and comprise 50% of the European colonial source population and Germans are 50% R1b, 15% R1a etc and comprise 25% of the source population and so on. The bottom line is that the Native American groups should have similar ratios of European sourced haplogroups to their host colonial populations at the time of admixture. Assuming the original Native North American population was all Q, does a simple admixture model adequately represent the haplogroup frequencies observed in the current Native population? If they come out, for instance, almost completely lacking in R1a or I or whatever you would think something is up and some variants of R were likely present before European colonization. If the ratios come out as expected then colonial input is a satisfactory answer.Black Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12608950569578025238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86217398545421255332013-09-11T10:27:48.050+03:002013-09-11T10:27:48.050+03:00Actually it's supposed to be solutrean adventu...Actually it's supposed to be solutrean adventurers making a western crossing that founded the iroquois as this should have been very possible (by walking over ice) at the time.<br /><br />Which would blow the idea that I clade covered the whole of europe and then got overrun in a few centuries of r1b migrations completely out of the water.Fiend of 9 worldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17712083368615685458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16424068808625891902013-09-11T06:52:46.057+03:002013-09-11T06:52:46.057+03:00One more point in relation to a couple of Chak'...One more point in relation to a couple of Chak's comments: <br /><br />"D1/D3 in Tibeto-Burman should have been originated from the Thailand coastline (near Adamanese D*), go upstream along the Irrawaddy/Salween rivers" <br /><br />"it's possible that D went from Tibet to Japan through rivers" <br /><br />What makes you so sure rivers were important? I realise that until they had invented means to carry water humans would have had to live near some water resource. But that need not have been as massive as a 'river'. A small stream would have been sufficient. Perhaps you are considering rivers as a travel route but the first, presumably primitive, boats (whenever they were invented) were presumably more suited to use on still water, such as small lakes or ponds rather than moving water. Extensive movement along rivers is extremely unlikely for early migrations. And the open ocean is even less likely. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-745211179349025852013-09-10T22:20:38.955+03:002013-09-10T22:20:38.955+03:00R1 in North America is R1b-M269
http://www.google....R1 in North America is R1b-M269<br />http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hammer%20population%20structure%20of%20ychromosome%20snp%20haplogroups%20in%20the%20united%20states&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.familytreedna.com%2Fpdf%2FHammerFSIinpress.pdf&ei=UK9hUbKZA8Hy4QSNhoHIBQ&usg=AFQjCNFCgh5azCWXxdls00eWZaktmyyeJw&bvm=bv.44770516,d.bGEAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00292937853488419245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46995776638833443412013-09-10T18:39:54.420+03:002013-09-10T18:39:54.420+03:00" R1 (M137) is found predominantly in North A..." R1 (M137) is found predominantly in North American Algonquian groups like the Ojibwe (79%), Chipewyan (62%), Seminole (50%), Cherokee (47%), Dogrib (40%) and Papago (38%). "<br /><br />Only one of those groups is Algonkian, the Ojibwe. Cherokee is Iroqouoian and Seminole is Muskogean and there is no evidence that they are in any way related, and those populations are geopgraphically distant. that goes double for the Uto-Aztecan Papago. Of course there may be explanations for whay these widely separated groups look lrealted, ad why groups clearly related to them, other members of those langugae families, don't. But it takes some explaining.<br /><br />" IE and Iroquoian also show parallel development in gender systems: Cherokee retains the earlier animate-inanimate pattern while Mohawk has a masculine-feminine-neuter gender system like current IE languages."<br /><br />Aside from conforming to some pretty universal tendencies in the development of gender sysytems, these two systems are not paticularly similar.<br /><br />Those examples of pronouns are not convincing at all. You cannot compare modren languages directly to establish a genetic relationship - you cna get suggestive leads to follow, but oyu can't establsih anything that way. you have to compare the proto-languages. In this case this menas comparing the proto-language for Iroquoian at a time depth of five to seven thousand years ago. We are a couple of generations of work at best from that. People can't even aggre that Caddoan, Siouan and Iroquoian, much mre obviously similar, are genetically related.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187836541591828806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-39410346649589139062013-09-10T09:37:29.946+03:002013-09-10T09:37:29.946+03:00The map was added to two Wikipedia articles today ...The map was added to two Wikipedia articles today and I have removed it pending a talk page discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup#Haplogroup_map. You/we are Wikipedia, so please speak up there now or forever hold your peace.Helenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02375851395909592230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51673740971138631892013-09-10T05:33:33.439+03:002013-09-10T05:33:33.439+03:00"Yes it's possible that D went from Tibet..."Yes it's possible that D went from Tibet to Japan through rivers (much like O3e), but how did it arrive Tibet in the first place, which is surrounded by Tien Shan and the Himalayas? <br />Inland routes are possible, but I think coastal dispersal is more parsimonious: India >> Andaman Sea >> S China Sea >> Japan" <br /><br />I think an 'inland route' is far more probable than any route through India. D is virtually unknown in India and where present is associated with Tibeto-Burman speakers. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where D could have dissapppeared through India when so many diverse Y-haplogroups survive there. Its dissappearance along a more northerly route is very easily accounted for by the elimination of human populations with the expansion of ice after any movement through the region. Of course the 'coastal route' has become very fashionable although it doesn't stand up to the slightest critical examination. <br /><br />By the way, your map of New Guinea supports a suspicion I have long had regarding the island and neighbouring regions. It looks very much as if S was the first Y-DND to arrive. It tended to be pushed eastward with M's arrival although that haplogroup seems to have originally been concentrated in the islands immediately north of New Guinea, Melanesia in other words. C2 was next, primarily in the 'Bird's Head' but moving rapidly along the north coast and through Melanesia and so out into the Pacific. Elements of O3a2c-P164 accompanied it, even reaching the Cook Islands. <br /><br />"The distribution of R1 is believed to be associated with the re-settlement of Eurasia following the last glacial maximum, and entered the Americas with the initial founding population". <br /><br />That is quite possible, and makes sense now you point it out. R, like Q, looks to have been originally a steppe haplogroup. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-50991183787761538582013-09-10T01:55:52.331+03:002013-09-10T01:55:52.331+03:00The NA component to the formation of IE would also...<i>The NA component to the formation of IE would also solve the long-standing puzzle of the low-frequency but persistent occurrence of NA ancestry in western Eurasia, especially the Middle East and the Mediterranean areas (http://www.ancestrybydna.com/average-results.php).</i><br /><br />AncestrybyDNA is crap. Northern European populations usually show more Native American-like ancestry than do Southern European and West Asian populations in genetic analyses.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54641282449251722762013-09-09T09:40:07.924+03:002013-09-09T09:40:07.924+03:00Guys, thanks for the comments
> But it is ext...Guys, thanks for the comments <br /><br />> But it is extremely unlikely it arrived in Japan via the coast. Far more likely to have arrived overland from somewhere near Tibet.<br /><br />Yes it's possible that D went from Tibet to Japan through rivers (much like O3e), but how did it arrive Tibet in the first place, which is surrounded by Tien Shan and the Himalayas? <br />Inland routes are possible, but I think coastal dispersal is more parsimonious: India >> Andaman Sea >> S China Sea >> Japan<br /><br />> The longer names give a far more accurate picture of the particular haplogroup's place in the phylogeny though.<br /><br />I agree, also this could settle disputes when new subgroups are introduced. One drawback is that we can no longer use them as simple names (like that instead of Homo sapiens we have to refer to "Animalia Chordata Mammalia Primates Hominidae Hominini Homo sapiens"). <br /><br />> Also my main problem with the map is, it labels J1 all the way into Mesopotamia "Semite" which might imply to the people that all of J1 clades and not only J1c3d are Semitic<br /><br />You mean J1-P58 (now J1a2b) linked to Semitic and Arabic speakers, as different from other J1(xP58) in Europe and Caucasus? I'll try to show in the map...<br /><br />> R1 in Northeast America= NE Amerindian ! Why people are always lying, cheating and defrauding history in that part of the world !<br /><br />Research found R1/R1b (and mtDNA X) in Native Americans, that is for sure, the controversy is how R1 and X got there. Some suggest more recent admixture, some link it to the Solutrean Hypotheses, but one thing is clear -- there is a pre-columbian "mixture" from Europe to N America.Chakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05380415122813628712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35508492204111030582013-09-09T06:52:11.295+03:002013-09-09T06:52:11.295+03:00To amplify on earlier statements about R1 in NA po...To amplify on earlier statements about R1 in NA populations, an earlier edit of the Wikipedia article on NA genetics stated: "Haplogroup R1 (Y-DNA) is the second most predominate Y haplotype found among indigenous Amerindians after Q (Y-DNA). The distribution of R1 is believed to be associated with the re-settlement of Eurasia following the last glacial maximum, and entered the Americas with the initial founding population. R1 is very common throughout all of Eurasia except East Asia and Southeast Asia. R1 (M137) is found predominantly in North American Algonquian groups like the Ojibwe (79%), Chipewyan (62%), Seminole (50%), Cherokee (47%), Dogrib (40%) and Papago (38%). The principal-component analysis suggests a close genetic relatedness between some North American Amerindians (the Chipewyan and the Cheyenne) and certain populations of central/southern Siberia (particularly the Kets, Yakut, Selkup, and Altais), at the resolution of major Y-chromosome haplogroups. This pattern agrees with the distribution of mtDNA haplogroup X, which is found in North America, is absent from eastern Siberia, but is present in the Altais of southern central Siberia." (Note the association between R1 and mtDNA X.) One criticism of Malhi's conclusions is that he did not break down R1 into subclades. The high prevalence of R1 in populations of the far Canadian north that have seen relatively less European contact is significant. Elsewhere, Martin Lewis notes: "A 2007 report, for example, located an American “north-to-south gradient of decreasing similarity to Siberians”: the closer the location of a given Amerindian group to Siberia, in other worlds, the closer the genetic connection. As specified by the authors, “Genetic similarity to Siberia is greatest for the Chipewyan population from northern Canada and for the more southerly Cree and Ojibwa populations. Detectable Siberian similarity is visible to a greater extent in Mesoamerican and Andean populations than in the populations from eastern South America.”<br /><br />Source: http://geocurrents.info/place/russia-ukraine-and-caucasus/siberia/siberian-genetics-native-americans-and-the-altai-connection#ixzz2eJctKxig<br /><br />As for the linguistic evidence, I have compiled tables of likely cognates, and the similarities between IE and Iroquoian are pervasive and include personal pronouns, number, conjunctions, and other parts of speech that are resistant to relexification. In many cases, the resemblance is stunning. For example, the 1st person singular pronoun in Cherokee is 'ayv' (where 'v; represents the nasal 'u') and in Mohawk and Nottaway, is 'i'. Compare to English 'I' and Latin 'ego'. (In both Lenape and Basque, it is 'ni'). In addition, Dr. Marianne Methun has noted in an article titled "Questionable Relatives" (http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/mithun/pdfs/%28In%20Press%29%20Questionable%20Relatives.pdf) that in some Native American languages interrogative and relative pronouns show the same forms, a trait which highly concentrated in Europe and uncommon elsewhere. IE and Iroquoian also show parallel development in gender systems: Cherokee retains the earlier animate-inanimate pattern while Mohawk has a masculine-feminine-neuter gender system like current IE languages. <br /><br />It should be noted that some linguists theorize that IE itself is a mash-up between North Caucasian languages and "some Central Asian language." I submit that this "Central Asian language" was probably closely related to Iroquoian. The NA component to the formation of IE would also solve the long-standing puzzle of the low-frequency but persistent occurrence of NA ancestry in western Eurasia, especially the Middle East and the Mediterranean areas (http://www.ancestrybydna.com/average-results.php).Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06029565423493357259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25189787079223470682013-09-08T14:57:05.060+03:002013-09-08T14:57:05.060+03:00R1 in Northeast America= NE Amerindian ! Why peopl...R1 in Northeast America= NE Amerindian ! Why people are always lying, cheating and defrauding history in that part of the world !Ricardo Costa de Oliveirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03660715262291819025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45770064340140835712013-09-08T11:37:41.834+03:002013-09-08T11:37:41.834+03:00@Chak
Also my main problem with the map is, it l...@Chak <br /><br />Also my main problem with the map is, it labels J1 all the way into Mesopotamia "Semite" which might imply to the people that all of J1 clades and not only J1c3d are Semitic.Kurtihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00818803833239507313noreply@blogger.com