Journal of Human Genetics 54, 689–694 (1 December 2009) | doi:10.1038/jhg.2009.94The key role of patrilineal inheritance in shaping the genetic variation of Dagestan highlanders
Laura Caciagli
Abstract
The Caucasus region is a complex cultural and ethnic mosaic, comprising populations that speak Caucasian, Indo-European and Altaic languages. Isolated mountain villages (auls) in Dagestan still preserve high level of genetic and cultural diversity and have patriarchal societies with a long history of isolation. The aim of this study was to understand the genetic history of five Dagestan highland auls with distinct ethnic affiliation (Avars, Chechens-Akkins, Kubachians, Laks, Tabasarans) using markers on the male-specific region of the Y chromosome. The groups analyzed here are all Muslims but speak different languages all belonging to the Nakh-Dagestanian linguistic family. The results show that the Dagestan ethnic groups share a common Y-genetic background, with deep-rooted genealogies and rare alleles, dating back to an early phase in the post-glacial recolonization of Europe. Geography and stochastic factors, such as founder effect and long-term genetic drift, driven by the rigid structuring of societies in groups of patrilineal descent, most likely acted as mutually reinforcing key factors in determining the high degree of Y-genetic divergence among these ethnic groups.
Link
58 comments:
is Daghestani J1 related to Arabian J1?
No it is not related to Arabian J1. it is all of the J1* with DYS388=13 variety.
According to the authors: "we did not detect the high repeat numbers (X15) for DYS388 as reported in the Arab and Jewish populations from Near East nor did we find the single-banded motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22, associated with the diffusion of Arab people in Near East and North Africa. The Cohen, Galilee and I&P Arab modal haplotypes, which were reported in the Turkic populations from Anatolia were not found in the Dagestan samples.
They also estimated the TMRCA at 11.700 years and observed that "this estimate is in agreement with the archeological record which indicates that some of these ethnic groups have lived in the Dagestan mountains for over 10 000 years. These results suggest that colonization of Dagestan probably took place during an early phase of the peopling of Eurasia.
That's quite interesting information for those of us who do not have access. Thanks, Bedros.
Also I find interesting that R1b1 is almost non-existent north of the ridge.
And now that I notice, it's curious that the Turkish sample shows much less J2 than usual, while in turn reporting very high levels of I (c. 25%). Am I reading wrong the shades code (admittedly a little difficult to discern) or is this that way? If so, can it be explained by some peculiarity of the sample?
Maju said...
"Also I find interesting that R1b1 is almost non-existent north of the ridge."
Y-DNA haplogroup R1b is quite frequent among Turkic peoples of the North Caucasus (e.g. Balkars, Kumyks) according to the data of Yunusbaev et al. (2006) and Battaglia et al. (2008), and as many as 68% of the Bagvalins and 40% of the Tabasarans of Daghestan carry R1b Y-DNA according to Yunusbaev et al. (2006).
Maju said...
"And now that I notice, it's curious that the Turkish sample shows much less J2 than usual, while in turn reporting very high levels of I (c. 25%). Am I reading wrong the shades code (admittedly a little difficult to discern) or is this that way? If so, can it be explained by some peculiarity of the sample?"
The authors of the present paper have cited the work of Nasidze et al., whose data regarding the composition of the Y-DNA pools of populations of the Caucasus and Southwest Asia do not agree with any other published data set.
From my understanding of the situation various waves of human migration have broken along the Caucasus Mountains since Homo erectus first arrived there.
Although the Ossetians have managed to establish themselves in a small region along a pass through the mountains isn't it taken for granted that most movements north or south through the region between the Caspian and Black Seas has been east of the Caucasus, through Daghestan to Azerbaijan? Presumably these movements have left their mark in the hill country as well, and are responsible for some of the haplogroups mentioned in this study.
Although most movement through the region would be east of the hills I'd further guess that the Daghestanis are not the only group of people in the region to 'share a common Y-genetic background, with deep-rooted genealogies and rare alleles, dating back to an early phase in the post-glacial recolonization of Europe'. Comparison with these other groups would be a most interesting add-on excercise.
Articles about the circassians would be interesting too.
"is Daghestani J1 related to Arabian J1?"
Most Arabian J1 belong to downstream lineages that were able to spread fast from 3000 BC & on, they J1 subclade L147 is associated with the Semitic tribes that pressured all other lineages & outbred them by taking away their resources & females.
Dagestan J1* are mainly archaic isolates who protected themselves in the highlands from R1-M173 hordes & later added.
*IJK-L15------------> Caspian
**K-M9--------------> East Caspian
**IJ-429------------> West Caspian
***I-M170-----------> Europe
***J-M304-----------> Anatolia
****J2-M172---------> Mesopotamia
****J*-458.2--------> South Arabia
*****J1-M267--------> Anatolia
******J1e-P58-------> Levant
*******J1e3-L147----> South Arabia
"through Daghestan to Azerbaijan?"
The Northern part of the Rep of Azerbaijan is Lezginstan which is an Ethnically populated Dagestani region
Thanks.
Most Arabian J1 belong to downstream lineages that were able to spread fast from 3000 BC & on...
Who says 3000, says 4000, right? I say because it's a much more historical date for Semitic expansion.
But we should not forget that apart of Semitic expansion as such, there might have been previously other flows, associated to Neolithic and even maybe Epipaleolithic cultures.
Also about a good deal of J1 haplotypes appear (Semino 2004) quite tightly associated to North Africa (though also West Asia) and could represent a pre-Semitic J1 presence in that area (J1 is way too common to be claimed to have spread there only with Islamic expansion). I would seriously consider this cluster to represent some other flow. After all J1 must be a very old lineage and can't be only associated with the Semitic language family, whose influence in North Africa is too recent and shallow.
The Northern part of the Rep of Azerbaijan is Lezginstan which is an Ethnically populated Dagestani region.
There is not any Daghestani ethnicity: Daghestan is a republic with many different ethnicities. However Lezgians are speakers of a NE Caucasian language, phylum also present in Daghestan, Chechnya and Ingushetia.
J1 should be rather associated with north afrasan languages(semitic,egyptian and berber).
Whereas J2 with proto semitic substratum in indo-european languages.
And also with the north afrasan substratum in indo-european languages(please read the very interesting Black Athena book)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15865145/The-ChamitoSemitic-Morphology-in-IndoEuropean-Languages-Part-1
Arnaud Fournet
The document describes some sections of the Chamito-Semitic morphology and their counterparts
in the lexical and morphological evidence contained in the Indo-European languages. The explicit
conclusion of the author is that Indo-European languages are a branch of Chamito-Semitic and that
the material described and analyzed constitutes inherited features that prove the relationship of
Indo-European to Chamito-Semitic.
http://free.of.pl/g/grzegorj/lingwen/iesem1.html
Apophony
Perhaps the most known common feature of Indo-European and Semitic languages is a less or more developed system of vowel alternations in inflexion and in word-formation, called apophony or ablaut. It should be emphasized that this phenomenon is rare in other language groups, and at least less universal.
According to last theories,ie languages homeland is khorassan/sogdiana(current afghanistan,tadjikistan...)and suggestingly were peoples used to call themselves Aryans.
This region is linguistically very homogenous(presence of just 1 ie branch=indo-iranian)same as Arabia for aa languages(with the presence of just 1 aa branch=semitic)
It could be that successive waves occured from the homeland in different historical times resulting in genitical indo-europeinisation of neighbouring peoples than a lingistical indo-europeinisation of more distant peoples by first indo-europianised peoples and so on.
The closest branches to indo-iranian are slavic and armenian(which have a strong pre indo-european substratum).
Proto indo-europeans could be the result of a mixture between pre proto semitic speaking J2 farmers coming from middle east and borean speaking local R1a populations of afghanistan.
This will explain the presence amongst pashto of J2 haplotype and also explain the shared lexicon(three,six,seven,star,bull,goat,boat,barley,town,home,sparrow,ear,eye,tongue,head,field...)and shared apophonic* inflective morphology of semitic and ie languages
*Ehret groups Egyptian, Berber, and Semitic together in a North Afro-Asiatic subgroup
http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/af/afro-asiatic_languages.htm
Berber,Semitic and Egyptian are distinct from the other aa languages in the facts that they have a SVO apophonic morphology whereas kushitic and tchadic have a SOV agglutinative morphology.
The few lexical and grammatical features shared by north afrasan and kushitic-tchadic are most likely due to a proto north afrasan superstratum or sprachbund over a nilotic or niger kongo speaking E1b1b peoples as a result of J+R1 people migrations into Africa.
This is also confirmed by the presence of sumerian and hurrian loanwords in african branches of afrasan.
While ethnic and hence linguistic flows may be somewhat related with haplogroups, it is always good to keep clear the difference. After all people learn new languages and lose old ones all the time.
Whereas J2 with proto semitic substratum in indo-european languages.
I don't agree with this. J2 seems more associated with the "highlander" Neolithic (in contrast with the Palestinian Neolithic that was surely related to J1 and some E1b1b) and its expansion into Europe and South Asia. IMO, neither Indoeuropean nor Afroasiatic phylums are in fact related with this Neolithic flow and what you call "Semitic substratum" is probably pre-Semitic substratum in Semitic itself. The influence of Semitic and other possible Afroasiatic languages before the Semitic expansion of the 4th millennium BCE was probably restricted. There must have existed other language families in West Asia and related areas of which we only know so much (some survived long enough as to be recorded like Sumerian, Hurro-Urartean, Hattic, Etruscan... but others surely did not). The modern Afroasiatic+Indoeuropean almost total hegemony in West Eurasia is with all likelihood not reflective of the situation in the Neolithic period. The fact that some J1-dominated ethnicities speak NE Caucasian (possibly associated with Hurro-Urartean) or that some R1-dominated ones speak Basque is witness to that.
Who says 3000, says 4000, right? I say because it's a much more historical date for Semitic expansion.
L-147 is about 5000years old ~ so yes 3000 BC fits perfectly
In North Africa (Berberized J1e) were already present before Islam (via Jewish exiles, Phoenicians & possibly even the offspring of loose Roman Neareastern Soldiers) so the 5%-10% J1 amongst Berber makes alot of Sense (J1e Phoenician Elites -not all Punics were J1 we know that! some where- who had access to more females, Promsicuious Jews, Soldiers & obviously the 1400yrs of Peninsular influence left some J1 amongst the Berber)
Moderate Pre-Islamic J1e amongst Berbers? Yes
Neolithic J1e amongst Berbers? Minimal at best
Same thing applies to Ethiopia is it a coincidence that J1e jumps to 33% amongst Christian Amhara Semitic Speakers, while it drops to an eye catching 2% amongst Non-Semitic speaking Cushite Natives who live right by them! even the Muslim Somalis!
Ehret groups Egyptian, Berber, and Semitic together in a North Afro-Asiatic subgroup
Although Semitic languages spread mainly by J1e-P58, Semitic was passed to J1e via E1b1b1c-M123 in Western Arabia which is both a highe % region for E1b1b1c & J1e who made J1e-P58 speak the new language thats completeley diff than the language spoken by their genetic relatives (Sumerian J2 or NE Caucasian J1*)
Proto-Egyptian---- E1b1b1a-M78
Proto-Berber------ E1b1b1b-M81
Proto-Semitic----- E1b1b1c-M123
*M81 Exclusively Berbers
*M78 Core -spreading North & South-
*M123 the Proto-Semitic group that interacted with J1e-P58 producing the Semitic language, the homeland of E1b1b1c-M123 was SW Asia, possibly pressured into the Sarawat mountains-Taurus in later times
don't agree with this. J2 seems more associated with the "highlander" Neolithic (in contrast with the Palestinian Neolithic that was surely related to J1 and some E1b1b)
How about these folks?
J1 Dagestan Highlands (land of Mountains!) which happens to be the highest J1 % region outside of Arabia
J1 Yemen highlands are the most populated region of Arabia are also high % J1
J1 Amhara highlands those folks choose the highest peaks in Eastern Africa non-other than the Amhara highlands of Ethiopia.
J2 Mesopotamia Lowlanders although invaded over & over, J2 presists in high %, that tells you J2 people love the lowlands were the river flows & are willing to switch their language to Semitic, Turkic, IE aslong as they can hold on to their land.
J2 S Azerbaijan lowlanders the higher populated Turkic speaking Azerbaijan lowlands (south Azerbaijan), opposed to Northern Azerbaijan (highlands Lezginstan), J2 amongst Turkified Lowlanders -who Turkified to survive or were Anatolian arrivals
All in All you can hold on to your theory, but you need to accept that J1 are highlanders per excellence & that many J2s are lowlanders ;)
L-147 is about 5000years old...
1. Who says that?
2. "is about X years old" in genetics is always relative.
In North Africa (Berberized J1e) were already present before Islam (via Jewish exiles, Phoenicians & possibly even the offspring of loose Roman Neareastern Soldiers) so the 5%-10% J1 amongst Berber makes alot of Sense...
Doesn't make any sense if you compare with the other major Phoenician colony: Iberia, where J1 is ridiculously low, or with the Phoenician homeland, where J2 is surely more important.
Jewish influence is negligible, as Jewish (Sephardim) have similar amounts of J1 and J2 (Ashkenazim have the apportion much more slanted to J2) and it is much more likely for what we know that Berber blood impregnated Jewish one than viceversa (lots of Berbers converted to Judaism in the early Middle Ages).
So J1 in North Africa cannot be attributed only nor mostly to these historical Semitic influences without forcing the evidence.
...
As for "the highlanders", Gulu, you misunderstood me (and/or I did not explain well): I did not mean as an absolute term but as term relative to West Asian Neolithic, with Palestine and nearby areas being the "lowlands" and the Taurus-Zagros arch being the "highlands".
Mesopotamian lowlands (Sumer) were settled most likely by an offshoot of some of those "highlanders" from the Zagros area, so it is only logical they are overwhelmingly J2.
Sorry about the confusion.
"Although Semitic languages spread mainly by J1e-P58, Semitic was passed to J1e via E1b1b1c-M123 in Western Arabia which is both a highe % region for E1b1b1c & J1e who made J1e-P58 speak the new language thats completeley diff than the language spoken by their genetic relatives (Sumerian J2 or NE Caucasian J1*)"
You have to explain why you associate J2 with sumerians and J1 with NE Caucasian,what about other distinct languages of this area such as hurrian,kassite,elamite,NW caucasian to which haplogroup could they be associated?
NE caucasian is remotely connected to NW caucasian so it could be that NW caucasians G's assimilated proto semitic J1's of NE caucasus.
Also why E1b1b should be original afro-asiatic speakers when their genetic relatives are Niger-Kongo and Nilotic speakers.
How could you explain the presence of hurrian loanwords in african branches of Afro-Asiatic.
How could you explain that the amount of J1 amongst Egyptian copts is much more important than amongst muslim ones.
How could you explain that J1 pic in Maghreb coincides with Tashawit speaking Berber populations and that isolated mountainer Kabyle Berbers have as high as 20% J1.
How could you explain the(universaly very rare)shared apophonic(with universaly very rare dual and feminine pronouns) morphology and lexicon between north afro-asiatic and indo-european.
How could you explain that Semitic Eblaite language(which has the pecularity of containing both east semitic and west semitic features) is considered by some linguists to be 8000 years old and have no foreign loanwords.
How could you explain that shared semitic-ie roots have a semitic etymology for example:
sab'a(ie septa=7)came from semitic sababa=index finger.
thuraya(ie star)came from semitic sara=to travel by night.
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~ewood/Afroasiatic.pdf
According to this paper,eblaite(which both have west semitic and east semitic features=an indice of its closeness to proto semitic)could be as old as 8 ky.
Ashraf, I do agree pretty much with your objections to Gulu. But...
NE caucasian is remotely connected to NW caucasian -
This is very controversial. I'd rather be safe and consider them separated phyla. Other theories relate them with historical Hurro-Urartean and Hattic respectively.
proto semitic J1's
Why proto-Semitic? Non-Semitic I'd say. There is no and there has never been any Semitic or Afroasiatic language in the Caucasus, at least out of the mosques and synagogues.
Also why E1b1b should be original afro-asiatic speakers when their genetic relatives are Niger-Kongo and Nilotic speakers.
Precisely. Because these are African phyla and Afroasiatic is too (with the only exception of Semitic). Anyhow it's like comparing the "genetic relatives" of Indoeuropean speakers (if we associate them with macro-haplogroup F (or even with subclades K and P) speaking Papuan, Guarani, Chinese or whatever else. The level of time deph you are talking about is way too deep to matter in comparison with what we may know of languages.
How could you explain the presence of hurrian loanwords in african branches of Afro-Asiatic.
This is interesting, can you lead me to where can I read more on this? However it can be explained by Neolithic influences, I presume.
How could you explain that shared semitic-ie roots have a semitic etymology for example:
sab'a(ie septa=7)came from semitic sababa=index finger.
thuraya(ie star)came from semitic sara=to travel by night.
This is very speculative and would in any case refer to mere isolated "coincidences", unless you apply a consistent methodology through all the dictionaries (in which case it'd be still somewhat controversial until you work also with the grammar).
Anyhow the Arabic number that sounds more to sept and similar IE forms is in fact six (sitta, from my parcheese nights in Morocco, so similar to Spanish "siete", seven). Thuraya is not more similar to star or equivalent than Basque izar (star too). It's not impossible that some words have permeated from Semitic, via Phoenicians, Arabs or even the Assyrian traders of history into some Indoeuropean languages but I don't see the similitude you claim consistent enough to draw any conclusions.
Even the origin of sababa in sa'ba is surely not universally accepted. Linguistics is very slippery, be most cautious and rigorous if you want to reach to anything minimally solid.
According to this paper,eblaite(which both have west semitic and east semitic features=an indice of its closeness to proto semitic)could be as old as 8 ky.
Your link only includes a dated tree with no mention of Eblaite and that tree dates Semitic (its bifurcation) c. 6000 BP, almost exactly when Semites appear first in historical records and the archaeological record. However proto-Semitic may have existed in the Levant and/or the circum-Arabian pastoralist complex before that date. i.e. since any date from its divergence with Egyptian (dated in your tree to 9000 BP).
Thank you for the explanation,so afro-asiatic languages homeland is in Africa and (originally)they are most probably connected with the E1b1b haplotype.
For the Sumerian and Caucasian loanwords in African branches of Afroasiatic it's written in wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages
However, an opposing theory is that Afroasiatic originated in the Middle East, and that Semitic is the only branch to have stayed put; this view is supported by apparent Sumerian and Caucasian loanwords in the African branches of Afroasiatic.
"Precisely. Because these are African phyla and Afroasiatic is too (with the only exception of Semitic). Anyhow it's like comparing the "genetic relatives" of Indoeuropean speakers (if we associate them with macro-haplogroup F (or even with subclades K and P) speaking Papuan, Guarani, Chinese or whatever else. The level of time deph you are talking about is way too deep to matter in comparison with what we may know of languages."
Why E1b1a,which is not merely a sister haplotype(as Q and R)but a sister sub-sub-sub clade of E1b1b,is associated with Niger-Kongo and Nilotic(Nilotic family expands sporadically from south Sudan to Western Algeria=indice of being the pre-afrasian language of north Africa?)languages when E1b1b would be associated with afrasian languages?
Keeping in mind that Afrasian languages are morphologically and lexically closer to indo-european languages than to Niger-Kongo and Nilotic languages.
Also some linguists suggest a proto semitic/proto akkadian substratum in daghestani languages.
As for Arabic thuraya,it's way distant from "star" but if we look more inside we can see the similarities between ie and aa related words.
Hebrew esther,Akkadian ishtar,Berber ithri,French etoile,Romanian steaua,Deutsh stark.
Same for numbers
We have semitic akkadian shishu and ie persian shesh and semitic amharic sabat and ie french sept,also semitic akkadian samane and ie slavic osam=8,semitic arabic thalath and ie english three,semitic akkadian ishten and ie slavic jeden=1....
These ethymologies are ridicolous, they are like the comparisons of Geneticists who compare DYS426 of Hg. R1b1b2a1b with the clades (except one) of R1b1*: between them there are many thousands of years and many mutations. Linguists compare reconstructed forms, like Geneticists must compare values of the same time (if it is possible). Indo-European “7” was probably *septm at least 5000 YBP. Which was the Semitic “7” of that date?
Have you a source of an attested ie text with septm,of course no.
But,there are attested written texts of afrasian sabat as early as early as 2800 BC(Akkadian).
Also you have north afroasiatic Egyptian safx/sapx=7.
Sabat has a semitic etymology sababa=index finger whereas ie septm does not have an ie etymology.
correction
Have you a source of an attested ie text of 5000 BC with septm?,of course no.
Linguists work by reconstructing the ancient not attested form. Indo-European linguistics is a science from at least two centuries: *septm is the form reconstructed from Latin "septem", Greek "'eptà" English "seven" and infinite other languages. I think you care of a little bit of Western science, in many fields.
But semitic roots too are reconstructed and semito-egyptian is older than indo-european.
http://indo-european-migrations.scienceontheweb.net/semitic_numbers.html
It is the same to say that your ancestors are older than mine. Languages, like men (and any other living being), have the same age. We all come from a cell of about 4,000,000,000 of years ago. So languages come from the first form of human speaking, old how homo sapiens sapiens probably.
The same website states that proto semitic sabat is related to proto ie septm along with many other words(including the numerals 1,2,3,6...)
http://indo-european-migrations.scienceontheweb.net/PIE_semitic.htm
Ashraf:
... it's written in wikipedia.
Ok. A brief reference in the balancing section of NPOV policy. I hoped to get a PDF link... :(
...
Phylogeny levels:
CF > F > IJK > K > MNOPS > P > R > R1 > R1a (typical IE)
DE > E > E1 > E1b > E1b1 > E1b1b (typical Afroasiatic)
E1b1b is at the level of R, P is at the level of E1b1. Not that this means too much (as timelines were surely somewhat different and maybe new nodes can be discovered eventually) but is convenient to keep in mind for a quick reference.
Keeping in mind that Afrasian languages are morphologically and lexically closer to indo-european languages...
Are they? I never heard that (except from some old proponents of the discredited Nostratic super-family, who anyhow have already dropped AA as part of their fantasy).
Also some linguists suggest a proto semitic/proto akkadian substratum in daghestani languages.
There's no such thing as "Daghestani languages". You must mean NE Caucasian (or Turkic, or...). If you mean NE Caucasian, on first sight I'd suggest a link with Sumerian via Hurro-Urartean within the Zagros Neolithic area. So it'd be pre-Semitic (before Semitic but in another group) rather than proto-.
As for Arabic thuraya (...) Same for numbers...
I could consider them but in any case they'd be more like loanwords within the context of Mediterranean cultural interactions. You can't really argue that they are originally Semitic, though it might be the case (i.e. via Phoenicians, who were very influential). They are isolated words in any case and nobody is denying that loanwords do exist. Numbers above 5 are not basic in any case (Sumerian for instance used a 5-based system, so six is five-one, etc.)
Ashraf, those ethymologies aren't worth.
To Maju I would say that Sumerian is certainly a Sino-Tibetan language. This is clear if you compare it not with Chinese but for instance with Ladhaki and other Himalayan Sino-Tibetan languages.
Sino-Tibetan? OMG!
Sino-Tibetan itself is a controversial phylum. It may well be that Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman are two distinct families that just have influenced each other by sprachbund.
It makes little or rather absolutely no sense in the great picture to consider West and East Eurasian languages as potentially related beyond the common ancestral MP Eurasian origin, impossible to discern in linguistics anymore. Only some steppary/Siberian flows may escape this rule but they are well known.
Instead from the archaeological viewpoint a Sumerian-Hurro-Urartean-NE Caucasian link makes perfect sense. Now, I don't claim that I have deciphered it in linguistic parameters, just that it would be totally logical.
Maju, I know you are sceptic about the great families, but Caucasian, Sino-Tibetan, Na Dené, Sumerian (I think) and your Basque are thought to be in this same philum. Of course they separated so many years ago that very few has remained common, but you can see something also today in the construction.
Nah. It's a total rant. I studied Chinese for some time and it's simply impossible that has any connection with Basque.
Also, as I said before, it would make no sense, considering that we know (mostly from genetics but not contradicting archaeology) that Eurasia was colonized in a U pattern from tropical Asia. Hence East Asians and West Eurasians just have too distant common ancestors to share linguistics at any level that is not the highly speculative of proto-Eurasian.
There are many great linguists who take care of these questions and If I was you I would be less presumptuous.
If you study today Chinese of course a link would seem unlikable, but today "6" liu, Min le was *drug a few thousands of years ago. And to compare Sumerian with Sino-Tibetan take Ladakhi or other conservative languages, not Chinese. If you know Min you would know that there are again some cases markers: wo ai ni /wa ai DI nu.
mr Maju,I think that your difficulity is that you are not familiar with so different languages.
AA morphology is apophonic inflective with dual and feminine pronouns and its basic lexicon has eursiatic counterparts,this is very clear for everyone that knows ie and semitic languages.
And this shared apophonic inflective morphology with feminine and dual pronouns is almost absent in other language families of the world.
There is no shared morphology or lexicon between nilotic/niger-kongo with aa.
If you take a look at nostratic dictionnary you will see that aa not only is listened as nostratic,but is considered the closest branch to indo-european(morphologically and lexically speaking and cluster together under the lislakh subfamily)as both they are aophonic inflective
language phylums.(you could see the works of linguists Allen Bomhard,Carleton Hodge and Dolgopolsky..)
All your arguments are logical and can be true except the one stating that aa is closer to niger-kongo and nilotic than to indo-european.
Also R1a(*18,000 bp)and E1b1b(**22,400 bp) have not very distant time of origin.
The time of origin of
R1a is far older than proto ie whereas E1b1b would have been well fitting with proto aa if its sister subclade E1b1a was not connected to very distinct Niger-Kongo phylum.
Some linguists(Greenberg)group Niger-Kongo and Nilotic together under a larger African Family so it could be very probably that E1b1a is related(originally)to Niger-Kongo phylum and E1b1b is related(originally)to Nilotic phylum.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)
Re: the Basque-Caucasic-Sino Tibetan- Na Dené philum, genetically, I think it woulden't be absurd to think to hg. R1b as to the carrier: Basque are R1b, R1b is diffused in the Caucasus, Burushò (Burushaski is another isolated language of this philum) have an high percentage of R1b, R1b is residual in North China and Korea, there is a disputed R1b in North America, that some genalogists are think as an European introgression, but others, like the great Brazilian geneticit Bortolini, are thinking present in America with the first arrivals.
Burusho (Firasat et al. 2007)
C3-Pk2: 8.2% (8/97)
F-M89(xG-M201, H1-M52, H2-Apt, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9): 1.0% (1/97)
G-M201: 1.0% (1/97)
H1-M52: 4.1% (4/97)
J-12f2(xJ1-M267, J2-M172): 1.0% (1/97)
J2-M172(xJ2a4b1-M92): 7.2% (7/97)
K-M9(xT-M70, L-M20, N1-LLY22g, O2a1a-PK4, O3-M122, P-92R7): 1.0% (1/97)
L-M20(xL1-M27, L3-M357): 4.1% (4/97)
L3-M357(xL3a-PK3): 12.4% (12/97)
O3-M122(xL1Y): 3.1% (3/97)
P*-92R7(xQ-M242, R-M207): 1.0% (1/97)
Q-M242: 2.1% (2/97)
R-M207(xR1-M173, R2-M124): 10.3% (10/97)
R1-M173(xR1a1a-M17): 1.0% (1/97)
R1a1a-M17(xR1a1a5-PK5): 25.8% (25/97)
R1a1a5-PK5: 2.1% (2/97)
R2-M124: 14.4% (14/97)
Gioiello, where is the evidence for a significant presence of haplogroup R1b in the Burusho population of which you have spoken?
Perhaps I should speak of Hg. R, which is more than the half of Burushò's DNA, and R is more credible for the ancientness. But of course, we should explain the origin of its subclades. Probably R had already many subclades and the survival of one rather than another can be due to many factors.
At this poit it would be decisive to state the ancientness of R and its subclades. Perhaps you know that I think its ancientness is greater than others are thinking.
Of course mine is only an hypothesis and I am the first to require proofs.
mr Maju,I think that your difficulity is that you are not familiar with so different languages.
Of course, nobody is. You are only truly familiar with the languages you can speak. You are not familiar with so many different languages either. Even the greatest polyglotes could only speak, what?, 20 languages?
But regardless if I'm familiar or not, what is clear is that MOST LINGUISTS do not accept such hypothetical phyla based on nothing but speculation carried to the extreme, almost true madness.
Anyhow, Dienekes has complained before about linguistic discussions unrelated to the topic and hence I'm dropping this here.
Burusho (Firasat et al. 2007)
C3-Pk2: 8.2% (8/97)
F-M89(xG-M201, H1-M52, H2-Apt, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9): 1.0% (1/97)
G-M201: 1.0% (1/97)
H1-M52: 4.1% (4/97)
J-12f2(xJ1-M267, J2-M172): 1.0% (1/97)
J2-M172(xJ2a4b1-M92): 7.2% (7/97)
K-M9(xT-M70, L-M20, N1-LLY22g, O2a1a-PK4, O3-M122, P-92R7): 1.0% (1/97)
L-M20(xL1-M27, L3-M357): 4.1% (4/97)
L3-M357(xL3a-PK3): 12.4% (12/97)
O3-M122(xL1Y): 3.1% (3/97)
P*-92R7(xQ-M242, R-M207): 1.0% (1/97)
Q-M242: 2.1% (2/97)
R-M207(xR1-M173, R2-M124): 10.3% (10/97)
R1-M173(xR1a1a-M17): 1.0% (1/97)
R1a1a-M17(xR1a1a5-PK5): 25.8% (25/97)
R1a1a5-PK5: 2.1% (2/97)
R2-M124: 14.4% (14/97)
10% R(xR1,R2)! Whoa! How could I ignore this crucial info? Great data again, Ebizur. =)
They look like a great candidate for the ancestral R, as they do not only have 10% R* but very high basal diversity within the haplogroup and even some upstream P(xQ,R).
Which is the source of this data, in particular the R(xR1,R2)? I ask because I might need to cite it in the future.
Of course R1a1... is a back migration from West, anyway they are good candidates for the place of origin of R, but they lack all the subclades of R1b, that I think was born in Western Europe: you know how: R1b1* in Hiberia, R1b1b2/L23-, L23+ L150-, L150+ in Italy. Then the subclades in Central Europe with the first expansion after the Younger Dryas. Of course my calculation of MRCA isn't that of Nordtvedt, Klyosov etc.
I have transcribed those data regarding the composition of the Y-DNA pool of the Burusho population from Figure 1 of the article by Sadaf Firasat, Shagufta Khaliq, Aisha Mohyuddin et alii, "Y-chromosomal evidence for a limited Greek contribution to the Pathan population of Pakistan," European Journal of Human Genetics (2007) 15, 121–126. This article should be accessible via the following URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2588664/
Of course R1a1... is a back migration from West...
Or not. Remember that paper claiming that deeper phylogenetic diversity was detected in certain Indian tribe? R1a is not fully clarified and, considering that R and maybe even P have a likely South Asian origin, I can't discard that Hunza R1a1a is native at this point.
.. anyway they are good candidates for the place of origin of R, but they lack all the subclades of R1b, that I think was born in Western Europe...
R1b origins rather look West Asian. Otherwise is virtually impossible to explain not just local West Asian diversity and deep phylogeny within this clade (or at least R1b1b2) but also the presence of certain subclades in Africa (via Sudan probably) and in East Turkestan (Xinkiang, Uyghuristan).
R1b1b2a1 is the clearly European (or West European) clade, regardless that some other minor R1b1b2 clades (and maybe "Sardinian" R1b1a (which may be rooted in SE France) could also share such origin.
Another thing is the time depth, which I suspect much older than usually claimed. I suspect that R1 or at least R1b was active in West Eurasia already at the early UP. There's no other logical explanation within the known archaeological data. I am also every day more and more tempted to associate the westward migration of mtDNA N (particularly subclades R and N1) with a similarly westward migration of the recently proposed MNOPS haplogroup, which would manifest in this region essentially as P (or R, or R1, or R1b). Both mtDNA N and Y-DNA MNOPS look to me as having a SE Asian origin, soon after the early human expansion in Asia, best represented by Y-DNA F and mtDNA M.
you know how: R1b1* in Hiberia, R1b1b2/L23-, L23+ L150-, L150+ in Italy.
I have not seen anything within R1b1b2 in Europe that looks different from what is found in Anatolia. However I remain open to further discoveries and eager to know about them.
Thanks for the reference Ebizur. Looks like the Kalash also look pretty high in R* (7%).
You're welcome.
For comparison, here are the Hunza Y-DNA data from Table 1 of the paper by Peter A. Underhill, Peidong Shen, Alice A. Lin et alii, "Y chromosome sequence variation and the history of human populations," Nature Genetics, Volume 26, November 2000:
Hunza
1/38 = 2.6% C-M130(xC2-M38, C3c-M48/M77/M86, C3a-M93, C1-M8/M105/M131)
1/38 = 2.6% J2-M172(xM137, M67, M12, M68, M47, M158)
3/38 = 7.9% J2b-M102(xJ2b2a-M99)
1/38 = 2.6% H1a1-M36
2/38 = 5.3% H1a-M82(xH1a1-M36, H1a2-M97, H1a3-M39/M138)
1/38 = 2.6% F-M89(xI-M170, J2-M172, H(1?)-M52/M69, M62, K-M9)
1/38 = 2.6% O3a3c-M134(xO3a3c1-M117/M133)
2/38 = 5.3% K-M9(xO-M175, T-M70, K1-M147, L-M11/M20/M22/M61, N1c-M46, N1a-M128, M1-M4/M5/M106, P-M45/M74)
3/38 = 7.9% L-M11/M20/M22/M61(xL1-M27/M76)
3/38 = 7.9% R1-M173(xM160, M126, M18, M65, M153, M167, M37, M17, M73)
11/38 = 28.9% R1a1a-M17(xM157, M56, M64/M87)
2/38 = 5.3% P-M45/M74(xQ1a1-M120, Q1a2-M25/M143, Q1a3a-M3, R1-M173, R2-M124)
7/38 = 18.4% R2-M124
Maju writes: “I have not seen anything within R1b1b2 in Europe that looks different from what is found in Anatolia. However I remain open to further discoveries and eager to know about them”.
We are waiting for two tests that can change our knowledge of R1b1b2:
1) The distribution of R1b1b2/L23+/L150- so far found only in Italy in Romitti father and son.
2) To test R1b1b2 for these two SNPs found from Rozen et al. I have written on this on Worldfamilies.
What would all that prove, Gioello? Does L150 (a marker not even listed in YSOGG) represent anything in regards to the rest of R1b1b2 or is just some sort of minor "private" lineage? We'd need something much more solid than that. It's like the Iberian R1b* you mention (not sure what amounts or correlations with other regions' lineages it may have): it could be just any random post-Neolithic or even pre-Neolithic arrival. Minor erratics usually don't tell much unless they are central to the phylogeny.
When something is dangerous for our theories, we speak of "private mutation", like Vizachero does. But L150 is very important, because all persons after R/L23+ are derived, and only Romitti and his son are ancestral. Vizachero says that this is a back mutation, but I have said many times that this is very unlikable, being this mutation recent and not happened 50,000 years ago. Anyway we shall see. About the other two mutations of R1b1b2 (see the paper of Rozen et alii)we don't know anything. Let's wait for the first results. If my hypotheses are right, it could be very important, decisive.
A "private" lineage is a lineage that has very few members. It is a standard phylogenetic term and makes total sense.
But L150 is very important, because all persons after R/L23+ are derived.
Is it? Can you document that claim? Can you provide a link (or at least more clear data on that Rozen et al. paper?
I am confused because you make claims without providing the necessary evidence backing them.
Maju, that all subclades of R/L23+, beginning from mine, are L150+ you can see easily on the Adriano’s spreadsheet. The only one who is L150- is Romitti (and I have seen also the son’s results).
Re: the Rozen’s paper you can see my topic on Worldfamilies: “Let’s reconsider the Cantabrian refugium”.
Unfortunately Dienekes hasn't open a topic here, but the Rozen's paper is extremely important.
What is "the Adriano spreadsheet"? Can you post a link?
It's very difficult to obtain precise info from you.
http://www.webalice.it/asquecco
Maju, difficulty isn’t mine. Everybody knows the spreadsheet of Adriano Squecco, that first was of Ann Turner. Each of us has had a decODEme test or 23andME has published his data on this spreadsheet and it had helped and is yet helping to discover new SNPs. Now there is the WTY of FTDNA, which hasn’t a public spreadsheet for what I know, but from there are coming the new SNPs.
After having gone on the URL, you must click on “Y-chromosome comparison”, then http://www.webalice.it/asquecco/Y_DNA-Forums.zip and you ‘ll be able to see the “Adriano’s spreadsheet”. L150 is N°682.
Then I must be nobody, like Ulysses. ;)
Anyhow, thanks for the links I have downloaded them and hope to be able to open after system reboot.
I´m Caucasian from Swan people.
i have J2* can u explain what it´s mean?our nation is believed are from north of mesopotamia and comes from Hurrians like chechens and ingushs
Post a Comment