Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Indian-Y-Chromosomes
Topic Started: Aug 15 2005, 04:12:04 AM (1,548 Views)
Ibra
Global Mod
[ *  *  * ]
Indian-Y-Chromosomes

According to this recent paper J2, L, R2 and R1a are all non-Indigenous because they are commonly found in cast, but are less common to tribes. Where as F*, C* and H are indigenous. F* is probably related to mtDNA –R and C* to mtDNA-M. Some authors have suggested that J2, and L are Neolithic, and that U7 and L are a unit. U7 is common in South-West Iran. However, for some reason, South Asians don’t have the Neolithic E3b. H could have been an Upper Palaeolithic migration from the Middle East, and IMO, related to U2i. H is a mirror image of I and R1a, all of which came from the Middle East during the UP. Veddoid is not Cro-Magnon and vice versa. Indians don’t have I and R1b and Cro-Magnon don’t have H, F* and C*. Both parties have partial UP origin as well as a Neolithic origin in the Middle East.

http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/CordauxCurBiol2004.pdf


Posted Image

I suspect that SW Iran might be a source for the Neolithic expansion of Elamites into India, similar to how Taiwan was the source of Austronesian lineages. In both cases the original base might have been corrupted by nearby peoples.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I really don't know much on India compared to you, but this quote below suggested that L and R2 are indigenous to India:

“The presence of several subclusters of F and K (H, L, R2, and F*) that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the scenario that the coastal (southern route) migration(s) from Africa carried the ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of Indian subcontinent (or that some of them originated there).”
p. 15 of http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...ez&artid=379225.

If H, L, R2 are not indigenous, how can they be basically only found in India?

It might not be neolithic but a second wave before that which didn't reach deep into India.

Quote:
 
F* is probably related to mtDNA –R and C* to mtDNA-M.

We can't really say. It goes back too far. For example, the solely N-derived situation in Western Eurasia could be a case of a small band leaving India, in a few hundreds or dozens that never left with M or lost M due to bottleneck.

This is what I think at this point, http://renpage.blogspot.com/2005/08/eurasi...y-based-on.html .

Quote:
 
However, for some reason, South Asians don’t have the Neolithic E3b.

yeah, that was more of a Levantine phenomenon that didn't affect the Iranian region I think, so it never got to India.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ibra
Global Mod
[ *  *  * ]
I’ve seen this, the views are conflicting. I believe L is found in the Middle East sporadically among Jews and other Caucasoid populations, but compared to E3b, J etc, it is much rarer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Kir
Aug 15 2005, 05:06 AM
I’ve seen this, the views are conflicting.  I believe L is found in the Middle East sporadically among Jews and other Caucasoid populations, but compared to E3b, J etc, it is much rarer.

Then, why can't it be originating in India, unless of course, they find that the root type and or the highest STR diversity is in the ME?

Quote:
 
H could have been an Upper Palaeolithic migration from the Middle East, and IMO, related to U2i.

Same question as above.

I dunno. I'm just really in a very anti-Eurocentric mood. Basically, M89/F was thought to have originated in the Levant as a separate migration from the East African one just 2 years ago. And now it can't be sustained. So, I just can't take these assumptions by European-descended scientists anymore without asking serious questions. I've been polluted by Wells and a lot of his assumptions, which he still keeps, are flat out wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ibra
Global Mod
[ *  *  * ]
You make a point that F* is found at highest frequency in tribal, same with H. H need not arrive during the Neolithic. But it could of come from the Middle East 30,000 years ago or even originate in India. My point was many of lineages both form Europe and India, probably originated in the ME at different times. F* may be OOA.

Quote:
 
yeah, that was more of a Levantine phenomenon that didn't affect the Iranian region I think, so it never got to India.


E3b is present in Iran. Near Easterners, North Africans, and “Southern Europoid” are East African flavoured. :D . Something they don’t like to admit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
H is a mirror image of I and R1a, all of which came from the Middle East during the UP. Veddoid is not Cro-Magnon and vice versa.

-I think the R lineage most likely developed in northern Eurasia, as all of what I've read says. http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AHG_2001_v65_p43.pdf
It's derived from M45 and the locations and STR diversity of the present situation doesn't look Middle Eastern.

It isn't really well distributed in the Middle East. The distribution of R looks like a population that expanded west to Europe and south to India. The R in Cameroon looks like a foray via Iberia, since in North Africa a "Cro-Magnon" type was present and certain people there still are fairer than MEers.

-"Cro-Magnons" are not found in the Middle East. It seems a mingling of people coming into Europe from the Middle East with people coming into Europe from northern Eurasia.

As for F* being OOA, it's the opinion of Underhill that India is the Eurasian Garden of Eden:

http://crchd.nci.nih.gov/meetings/conf/Rac...)/Underhill.ppt

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Unde...04_p487-494.pdf

It makes a lot of sense since so many N, R, and M lineages are found there.

Something just feels wrong with attributing everything from the Middle East.

Quote:
 
E3b is present in Iran.  Near Easterners, North Africans, and “Southern Europoid” are East African flavoured.      :D . Something they don’t like to admit.

I just wonder if this same sentiment makes people latch quickly onto the idea that the SW Asia-India relationship is one-sided flow of genes. It just seems awfully convenient for my taste.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
From that study you gave me,
Quote:
 
Given the high frequency of R-M17 in central Asia (typically
20%–40% [9]), its rarity in west Asia [9, 13] and its absence in east Asia [14], Indian R-M17 Y chromosomes
most probably have a central Asian origin [8, 9].


No, M17 itself has the highest STR among Irano-Indo populations, so it likely developed there. It's R* itself, M173, that has a distribution pattern that suggest a Central Asian/North Eurasian origin.

There is something wrong with the logic.

As we have discussed, the R1a1/M17 in Central Asia is not really diverse. It looks like founder effect.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Actually, since India has R2 and R1, why can't R have developed in India?

It just seems that a lot of these "theories" are based on thin ice and always has a Western orientation.

Quote:
 
Given that J-M172 is rare in Indian tribal groups (Figure 1), absent
in east Asia [9], and typically found in central Asia at frequencies of 10%–20% [9], it is possible that Indian J-M172 chromosomes originate from central Asia rather than west Asia.

That really depends on the STR diversity but I suppose it's reasonable.



Quote:
 
Haplogroup R-M124 is restricted to the
Indian subcontinent, Iran, and central Asia [5]. It generally occurs at low frequencies (1%–4%) except in Indian
caste groups and Indo-European speakers from central Asia (8% [9]).

Ok, fair enough.

Quote:
 
Haplogroup L-M20 is found predominantly
in India and Pakistan (15%) and has tentatively been associated with the expansion of farming, thus implying
a nonIndian origin [15].

Uh... This is where I zone out. It's mainly found in India and Pakistan and it has to be neolithic?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ibra
Global Mod
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
As for F* being OOA, it's the opinion of Underhill that India is the Eurasian Garden of Eden:


I like East Africa as the Garden of Eden; India is where they went after they got thrown out. :D

-HV and TJ are both types of R. Carriers of #F and R could have moved from India to the ME where <R,#F> would have mutated into HV and TJ. Then they would have migrated to the land of the future “Europoids” Many of the lineages in the ME and Europe are Derived from #F, but the rest of the world have their own types of #K.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Kir
Aug 15 2005, 05:56 AM
Quote:
 
As for F* being OOA, it's the opinion of Underhill that India is the Eurasian Garden of Eden:


I like East Africa as the Garden of Eden; India is where they went after they got thrown out. :D

Well, East Africa is the Garden of Eden. It's just that India seems to be the Garden for Eurasians. The deepest lineages for all 3, N ® and M seems to be there.

Plus, when we match with the environment of those times, that was the place to go to, along the coast. Anything west of that was all severe desert until 50,000 years ago, the age of W. Eurasian lineages. All of the very first Moderns archaelogically have been shown to live off the sea, beginning in Africa.

Some theories don't match up with the paleoenvironment and archeology and even paleoanthropology.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ibra
Global Mod
[ *  *  * ]
“Haplogroup L defined by M295 was found only in Druze, at a frequency of 35%. This haplogroup appears to be most frequent (12%) in South Asia, dropping to r6% in Central Asian, Siberian, Kurdish, Turkish, and European populations [Underhill et al., 2000; Kivisild et al., 2003; Cinnioglu et al., 2004]. To date, it has not been observed in Jews, Palestinians, or Bedouins [Semino et al., 2000; Underhill et al., 2000; Nebel et al., 2001].”


Haplogroup L appears in a mysterious Jewish group Druze. If L was non-indigenous, one wonders if L came from a Middle Eastern people such as this. According to Wells L arrived 25,000 ybp in India, but we will see. I can’t say for sure either.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Kir
Aug 15 2005, 06:28 AM
“Haplogroup L defined by M295 was found only in Druze, at a frequency of 35%. This haplogroup appears to be most frequent (12%) in South Asia, dropping to r6% in Central Asian, Siberian, Kurdish, Turkish, and European populations [Underhill et al., 2000; Kivisild et al., 2003; Cinnioglu et al., 2004]. To date, it has not been observed in Jews, Palestinians, or Bedouins [Semino et al., 2000; Underhill et al., 2000; Nebel et al., 2001].”


Haplogroup L appears in a mysterious Jewish group Druze. If L was non-indigenous, one wonders if L came from a Middle Eastern people such as this. According to Wells L arrived 25,000 ybp in India, but we will see. I can’t say for sure either.

Where is the highest STR diversity?
The Druze, BTW, are a sect that broke off of Islam.
I guess I'll have to read the studies.
Quote:
 
According to Wells L arrived 25,000 ybp in India, but we will see.

According to Wells, mtDNA B, F, A, R all came out of the Middle East.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
The presence of L among the Uighurs and such I know of.. very small case. All of that are accompanied by the other usual suspects of lineages, so they can be explained the neolithic expansion that sprand out of the SW, which means they could ultimately be India.

The harder case is the Druze and Kurds.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ibra
Global Mod
[ *  *  * ]
80% of humans have a type of K. Even people associated with the Southern root dispersal, such as Papuans and Aboriginals and East Asians have K, so one wonders why not South Asians, in the form of L?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Kir
Aug 15 2005, 06:50 AM
80% of humans have a type of K. Even people associated with the Southern root dispersal, such as Papuans and Aboriginals and East Asians have K, so one wonders why not South Asians, in the form of L?

Didn't K originate in India, I think I heard you say? I read it originated in Central Asia but that's a stretch considering it is in Australia.

As for the East Asian southern route, that's a lot of assuming too. Not that I mind, but why do I have to keep positing these proto-"Europids" when it doesn't even agree with certain findings. Many of those UP Eurpeans looked more "Mongolian" than modern European. How did these pan-Siberian folk become West Eurasians?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Here is what someone Simon said on Dienekes.blogspot.com:

"I am aware of dienekes views on R1a1, and I completly disagree.The fact is that the only recent 'caucasoid' markers that are present are female haplogroups.The idea that R1a1 originated outside Pakistan is still questionable,the highest diversity in R1a1 is in Eastern Iran and Pakistan;all derived states of R are present in South Asia.The paper is so politically charged(Cordaux);it should be ignored.Recent papers on R1a1 in Turkey and Middle East show the diversity of R1a1 is higher than in Eastern Europe.As for L ,H ,I have read a number of papers but they do not give sufficient data to determine there origin;although I understand L in Turkey lacks certain mutations that are present in South Asia.Also how H and L got to Pakistan/Central Asia is still open;diversity estimates of H,L are lower than those of R1a1,J2 .I refer you to Kivilids papers on caste and tribes (2003 I think).The fact is that any study of South Asia has much to do with how Europeans see them selves (Indo-European Origins), as it is to do with South Asian Genetics.Therefore one should be wary about making conclusion.There are still a number of question that need to be asked.

1)If R1a1 originated in Ukraine,why are haplogroups I,and N3 and Alantic Modal Haplogroup absent from South Asia (I have not found studies of Western Panjub population 60 Million)
simon | 08.15.05 - 6:10 pm | #

2) Why are haplogroups H and L absent fron Northern Europe if R1a1 originated fron South Asia.

3)Why is female haplogroup V absent from South Asia ,yet is present in Slavs.

...I could go on.As scientist amateur of otherwise we should not jump to conclusions until all the facts are known.
simon | 08.15.05 - 6:16 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh,and where are the genetic studies of afganistan
simon | 08.15.05 - 6:26 pm | #
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ibra
Global Mod
[ *  *  * ]
I’ve heard someone else say the same thing, David f.:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEA...5-02/1107811090

“There are some problems with this study. Just off the top of my head it seems strange to me that they completely discount the very high 27% of R1a1-M17 in one of the tribal groups (the caste average is 20.9%) simply because it does not fit with their preconceptions. There are so many States in India from which to sample. Why should we accept this study as more valid that the previous studies? In my opinion this study is flawed in other ways. For example they decided that they would not include the tribal groups from the north of India but only from the south of India. They are thus going to bias their sample since it is clear that R1a1-M17 is far more numerous in the north (caste or tribal) than in the south. To me it looks like they could have inadvertently set things up to obtain the data that will support their hypothesis - experimenter bias? There is no way that this one study can wipe away all the results of the previous ones simply because the sample is larger! The sample needs to be representative - the most important thing is to ensure that it is not skewed or biased.”

The paper I provided may be flawed in many ways. I’ll ignore it until something better comes out. It doesn’t have much content in it anyway. It relies on frequency alone, with out mentioning the diversity. One can prove anything they want by assuming what they are trying to prove.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Kir
Aug 16 2005, 12:52 AM
I’ve heard someone else say the same thing, David f.:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEA...5-02/1107811090

“There are some problems with this study. Just off the top of my head it seems strange to me that they completely discount the very high 27% of R1a1-M17 in one of the tribal groups (the caste average is 20.9%) simply because it does not fit with their preconceptions. There are so many States in India from which to sample. Why should we accept this study as more valid that the previous studies? In my opinion this study is flawed in other ways. For example they decided that they would not include the tribal groups from the north of India but only from the south of India. They are thus going to bias their sample since it is clear that R1a1-M17 is far more numerous in the north (caste or tribal) than in the south. To me it looks like they could have inadvertently set things up to obtain the data that will support their hypothesis - experimenter bias? There is no way that this one study can wipe away all the results of the previous ones simply because the sample is larger! The sample needs to be representative - the most important thing is to ensure that it is not skewed or biased.”

The paper I provided may be flawed in many ways. I’ll ignore it until something better comes out. It doesn’t have much content in it anyway. It relies on frequency alone, with out mentioning the diversity. One can prove anything they want by assuming what they are trying to prove.

Quote:
 
The paper I provided may be flawed in many ways.  I’ll ignore it until something better comes out.  It doesn’t have much content in it anyway.  It relies on frequency alone, with out mentioning the diversity. One can prove anything they want by assuming what they are trying to prove.

I am sick of saying "Yes" to anything anymore because when I look into claims, they always turn out not to be so.
What's wrong with these theories is that they speak more than the numbers reveal, so a lot of it is just the researcher's personal opinion. That's what I don't like.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
manju
Member Avatar
doubter
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
In my opinion this study is flawed in other ways. For example they decided that they would not include the tribal groups from the north of India but only from the south of India. They are thus going to bias their sample since it is clear that R1a1-M17 is far more numerous in the north (caste or tribal) than in the south. To me it looks like they could have inadvertently set things up to obtain the data that will support their hypothesis - experimenter bias?


Tribals form 8% of total Indian population. A majority, 70-75% of this population is found in Central India(Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Jharkand, Chattisgadh). Another 20% or so could be found in North-East India. Only 2% is found in South India(linguistically Dravidian lands like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala). Will this statistics help in anyway?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ibra
Global Mod
[ *  *  * ]
Other tribes were not sampled because they were afraid that these tribes may have been influenced by “Indo-Europeans”. They assumed that Indians in general were influenced by “Indo-Europeans”, excluding the majority of tribal, hence undermining the experiment. I disagree with their findings as South Asians and their tribal people have the same mtDNA and Y-chromosomes. You make a good point Manju, that 2% of tribes don’t represent the majority. The Y chromosomes H and F* could be due to genetic drift, as they are known to be older. Geography may also play a significant role, in haplogroup distribution. Haplogroup H is known to reach 50% in “South” Indians, therefore reducing the potential frequencies of other haplogroups, and introducing bias into the experiment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
manju
Member Avatar
doubter
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Haplogroup H is known to reach 50% in “South” Indians, therefore reducing the potential frequencies of other haplogroups, and introducing bias into the experiment.


Is it haplogroup H or Haplogroup L(M20) as claimed by National Genographic's The Atlas of Human Journey?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ibra
Global Mod
[ *  *  * ]
manju
Aug 16 2005, 12:25 PM
Quote:
 
Haplogroup H is known to reach 50% in “South” Indians, therefore reducing the potential frequencies of other haplogroups, and introducing bias into the experiment.


Is it haplogroup H or Haplogroup L(M20) as claimed by National Genographic's The Atlas of Human Journey?

That's L, thanks for correcting me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ibra
Global Mod
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Thirdly, it has been suggested that the Neolithic spread  of  farmers  to Europe included,  above  12f2, also Y chromosomes carrying  markers M35 (at the background of YAP+) and M201 (Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001). But note that while in Europe, Anatolia and the South Caucasus as well as in Iran, both M35 (haplogroup 21) and  12f2 (haplogroup 9) are present - and could even be called friendly co-inhabitants  of  the  corresponding  Y-chromosomal pools  (Table 17.2) - this  does  not  hold  for  India(Table17.2). Indians, in contrast to their neighbours, generally lack the Alu insertion in their Y chromosomes (Kivisild et al. 1999b, and references therein), while possessing haplogroup 9 Y chromosomes in a substantial frequency. Thus, here we observe a situation, analogous to that indicated above for mtDNA. One does not find a strong correlation between the identity of European and Indian (putatively) ‘Neolithic’ components, having supposedly spread out from Levant/Middle East. In particular,  the lack of YAP+chromosomes in India (although found in some Pakistani populations), contrary to their presence in Europe, suggests that Y chromosomes carrying the M35  marker  arrived  in  the  Near  and  Middle  East (likely from  northern  Africa) only after  a  putative earlier gene flow from Iran to India had taken place- but obviously earlier than the spread of a certain fraction of the Near Eastern Y chromosomes to Europe. One may see here an obvious analogy to a certain set of maternal lineages, such as K, U3, Tl and J.

However, in general, this lack of symmetry of possible eastwards and westwards Neolithicspreads from the Fertile Crescent should not be seen as a contradiction. Indeed, why should one assume that the initial area of the beginning of agriculture was itself geographically narrow and genetically homogeneous (see e.g. Bar Yosef this volume)?


-South Asians may have been derived from a different type of Neolithic people than Near Easterners and Europeans. This group of Neolithic farmers may have already expanded east-ward to India before a Neolithic migration from North-Africa. Weren’t Elemites and Sumerians described as linguistically and ethnically different from the nearby Semites? If South-Asians have different Neolithic Y-chromosomes than today’s Near Easterners, why shouldn’t we expect the same from mtDNA?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ibra
Global Mod
[ *  *  * ]
-If haplogroup F* originated in India, and was related to the coastal migration, one would expect more F derivatives in the eastern part of the world, however only K is observed, and is not diverse in India. Compare this to C*, D and M found in all parts of Asia and Oceania. Also if F* was from India, types of C* and M would have also found its way to West Eurasia, but this is not the case. Ren, can you think up an explanation?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ibra
Global Mod
[ *  *  * ]
Manju, where do you think H and U2i originated? Do you believe that they are dravidian?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
manju
Aug 16 2005, 12:25 PM
Quote:
 
Haplogroup H is known to reach 50% in “South” Indians, therefore reducing the potential frequencies of other haplogroups, and introducing bias into the experiment.


Is it haplogroup H or Haplogroup L(M20) as claimed by National Genographic's The Atlas of Human Journey?

Wells is out of touch with new findings. He isn't accurate anyway. If you are going to stick with anyone, it should be Underhill:
Powerpoint with migration slides at the end:
http://crchd.nci.nih.gov/meetings/conf/Rac...)/Underhill.ppt
For explanation, PDF: http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Unde...04_p487-494.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ibra,
I have thought about this as well and that's one of the reasons that F/M89 was posited as having come out of the Levant (in 2001 Underhill paper I think). However, many of these theories by geneticists don't reconcile with other disciplines.

My first introduction to migration theory was Wells's book. In it, he posits a coastal route to India, the Eurasian Garden or Eden. Underhill posits this as well, as many others.

Why F isn't likely Levantine:
Beyond the root lineages and diversity of India, there is the manor in which early Moderns lived, the climate conditions at the time, and the archaeological findings of the Middle East.

All of the earliest moderns found in Africa lived by the sea and lived off the sea. All of the earliest Moderns outside also. The southern coastal route would be the most logical choice, since it formed a continuous coast with East Africa and it was warm, like the climate of East Africa.

If we posit the Levantine route, we have to posit a trek across desert. Wells mentions this, and the new study on Orang Asli as well as the accompanying article also mentions this. Another article I read mentions the degree of aridity, the whole of the Middle East from East Africa through Iran and into Central Asia was desert. Even if the Red`Sea was not dry, there wou'd've been no water to drink for a northern trek. It's pretty much impossible.

I was reminded of the desert and reading about F* in India at about the same time, and changed my mind on where Moderns first went.

There was presence of Moderns around ~100,000 in the Levant, existing along side Neanderthals. As an ice age advanced, the presence seems to have ceased as Moderns (Africans) retreated back into Africa. That's what everyone seems to say. The earliest new find outside of Africa is in Australia (65,000? Mistake in dating?) in that article about the southern coastal route article on Science.

Quote:
 

-If haplogroup F* originated in India, and was related to the coastal migration, one would expect more F derivatives in the eastern part of the world, however only K is observed, and is not diverse in India. Compare this to C*, D and M found in all parts of Asia and Oceania.

1. Well, if F* developed later than C and D, the easiest place to expanded would be the uninhabited part which would be the Middle East, which became hospitable ~50,000 BP. I find that new lineages only thrive when it has a place to expand. Otherwise, it just gets choked by the overwhelming number of older lines and it's hard to maintain a new lineage in small populations as a simple law of mathematics. They just die out.

If you look at the history of lineages, a new lineage is propagated by chance expansion into empty land or better technology.

2. Further, R is dated as older than M, in fact by many as pre-Eurasian. M could actually be the female counterpart of K/M9, of a later expansion. (Is K indigenous to India?) Why didn't M reach the Middle East? Perhaps the colder and dryer whether might not have been able to support a large population, and there were already people there, the F-Y chromosome and N and R mtDNA people. K is present in the Middle East, but small. This could've been a later migration or indicating a small incursion.

K/M9 is said to have developed in Central Asia by the older papers and in India by the most recent Underhill scheme. Underhill has his flaws but he seems to be the best migration theorist.

Why would K expand into SE Asia when it was already inhabited? It's possible that better technology was the culprit. K inhabits the rough time and region from which Upper Paleolithic tecnology begun, possibly due to the need to adapt to harsher climates.

Quote:
 

Also if F* was from India, types of C* and M would have also found its way to West Eurasia, but this is not the case.

Not necessarily. Non-M168-derived and even M168 lineages are not found in Eurasia. Established lineages often don't accompany new ones, not because they decide not to, but because in order for new lineages to establish, the old lineages must be accompany them. Looking backwards, it seems some sort of choice but it's the same phenomenon with the development of life. People think it's a long shot for Earth to have life and it couldn't have been an accident, but someone has to be the long shot just like some new lineages has to develope. Chance.

Populations at that time were in the hundreds (that Orang Asli paper). Even in UP Europe, the population is estimated to have been only ~50,000, and only ~10,000 during the LGM. The estimated population of northern Asia around the time Native Americans entered the New World is 8,000. 70 people is estimated to have entered the New World.

with numbers so small, all kinds of lineage distortions can occur, in both female and male lines. By the law of exponents, all is needed is for some guy to out-produce or sleep around in his tribe and his sons to repeat it, perhaps because of good looks or better techniques in hunting, and his lineage will dominate in the expansion to come. We see this all over the place, adn now that I think about it, at the time these migrations occurred, it would've been easy for M, if it already existed, to been bottled-necked out somewhere.

The finding of root R and N lineages in the Orang Asli (and before that in Asia, Oceania, India) basically destroys the original assumption that N-derived lineages came out of the Levant in the first place, that only West Eurasians had N.

I think everyone has abandoned this within the last 4 years?

I also have further to say about the assumed southern route of M. There are unfilled holes regarding that, particularly considering archaeological finds.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Got this from Charlier on Dodona:

"Inferring the population of origin of DNA evidence within the UK by allele-specific hybridization of Y-SNPs [Wetton et tal]

"EA2 is expected to denote individuals with ancestry mainly in the Mediterranean and south-eastern European areas. Compared with the EA1 dataset the EA2 population shows higher frequencies of haplogroups with North African and Middle Eastern origins such as E3b, J2, and G along with those that have spread from further east in Asia such as L and H; these haplogroups are characteristic of south-eastern Europe."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To add to your previous schema, Ibra, if F/M89>K/M9 can expand into southern Asia with mtDNA hg R, then what's stopping mtDNA hg M from expanding into the Middle East? I mean we can assume there was a level playing field then.

In my personal opinion, the bottleneck or exclusion of M due to a small population going westwards from India makes more sense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ibra
Global Mod
[ *  *  * ]

Quote:
 
"Inferring the population of origin of DNA evidence within the UK by allele-specific hybridization of Y-SNPs [Wetton et tal]

"EA2 is expected to denote individuals with ancestry mainly in the Mediterranean and south-eastern European areas. Compared with the EA1 dataset the EA2 population shows higher frequencies of haplogroups with North African and Middle Eastern origins such as E3b, J2, and G along with those that have spread from further east in Asia such as L and H; these haplogroups are characteristic of south-eastern Europe."


Considering its Eastern Europe, one word comes to mind, “Gypsy”. However there are some L lineages in Anatolia.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Y-chromosome: CF · Next Topic »
Add Reply