| Expansion of C ("C3")-M217+ | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 13 2006, 05:18:16 PM (1,483 Views) | |
| black man | Jan 13 2006, 05:18:16 PM Post #1 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols/Tatiana Zerjal 2003 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/jour...6631929959Guest Abstract:
p.2: Figure 1 Median-joining network (Bandelt et al. 1999) representing Y-chromosomal variation within haplogroup C*(xC3c).
Genetic Evidence for the Mongolian Ancestryof Kalmyks/Ivan Nasidze 2005 http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/kalmyks.pdf p.5:
p.7: TABLE 5. Y-STR haplotypes in background of Y-SNP C3c haplogroup A Genetic Landscape Reshaped by Recent Events: Y-Chromosomal Insights into Central Asia/Tatiana Zerjal 2002 http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/picrender.fcg...96&blobtype=pdf p.7: figure 3b p.9: table 3 p.11: Kazaks: hg 36 Entire haplogroup TMRCA [95% CI] (years) p: 480[300–780]; Ymrca: 685[429–1,065]; BATWING: 750 [300–2,000] Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan/Raheel Qamar 2002 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/jour.../013572.web.pdf p. 11, table 8: hg "10 Hazara-specific No 100 [6–600]" (Mode TMRCA [95% CI] (years)) The Dual Origin and Siberian Affinities of Native American Y Chromosomes/Jeffrey T. Lell 2002 http://mcweb.unica.it/immunogeneticslab/la...someY.AJHG..pdf p.5: fig.2 (Tuvan and Yenisey Tungus samples) ------------------- Kayser 2003: Reduced Y-Chromosome, but Not Mitochondrial DNA, Diversity in Human Populations from West New Guinea http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/jour...024346.tb3.html Malaysia: 2/18; S-Borneo: 1/40. [The "10.3" lineage in Hurles' paper "Y Chromosomal Evidence for the Origins of Oceanic-Speaking Peoples" (2002) can possibly be equated with C3: N-Borneo (Kota Kinabalu): 2/70(72); S-Borneo (Banjarmasin): 22,7% (n=22). http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/160/1/289/T1 ] ----------------- Genetic Patterning at Austronesian Contact Zones Murray P. Cox 2003 http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mpcox/publicatio...ox_2003_PhD.pdf.
|
![]() |
|
| ren | Jan 15 2006, 01:20:43 PM Post #2 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It seems that C3 isn't as old as Q/P in Siberia and by it's distribution patterns has a coastal expansion origin, so when and where did it come from? I had before assumed it was from the Ainu/Jomon in Japan but because it's not found in mainland Japanese, that's unlikely and the C3 in Ainu are probably recent mixture with Siberians.
p. 11
|
![]() |
|
| black man | Jan 15 2006, 05:38:26 PM Post #3 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, there is a remarkable (geographical and phenotypical) gap between "C" carriers in Australia and those in East Siberia. I find it significant that your quote from Lell(?)'s paper mentions the Koryak y-chromosomal diversity since the Koryaks also have a high mtDNA diversity according to Tanaka's paper. Thus, they are probably one of the oldest and, at the same time, least inbred populations in East Siberia. Interestingly, "austric" facial features do occur more clearly in Koryaks than in other North Asians. Nevertheless, they lack the SE Asian R9-derivatives (mtDNA hgs)... Unfortunately, I couldn't find many pictures of Koryaks. (picture deleted by myself) I think in the close-up she could look like the following one who is from Uelen and thus probably not Koryak: http://www.ethno-online.ru/fotogallery/fot_h/0128a.jpg www.ethno-online.ru/fotogallery/fot_h/0128a.jpg One thing for sure: the phenotype above is not typical for the Chukchi Uelen population. Chukchi look more like Inuit and tend to have a more massive chin and a more "East Asian" eye region. IMO it's rather the Koryaks who have preserved most "austric" elements. (Please keep in mind that there are many more Chukchi pictures than Koryak pictures are online.) -------------- When we reconstruct the ancient population history of East Asia, we must work with the peripheral haplogroups and the impact of their carriers on present-day populations. I suggest to consider y hgs "C" and "D" as well as mtDNA hgs "A", "R9", "B" and "F" to be peripheral. In coastal East Asia those populations which have more than 50% C (Koryaks, Tungus, Nivkhs etc) and D (Ainus) don't speak mainstream languages. That supports the assumption that they are peripheral. Nevertheless, they have the same mtDNA hgs like surrounding populations with y hg N and O. So the maternal ancestors (M8CZ, DG, Y) might have given the deciding contribution to the cold climate adaptation of them all. The aspect which I find most impressive being the fact that they managed to preserve their unique y-lineages and languages, but hardly their phenotypes. Obviously, those C3 carriers who remained in the south were absorbed as minor relics by the economically stronger "O" carrying populations. Only certain local Yao populations maintained a higher percentage of "C" and "D" carriers (Su 1999). Therefore, it would be interesting what can still be found out about Yao origins. |
![]() |
|
| ren | Jan 15 2006, 10:17:33 PM Post #4 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, firstly, I don't think we should expressly regard C as Austric since a good number of C lineages are East Eurasian, now, at the least.
It's really hard to say. Whatever the case, looks can change over generations of lineage selection/drift. It's the age and distribution patterns that intrique me. I used to think it was Upper Paleolithic; then it seemed like it's around 10,000 at the most in Siberia and it sprang from the coast, so I attributed to Ainu-like people coming up from Japan, but that's not likely now, so..
These guys above look extremely Siberian. I can't see the tropical morphology.
It's hard to even find her look in north China. She's missing the the broad face, the jaw and malar orientation of Siberians,and her glabella region seems to be swollen.. The facial proportions do look like some Gilyak and Ainu. How did it dwell along the coast without mixing with D carriers in Japan and how did it bypass O unless O had a more inland distribution, as I've suspected and as Underhill implied?
A is right in the middle of the most extreme "Mongoloid" features, Siberia, so I wouldn't consider A a peripheral lineage. Why A? |
![]() |
|
| black man | Jan 16 2006, 01:43:00 AM Post #5 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I decided to refer to the southern connection because C probably came from the south to central East Asia and NE Asia. In this sense it is of "East Asian" origin when you specifically refer to its spread to Central Asia (in Mongols, Kazakhs, Bhotia etc). I hope this logic is not too complicated.
That's why I wrote, "Check the female on the very right". Actually, some of the people further on the left of the picture have extremely angular features to the degree that I wouldn't compare them with average modern East Asians. In this context they are much closer to native Americans, I think. I know the Koryaks from video documentations. And I can confirm that they sport a relatively broad range of different phenotypes (in comparison to other Siberians), among them those which are less common among modern NE Asians.
Well, "Gilyak" (Nivkh) seems to be heterogeneous population itself. I've seen too few pictures of them to be sure about their general phenotypes. I know "the" modern East Asian type is relatively common among them. Further, there are some narrow-faced types of unclear (non-Russian) origins.
According to the data I'm aware of, I have to disagree. Modern Siberians' mtDNA hg A frequency is not significant in most samples. Only in a few local samples it reaches 5 to 10%. The Chukchi and Inuit are the only remarkable exception. But that's probably due to drift because they have nearly exclusively hg A and are phenotypically quite homogeneous, too. Another (though non-Siberian) population with a significant amount of hg A are northern Tibetans. Maybe intriguingly, but many nomads in northern Xizang and Qinghai have sort of Amerindian features... and these are likewise peripheral in modern East Asia. I use a model in which y hgs NO and mtDNA hgs M8CZDG spread from North China with a high frequency into all directions. "A" maintained at low to intermediate percentages in most regions of (central) East Asia. It's even rarer than the R9 derivatives, which reach about 50% and more parts of southern and central China. (The Wuhan sample could be a coincidence or the result of local drift because it's surrounded by populations with low "A" frequencies.) Also, A appears to lack close relatives in East Asia. It is only said to be a derivative of N. Its odd distribution (especially rare in the southeast) could suggest that it arrived with P* in East Asia. Not to forget that it appears in very high frequencies together with Q in the Americas. Counter question: does it make sense to associate "A" with "Mongoloids" just because it occurs in populations with extreme features? I remember there was a documentation about mummies in Xinjiang. Although the mummies were soon idnetified as "Caucasoid", the Chinese researchers in the team insisted on "Mongoloid admixture" just because the mummies had broad jaws... I find the definition of "Mongoloid" is especially then invalid when it is restricted to broad-faced people. In the case that it was accepted by Chinese researchers, it would even be dangerous, btw. Actually, the gracilisation process is very visible in so many and vast parts of China that I think it cannot be extremely recent. So why only call those robust types "Mongoloid" when that unfortunate term is already used? Historically, the term "Mongoloid" refered first of all to Mongols and Mongol-like populations, such as Yakuts, Koreans and NE Chinese. These peoples have quite broad jaws and massive faces, but are still somehow less extreme than populations with a very high (more than 50%) percentage of mtDNA hg A, such as Apache: ![]() www.greatdreams.com/apache/victorio-apache-chief.jpg I mean those Amerindians might or might not represent a side branch of proto-East Asians which became so extreme during a period of long isolation from other populations. |
![]() |
|
| ren | Jan 16 2006, 04:33:59 AM Post #6 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In previous posts you connect C with a specific morphology, Austric as opposed to "Mongoloids". If C came up from the south in the early UP, and led in part or whole to "Mongoloids", then it wouldn't be helpful to attribute any faces that look "Austric" to C, if it also led to "Mongoloids".
What do you mean by angular features? If you mean the robustness, then I'd say it's a function of the degree of neotenic/pedamorphic tendencies, which also explains Native Americans. This would be a whole different matter, and to my eyes, they don't look to have Austric/tropical features, which also comes in robust and softer varieties.
What's the % breakdown of other lineages, only if you feel up to it.
Are you including N9 and Y in what you define as A? Also, I don't think basing relations on whether it's a derivative of N is helpful that much. That would mean that the basal N lineages and M lineages and R lineages of say the "negritos" of the Malay peninsula were separate populations. Basal N lineages exist in every population so far tested, except the Andamese I think, so personally I think N and M were just two lineages present in the same proto-Eurasian population.
Who else do you want to associate it with? By extreme features I don't even mean what you see by eyes but epigenetic traits. By epigenetic traits northern Native Americans, followed by Siberians, are the most "Mongoloid" of any population. If you take away these traits associated with "Mongoloids", then there wouldn't be anyone who looked "Mongoloid". So, extreme epigenetic and morphological "Mongoloid" traits comes hand in hand with having little subcutaneous fat, a more prominent nose, and sometimes more facial relief. I don't see any inherent contradiction in that. My point is that their are a lot of premises in your conclusions that are just assumptions. (And I hope I'm not reading you. You are a complicated person, by your own admission): 1. That A is different from the rest because it is N-derived. What does that mean for the basal N lineages in Oceanic and Indian populations, all of whom have them except the Andamese. 2. That there were already "Mongoloids", different and separate from a population of patrilineal P/Q carriers ~40,000 years ago in Siberia. There's no evidence of this. Rather, I'd say "Mongoloids" is a later derived population and it may very well be that separate populations participated in its formation, of which A would've taken part. 3. That East Asians are the most "Mongoloid", or atleast that is implied. As I said, in terms of epigenetic trait scoring, northern Native Americans are more "Mongoloid". Many think SE Asians look the most "Mongoloid" but that's based on a premise of what a "Mongoloid" is supposed to look like, similar to how some people think northern Europeans look the most "Caucasoid" over Middle Easterners.
The definition of what is "Mongoloid" has never been based on who has a broad face and large jaw. It's based on a combination morphological and epigenetic traits. Even the morphological aspect has a lot to due with processes and not the direct morphology, with adaptation to differing environments and random change factored in. These are academic sites on forensic anthropology. forensic anthropology page at University of Utah osteology/population Affinity slide show at the University of Victoria, Canada lab methods overview at Western Kentucky University Any description of the general "Mongoloid" face is a thing that's after the fact. It is not a wishy-washy discipline, though it can be oftentimes subject to opposing interpretations, but there are scientific methods in the madness. Often in the realm of German race books, amateurish race forums, and the ignorance of the general public, the method is subjective --presenting some pictures and then having people figure out who is what and related to whom without real, objective criteria.
Actually, the transition from a broader face to narrow face is well-documented in the Americas. It can occur fairly quickly.
What do you mean by "historically"? Actually, Native Americans have been considered to be "Mongoloids" in the anthropological field since Hrdlicka more than a century ago. And it's not based on what the eye sees as what is behind the processes of the skull.. dental morphology and other epigenetic traits that are more stable than skull shape, and key archetypal traits, such as the outward, forward orientation of malars. Southern Asians, because of their Sundadonty and other traits not affected by gracilization in warmer climates, are regarded as admixtures or intermediaries. Most of the general public does not know this, not it seems. German race books. Classifications based on surveys of looks are often shaded by one's own prejudices of what is what. For example, an Indian member, Rudra, regard Austroasiatic tribals in India as the purest "Mongoloids" while to me they look way to Indian (tribal atleast) to be anything close.
Native Americans are considered "Mongoloids" based on a number of epigenetic traits as well as morphological traits. That's where the conclusion is drawn on what they are. It's not an arbitrary decisionby the majority of anthropologists to place them into "Mongoloids". |
![]() |
|
| black man | Jan 16 2006, 02:58:47 PM Post #7 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The aspect of morphology I mentioned was intended to emphasise that the correlation of genes (which don't have much influence on the "racial type") with phenotypes can gradually change. That is a normal statistic phenomenon. I did not intend to label y hg C3 "Austric". Nonetheless, I do intend to mention in which sense the C3 carrying populations might have something in common: e.g. it would be interesting what was a recent development and what was possibly more ancient mixing. The next step would be to find out what they really have in common.
ok, the b/w picture was a bad example. I take it off because it might mislead. That was just carelessness of mine. Anyway, it led far off topic, I think.
Wen 2004 (paper about Tibeto-Burmic peoples): Tibetan/Qinghai: 12/56. For a comparison: Yi/Yunnan: 10/87. (A sample from the Lhasan region would be helpful in this context because one can relatively easily get information about Lhasans' origins.) Yao 2002: Han: Wuhan: 16,7%; Shanghai: 11.7% ; Wen 2004 (paper about Han): Anhui: 5/42; Wuhan 7/42; Nanjing: 8/67; ; Shanghai 4/56. BUT: Hangzhou: 3/61; capital of Jiangxi 0/23; Changsha 1/16. "A" was neither found in Fujian (n=54), Guangzhou (68), Guangxi (30). But it seems to increase in northwestern Han. Derenko 2003: Altaians 0/110; Khakass 3.8%; Buryats 2.2%; Soyots 10%; Tuvans 1.1%; Tofalars 5.2%. Federovna: Inuit 77.2%, Chukchi 68,2%. BUT: Mongols 3.9%; Yakuts 2.1%; Tuvans 3.1% (bigger sample) and 5.6% (smaller sample); Koryaks (geographically close to Chukchi) 5.2; Evens 4.6%; Itelmen 6.4%. Torroni 1993b: Evenks 3.9%, Udeghe: 0/45; Nivkh 0/57.
You mean there could be a connection between A and N9? A is absent from SE Asians in contrast to N9. And the latter is even found in Semang and Senoi (Macaulay 2005). Also, N9 is more common for eastern China while "A" is rather "northwestern". Some Jiangnan samples show a significant increase of A, but just "normal" (i.e. low) percentages of N9 and Y. (Correct me, if I'm wrong.) Indeed, N lineages did migrate together with M lineages. But there is also a gradual shift from populations with more M8CZ/DG and those with R9 in East Asia. As for the Indo-Oceanian M derivatives, I hoped the new mtDNA tree would give information about inhowfar they are related to those prevalent in East Asia. But so far, I didn't find much useful information about that issue.
ren, I suppose you misunderstood me. I do accept that we did have our common lineages and contact ("mixing") zones with the ancestors of native Americans. But that doesn't change the fact that I tend to reject the term "Mongoloid" for the confusion it causes. I just gave an example for such a case where lineages must have split because they led to obviously different average phenotypes. On the other hand, we lack an appropriate terminology for many local clusters of populations which belong together. I must admit that I myself am not capable of clearing up the apparent paradoxa we're confronted with in anthropology. So it's natural that some of my statements are based on sources which contradict each other.
Yes, and here is the same problem again as I indicated above. The term "Mongoloid" potentially covers a very broad range of different peoples. I don't know whose bones were found. Was is my ancestors' "neighbour", my "grand-uncle" or my "grand-father"? If all relatives were the same, we wouldn't have such an elaborated kinship terminology, which distinguishes between the different degrees of kinship.
Thanks for your explanation and summary, ren. A uneducated descendant of proletarians like me could not have known (and does not have the endurance to read that much.) I'm not being ironic here, in this sense I'm happy to know a real academic like you. (Funny on a side note that there were some fools at a different forum who thought I'd be the academic. :lol: But that's fate. One should be able to laugh about one's own faults.)
I'm very curious regarding narrow-faced native American looks. I've hardly ever observed it. Please post some pictures when you find them.
historical in the etymological sense: AFAIK, "Mongoloid" means nothing else but "similar to a Mongol". Sorry, I was maybe a bit imprecise here.
Again, sorry, ren. I have naturally more to so with people who claim things like, "Anatolia (historical Asia) is less Asian than East Asia". But that's why I'm here. Regarding physical anthropology, you know the broader picture better than me. (Back on topic: ) C is not found in Samoyedic peoples, except in the contact zones (e.g. Nganasans neighbouring Dolgans and Selkups neighboruing Evenks). Source: http://www.oxfordancestors.com/papers/mtDNA04%20Saami.pdf The Western and Eastern Roots of the Saami—the Story of Genetic “Outliers” Told by Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosomes Kristiina Tambets 2004 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/jour...9767192451Guest Ancestral Asian Source(s) of New World Y-Chromosome Founder Haplotypes T. M. Karafet 1999 |
![]() |
|
| ren | Feb 15 2006, 04:18:44 PM Post #8 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What are the frequencies in NW Han? only if you know or are up to finding out.
I mean they are both basal N lineages, in the context that N-derived lineages is important to some migration theories. In the Tanaka paper A and N9/Y do form a further super branch that connects up with R before they do with N1.
Yes, but the gradual shift from place to place and north to south also involves M lineages.
We can't associate lineages with anything. It took me a while to get over that. You mean that North Africans are more related to sub-Saharans paternally and yet North Africans are autosomally. mtDNA-wise, and morphology-wise West Eurasians? I think it's a simple issue of prehistoric times when populations were low in number. A guy can be at the right place at the right time. Say Michael Jordan migrated to the Levant and marries the local women, as his sons and his grandsons. His grandsons are present during the onset of agriculture. They expand and viola, E3b presides over a whole population. In the case of Siberian tribes, we're talking about 3 dozen people in an extended clan. When these various tribes expanded after the ice age, they multiplied exponentially. I thinkit's the same way the Han became the largest ethnic group, atleast initially, whereever they started. It doesn't mean that it reflects the original demographics. I mean Anglo-Saxons 4 hundred years ago was England but not now. Imagine such processes over and over in history, particularly in times when populations weren't that large or the environment that stable, when demographics can be over-turned in generations.
They seem to be very common the further south you go. I actually have a study showing a correlation between skull length (which affects facial breadth though not always) and temperature, that rounder heads, peaking at the Buriats, retain heat better while ong heads dessipate heat better. |
![]() |
|
| black man | Feb 15 2006, 11:12:46 PM Post #9 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Lineages can be associated with the degree of their significance in statistics. Age estimates for C3 and NO could be useful in this context. Also, the identification of those NO lineages which occur in populations with predominately C3 carriers would be interesting. (E.g. Lell mentioned O1 in Buryats although O1 is now mostly found in SE Asia.)
Yes, some lineages happen to be more successful than others, no matter how many genes the original carriers really contributed to their grandchildren. However, there is also the patrifocal ideology of our contemporaries. It makes people label lineages "Genghis Khan lineage" etc (whose grave wasn't even found, yet.)
There has also been repeated size reduction of populations. So the diversity of lineages must have shrunk quite often. During their expansions technologically more advanced peoples replaced others many times, not just by direct aggression but also by the spread of diseases foreign to the indigenous.
Wen 2004: Gansu 8/45; Urumchi 11/47; further: Xian 4/53; Xining 4/44. Yao 2002: Yili/Xinjiang: 10,6%. The places of their exact origins are unknown. Migrations from the lower Changjiang could have taken place.
I've checked some video sources again. I can agree that in Amerindians a narrow face might correlate with an elongated head. But I think there is no correlation between facial shape and climate. Narrow-faced people occur sometimes in Andeans (slightly resembling one of those Kets whose pictures I once posted) and Inuit (in these cases similar to the narrow-faced people found in some East Siberian populations), too. I noticed several narrow-faced men in a Zoe population (tropical). But they showed some features of certain extreme North Asians at the same time, e.g. the extremely straight back (completely lacking lordosis), which I primarily know from Mongols and Koreans. http://thedude.com/images/thule_inuit_family.jpg |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Y-chromosome: CF · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




ren, I suppose you misunderstood me. I do accept that we did have our common lineages and contact ("mixing") zones with the ancestors of native Americans. But that doesn't change the fact that I tend to reject the term "Mongoloid" for the confusion it causes. I just gave an example for such a case where lineages must have split because they led to obviously different average phenotypes. On the other hand, we lack an appropriate terminology for many local clusters of populations which belong together.
