Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Expansion of C ("C3")-M217+
Topic Started: Jan 13 2006, 05:18:16 PM (1,483 Views)
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols/Tatiana Zerjal 2003
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/jour...6631929959Guest
Abstract:
Quote:
 
We have identified a Y-chromosomal lineage with several unusual features. It was found in 16 populations throughout a large region of Asia, stretching from the Pacific to the Caspian Sea, and was present at high frequency: ∼8% of the men in this region carry it, and it thus makes up ∼0.5% of the world total. The pattern of variation within the lineage suggested that it originated in Mongolia ∼1,000 years ago. Such a rapid spread cannot have occurred by chance; it must have been a result of selection.


p.2: Figure 1 Median-joining network (Bandelt et al. 1999) representing Y-chromosomal variation within haplogroup C*(xC3c).
Quote:
 
The central star-cluster profile is 10-16-25-10-11-13-14-12-11-11-11-12-8-10-10, for the loci DYS389I-DYS389b-DYS390-DYS391-DYS392-DYS393-DYS388-DYS425-DYS426-DYS434-DYS435-DYS436-DYS437-DYS438-DYS439. Circles represent lineages, area is proportional to frequency, and color indicates population of origin. Lines represent microsatellite mutational differences.


Genetic Evidence for the Mongolian Ancestryof Kalmyks/Ivan Nasidze 2005
http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/kalmyks.pdf
p.5:
Quote:
 
The Y-STR haplotypes In the haplogroup C3c background exhibit a ‘‘star-like’’ configuration in Kalmyks (Fig. 3), as observed previously for Y-STR haplotypes In the haplogroup C3c background in Mongolians (Zerjal et al., 2003). We estimated a time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Kalmyk Y-STR haplotypes in the haplogroup C3c background, using the r estimate (Morral et al., 1994). Assuming a generation time of 30 years, the TMRCA estimate is 855 years (95% confidence interval limits, 560–1,160 years), which is in remarkable agreement with the TMRCA estimate of 860 years for this haplogroup in Mongolians (Zerjal et al., 2003).


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.
Quote:
 

Polymorphism Name: M217 [Shen et al., 2000]
Synonyms: UTY1 intron 17
Mutation (Ancestral to Derived): A → C
Marker of Y Chromosome Clade: C3
Banding location: Yq11.221
Y Chromosome BAC Clone: RP11-218F6
ENSEMBL Access code: AC010877
Forward primer: GTACAGATCTGTTTCGAGATC
Reverse primer: ATTTTTATGTATTTTTCCTTCaaAAGAGTT
PCR annealing temperature: Touchdown PCR
Product size: 129 bp
Restriction endonuclease: BsiYI (CCnnnnn/nnGG)
Bands if ancestral: 129 bp
Bands if derived: 104 and 25 bp
Selective role: Non-coding, intronic
Comments: Intron 17 of the Ubiquitously Transcribed Y chromosome (UTY) tetratricopeptide repeat protein
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
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.
Quote:
 
Slightly less than half of the Siberian Y chromosomes
belonged to macrohaplogroup S4Y-T, delineated by the
RPS4Y-T marker. Previous studies have shown that
RPS4Y-T is present at a high frequency in the Lake Baikal
region and Mongolia (Karafet et al. 1999) but is
absent in Europeans (Bergen et al. 1999). In our study,
the S4Y macrohaplogroup (haplogroups RPS4Y-T and
M48, with and without the DYS7C deletion) is at its
highest frequency in the populations of eastern Siberia,
including Kamchatka and the Lower Amur River basin
(fig. 2). This lineage was almost completely absent in
the Chukotkan populations in which the Native American
haplogroup M3 was present. Interestingly, the single
Chukchi RPS4Y-T haplotype also exhibited the M48
marker, defining an eastern Siberian subhaplogroup,
M48. This suggests a more recent admixture from Southeast
Asia. Derivatives of both the RPS4Y-T and M48
haplogroups have acquired DYS7C deletions. These parallel
mutations generated two subbranches of these haplogroups,
indicating that the DYS7C deletion should always
be used in conjunction with other markers, to
define paternal lineages (Jobling et al. 1996). These data
indicate that macrohaplogroup S4Y chromosomes entered
Siberia from the south and that the haplogroup
RPS4Y-T chromosomes in the Americas could have originated
from the Lower Amur River region near the Sea
of Okhotsk.

Quote:
 
The network of all RPS4Y-T/M48 haplotypes revealed
a high degree of diversity in eastern Siberia, with lower
diversity in Middle Siberia. The greatest diversity was
observed in the Koryaks from Kamchatka and the Ulchi/
Nanai from the Lower Amur, both of which showed six
different microsatellite haplotypes. This eastern Siberian
RPS4Y-T heterogeneity was further demonstrated when
the subset of RPS4Y-T haplotypes defined by the M48
marker were included in a network (fig. 5). Thus, the
RPS4Y-T and M48 haplogroups appear to have arisen
in populations ancestral to the modern inhabitants of
Kamchatka and the Lower Amur and may have only
recently expanded into the Middle Siberian populations
around Lake Baikal.

p. 11
Quote:
 
A subsequent study of six Y-chromosome loci (Santos
et al. 1999) suggested a single origin for most Native
American Y chromosomes, traced through northeastern
Siberia back to Middle Siberia, along with a possible
second entry from Beringia, a scenario reminiscent of
several mtDNA studies (Forster et al. 1996; Bonatto
and Salzano 1997). The subsequent discovery of haplogroup
RPS4Y-T in several northern Amerind and Na-
Dene populations, along with its increased frequency
around Lake Baikal and Mongolia, supported the theory
of two independent migratory events that gave rise
to present-day Native American Y chromosomes (Karafet
et al. 1999)

Quote:
 
This second Siberian migration also corresponds with
the distribution of the S4Y-T macrohaplogroup (Karafet
et al. 1999). In our study, the S4Y-T haplogroup marker,
the RPS4Y-T, was detected in a single Navajo, but it
had previously been seen in additional northern Am204
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 70:192–206, 2002
erind and Na-Dene Native Americans (Bergen et al.
1999; Karafet et al. 1999). Moreover, our data demonstrate
that the Native American RPS4Y-T haplogroup
originated in the eastern Siberian populations of Kamchatka
and the Lower Amur River basin. The extended
RPS4Y-T haplotype of our Navajo sample differs from
a Lower Amur RPS4Y-T haplotype by just one mutational
step but differs from those of southern Middle
Siberia by three steps. Thus, the Native American
RPS4Y-T Y chromosomes also came from eastern Siberia,
along with the M45b chromosomes. These two
haplogroups provide compelling evidence that there was
a second male migration to North America from the
eastern Siberian regions of Kamchatka and the Lower
Amur River. This eastern Siberian RPS4Y-T lineage can
be traced back to East Asia, where highly diversified
RPS4Y-T haplotypes have been found (B. Su and L. Jin,
unpublished data).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
ren
Jan 15 2006, 01:20 PM
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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
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.
Quote:
 
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)...

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..

Quote:
 

These guys above look extremely Siberian. I can't see the tropical morphology.

Quote:
 

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?

Quote:
 
I suggest to consider y hgs "C" and "D" as well as mtDNA hgs "A", "R9", "B" and "F" to be peripheral.

A is right in the middle of the most extreme "Mongoloid" features, Siberia, so I wouldn't consider A a peripheral lineage. Why A?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
ren
Jan 15 2006, 10:17 PM
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.

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.

Quote:
 
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/changing/journey/images/ill29b.jpg
These guys above look extremely Siberian. I can't see the tropical morphology.


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.

Quote:
 
http://www.ethno-online.ru/fotogallery/fot_h/0128a.jpg
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?


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.

Quote:
 
A is right in the middle of the most extreme "Mongoloid" features, Siberia, so I wouldn't consider A a peripheral lineage. Why A?


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:
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
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.

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".

Quote:
 
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.

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.

Quote:
 
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.

What's the % breakdown of other lineages, only if you feel up to it.

Quote:
 
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.

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.

Quote:
 
Counter question: does it make sense to associate "A" with "Mongoloids" just because it occurs in populations with extreme features?

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.

Quote:
 
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.

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.

Quote:
 
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?

Actually, the transition from a broader face to narrow face is well-documented in the Americas. It can occur fairly quickly.

Quote:
 
Historically, the term "Mongoloid" refered first of all to Mongols and Mongol-like populations, such as Yakuts, Koreans and NE Chinese.

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.

Quote:
 
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: http://www.greatdreams.com/apache/victorio-apache-chief.jpg
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.

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".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
ren,Jan 16 2006
04:33 AM
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".

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.

Quote:
 
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.


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.

Quote:
 
What's the % breakdown of other lineages, only if you feel up to it.


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.

Quote:
 
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.


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.

Quote:
 
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):


:huh: 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.

Quote:
 
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.


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.

Quote:
 
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

It is not a wishy-washy discipline. Any description of the general "Mongoloid" face is a thing that's after the fact. It is not about presenting some pictures and then having people figure out who is what and related to whom without real, objective criteria. That's the realm of German race book, amateurish race forums, and the ignorance of the general public.


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.)

Quote:
 
Actually, the transition from a broader face to narrow face is well-documented in the Americas. It can occur fairly quickly.

I'm very curious regarding narrow-faced native American looks. I've hardly ever observed it. Please post some pictures when you find them. :)

Quote:
 
What do you mean by "historically"?


historical in the etymological sense: AFAIK, "Mongoloid" means nothing else but "similar to a Mongol". Sorry, I was maybe a bit imprecise here.

Quote:
 
It's not an arbitrary decisionby the majority of anthropologists to place them into "Mongoloids".


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ren
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
"A" was neither found in Fujian (n=54), Guangzhou (68), Guangxi (30). But it seems to increase in northwestern Han.

What are the frequencies in NW Han? only if you know or are up to finding out.

Quote:
 
You mean there could be a connection between A and N9?

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.

Quote:
 
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.

Yes, but the gradual shift from place to place and north to south also involves M lineages.

Quote:
 
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.

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.

Quote:
 
I'm very curious regarding narrow-faced native American looks. I've hardly ever observed it. Please post some pictures when you find them.  :)

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
We can't associate lineages with anything. It took me a while to get over that.


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.)

Quote:
 
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.


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.)

Quote:
 
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.


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.

Quote:
 
What are the frequencies in NW Han? only if you know or are up to finding out.


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.

Quote:
 
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.


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Y-chromosome: CF · Next Topic »
Add Reply