DIENEKES' BLOG
From this paper:
By genotyping two chimpanzee samples, we were able to define the putative ancestral allele for 95.5% of the SNPs in the 650 K panel. We compared the distribution of these ancestral allele frequencies (AAFs) among the 51 populations. Figure 4A shows four examples of the AAF spectrum for Yoruba, French, Chinese, and Japanese populations. Yorubans and other sub-Saharans have more SNPs with high AAFs (>0.6, on the right of the distribution) and fewer with low AAFs...
Dienekes,
The link to the abstract on sciencemag.org is broken. Should just be http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/co...t/319/5866/
1100
More excellent posting from Dienekes Pontikos.
Thanks.
Always thought Etruscan statues didn't look too European.
I favored the Lemos story.
Once you include Egyptians,Ethiopians, Turks , Balkans and the 1 billion Indians ,I doubt the populations would look so distictive.
Would the blue suggest a massive migration of south Asians into the Middle East (the berber have also a high freq of Ysnp L(M20).
>>which I would relate to the eastern Indo-Iranians.
Europeans females? as is the case in Central Asian/Siberian Mongoloid populations.
When the post says European does it mean European as a geographical term or a racial (Europoids)?
Because Calash do look Europoid and the fact that they don't present the majority of their SNPs to be similar to Europe's that does n't mean that they are not Europoids. I have seen pictures of them which look extremely Europoid!
Nobody said that Calash are Greeks or that their majority is of Greek ancestry. On the contrary the legend has it that some soldiers of Alexander the Great married some local women and some Greek blood exists in them.
We still do n't know how the first bearers of the various haplogroups looked like!
Why Y-DNA L or K Hg in their ancestral forms to not be carried by Caucasoids?
How do we label what is Caucasoid and what is not in terms of Hgs?
And do not forget that natural selection might cease various Hgs from populations in which they existed before!
In concluding as i have said and other times in the past i do n't trust cladistics to represent the human species relationships!
Cladistics might show us the past of the various beings but not the present. For example cladistics put closer the Homo species and the Pan (chimp) than the Pan and the Gorilla!!!
Does anybody believe that Pan is closer IN ANY TERMS to Homo or to the Gorilla?
See their behavior, psychology, mentality, anatomy, physical appearance, etc.
Yes of course we had a more recent common ancestor with the chimp than with the gorilla! BUT WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? That we are closer as entities, as beings too?
I believe not.
This like all other autosomal studies feels like a teaser (although it's an unusually good one with some clear results)! We want more populations and more snps! I guess though that drawn out pleasures with an uncertain outcome gives more satisfaction. :)
The fact that the "purest" "south-central asians" are the most europid is pretty interesting. If the blue eye theory is correct they should have received that particular gene from europeans though. That is if I1a people are not a european/south central asian mix?
You said, oh dienekes that central asian genes is virtually nonexistant in europe except Russia. What about the central asian genes found in Germans due to the huns(one of the sarmatian tribes "chuni"). We know Attila used to rule the germans. Also the caucasoid genes found in central asians came mostly from tocharians-who came from the "european" steepes(unravelling migrations in the steepe:mitochondrial dna sequences from ancient central asians). The indo-iranians were indians and only 5-8% of ancient kazakhstan population.
The culture of the mozabites who have the largest percentage of "middle-eastern" genes (although also mixed with both africans and europeans) is pretty interesting. They seem to practise a very extreme form of islam with among other things a very stict control of womens sexuality. The women are totally covered except for showing one eye. It's also strictly forbidden to photograph any woman. Doors on houses are not allowed to stand in front of each other for sake of privacy etc...
Could they maybe use a different Slavic sample then this same one from Northern Russia?
It's not really very Slavic.
Imaginary terms like "Europoid" and personal opinions about what someone thinks members of a group "look like" are not what these population genetics studies are about.
These studies utilize large numbers of autosomal gene markers to dissect the ancestries of individuals without a priori knowledge of group ancestry. In other words, it is a "blinded" study, analogous to drug testing clinical trials. After the study (or clinical trial) is completed, then the authors match the genetic findings with the particular ethnic identities of the sample subjects.
It seems therefore that defining "European" to mean - amazing! - the native peoples of the European continent yields a coherent grouping compared to other continental groups. Whether someone thinks that some Central/South Asians "look Europoid" does not alter the fact that they are genetically distinct from Europeans.
Funny how the people who cluster together seem to look similar...ahem.
The ME is a composite: no pure patches of colour in any of the samples. What are we to infer from that?
One can't take the clustering structures too seriously. Many "mysteries" are solved, when you see it as a genetic distances in a diagram. For example, the "Kalash cluster" then emerges simply as an outlier of the European cluster, and Mozabites are simply an intermediate population between the European, Middle Eastern and African cluster - which perfectly agrees with the history of the North African Berbers (50% of Berber mtDNA haplogroups is made up by mtDNA haplogroup H that came from Spain shortly after the end of the Ice Age). The three Caucasian subclusters are positioned very closely to each other.
See the free supplement material:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/da...5866/1100/DC1/
1
Deadpan,
That they're all a bunch of FILTHY MUTTS, THAT'S WHAT YOU CAN INFER.
Just kidding. (Well, kidding about the "filthy" part.) Anyway, a couple of interesting things jumped out at me. One is the blip of Middle Eastern/European (but more likely Middle Eastern) admixture among Kenyans. It's pretty small, but still interesting. I would guess Arab introgression? Also, the Brazilian Indian populations have less "pink" or East Asian genes than North American Indian groups. Could this be accounted for by different waves of Siberian peoples settling America?
Would love to see Tajiks, Egyptians, Northern Sudanese, Polynesians, and Mexicans included on a graph like this.
I love how all of you are tying to discount that the Kalash are just like other Southern Asian populations. Look at the chart they cluster with South Asians almost perfectly, it isn't an outlier, it's a separate population.
The brown/arab component in non white?
Interesting.
What is the amount in Turkey?
I guess the eastern meditteranean is another world.
Then east africans are totally africans.
OK, Mark, on a second reading I noticed there's a thin stretch of "unmixed" ME cluster on a small Bedouin sample. The question is how they decided this sample was the ME value they were looking for in order to classify the rest.
BTW, in the European study, they seem to rely heavily on outliers (Sardinians, Basques, Orcadians)...
Compare this paper with the Rosenberg et al. paper posted by Dienekes a year ago.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/
200...population.html
The present paper does not have any people from India. All the South Central Asia populations are from Pakistan or Central Asia. However the Kalash people can be found in both papers and appear to be quite distinctive in the previous paper. Also the Pakistani groups appear to be somewhat intermediate between Indians and Europeans in the previous paper.
The large European and Central Asian contribution in the Middle East may be in a large part to slaves brought there via the Crimea and Cascasus for over a thousand years.
Interesting to note the purple "Boreal" influence in the Orkneys.
If we look at the supplementary material, there's also some purple in the French.
Maybe this is some kind of Finno-Ugric admixture present in all northern/central Europeans, and even Siberians?
I have no doubt that a large minority if not majority of europeans have some non european admixture albeit at a low rate. North and west europeans should have substantially less than slavs (which this study indicates) and south eastern mediterraneans (which were not tested) but it certainly exists among northerners too.
There are also different european groups who have been substantially isolated for thousands of years. Most europeans of today are probably a "mix" of those different but closely related groups. Thus the larger the detail. The more "mutts" one will find.
Great paper, thanks Dienekes!
One wonders if Eskimos reached North/Atlantic Europe, or more likely if Vikings brought them there?!
The amount of non-European influence in Russia, isnt that surprising.
>> Interesting to note the purple "Boreal" influence in the Orkneys.
The authors suggest it reflects common ancestry before the ancestors of the Native Americans left Eurasia. I wouldn't be surprised if there was quite a bit of "Boreal" in Scandinavia, from where it may have entered the British Isles and Viking influenced regions of Europe. We really need to study northern Eurasian groups, esp. from Siberia.
Definitely,Dienekes,concerning "Boreal" influence in Siberia.
What these studies show (and as can be inferred from the supplementary material where clusterings are shown for different K), is that race is a hierarchical phenomenon. Thus, at a higher level you have Mongoloids, at a lower levels, Mongoloids are divided to East Asians and Native Americans, at a still lower level as studies have shown, Mongoloids can be divided into northern and southern groups and so on.
It is also important to note that genetic differences become smaller at lower levels of the hierarchy, even though our ability to differentiate between groups is intact. Thus, we can conclude with 100% certainty whether someone is a European vs. African, and also with 100% certainty whether someone is a Russian or a Basque, but obviously Russians are much closer to Basques genetially than Europeans are to Africans.
The aomunt of non-European admixture in this part of Russia is not surprising at all.
First of all, these Russians are not pure ethnic Slavs. They have a lot of native admixture, which is not Slavic, as Slavs did not inhabit the region until a couple of generations ago.
If we looks at the Y-DNA of these Russians, we can see the presence of both N2 and Q.
Both of these haplogroups are rather Siberian, and not even Finno-Ugric.
Also, East Asian mtDNA levels in Northern Russia reach 5-6%, as a recent study has indicated.
So the 10%, or thereabouts, of Asian influence in these Volgoda Russians is to be expected. And the more North and East you go, the more you'll find.
It would actually be interesting with a study that published the faces of the sampled individuals from each ethnic group, with their permission of course. Perhaps even a study where one would choose individuals in a particular ethnic group who have different kind of looks that might suggest different levels and different kinds of admixture.
My eyes tell me for instance that the current polish primeminister Donald Tusk who looks very western european has very little asian admixture while the kaczynski brothers certainly has a fair amount. The future russian president medvedev looks like he has only a small amount of non-european admixture (some say he has jewish roots but you can have that and be very europoid). Both Putin and Jeltsin should have substantially more non-europan admixture (although they should both be more than 70% european).
Nothing wrong with admixture though.
"One wonders if Eskimos reached North/Atlantic Europe": there is an account that apparently is taken seriously of an eskimo in a kayak arriving off Aberdeen in (I think) the 16th or 17th century.
Courtesy of Google, here's a reference
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/.../
46_213_241.pdf
Googling adds Scandinavian and Dutch stories to the Scottish one.
Suetonius,
I don't know if there's enough East Asian admixture to show up phenotypically in the Polish population. Russia may be another matter though.
Remember when Dienekes said:
"R1a is Mongoloid"
that will solve all the issues.
Ignorance is bliss.
>> "R1a is Mongoloid"
Care to cite me on that?
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/
200...01_archive.html
westward push of Mongoloid(-influenced) peoples
Not sure why influenced is in parenthesis.
From your citation:
"This is an important paper both for making Y-DNA study of ancient remains possible, and also for confirming the late prehistoric presence of the major West Eurasian haplogroup R1a1 in the region of southern Siberia. As I have noted elsewhere, the Caucasoids who bore haplogroup R1a1 in prehistoric times in that part of the world, were later influenced from population movements in the opposite direction, representing the westward push of Mongoloid(-influenced) peoples."
You said that I claimed that "R1a is Mongoloid". As you can see I made no such claim.
What I have suggested in the past was that some R1a bearers _after_ the westward push of Mongoloid(-influenced) peoples also bore Mongoloid genes, a factual assertion supported by the genetic study of Central Asians where Caucasoid Y-haplogroups (of which R1a is the major part) are often combined with Mongoloid mtDNA.
Interesting that the Basques are so far away from the Adygei. Some people had suggested that the Basques may originally have come from the Caucasus (because a/ its the nearest place to have ergative languages and b/ perceived physical similarity). If other Caucasian populations prove to be equally distant that would seem to rule out that theory.
Dienekes never claimed that R1a is mongoloid. However his description of R1a1 as "West Eurasian" does not appear correct. R1a1 may more accurately characterized as South and Central Asian with also a major presence in Europe. Here is a picture of Altai people of Central Asia/ Western Siberia who have a high prevalence of R1a1.
http://
www.sacredearthnetwork.or...lvin_elders.jpg
Most of the "eastern" influence in Poland is via genetic drift from the Finno-Ugric areas.
The Bauchet study showed this well...the Finns showed sonething like 10%, the Poles 3%, and the Irish and English 1-2%.
These Russian from Vologda are comparable to Finns. But they seem to have more Mongoloid influence, rather than just Uralic...looking at the Y-DNA and mtDNA.
Dienekes wrote: "the genetic study of Central Asians where Caucasoid Y-haplogroups (of which R1a is the major part) are often combined with Mongoloid mtDNA". Again we see an example of where a single population is formed from a hybrid. A common phenomenon in spite of what Anti-terry claimed at length on another Dienekes blog. Polynesians are an obvious example but Native Americans also appear to be the same.
I've stayed away from the Macedonian question but what do mtDNA and Y-chromosomes tell us about that region? The people are a mixture?
Even if the russians were there for centuries(in russia), they were cleary servants(slavic) of the sarmatians(modern day kazakhs and kirgiz). If that sound racist, so be it. For years we were taught that sarmatians were white and asians(huns and etc) were their slaves. Personally I think russian and other slavic people, including poles, are nice people.
Anonymous wrote, "Even if the russians were there for centuries(in russia), they were cleary servants(slavic) of the sarmatians(modern day kazakhs and kirgiz)."
How in the world do you come to the conclusion that Russians were "cleary[sic] servants...of the sarmatians(modern day kazakhs and kirgiz)"? The first problem is, how do you know that the modern Kazakhs and Kirgiz represent the purest descendants of the ancient Sarmatians? Second, how do you know that the majority of ancestors of the modern Russians were servants of these "proto-Kazakh/Kirgiz Sarmatians"?
Your claims are groundless and ridiculous.
>> Most of the "eastern" influence in Poland is via genetic drift from the Finno-Ugric areas.
Genetic drift is the stochastic fluctuation of gene frequencies within a population rather than the geographical "drifting" of alleles in space.
Hey JCA, look at the dna paper by Dr. Gilbert(unravelling migrations in the steepe: mitochondrial dna sequences from ancient central asians). Modern day kazakhs are only missing genes W and I. They also possesses only five additional genes. In other words, they are indeed the direct descendants of the ancient scythians and sarmatians. Hippocrates drew a pictures of a "mongoloid" scythian(enclyopedia britannia on Scythia). Attila and his huns were known as "scythians". One of the sarmatian tribe were known as the "chuni"(huni/hun/hunas). The word slavic is the synmous w/ "slaves". It is a well known fact that the scythian/sarmatians subdued everyone they conquered.
Remember that the ancient scythians were mixed(unravelling migrations in the steepe...). They were mixed even during the time that they appeared in written history(8th century b.c). Most of the white genes came from the tocharians-explaining the pointed hat, blond/red hair(wusun/modern day kazakh tribe usuns), tartan clothes. Yet their asian ancestry came from huns and siberians(including the kets). This explain why the romans and greeks thought of them as "small eyes, big head, short,flat noses" and their lifestyle and art resembling that of the huns.
Scythians did not look "Mongoloid"; they looked like Tajiks or Pashtuns, and spoke a language related to modern Pashto as an Eastern Iranian language.
Does this death mask of a Scythian queen look Mongoloid to you?
http://www.hp.uab.edu/image_arch...e/uj/
mask01.jpg
Scythians were generally portrayed as very hirsute (hairy) types, often with big, prominent, "beaky" noses. Modern Kazakhs do not physically resemble Scythians at all; Kazakhs are generally extremely Mongoloid, looking almost like modern Mongols, but perhaps with more noticeable Caucasoid admixture in some individuals. Their mtDNA is typical of Turkic populations in general, and their typical Y-DNA is closely related to that of western Mongol groups (e.g. Oirats and Kalmyks).
Again, Scythian was a form of Eastern Iranian language; the language of the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz is Turkic, not Iranian (nor even Indo-European). There is very little linguistic or phenotypical similarity between modern Kazakhs and Kyrgyz and the ancient Scythian inhabitants of the regions that Kazakhs and Kyrgyz now inhabit.
Have seen the caucasian looking Tartars? Also it was German Aryanists who cam up w/ the idea that scythians spoke an iranic language. You could manipulate the evidences since there are no written evidences left by the scythians. If no one wrote down english, it might sound like latin to a biased person.
Also look at the name kazakhs(ka/great, zak/sak). It reminds me of the name messagatae(Greek messa/mega Great, Getae Sakae). The word Ka does mean great in turkic-as in Great Yuezhi(Da Yuezhi).
You're right, JCA, about kazakhs' mtdna being typical of other turkic people. What you forget to mention is that it is 60% caucasian(european tocharians) and about 5-8% indian(iranic). If their Y-chromosomes is mostly mongoloid is because the huns took over the tocharian territory in kazakhstan(alfansevo culture). Yeah the tocharians lived in kazakhstan. It it a well known fact that the huns ruled over the tocharians-including those branches living in xinjiang(wikipedia on xiongnu).
Hey Celts(descendants of kets and tocharians of alfansevo culture in south siberia) defend your kazakh cousins from the rule of russia. Develop military and diplomatic relationships with kazakhstan. And whenever a british person see a ethnic kazakh in uk thank them for serving in roman military-even though they may have fought against the germanic tribes.
Commenting by HaloScan
