World Families Forums - Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 01, 2014, 02:38:32 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Probable language of Phrygians found in NW Pakistan -any DNA implications?  (Read 6600 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« on: June 22, 2012, 12:51:36 PM »

Dienekes blog notes that linguists have identified an obscure IE language in NW Pakistan as most likely a remnant of Phrygian, a language some think had common roots with Greek and Armenian. 

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/is-burushaski-indo-european.html

Is there any data for this Burushaski population?  I am especially interested in the R1b and R1a situation. 
Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2012, 01:23:21 PM »

Dienekes blog notes that linguists have identified an obscure IE language in NW Pakistan as most likely a remnant of Phrygian, a language some think had common roots with Greek and Armenian.  

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/is-burushaski-indo-european.html

Is there any data for this Burushaski population?  I am especially interested in the R1b and R1a situation.  

I see at least three Pakistani R1b1a2 samples in the India/Pakistan/Nepal project at FTDNA, with loads of R1a. I am inclined to associate the R1b1a2 with movements from the Balkans/Anatolia, and the overwhelming R1a levels with Iranian languages.

I should also throw in a caveat that I am not sure what subclades that R1b1a2 will fall into. That has to be important.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 01:25:03 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2012, 03:23:21 PM »

The Burusho were included in Underhill et al 2010 and Wells et al 2004. The former found their Burusho sample to be 25% R1a1a (M17) and 0% M34. The latter claimed the Burusho were high in R2.

Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2012, 10:42:35 AM »

I wonder what makes Dr. Casule think Burushaski is both Indo-European and related to ancient Phrygian.

Quote
Tracing the historical path of a language is no easy task. Professor Casule said he became interested in the origins of Burushaski more than 20 years ago.

“People knew of its existence but its Indo-European affiliation was overlooked and it was not analysed correctly. It is considered a language isolate – not related to any other language in the world in much the same way that the Basque language is classified as a language isolate,” he said.


All the linguists who came before failed to analyze Burushaski correctly, failed to recognize it was even Indo-European, or to see the connection with Phrygian?

A remnant of the Phrygians wound up in Pakistan?

Perhaps this should be met with at least the same level of skepticism that has greeted Euphratic and other somewhat unorthodox claims.


Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2012, 11:35:45 AM »

Here is something I posted on another thread but which is relevant here, since we are speaking of what was regarded as a language isolate but is now proposed as Indo-European.

Awhile back there was some discussion of the doctoral thesis of Arnaud Etchamendy, "Euskera-Erderak: basque et langues indo-européennes : essai de comparaison", from Pau University, 2007.

The paper is in French, so I haven't read it, but it was talked about on Rootsweb:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-12/1292092438

Quote from: Didier Vernade

Bernard,

I think a short translation is required. Shortly, the thesis is that the correlations found between Basque and IE languages can't be coincidences or traces of short contacts with IE populations. Rather, Euskara would be a true IE language from a separate branch.

Didier


If linguists missed the connection between Burushaski and Indo-European, perhaps there are connections they have heretofore missed between Indo-European and that other, more famous language isolate, Basque.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2012, 11:36:07 AM by rms2 » Logged

acekon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2012, 03:07:47 PM »

Gene deleted and or non functional  p36.13-p34.3

"The D antigen is inherited as one gene (RHD) (on the short arm of the first chromosome, p36.13-p34.3) "

Interesting quirky mutation found among the following groups and regions, Bannu, Uromia and Cacasus,  Basque, Berbers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15090322
http://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/20-4/Khattak.pdf
http://www.aina.org/articles/gdaicc.pdf

Uncommon mutation among African and Asian populations.
African descent    less 1%
Asian    less 1%
« Last Edit: June 23, 2012, 03:10:03 PM by acekon » Logged

YDNA: R-Z2105* Śląsk-Polska
MtDNA: U5b2a2*Königsberg-Ostpreussen
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2012, 05:05:35 PM »

@ rms2

Agree that scepticism makes sense at this stage. I'm leaving the linguists to fight it out. I wouldn't dismiss it as completely impossible on geographic grounds. People get about, especially if they are in flight from invaders. The  Phrygian Empire was smashed by the Cimmerians. But linguistically I'm with you. Wait and see is my policy.

As for IE and Basque - that's just one of the many attempts to link Basque to some other language, and they have all had the thumbs down from the majority of linguists eventually. But there is a curious link with IE that has been difficult to dismiss: the -ko suffix. So some interaction seems possible or even likely.   
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2012, 07:32:24 PM »

Its a shame that the linguists postulate that PIE and Basque descend from a common node do not try to estimate time depth of that node.  Without that it kind of useless in terms of human migration history.  Obviously there is a node sometime but its it 20000 years back or 8000 or what.  It makes a huge difference.  I certainly think that the way people tend to think languages in Europe and western Asia as a few blocks like today fails to take into account the recent nodes they share.  PIE being just one and apparently no older than 6000 years or so.  There must have been many close and distant cousin languages of archaic PIE that had common roots with its ancestor that split away at different times and it would be very strange if there had not been other fissions from the ancestral node before archaic PIE and it would not exactly have been mind blowing if one or two had survived that had a common ancestor with archaic PIE maybe a few thousand years earlier.  its just not obvious (which doesnt mean it didnt happen) how they ended up in the Pyrennees.  I am not a linguist but it does kind of sound to me that if it did share a common distant ancestor with archaic PIE that it was pretty distant.  I dont know if we are talking incredibly distant or not.  There was a thrust from the east just before the LGM known as the Badegoulian which is believe to be ancestral to the Magdalenian culture that I suppose in theory could moved a language with a very distant common ancestor to eastern languages into the west.  In fact it probably did do if the archaeological interpretation is right.  After that its hard to see how an eastern language could have got that far west for a long long time due to the farming thrust.  I suppose you could argue for low visibility displacement westwards of more easterly hunter-gatherers c. 6000BC but it is tricky.  One thing I would say is that in the pre-farming era, I have read that cultures all round the Black Sea from the Crimea to the western shore into NW Turkey are said to have been similar.  So the later huge divides we see between the steppes areas, the east Balkans and NW Turkey were not there in pre-farming times.  Distantly related languages might have been found all through that area and I suppose would have potentially have been displaced by farmers.  There are a group of rather obscure Mesolithic cultures at the start of the Neolithic with pointed pottery and Mesolithic lifestyles and flint technology who have been broadly compared, including ones as far west as SE France.  It was once thought they were linked but this is unfashionable now.  I dont know enough details to comment but a lot of old ideas are apparently being proved right at the moment so I just wonder.    As I posted earlier, there are some strange phenomenon that look like spreads of people linked to the Castelnovian technocomplex from Italy to the Pyrennees shorly before the Neolithic.  I understand they seemed ot have a dual (possibly seasonal) distribution in the shores/rivers and the hills (hunting).  Maybe they lost the lowland but kept the uplands.  Roucadourian in SW France might be an offshoot of the latter (sorry I cant remember how to spell it). I have head it suggested as some sort of possible origin of the Basques.  Of course you have weird groups like La Hoguette etc.  I think there is a lot of things going on with the hunter gatherers facing the farming waves first effects, possibly in a complex shunting effect but its very low visibility and can only be glimpsed now and then.   That all said, I think it still takes a lot of special pleading to connect that with R1b in any way.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2012, 07:35:39 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2012, 08:07:47 AM »

Yes, and why would hunter-gatherer I2a take up with the Near Eastern farmers, to end up in the aDNA finds at Neolithic sites, while hunter-gatherer R1b supposedly took to its heels and fled?
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 08:16:43 AM by rms2 » Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2012, 08:31:00 AM »

Yes, and why would hunter-gatherer I2a take up with the Near Eastern farmers, to end up in the aDNA finds at Neolithic sites, while hunter-gatherer R1b supposedly took to its heels and fled?

I don't know, I think location has a lot to do with it, moreover, why would Native Central American tribes ally with the Spaniards to defeat the Aztecs? It's not something weird for conquerors to ally themselves with some of the local people to wipe out the most powerful ones.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2012, 08:42:18 AM »

Yes, and why would hunter-gatherer I2a take up with the Near Eastern farmers, to end up in the aDNA finds at Neolithic sites, while hunter-gatherer R1b supposedly took to its heels and fled?

I don't know, I think location has a lot to do with it, moreover, why would Native Central American tribes ally with the Spaniards to defeat the Aztecs? It's not something weird for conquerors to ally themselves with some of the local people to wipe out the most powerful ones.

Did the Aztecs flee to the mountains only to return later to devastate both the Spaniards and their tribal allies and become the overwhelmingly dominant group in Central America?

If we are to look to Central America for stories that are analogous to what happened in Europe with R1b, let's look to the Spanish themselves, the predominance of R1b in Latin America today and the retention of Amerindian mtDNA.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 08:45:11 AM by rms2 » Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2012, 08:54:35 AM »

Did the Aztecs flee to the mountains only to return later to devastate both the Spaniards and their tribal allies and become the overwhelmingly dominant group in Central America?
No, but that wasn’t the point, the point was that it was possible for some native hunter-gatherers to ally themselves with the incoming agriculturists.

If we are to look to Central America for stories that are analogous to what happened in Europe with R1b, let's look to the Spanish themselves, the predominance of R1b in Latin America today and the retention of Amerindian mtDNA.

Yeah, let’s look at the fact that the Spanish/Aztecs technological differences were overwhelmingly superior to that of Hunter-gatherers/Farmers. Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America



http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2012, 09:12:12 AM »

Did the Aztecs flee to the mountains only to return later to devastate both the Spaniards and their tribal allies and become the overwhelmingly dominant group in Central America?
No, but that wasn’t the point, the point was that it was possible for some native hunter-gatherers to ally themselves with the incoming agriculturists.

If we are to look to Central America for stories that are analogous to what happened in Europe with R1b, let's look to the Spanish themselves, the predominance of R1b in Latin America today and the retention of Amerindian mtDNA.

Yeah, let’s look at the fact that the Spanish/Aztecs technological differences were overwhelmingly superior to that of Hunter-gatherers/Farmers. Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America



http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg


That map is completely inaccurate. It seems to be Q1a3a as a percentage of remaining Latin American Y-DNA. In places like Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil, European Y-DNA reaches something like 80%+. I'm sure most other Latin American countries are 50%+.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2012, 09:46:41 AM »

That map is completely inaccurate It seems to be Q1a3a as a percentage of remaining Latin American Y-DNA. In places like Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil, European Y-DNA reaches something like 80%+. I'm sure most other Latin American countries are 50%+.

You got any source to back that accusation?? The map might not be entirely accurate, as in the case of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile but it is definitely in the ballpark when it comes to Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and certain regions of Central America which is what the map is showing.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 09:47:42 AM by JeanL » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2012, 10:17:14 AM »

That map is completely inaccurate It seems to be Q1a3a as a percentage of remaining Latin American Y-DNA. In places like Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil, European Y-DNA reaches something like 80%+. I'm sure most other Latin American countries are 50%+.

You got any source to back that accusation?? The map might not be entirely accurate, as in the case of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile but it is definitely in the ballpark when it comes to Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and certain regions of Central America which is what the map is showing.


I don't mean "mot entirely accurate", I mean completely inaccurate if it is taken to mean total Y-DNA inclusive of non-indigenous populations. The map is saying Argentina is 80% haplogroup Q when in reality their Y-DNA is 94.1% attributable to European immigration...

"Inferring Continental Ancestry of Argentineans from Autosomal, Y-Chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA"

"Argentineans carried a large fraction of European genetic heritage in their Y-chromosomal (94.1%)"

If that is so extremely inaccurate, then I won't even bother looking anything else up. You can do the legwork.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2012, 10:57:43 AM »

I don't mean "mot entirely accurate", I mean completely inaccurate if it is taken to mean total Y-DNA inclusive of non-indigenous populations. The map is saying Argentina is 80% haplogroup Q when in reality their Y-DNA is 94.1% attributable to European immigration...

"Inferring Continental Ancestry of Argentineans from Autosomal, Y-Chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA"

"Argentineans carried a large fraction of European genetic heritage in their Y-chromosomal (94.1%)"

If that is so extremely inaccurate, then I won't even bother looking anything else up. You can do the legwork.

Yes, you can knock down all you want the Argentinean, Uruguayan or Brazilian strawman. So if Argentina is extremely inaccurate that is all you need to declare the map as completely wrong? Also you seem to forget that indigenous populations are still a very big percentage of the population in countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Guatemala, which is why I said that the percentage of haplogroup Q1a3a was probably on the ballpark for those regions.

Even in Mexico City the native lineages make up 40% of the paternal lineages:

Admixture in Mexico City: implications for admixture mapping of type 2 diabetes genetic risk factors.

Quote from: Martinez-Marignac.et.al.2007

Admixture mapping is a recently developed method for identifying genetic risk factors involved in complex traits or diseases showing prevalence differences between major continental groups. Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is at least twice as prevalent in Native American populations as in populations of European ancestry, so admixture mapping is well suited to study the genetic basis of this complex disease. We have characterized the admixture proportions in a sample of 286 unrelated T2D patients and 275 controls from Mexico City and we discuss the implications of the results for admixture mapping studies. Admixture proportions were estimated using 69 autosomal ancestry-informative markers (AIMs). Maternal and paternal contributions were estimated from geographically informative mtDNA and Y-specific polymorphisms. The average proportions of Native American, European and, West African admixture were estimated as 65, 30, and 5%, respectively. The contributions of Native American ancestors to maternal and paternal lineages were estimated as 90 and 40%, respectively.In a logistic model with higher educational status as dependent variable, the odds ratio for higher educational status associated with an increase from 0 to 1 in European admixture proportions was 9.4 (95%, credible interval 3.8-22.6). This association of socioeconomic status with individual admixture proportion shows that genetic stratification in this population is paralleled, and possibly maintained, by socioeconomic stratification. The effective number of generations back to unadmixed ancestors was 6.7 (95% CI 5.7-8.0), from which we can estimate that genome-wide admixture mapping will require typing about 1,400 evenly distributed AIMs to localize genes underlying disease risk between populations of European and Native American ancestry. Sample sizes of about 2,000 cases will be required to detect any locus that contributes an ancestry risk ratio of at least 1.5.


« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 11:00:55 AM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2012, 11:58:16 AM »

Yeah, let’s look at the fact that the Spanish/Aztecs technological differences were overwhelmingly superior to that of Hunter-gatherers/Farmers. Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America



http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg  


I don't mean "mot entirely accurate", I mean completely inaccurate if it is taken to mean total Y-DNA inclusive of non-indigenous populations. The map is saying Argentina is 80% haplogroup Q when in reality their Y-DNA is 94.1% attributable to European immigration...

"Inferring Continental Ancestry of Argentineans from Autosomal, Y-Chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA"

"Argentineans carried a large fraction of European genetic heritage in their Y-chromosomal (94.1%)"

If that is so extremely inaccurate, then I won't even bother looking anything else up. You can do the legwork.

Yes, you can knock down all you want the Argentinean, Uruguayan or Brazilian strawman. So if Argentina is extremely inaccurate that is all you need to declare the map as completely wrong? Also you seem to forget that indigenous populations are still a very big percentage of the population in countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Guatemala, which is why I said that the percentage of haplogroup Q1a3a was probably on the ballpark for those regions.
...

JeanL, you need to research your arguments a little better.  Cline maps can be misleading in the first place, but it is important to know what data is being used.  There is no doubt that there are areas where Hg Q is the dominant Y Hg. They may be just villages, though.  I'm not sure what the data really is behind the map, but you like academic studies and Argentina is a major country.  You can say Brazil and Argentina are strawman, but last I checked Brazil is about half the population for all of South America.
"The Phylogeography of Brazilian Y-Chromosome Lineages" shows a predominately European set of Y haplogroups for Brazil.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1234928/
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 11:59:29 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2012, 12:51:37 PM »

^This is what I said originally:

You got any source to back that accusation?? The map might not be entirely accurate, as in the case of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile but it is definitely in the ballpark when it comes to Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and certain regions of Central America which is what the map is showing.

Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2012, 06:22:22 PM »

^This is what I said originally:

You got any source to back that accusation?? The map might not be entirely accurate, as in the case of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile but it is definitely in the ballpark when it comes to Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and certain regions of Central America which is what the map is showing.



I like debating as much as the next guy, but I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Based on that map, you said: "Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America."

If you don't think this is a map that represents Q as a percentage of indigenous Y-DNA, then good luck trying to explain the North America frequency, where it appears to be over 50%!!!
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 07:10:04 PM by Richard Rocca » Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2012, 07:21:07 PM »

I like debating as much as the next guy, but I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Based on that map, you said: "Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America."

If you don't think this is a map that represents Q as a percentage of indigenous Y-DNA, then good luck trying to explain the North America frequency, where it appears to be over 50%!!!

Ok, let me rephrase it then:

"Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in certain regions of Central and South America."

Also, notice that Mexico City which is pretty big and populated showed 40% of Indigenous haplogroups. I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of those folks in Mexico City with Indigenous haplogroups speak Spanish.
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2012, 07:43:44 PM »

I like debating as much as the next guy, but I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Based on that map, you said: "Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America."

If you don't think this is a map that represents Q as a percentage of indigenous Y-DNA, then good luck trying to explain the North America frequency, where it appears to be over 50%!!!

Ok, let me rephrase it then:

"Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in certain regions of Central and South America."

Also, notice that Mexico City which is pretty big and populated showed 40% of Indigenous haplogroups. I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of those folks in Mexico City with Indigenous haplogroups speak Spanish.


The only phrase that is accurate for that map is:

"...Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in some indigenous populations of Central and South America."

Anything else is just speculation.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2012, 08:02:10 PM »

The only phrase that is accurate for that map is:

"...Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in some indigenous populations of Central and South America."

Anything else is just speculation.


Ehmm, Q1a3a reaches frequencies of 100% in some indigenous populations see here:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5SF14OUqcqM/T7FRf7_PZ6I/AAAAAAAAE2E/5f_SaqkyDwM/s1600/mexico.png

Genetic analysis of ancestry, admixture and selection in Bolivian and Totonac populations of the New World

Quote from: Watkins.et.al.2012
Ancestry for Mesoamerican and South American samples was assessed initially using mtDNA, and Y-STRs. We sought to identify samples with maximal New World and minimal European ancestry for additional high-throughput genotyping in a larger study of worldwide genetic variation [9]. The analysis of mtDNA HVS I and II showed that all Bolivian and Totonac samples belong to haplogroups A2, B2, C1 and D1, consistent with pre-Columbian New World maternal ancestry. Mitochondrial haplogroup A2 was the predominant lineage in the Totonacs (63%), while haplogroup B2 was prevalent in the Bolivians (71%). All Totonacs and 17 Bolivians (61%) had pre-Columbian Y-chromosomes (Q1a3a1). Consistent with historical accounts of male European admixture, 11 Bolivians (39%) carried Ychromosome lineages that are common in Europe (R1b, J2, G) (Figure 1).

[…]

Mesoamerican Totonacs (24) were sampled from an isolated rural location near Filomeno Mata, Veracruz, in southern Mexico. South American Bolivians (28) were obtained from several locations in Bolivia. All subjects were collected as unrelated samples, and all subjects’ grandparents originated from the same geographic region. All samples were collected with informed consent by the Sorenson Molecular Genealogical Foundation (SMGF) as part of a worldwide sample collection project. The study was approved by the Western Institutional Review Board.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 08:02:59 PM by JeanL » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2012, 08:12:50 PM »

The only phrase that is accurate for that map is:

"...Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in some indigenous populations of Central and South America."

Anything else is just speculation.


Ehmm, Q1a3a reaches frequencies of 100% in some indigenous populations see here:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5SF14OUqcqM/T7FRf7_PZ6I/AAAAAAAAE2E/5f_SaqkyDwM/s1600/mexico.png

Genetic analysis of ancestry, admixture and selection in Bolivian and Totonac populations of the New World

Quote from: Watkins.et.al.2012
Ancestry for Mesoamerican and South American samples was assessed initially using mtDNA, and Y-STRs. We sought to identify samples with maximal New World and minimal European ancestry for additional high-throughput genotyping in a larger study of worldwide genetic variation [9]. The analysis of mtDNA HVS I and II showed that all Bolivian and Totonac samples belong to haplogroups A2, B2, C1 and D1, consistent with pre-Columbian New World maternal ancestry. Mitochondrial haplogroup A2 was the predominant lineage in the Totonacs (63%), while haplogroup B2 was prevalent in the Bolivians (71%). All Totonacs and 17 Bolivians (61%) had pre-Columbian Y-chromosomes (Q1a3a1). Consistent with historical accounts of male European admixture, 11 Bolivians (39%) carried Ychromosome lineages that are common in Europe (R1b, J2, G) (Figure 1).

[…]

Mesoamerican Totonacs (24) were sampled from an isolated rural location near Filomeno Mata, Veracruz, in southern Mexico. South American Bolivians (28) were obtained from several locations in Bolivia. All subjects were collected as unrelated samples, and all subjects’ grandparents originated from the same geographic region. All samples were collected with informed consent by the Sorenson Molecular Genealogical Foundation (SMGF) as part of a worldwide sample collection project. The study was approved by the Western Institutional Review Board.


Good, unlike the map, this is the kind of reference we can all sink our teeth into.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2012, 06:57:07 AM »

Did the Aztecs flee to the mountains only to return later to devastate both the Spaniards and their tribal allies and become the overwhelmingly dominant group in Central America?
No, but that wasn’t the point, the point was that it was possible for some native hunter-gatherers to ally themselves with the incoming agriculturists.

That was your point, which had to do with what was possible in Europe for I2a and Near Eastern farmers. Since you made the Spanish/Native-alliance-versus-the- Aztecs analogy, it seemed only right to carry it through to its logical conclusion. The Spanish/Native alliance finished the Aztecs off as a power. The Aztecs never recovered. R1b, on the other hand, came to be the dominant y haplogroup of western Europe. In that way, R1b is much more like the Spanish in your analogy than like the Aztecs.

That is why your analogy breaks down. You put G2a in the role of the Spanish, I2a in the role of the native, non-Aztec tribes, and R1b in the role of the Aztecs. I would argue that in reality the role of R1b was analogous to the role of the Spanish, not to the role of the Aztecs.

Could there have been such an alliance against R1b? Anything is possible. Did it work? Evidently not; but if such an alliance against R1b did exist and was strong enough to drive R1b into hiding, it should have worked. The ultimate result - R1b dominant in western Europe - is a pretty good indication that no such alliance existed, and that R1b was never driven into hiding by agriculturists.



If we are to look to Central America for stories that are analogous to what happened in Europe with R1b, let's look to the Spanish themselves, the predominance of R1b in Latin America today and the retention of Amerindian mtDNA.

Yeah, let’s look at the fact that the Spanish/Aztecs technological differences were overwhelmingly superior to that of Hunter-gatherers/Farmers.

It was your analogy, not mine.

Besides that, the farmers would have had technological advantages over the hunter-gatherers. Isn't that part of your argument? That the farmers drove the poor, benighted R1b hunter-gatherers into hiding?

Moreover, last I checked haplogroup Q1a3a reaches frequencies of up to 85% in Central and South America



http://www.genetree.com/dna/education/Y_DNA/density_maps/q1a3a-m3.jpg


That map, as has been pointed out, is pretty obviously intended to represent the Q1a3a frequency among Native Americans, probably in an attempt to represent the situation prior to the European conquest of the Americas.

Just look at the Q1a3a frequencies for North America.

In Latin America today, European y haplogroups, especially R1b, are dominant, while Amerindian mtDNA haplogroups prevail on the distaff side. No doubt you are familiar with the term mestizo.


« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 07:10:27 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2012, 07:27:38 AM »

Genetic admixture, relatedness, and structure patterns among Mexican populations revealed by the Y-chromosome

Quote from: Abstract
Y-linked markers are suitable loci to analyze genetic diversity of human populations, offering knowledge of medical, forensic, and anthropological interest. In a population sample of 206 Mestizo males from western Mexico, we analyzed two binary loci (M3 and YAP) and six Y-STRs, adding to the analysis data of Mexican Mestizos and Amerindians, and relevant worldwide populations. The paternal ancestry estimated in western Mexican-Mestizos was mainly European (60-64%), followed by Amerindian (25-21%), and African ( approximately 15%). Significant genetic heterogeneity was established between Mestizos from western (Jalisco State) and northern Mexico (Chihuahua State) compared with Mexicans from the center of the Mexican Republic (Mexico City), this attributable to higher European ancestry in western and northern than in central and southeast populations, where higher Amerindian ancestry was inferred. This genetic structure has important implications for medical and forensic purposes. Two different Pre-Hispanic evolutionary processes were evident. In Mesoamerican region, populations presented higher migration rate (N(m) = 24.76), promoting genetic homogeneity. Conversely, isolated groups from the mountains and canyons of the Western and Northern Sierra Madre (Huichols and Tarahumaras, respectively) presented a lower migration rate (N(m) = 10.27) and stronger genetic differentiation processes (founder effect and/or genetic drift), constituting a Pre-Hispanic population substructure. Additionally, Tarahumaras presented a higher frequency of Y-chromosomes without Q3 that was explained by paternal European admixture (15%) and, more interestingly, by a distinctive Native-American ancestry. In Purepechas, a special admixture process involving preferential integration of non-Purepecha women in their communities could explain contrary genetic evidences (autosomal vs. Y-chromosome) for this tribe.

Population structure and paternal admixture landscape on present-day Mexican-Mestizos revealed by Y-STR haplotypes

Quote from: Abstract

Mestizos currently represent most of the Mexican population (>90%); they are defined as individuals born in the country having a Spanish-derived last name, with family antecedents of Mexican ancestors back at least to the third generation. Mestizos are result of 500 years of admixture mainly among Spaniards, Amerindians, and African slaves. Consequently, a complex genetic pattern has been generated throughout the country that has been scarcely studied from the paternal point of view. This fact is important, taking into account that gene flow toward the New World comprised largely males. We analyzed the population structure and paternal admixture of present-day Mexican-Mestizo populations based on Y-STRs. We genotyped at least 12 Y-STRs in DNA samples of 986 males from five states: Aguascalientes (n = 293); Jalisco (n = 185); Guanajuato (n = 168); Chiapas (n = 170); and Yucatán (n = 170). AmpFlSTR Y-filer and Powerplex-Y(R) kits were used. Inclusion of North and Central Y-STR databases in the analyses allowed obtaining a Y-STR variability landscape from Mexico. Results confirmed the population differentiation gradient previously noted in Mestizos with SNPs and autosomal STRs throughout the Mexican territory: European ancestry increments to the Northwest and, correspondingly, Amerindian ancestry increments to the Center and Southeast. In addition, SAMOVA test and Autocorrelation Index for DNA Analysis autocorrelogram plot suggested preferential gene flow of males with neighboring populations in agreement with the isolation-by-distance model. Results are important for disease-risk studies (principally male-related) and for human identification purposes, because Y-STR databases are not available on the majority of Mexican-Mestizo populations.

I have not read either of the studies above, since they are pay-to-read.

Robert Tarin has collected some stats on some of the Latin American countries here.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 08:08:00 AM by rms2 » Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.131 seconds with 19 queries.