RSS

Ukraine’s Neolithic and Bronze Age ancient mtDNA

12 Sep
A doctoral thesis on ancient Ukrainian mtDNA has recently become freely available (h/t Kristiina):
Jeremy R. Newton, Ancient Mitochondrial DNA From Pre-historic Southeastern Europe: The Presence of East Eurasian Haplogroups Provides Evidence of Interactions with South Siberians Across the Central Asian Steppe Belt. Grand Valley State University (thesis), 2011. Freely availableLINK
The key element of this study is table 1:

Location of sites (fig. 3):

Notice that the “Kurgan sites” (D1.8, L8 and L15) are not from the first Kurgan arrivals but rather from a late layer, surely Srubna culture, which is generally believed to be proto-Cimmerian.
The most striking element probably is the presence of relatively high frequencies of mtDNA C since Neolithic times. However this is not inconsistent with previous findings (Desarkissian 2011) of mtDNA C (C1) among NE European Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers, surely precursors of modern Finnic peoples. It means that the Siberian element of East Asian affinity today best preserved among Uralic peoples, was present in Europe before Neolithic and that it had an impact (21%) even in presumably non-Uralic populations such as Epigravettian derived Dniepr-Don.
This in turn may well explain the subtle Siberian affinity elements sometimes apparent in much of Northern and Central Europe, because these Eastern European peoples made in turn significant demic impacts in those areas, first with the Pitted Ware culture (clearly derived from Dniepr-Don: similar pottery and burial styles) that affected parts of the Southern Baltic, via Belarus, and later with the Kurgan waves of Indoeuropean-speaking invaders.
Maybe a bit more intriguing is the coincidence of C4a lineages in all the three kurgans of SW Ukraine. It may be just a coincidence or a very specific ethnic provenance of the princesses of that sub-group but the thesis argues for these being direct descendants of the Neolithic C4a lineage found in Ya34. I must say I am skeptic but it is not totally impossible. If real, it would imply that all C4a3 and C4a6 haplogroups (at least) are of Eastern European coalescence, what I find a bit difficult to accept, to say the least – but who knows?
An element in favor of such model is that neither of these C sublineages seems to be present in West Siberian ancient mtDNA, while no Oriental lineages altogether have been found in Central Asia before the Iron Age.
See also:
 
160 Comments

Posted by on September 12, 2013 in aDNA, Bronze Age, European origins, mtDNA, Neolithic, Ukraine

 

160 responses to “Ukraine’s Neolithic and Bronze Age ancient mtDNA

  1. Maju

    September 16, 2013 at 9:17 am

    West and East Eurasian populations, Onur. I don't think that anthropometric "races" are in most cases valid categories (for example I disagree with the notion of a "Mongoloid" valid grouping on merely cranioopometric grounds, although I agree that those populations share a similar ancestral genetic pool) and in any case it would be a morphological issue like blond hair or prominent cheeks, whose relation with the overall genetic background is not clear at all. We're talking populations and genetics, not "races and faces". 100,000 or even 50,000 years ago the "races" (looks) were surely not yet conformed because it is a process of homogeneization that takes time and not just founder effects. … "if you think that "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" are "politically incorrect"". Not just politically incorrect (that may depend on sensibility) it is conceptually incorrect: it's making assumptions about looks that we do not know how real were in the past. I strongly prefer to stay put in objective and neutral terms as populations (West Eurasians for example) and genetics, rather than to speculate on the looks of people many millennia ago or to begin a discussion on whether the concept "Mongoloid" has any bearing in its own purely anthropometric terms (I do not think so or very weakly at most). Seriously…

     
  2. Maju

    September 16, 2013 at 9:28 am

    "In modern human scales, 30 or so kya is old enough for a Caucasoid-Mongoloid separation time considering the relatively recent origin of modern humans as a whole and their relatively high mobility"…In strong disagreement here too. The timeline for the separation of West Eurasians (from South Asians essentially) can't be more recent than 50 Ka and is probably a bit older (independently of possible Neolithic backflows into Pakistan-India), at least 55 Ka (Emirian). The "recent origin" of humans as a whole is at least 200,000 years, not sure what you had in mind. The "relatively high mobility" unless clearly specified to archaeologically defined cultures is such a vague term that is meaningless. Some people seem to have moved a lot (from Altai to America for example, but they "swapped race" in the process, which was at least 10 Ka long), others not. For example West Eurasians seem to have remained relatively the same (speaking of genetic lineages) since the beginnings of the Upper Paleolithic.

     
  3. Maju

    September 16, 2013 at 9:40 am

    "I also agree with Luis that Central Asia is not much of a source of anything but largely a population sink".Actually it seems to be at the origin of Native Americans (and related populations of Siberia carrying Y-DNA Q). But this seems to be the only case before the Indo-Iranian and Turkic expansions.However we still do not know well what role Central Asia may have played in the Neolithic or the still open R1a question.What is quite clear to me is that all "Soviet" Central Asia, including Altai, belonged culturally and genetically to West Eurasia ("Caucasoid" in your racial terminology) until the Iron Age or so. Siberia instead rather belonged to East Asia or (West Siberia) was an intermediate zone. Also there seems to be a well defined West Siberian-Central Asian specific autosomal component (half-wat between East and West in terms of Fst), what implies that ancient Central Asians were at least largely ancestral to its modern ones, regardless of other flows. In the case of Kazakhs or Uyghurs this local ancestry is like 60%, in the case of the Khanty almost 100%.

     
  4. Maju

    September 16, 2013 at 9:47 am

    "If we agree that mtDNA M8 was up in the North 30-40kya as we know mtDNA B was, it must have been accompanied by a Y line. If M8 was not with Q, it must have been with (N)O, D or C. Many possibilities indeed!"I would argue for C3, although it is also very likely that NO lineages like O2b or O3 (or also some ancient forms of N) were also around back then. Let's not forget about D either. However, of all these, only C3 and N1 would really push northwards into the Siberian taiga. Assuming patrilocality, this seems to say something about the different eco-cultural stands of the various paleo-populations of NE Asia but I would not dare to enter into a too detailed speculation because chances are that I would be wrong.

     
  5. Onur

    September 16, 2013 at 10:10 am

    I don't think that anthropometric "races" are in most cases valid categories (for example I disagree with the notion of a "Mongoloid" valid grouping on merely cranioopometric grounds, although I agree that those populations share a similar ancestral genetic pool)Mongoloids as a group (whether you call them "race" or "population") are more united genetically than morphologically, but still, their overall morphology is distinct and united enough to separate them from all other modern human groups and group them in a single category (whether you call it "Mongoloid" or "East Eurasian + Amerindian"). The other modern human races too have their own distinctive and united genetic and morphological characteristics sufficient to validate them.and in any case it would be a morphological issue like blond hair or prominent cheeks, whose relation with the overall genetic background is not clear at all.At present, the relation between individual genes and morphological traits are newly beginning to be resolved, but overall autosomal genetics and haplogroup genetics have a fairly well degree of correlation with overall morphology in differentiating between the modern human races.We're talking populations and genetics, not "races and faces". 100,000 or even 50,000 years ago the "races" (looks) were surely not yet conformed because it is a process of homogeneization that takes time and not just founder effects.That is why I do not use racial categories when talking about modern human groups from such distant periods. Not just politically incorrect (that may depend on sensibility) it is conceptually incorrect: it's making assumptions about looks that we do not know how real were in the past. I strongly prefer to stay put in objective and neutral terms as populations (West Eurasians for example) and genetics, rather than to speculate on the looks of people many millennia ago or to begin a discussion on whether the concept "Mongoloid" has any bearing in its own purely anthropometric terms (I do not think so or very weakly at most).That is why for much of the Upper Paleolithic period I prefer to use racial terms that begin with "Proto-" for specific groups (e.g., Proto-Mongoloids).

     
  6. Onur

    September 16, 2013 at 10:20 am

    In strong disagreement here too. The timeline for the separation of West Eurasians (from South Asians essentially) can't be more recent than 50 Ka and is probably a bit older (independently of possible Neolithic backflows into Pakistan-India), at least 55 Ka (Emirian).It is Kristiina who claimed a 30 or 40 kya separation time for Caucasoids and Mongoloids. I did not comment on the validity or non-validity of that separation time but just on whether it is recent or not in modern human evolutionary scales.The "relatively high mobility" unless clearly specified to archaeologically defined cultures is such a vague term that is meaningless. Some people seem to have moved a lot (from Altai to America for example, but they "swapped race" in the process, which was at least 10 Ka long), others not. For example West Eurasians seem to have remained relatively the same (speaking of genetic lineages) since the beginnings of the Upper Paleolithic.I meant "high mobility relative to archaic humans", for which I am sure you will agree with me.

     
  7. Onur

    September 16, 2013 at 10:37 am

    This comment has been removed by the author.

     
  8. Onur

    September 16, 2013 at 10:38 am

    Actually it seems to be at the origin of Native Americans (and related populations of Siberia carrying Y-DNA Q). But this seems to be the only case before the Indo-Iranian and Turkic expansions.The role of Central Asia in the origin of Amerindians is far from clear. The Turkic expansion began from what is now Mongolia and its environs, thus from East Eurasia rather than Central Asia; it was largely an expansion into Central Asia rather than from it. But in the Indo-Iranian expansion Central Asia indeed seems to have served more as a source than a destination.

     
  9. Maju

    September 16, 2013 at 11:40 am

    "That is why I do not use racial categories when talking about modern human groups from such distant periods". Well you did and that's why I went all through those comments. "It is Kristiina who claimed a 30 or 40 kya separation time for Caucasoids and Mongoloids".My misunderstanding then. Sorry. "I meant "high mobility relative to archaic humans", for which I am sure you will agree with me".I do not know. It is true that H. sapiens were effectively faster and did tend to use somewhat larger territories for the same ecological conditions (i.e. the Aquitanian H. sapiens used larger territories than Aquitanian Neanderthals but not than German ones), and it is true that this kind of different "mobility" may have been one of the key Sapiens advantages in the long term competition with Neanderthals. However this probably does not apply to the more slender but less large-brained H. erectus. In any case I don't understand its implications on ethnic or "racial" differentiation among humans. I thought you meant that they could have moved from here to there once and again and again and again with no pattern nor even mild stability (I've heard that before from others and I quite disagree), but obviously it was not what you had in mind. "The role of Central Asia in the origin of Amerindians is far from clear".If you look at the origin of Y-DNA Q, as we did above, it should be quite clear that it coalesced in South or West Asia before spreading, via Altai, to NE Asia and America. This is pretty much in agreement with the pattern of Aurignacoid tech ("mode 4", "Upper Paleolithic") in Altai (since c. 47 Ka BP) and Mongolia and NE China (since c. 30 Ka BP, clearly derived from Altai). See for example:http://ejournal.anu.edu.au/index.php/bippa/article/viewFile/84/75 http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/08/upper-paleolithic-of-north-china-c.htmlAlso there is that dog genetic data, with the oldest sequenced dog ancestral to modern ones being from Altai (c. 30 Ka BP) and being mostly ancestral to Native American dogs: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/03/33000-years-old-dog-from-altai-is.htmlI have absolutely no doubts about the ultimate Altaian origins of the Native American (and related Siberians) major patrilineages within Q (and therefore some cultural elements surely). However they overall genetics (autosomal) as well as almost 100% of their matrilineages are East Asian. "The Turkic expansion began from what is now Mongolia and its environs, thus from East Eurasia rather than Central Asia; it was largely an expansion into Central Asia rather than from it".Originally for sure but then Central Asia must have acted as trampoline and therefore as source (secondary source if you wish) for further Turkic expansion. Similarly with Indoeuropeans in my understanding, although in this case the ultimate origin is in the West (Samara Valley and such). My point is just that it was indeed a destination first but later also a secondary source. Another case would be West Asian flows, be them Paleolithic (as with the Altai-Amerindian issue) or Neolithic (at least the southern part of Central Asia was influenced by West Asian Neolithic as far as I know, although more research is needed on that area's Neolithic). We can agree in any case that the region is essentially a melting pot, especially nowadays.

     
  10. Onur

    September 16, 2013 at 12:20 pm

    Well you did and that's why I went all through those comments.Wrong. I did not use any racial categories for the periods before the Upper Paleolithic.In any case I don't understand its implications on ethnic or "racial" differentiation among humans. I thought you meant that they could have moved from here to there once and again and again and again with no pattern nor even mild stability (I've heard that before from others and I quite disagree), but obviously it was not what you had in mind. Of course there is a pattern, but that pattern is more flexible than that of Neanderthals and this must have some implications on the distribution of racial/population groups of modern humans relative to those of Neanderhals.Originally for sure but then Central Asia must have acted as trampoline and therefore as source (secondary source if you wish) for further Turkic expansion. Similarly with Indoeuropeans in my understanding, although in this case the ultimate origin is in the West (Samara Valley and such). My point is just that it was indeed a destination first but later also a secondary source.In both the Indo-Iranian and the Turkic expansions Central Asia was not the ultimate source of the expansions but a secondary source. But in the Indo-Iranian expansion Central Asia greatly exceeded in importance the ultimate source of the expansion and thus served more as a source than destination. In contrast, in the Turkic expansion Central Asia never exceeded in importance the ultimate source of the expansion so that Central Asia served more as a destination than as a source.

     
  11. Maju

    September 16, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    "I did not use any racial categories for the periods before the Upper Paleolithic".Precisely. I think that using racial categories in general is highly questionable, unless you are talking craniometry specifically, but more so in such remote times as the (early) Upper Paleolithic when the modern phenotype differences were surely still in very early stage at best. I do not think it's technically correct to talk of "Caucasoids" for example regarding the Aurignacian (very few human remains, some semi-archaic like Pestera or with ambiguous features like Emirian ones, sometimes described as "Mechtoid" or whatever). It would be quite debatable even for a later period like Gravettian and Solutrean, when we begin to find more remains (so called "Crô Magnon" type). It is in any case a different debate than genetics and I find it quite distracting.

     
  12. Onur

    September 16, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    On the racial affiliation of Cro-Magnons, see:http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2011/02/cro-magnons-were-caucasoid-not-negroid.htmlAlso, North Africans seem to have been pure or almost pure Caucasoids until recent times.

     
  13. Maju

    September 16, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    They are outliers tending towards Mongolia… I don't think that kind of graph is too useful nor informative but, for whatever meaning it can have, it's outstanding that they are halfway between modern Germans or Italians and Bronze Age Mongols. "North Africans seem to have been pure or almost pure Caucasoids until recent times".I don't think so. African specific genetic influence in the region (and also to lesser extent in Arabia) seems very very old, it can well be from the time of the OoA (Aterian in the North African case) and may have been reinforced later on, for example in the Neolithic semi-pluvial. However I agree that the bulk of the ancestry (2/3 to 3/4, with local variations) seems to be European or West Asian. Craniometrically we can find all kind of affinities and probably also local peculiarities, for example they tend to be dolicocephalic (not meso, dolico), what is a clearly African element. You find even very extreme and striking dolicocephaly in Egyptian mummies, so it's not recent. However skulls like Taforalt seem more European-like, probably reflecting the important Gravetto-Solutrean → Oranian genetic flow.It's a complex matter in any case, so we better talk genetics and leave craniometry for the old-fashioned freaks.

     
  14. Maju

    September 16, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    Also CM-1 may or not be representative of Gravettian peoples usually known as "Cro-Magnons", he may be peculiarly robust in fact, an individual trait no doubt. But he also has some Oriental-like traits like prominent cheeks not so common in West Eurasia nowadays.

     
  15. Onur

    September 16, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    For the pure or almost pure Caucasoid racial affiliation of ancient North Africans, see for example:"MITOCHONDRIAL DNA AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF PREHISTORIC NORTH AFRICAN POPULATIONSNorth Africa is located at a crossroad between Europe, Africa and Asia and has been inhabited since the Prehistoric time. In the Epipaleolithic period (23.000 years to 10.000 years BP), the Western North Africa has been occupied by Mecha- Afalou Men, authors of the Iberomaurusian industry. The origin of the Iberomaurusians is unresolved, several hypotheses have been forwarded. With the aim to contribute to a better knowledge of the Iberomaurusian settlement we analysed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of skeletons exhumed from the prehistoric site of Taforalt in Morocco (23.000-10.800 years BP) and Afalou in Algeria (11.000 to 15.000 BP -Algeria). Hypervariable segment 1 of mtDNA from 38 individuals were amplified by Real-Time PCR and directly sequenced. Sequences were aligned with the reference sequence to perform the mtDNA classification within haplogroups. Phylogenetic analysis based on mitochondrial sequences from Mediterranean populations was performed using Neighbor-Joining algorithm implemented in MEGA program. mtDNA sequences from Afalou and Taforalt were classified in Eurasiatic and North African haplogroups. We noted the absence of Sub-Saharan haplotypes. Phylogenetic tree clustered Taforalt with European populations. Our results excluded the hypothesis of the sub-Saharan origin of Iberomaurusians populations and highlighted the genetic flow between Northern and Southern cost of Mediterranean since Epipaleolithic period."This is from the ISABS 2013 abstracts, so the the full text is not publically available at present. But there are already publically fully available analyses (including craniometric) of ancient North Africans with similar results.

     
  16. Maju

    September 16, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    What the fuck with racial language?! Seriously! Things are not black and white: even if there are clusters there are also clines. Also I am very proud of my (practically certain) African ancestry, even if it is minimal. Fuck endogamous purebreeds! Up with clinality and racial diffuseness! It really annoys me to pretend that things must be white or black and not grey or multicolor as they really are most of the time. Your racialist obsession is kidnapping again reasonable discussion here. Genetic affinity is not "race". I know perfectly that Taforalt has only (or almost only) West Eurasian lineages but Taforalt is not all North Africa (and even if you include Affalou, that is not enough). In fact the most interesting persistence of apparent deep ancestry (Aterian?) is today in Southern Morocco, in the area around Marakesh. See:http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/12/north-african-genetics-through-prism-of.htmlThe South Moroccan component is equidistant at high Fst values (of inter-continental level) from the West Eurasian and Tropical African components and that's why I am almost certain it is an ancient Aterian remnant. A similar case is found in Egypt and Saudi Arabia: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/01/egyptian-genetics-in-regional-context.htmlAlso in Epipaleolithic Portugal we have African "L" lineages (at least one likely L3d2 and another unclear L(xR), what can only be explained, I understand, because of back-migration from North Africa at the time of the Oranian genesis, which is probably also at the origin of tanged points in Iberian Gravetto-Solutrean, a concept probably borrowed from Aterian. This African signature is still quite visible in Western Iberia, at least in the genetics but also arguably when you look at the phenotype, which sometimes approaches the North African typology like the so-called Berid type.

     
  17. Onur

    September 16, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    How you can read my writings as racialist obsession is beyond me. I am just making a scientific discussion here, basing my statements on the results of scientific papers.ADMIXTURE/STRUCTURE components do not come with age. Some components, particularly those that are largely restricted to a single population or a few closely related populations, are recent in origin and a result of high inbredness. The "Kalash" component seen in many ADMIXTURE and STRUCTURE analyses is a classical example to such components. Your "Southern Moroccan", "Egyptian" and "Saudi" components seem to have little difference from the "Kalash" component in this respect.As for the L lineages in West Eurasia, many of them seem to be very ancient in West Eurasia and might even be from the time of the initial Out of Africa.

     
  18. Maju

    September 17, 2013 at 4:42 am

    "How you can read my writings as racialist obsession is beyond me."I cite: "Caucasoid", "Mongoloid", "racial affiliation of Cro-Magnons", "North Africans seem to have been pure or almost pure Caucasoids", etc. But then in most cases we are talking population genetics, not craniometry, which is what those categories imply. The only case where it would apply, it happens that the "racial [i.e. craniometric] classification of Cro-Magnons" is clear as mud (half-way to Mongolia). But you still insisted on racializing the issue against Africa with the use of the false "racial" category "Negroid". Africa is way to diverse to belong to any single "race" but indeed most populations share some traits, what is a perfect example on how "race" is constructed by homogeneization through time and therefore "purity" is an absurd concept: all "races" are mixed.All that language of the early 20th century has way too many implications of apartheid, Jim Crow and then of course the Nazis and is not really scientific, as demonstrated in the famous "The Mismeasure of Man" and many other data we can see easily. Talking happily of "races" all the time is not acceptable in polite society, as they say, nor in the worst slums either. You seem to live in a bubble about this but I mean that even in Turkey your way of talking raises some eyebrows. You pretend it is scientific terminology but it's not: and you do not normally find such terms in scientific literature anymore, at least not the one I read such as human population genetic studies. So if scientists find no problem (or even quite useful and convenient) in using other language, why would you claim that your extremely and obsessively racialized language is "scientific"? You are continuously making a point about your personal beliefs on the matter of human differences. You have demonstrated to be stubborn like a mule and refractory to others' opinions. You don't care and hide behind the word "scientific", which you abuse more than a Brezhnevian neo-Stalinist. You made a promise on this matter anyhow (that was a condition to lift your ban) but you are not fulfilling it. So… what do we make of it?

     
  19. Maju

    September 17, 2013 at 5:13 am

    "ADMIXTURE/STRUCTURE components do not come with age."They come with Fst distances, what is about the same, at least as I see it: components with inter-continental level differences to every other "racial cluster" around mean OoA age. Similarly all West Eurasian clusters are within a relatively tight bracket in terms of Fst to each other, what means that they diverged in a specific time bracket, which would be between 1/2 and 1/4 (rough est.) of the OoA. Whatever the case with an inter-continental Fst distance to both "Caucasoids" and "Negroids", using your racialized wording, they are neither, and they are not a mixture either: the component represents a small North African specific "lost race", which has indeed been spotted in phenotype studies as "pseudo-Mongol" or "pseudi-Khoisan" but is so diluted that only one individual out of many, even in the refuge areas, shows some of those traits anymore.Even more interesting is that another such component seems to exist around the Red Sea.As racialist, I thought you would be interested in this but I see you are not, what makes me wonder about your "scientific" attitude, based on open-mindeness and not just stubborn parroting of old books – that's religion, not science – and even as religion is a very poor attitude of extremely low spirituality, I'd say: one can't see if he closes his eyes. "Your "Southern Moroccan", "Egyptian" and "Saudi" components seem to have little difference from the "Kalash" component in this respect."As far as I know the Kalash component has low Fst distance values, just like the many Tunisian Berber ones, etc.: those are product of recent endogamy and suggest that the population lacks interest for this kind of analysis (actually is noise). You don't seem to understand how important are relative Fst values when understanding what autosomal components actually are. No wonder: most papers ignore them (between population Fst values yes but between components only rarely, when it's actually much more useful in this case)."As for the L lineages in West Eurasia, many of them seem to be very ancient in West Eurasia and might even be from the time of the initial Out of Africa."Indeed, that's precisely my point. But the N and M lineages in West Eurasia only arrived since the Aurignacian (senso lato), what means almost 50,000 years of staying put in North Africa and Arabia before the remix. That's the difference. West Eurasian autosomal components are closer to East Asian ones than to the South Moroccan or Red Sea ones, which are clearly OoA remnants (and are not closer to Tropical African ones either). Maybe this breaks your racialized schemes to pieces but in fact it should not unless those are too simple and not really scientific.

     
  20. Kristiina

    September 17, 2013 at 10:05 am

    After all this pondering about, I came up with another solution. In this model, M from which M8 derives comes from East Asia, but it still means a completely new way of thinking about the human migrations and it resolves many oddities. However, I do not want to argue over it yet. 🙂 I prefer to wait for new research to possibly back up this model.

     
  21. Onur

    September 17, 2013 at 10:40 am

    But then in most cases we are talking population genetics, not craniometry, which is what those categories imply. The only case where it would apply, it happens that the "racial [i.e. craniometric] classification of Cro-Magnons" is clear as mud (half-way to Mongolia).As I said before, there is a fairly high degree of correlation between the morphology-based racial categories and the genetics-based big clusters of modern humans. That justifies the application of the same racial categories on the genetics-based big clusters. This is in fact what population geneticists such as Cavalli-Sforza did back in the day. If they do not use racial categories anymore, this is not due to any scientific development since then but due to the decades-long campaigns of the politically correctist camp.But you still insisted on racializing the issue against Africa with the use of the false "racial" category "Negroid". Africa is way to diverse to belong to any single "race" but indeed most populations share some traits, what is a perfect example on how "race" is constructed by homogeneization through time and therefore "purity" is an absurd concept: all "races" are mixed.There is nothing wrong with the category "Negroid". Sub-Saharan Africans are genetically and morphologically closer to each other than to any other modern human group. But then again, both genetics and physical anthropology confirm the existence of sub-racial groups there, and you may just call them racial groups if you wish.As for the issue of purity, I always use the word "pure" in a relative sense. There is no absolute purity but degrees of purity. For instance, Basques are among the purest Caucasoids today.All that language of the early 20th century has way too many implications of apartheid, Jim Crow and then of course the Nazis and is not really scientific, as demonstrated in the famous "The Mismeasure of Man" and many other data we can see easily.No sane person would put me and people with similar thoughts in the same category as the Nazis, apartheidists, etc. You always politicize discussions when I mention racial categories. You are so hyper-sensitive that you treat people who use racial categories as racist. By your definition, many mild people from the genetics and physical anthropology communities would be classified as racist. I sometimes feel like talking to a witch hunter or a McCarthyist when discussing with you.Talking happily of "races" all the time is not acceptable in polite society, as they say, nor in the worst slums either. You seem to live in a bubble about this but I mean that even in Turkey your way of talking raises some eyebrows.I very rarely talk of races in daily life, but in any case, I see nothing wrong with talking about races as long as we stick to the scientific facts and not abuse them. You cannot solve a problem by ignoring its causes. Denial of races and racial differences do no good to people who suffer from racial discrimination.

     
  22. Onur

    September 17, 2013 at 10:40 am

    You pretend it is scientific terminology but it's not: and you do not normally find such terms in scientific literature anymore, at least not the one I read such as human population genetic studies. So if scientists find no problem (or even quite useful and convenient) in using other language, why would you claim that your extremely and obsessively racialized language is "scientific"? You are continuously making a point about your personal beliefs on the matter of human differences. You have demonstrated to be stubborn like a mule and refractory to others' opinions. You don't care and hide behind the word "scientific", which you abuse more than a Brezhnevian neo-Stalinist.As I told you, if the racial categories are being much less frequently used in the scientific literature today, this is solely due to the efforts of the politically correctists and has nothing to do with any scientific development. Scientists today refrain from using racial categories solely due to the pressures of the politically correctist lobbies. The politically correctist lobbies are so strong and influential in the academic world today that scientists feel a strong need to submit to their demands in order to attain and retain tenures.You made a promise on this matter anyhow (that was a condition to lift your ban) but you are not fulfilling it. So… what do we make of it?I only promised not to us the term "hybrid" to designate human racial mixes in your blogs.

     
  23. Onur

    September 17, 2013 at 10:47 am

    This comment has been removed by the author.

     
  24. Onur

    September 17, 2013 at 10:51 am

    As for the ADMIXTURE/STRUCTURE components issue, you have no proof that those components are as old as you assume. They are always found in populations that are in the transition zone between the races that constitute the building blocks of those components. This can't be a coincidence. Same with the Central Asian-specific component of Xing et al.

     
  25. Maju

    September 17, 2013 at 11:04 am

    You promised not to abuse the racialist language and try to avoid stepping on race-sensitives toes such as mine. "… if the racial categories are being much less frequently used in the scientific literature today, this is solely due to the efforts of the politically correctists"…That's not completely true: it's a matter of scientific correctness as well. It is an issue not just on whether races are real or just subjective (there is a strong subjective component to them, of course) but also about the many nuances that racialist ideology seem unable to face. Racialists are trapped in a sink of ancient concepts that are clearly obsolete and at least partly incorrect, extremely contaminated by subjective and ethnocentric (when not outright racist) biases.The very concept of race imposes a preconception to the multiplexed reality of population genetics: it is a virtual box that traps many in a wrongly limited kind of though. It's much better to think outside the box, mostly because the box is pretty much unreal. Racialism is for dummies, I say sincerely, and almost completely irrelevant and confusing for population genetics and general anthropology.

     
  26. Maju

    September 17, 2013 at 11:10 am

    "As for the ADMIXTURE/STRUCTURE components issue, you have no proof that those components are as old as you assume."Yes I do have some proof: the Fst distances. You don't get inter-continental Fst distances without a long time behind. "They are always found in populations that are in the transition zone"..It has nothing to do with the transition zone: transitional, admixed components like the Ethiopian or the Fulani ones are equidistant to the two "racial" poles involved but at levels of intra-continental Fst values, not inter-continental ones. You haven't even looked at the matter: you are just confronting it without any meditation. "Same with the Central Asian-specific component of Xing et al."That's like the Ethiopian component: obviously mixed. But not at all like the South Moroccan or Red Sea components I found: these are genuine "other races" lost in time. There's a clear difference in Fst distances, which are almost double in the latter.

     
  27. Maju

    September 17, 2013 at 11:14 am

    M almost certainly expanded from South Asia beginning some 100 Ka ago, although it sent many "tentacles" to East Asia, in agreement with the fast migration model. One of those many East Asian branches was M8. There are many others but there are even more in South Asia.

     
  28. Onur

    September 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm

    This comment has been removed by the author.

     
  29. Onur

    September 17, 2013 at 12:04 pm

    Luis, I strongly disagree with you on the race issue for reasons too many to elaborate that the thread would be completely drifted away from the main topic (already we have drifted too far). All I want to say for now is that I request you to be more tolerant towards ideas that you disagree with. I very well know what is racist and what is not, so please do not worry about me.As for the component issue, as I told you long ago, those high Fst components you mention are minor components even in the populations in which they peak and this alone is enough to explain their high Fst distances. So they are most likely artifacts of the peculiarities in the algorithms of the ADMIXTURE and STRUCTURE softwares.

     
  30. Kristiina

    September 17, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    In the end, Bronze Age East-Asian MtDNA has been found in Altai proper. I found this study "Bronze Mitochondrial DNA of a late neolithic woman from Kaminnaia cave (Gorny Altai)". It seems to be the same place where Neolithic H/K haplogroup was found. It is again pay per view, but the abstract says "The results of molecular genetic analysis of mitochondrial DNA of a Late Neolithic woman (middle of the 4th millennium BC) from Kaminnaia cave (Gorny Altai) are presented. It was determined that the studied sample belongs to the East Eurasian A4 haplogroup. A phylogeographic analysis indicates an informativity of the A4 variants for the reconstruction of early stages of ethnogenetic processes on the south of Western and Eastern Siberia."I am not at all sure about it, but two Baraba Late Krotovo and Andronovo samples look like A4. By contrast, the Earliest samples seem to be A10 which is said to be autochtonous to Baraba area.

     
  31. Kristiina

    September 17, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    It should be "Mitochondrial DNA of a late neolithic woman from Kaminnaia cave (Gorny Altai)"!

     
  32. barakobama

    September 18, 2013 at 1:17 am

    Not a suprise the 7,500ybp C1 in Russia near Finnish border is defintley connected with the spread of Mongliod Y DNA N1c1 in that area, Uralic languages, and Kunda culture. So there was Mongliod inter marraige also not a surprise it is shocking how popular Caucasin mtDNa haplogroups are from Chinese dyntic samples. We know it is from inter marriage with Indo Iranians and other Indo Europeans who lived around west china for almost 5,000 years like Tocherians. Central Asia believe it or not in the bronze and iron age was mainly white. The Indo Iranian tribes like Sycthians and their ancient bronze age cultures like Andronovo, Sinshta, Abashevo dominated central asai from about 4,500-2,000ybp. Their DNA samples show Y DNA R1a1(most likley Indo Iranian branch r1a1a1b2 Z93) typical west Eurasian(Europe and mid east) mtDNA haplogroups more typically European like U5, What surprised me is they had about 10% T1 which is almost non exitnct in Europe almost all T is T2. They had pale skin and mainly fair hair and eyes no doubt they were Europeans. And they match ancient Greek, Roman, and Chinese descriptions of these tribes. Groups like Sycthians were the main people of central Asia. The Turks the main ancestors of modern central asians arrived around 300-400ad and conquered the Indo Iranians up to the middle ages. So central Asia has a complicated history. I don't think Caucasian mtDNa in dynastic China way above modern average and Mongliod mtDNA in Neolithic and bronze age Ukraine way above modern average means that much so people inter married big deal. Figuring out when this inter marriage happened and how long ago is important bit it should not be a surprise.

     
  33. Kristiina

    September 18, 2013 at 6:51 am

    MtDNA C1 is not found in Uralic people. Its frequency is at the moment 0% everywhere to my knowledge, so I am not at all sure about that connection. Well, being white is not a privilege of Caucasoids, and many Caucasoids are not very white. Northeastern Asians are usually quite pale, e.g. the Japanese.People have been mixing with each other from the beginning of time and there has never really been any pure race, or perhaps for a short while when a group broke out on a virgin territory, but in the Palaeolithic time depth, in that case, there were usually other species on the way. The Caucasoids or Mongoloids are not two uniform races that have had both their origin in one narrow area and then spread to the whole Eurasia respectively. This is evident when you look at the yDNA tree, MNOPS is widespread in whole Eurasia and Indonesia, and is also common in Africa.

     
  34. Onur

    September 18, 2013 at 7:31 am

    there has never really been any pure raceNo one has claimed in this blog AFAIK that races have to be pure. Purity is not in the definition of race. All that is required for the formation of races is long term relative homogenization through mixing in a certain territory (not necessarily a small territory) and relative long term long term isolation from other territories. The Caucasoids or Mongoloids are not two uniform races that have had both their origin in one narrow area and then spread to the whole Eurasia respectively.Tell that to Terry. According to him the Mongoloid race originated in a narrow piece of land and expanded from there.This is evident when you look at the yDNA tree, MNOPS is widespread in whole Eurasia and Indonesia, and is also common in Africa.I would not put forward Y-chromosomal haplogroups as examples to the non-purity of races, as haplogroups, and especially Y-chromosomal haplogroups, can easily swap race through intense mixing with a race other than their original race without leaving any detectable signature of their original race so that they may have no detectable effect in the dilution of the level of purity of their new race or a branch of their new race.

     
  35. Maju

    September 18, 2013 at 10:59 am

    "those high Fst components you mention are minor components even in the populations in which they peak"…Yeah."… and this alone is enough to explain their high Fst distances".Nope. Other minor components (for example those caused by endogamy) don't behave like that. They are not "artifacts", at least I do not see any reason to think so. "All I want to say for now is that I request you to be more tolerant towards ideas that you disagree with".All I want is that commenters in this blog do not unbury that jerk of Coon every other day just because. It's not a matter of racism (not only at least) but a matter of scientific seriousness. You sound like a Stalinist talking of "scientific materialism", what is another nonsense by the way. Just because you introduce the word "science" arbitrarily it does not make it any more scientific. Coon is dead and his Nordocentric nonsense is as well (and yeah, he was extremely nordocentric and totally unable to discern differences inside populations other than his own).

     
  36. Kristiina

    September 18, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    I do not diagree with the concept of long term relative homogenization through mixing in a certain territory leading to a shared physiognomy, but I would add that the border lines are always blurred.I do not disagree with Terry either if the point is that at a certain point of time, e.g. in connection with the cultivation of rice, certain physiognomy and features spread to a great extent in East Asia. However, my point was that these features resulted from a previous mixture of multiple elements. East Asia is genetically diverse: there are yDNA D, C and MNOPS, even F, and as for mitochondrial DNA, there are mtDNA lines M, N and R which may have arrived along several routes. In addition, we have the possible archaic mixtures with other subspecies of Homo. Europe is also diverse: there are yDNA G, IJ, E, R, Q and N, as well as some T, and as for mitochondrial DNA, there are mtDNA lines N and R, and it seems that generally haplogroups have arrived to Europe from the East. It also seems that in Europe there was more mtDNA L and M in prehistoric times than today.

     
  37. Maju

    September 18, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    What a boredom!"the definition of race"Which definition of race?! Being a human construct with only very limited scientific support, this concept has no standardized definition. It seems to come from Italian razza and nobody knows what it originally meant nor where it comes from. In Romance it's mostly applied to animals. So pitbull is a race (i.e. breed) of dogs, Merino is a race of sheep, etc. Humans are not bred like cattle so it's not really easy to apply. "Tell that to Terry".That guy is banned for being a polemicist jerk, twisting and manipulating (or even just making up) others' words and ideas, etc. "… the Mongoloid race originated in a narrow piece of land and expanded from there".Not likely at all because genetics simply does not support that model, certainly not for a Neolithic time-frame. But in any case it does not seem like the very concept of "Mongoloid" is too solid either.

     
  38. Maju

    September 18, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    "It also seems that in Europe there was more mtDNA L and M in prehistoric times than today".Not much anyhow. Just some C1 in the NE and some L(xR) in West Iberia, which may in one case be L3 (the other may well be N*). Almost every single pre-Neolithic lineage of Europe is R (either U or R(xU), including H and JT*, but R in any case).

     
  39. Onur

    September 18, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    Nope. Other minor components (for example those caused by endogamy) don't behave like that.What minor components are you talking about?They are not "artifacts", at least I do not see any reason to think so.Most likely they are. All I want is that commenters in this blog do not unbury that jerk of Coon every other day just because. It's not a matter of racism (not only at least) but a matter of scientific seriousness. You sound like a Stalinist talking of "scientific materialism", what is another nonsense by the way. Just because you introduce the word "science" arbitrarily it does not make it any more scientific. Coon is dead and his Nordocentric nonsense is as well (and yeah, he was extremely nordocentric and totally unable to discern differences inside populations other than his own).Who said I am a Coonist? Just because I use terms such as "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" and make a racial classification of modern human groups neither makes me a Coonist nor implies that my definitions of Caucasoid, Mongoloid, etc. and race are the same as those of Coon. Just as in our discussion of hybrids, you are fixating too much on words and ignoring their content and context.Finally, scientific materialism has no resemblance (either by content or methodology) to what we are talking of here. So please do not distort the subject with such inappropriate comparisons.

     
  40. Onur

    September 18, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    Which definition of race?! Being a human construct with only very limited scientific support, this concept has no standardized definition. It seems to come from Italian razza and nobody knows what it originally meant nor where it comes from. In Romance it's mostly applied to animals. So pitbull is a race (i.e. breed) of dogs, Merino is a race of sheep, etc. Humans are not bred like cattle so it's not really easy to apply.We are not discussing the etymology of the word "race". The only kind of race we are talking about here is the scientific-based race. Not just race but all of taxa (species, order, genus, etc.) are human constructs, but that does not change the fact that they are all scientific-based. Race is not an arbitrary concept, it has a concrete basis in biology.Not likely at all because genetics simply does not support that model, certainly not for a Neolithic time-frame. But in any case it does not seem like the very concept of "Mongoloid" is too solid either.It seems I neither agree with you nor with Terry on the structure of the Mongoloid race. But this is a side issue, and we have already drifted too far from the main subject of this thread. So we'd better stop here.

     
  41. Onur

    September 18, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    but I would add that the border lines are always blurredThey are what are commonly called hybrid zones. Though Luis forbade me to use the word "hybrid" in denoting racial mixes in his blogs. So I stop here.

     
  42. Maju

    September 18, 2013 at 10:39 pm

    "What minor components are you talking about?"Have you bothered reading the relevant threads (linked previously), looking at the components found, the Fst distances? Obviously not judging on this redundant question (etcetera). In those same entries there are other minor components, both "racially mixed" and "racially pure" (in your kind of language, I would use "continental region" or "macro-population" instead of "race" because I have no idea how they relate to phenotype, if at all) which show intra-continental Fst values rel. to other components. These two I highlighted do not: the show inter-continental Fst values. Just go over there and study the results before you write any other line. Thanks. You can also experiment with ADMIXTURE yourself: it's rather easy (although it may take some time). All I say is: don't stop at low K values (too shallow) and pay attention to Fst distances displayed by the components, because those values are very important.

     
  43. Maju

    September 18, 2013 at 10:47 pm

    "… the scientific-based race".There's no such thing. Scientific classification with any meaning stops at species level (and even there there are some doubts). Categories like subspecies, variants, breeds, races and cultivars are mostly subjective, even if sometimes conventional. Reality does not come conveniently boxed for classification purposes, much less downstream of the species level. "Race is not an arbitrary concept, it has a concrete basis in biology".Which one? I never heard of such "concrete basis". Reality is much more more clinal and irregular than you seem to believe. In fact, when you ask racialists to describe their neatly packed boxes, there's always a total indefinition in the details. There may be some archetypes but real people almost never conform to them: they are just very broad and diffuse tendencies. Instead when you compare a lion and tiger, there is no doubt: each individual fully complies with its species characteristics (unless hybrid, of course).

     
  44. Maju

    September 18, 2013 at 10:54 pm

    Not just areas of admixture but individuals in the core areas are also extremely varied and with weird tendencies that may or not approach other such categories. South Sudanese with sinodonty and slanted eyes, Chinese without epicanthic fold, Scandinavians with broad nose and epicanthic fold, Australian Aborigines that look like dark Vikings, etc. It's blurry all around, even in the core zones.A good example are Native Americans, who are extremely diverse even if they have a marked and relatively recent founder effect. And I'm talking only of the unmixed ones, of course. You apparently seem unable to see the massive differences inside your artificious groupings, but I do and they are just brutal and often totally unexpected.

     
  45. Maju

    September 18, 2013 at 10:55 pm

    "They are what are commonly called hybrid zones. Though Luis forbade me to use the word "hybrid" in denoting racial mixes in his blogs".I'm being extremely patient. But my patience is not infinite. I truly believe that you should look for other forums and quit this one. Because you don't belong here, really.

     
  46. Onur

    September 18, 2013 at 11:31 pm

    Have you bothered reading the relevant threads (linked previously), looking at the components found, the Fst distances? Obviously not judging on this redundant question (etcetera). In those same entries there are other minor components, both "racially mixed" and "racially pure" (in your kind of language, I would use "continental region" or "macro-population" instead of "race" because I have no idea how they relate to phenotype, if at all) which show intra-continental Fst values rel. to other components. These two I highlighted do not: the show inter-continental Fst values. Just go over there and study the results before you write any other line. Thanks. You can also experiment with ADMIXTURE yourself: it's rather easy (although it may take some time). All I say is: don't stop at low K values (too shallow) and pay attention to Fst distances displayed by the components, because those values are very important.Of course I read them. None of the "Tunisian", "Mozabite", "Kalash" and the Xing et al. "Central Asian" ("Khanty" to be more precise) components are minor components in the populations they peak. You obviously do not have a clue about how the algorithms work. All things being equal, the lower the level of the component in the peak population, the higher the Fst distance of the component to the other components.

     
  47. Onur

    September 18, 2013 at 11:45 pm

    There's no such thing. Scientific classification with any meaning stops at species level (and even there there are some doubts). Categories like subspecies, variants, breeds, races and cultivars are mostly subjective, even if sometimes conventional. Reality does not come conveniently boxed for classification purposes, much less downstream of the species level.Which one? I never heard of such "concrete basis". Reality is much more more clinal and irregular than you seem to believe. In fact, when you ask racialists to describe their neatly packed boxes, there's always a total indefinition in the details. There may be some archetypes but real people almost never conform to them: they are just very broad and diffuse tendencies. Instead when you compare a lion and tiger, there is no doubt: each individual fully complies with its species characteristics (unless hybrid, of course).The above-species level taxonomic ranks are no less artificial than the below-species level taxonomic ranks. The least artificial of the taxonomic ranks is species. Basically, the closer to the species level, the less artifial a taxonomic rank. Races are not that far from the species level and thus not so much artificial.

     
  48. barakobama

    September 18, 2013 at 11:50 pm

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  49. Onur

    September 18, 2013 at 11:56 pm

    Not just areas of admixture but individuals in the core areas are also extremely varied and with weird tendencies that may or not approach other such categories. South Sudanese with sinodonty and slanted eyes, Chinese without epicanthic fold, Scandinavians with broad nose and epicanthic fold, Australian Aborigines that look like dark Vikings, etc. It's blurry all around, even in the core zones.A good example are Native Americans, who are extremely diverse even if they have a marked and relatively recent founder effect. And I'm talking only of the unmixed ones, of course. You apparently seem unable to see the massive differences inside your artificious groupings, but I do and they are just brutal and often totally unexpected.If you focus on single traits, you cannot see the big picture. Races are fairly homogeneous entities in their overall race-specific morphology. Moreover, races are more homogeneous entities genetically than they are morphologically. Genetics strengthened, not weakened, the biological basis of races.

     
  50. Onur

    September 19, 2013 at 12:15 am

    I'm being extremely patient. But my patience is not infinite. I truly believe that you should look for other forums and quit this one. Because you don't belong here, really.It is you who started this race debate. My first posts in this thread were all on topic posts.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: