|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 20, 2005 20:34:29 GMT -5
I found it interesting to see that, at least to a large extend, the area of the haplogroup J2a distribution and the distribution of the Taurid-Armenoid racial variants are correlated, though a relation with Eastmediterranid can be seen too. Since this marker seems to have expanded rather recently, a racial correlation is more plausible than in other cases - a correlation with Eastmediterranid-Iranid could be shown too if there is one at all, I know that.  Map from: dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/12/sengupta-et-al-2006-online.htmlThe relation with the "fertile crescent" and Neolithic expansion seems to be striking too. On the Italian map its interesting to see a higher frequency in the area of Etruscans which were mostly Mediterranid but had various other, including strong Armenoid, racial influences. At the same time the area of Turkey which is less Armenoid (Western coast of Asia minor) has also a lower frequency. According to most anthropologists Armenoid influences go deep into the Indian area too, influencing especially certain areas of the North. That all could be just by chance, since there must not be any direct correlation, but its at least an interesting comparison and the comparison is just striking.Comments appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 20, 2005 20:44:53 GMT -5
There is no relationship with Armenoids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 20, 2005 20:59:35 GMT -5
There is no relationship with Armenoids. Thanks for your answer, but it would be nice if you could elaborate that a little bit - some arguments against  Probably my question was not clear too. I know that it was no expansion of fully developed modern Armenoids (of which subtype no matter) which brought the haplogroup in other regions, time frame doesnt allow such a conclusion. I meant rather that the original group which expanded - most didnt developed Armenoids characteristics yet, was the base of later Armenoids and a secondary expansion might have taken place (would be interesting in which time frames HJ2a was spread primarily) which THEN spread already evolved Armenoids. So at least for the fertile crescent a higher percentage of Armenoid-Hap. J2a seems plausible. Where is the highest variation, where was the source population of this Haplogroup placed? Obviously a simple equation Hap. J2a = Armenoid is nonsense, thats clear, still... |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 20, 2005 21:05:44 GMT -5
Look up the raw frequencies on which the map is based.
|
|
oguz
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by oguz on Dec 29, 2005 4:38:53 GMT -5
Yes I always asked these questions too.
For example j2a has high frequencies in central anatolia (konya and its region) where all the genetic researchers said most turkic place in anatolia.
About Italia I know that some Italians think that their anchestors came from north central anatolia. They had visited that region by bikes.
''Where is the highest variation, where was the source population of this Haplogroup placed?''
I think no.People never stayed in one place they always walked.
If you look at yor map j2a has high frequencies in Azerbaijan,North Iran(South Azerbaijan) Turkmenistan and some other turkic populations.
''Obviously a simple equation Hap. J2a = Armenoid is nonsense, thats clear, still... ''
I think saying armenoid to everything in that region is absurd.
|
|
oguz
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by oguz on Dec 29, 2005 4:53:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenlivet on Dec 29, 2005 18:56:54 GMT -5
What kind of correlation, if any, do you see? There is no relationship with Armenoids. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 29, 2005 20:20:11 GMT -5
For example j2a has high frequencies in central anatolia (konya and its region) where all the genetic researchers said most turkic place in anatolia. Central Anatolia has high frequency of East Eurasian lineages N (5.5%), and Q (3.3%). That accounts for the "Turkic" specialization of that region. J2a originated in Asia Minor, not in Central Asia where Turkic speakers originated. The high frequency in Central Anatolia is probably due to the fact that this region was shielded from outside contacts. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 30, 2005 1:11:20 GMT -5
Now, the people that have the Eurasian look and that most people show as examples to East Asian influence in Turks are actually Tatars, for example Ilhan Mansiz. They are a mix of Turks and Mongols among other things and this Tatar population of about 5 milion should account for most of the East Asian lineage that is cited. Geneticists usually try to recruit people with deep ancestry in the regions they are studying. I'm sure that they would not have included Tatar descendants in their study, but even if they did, these Tatars would have to be VERY Mongoloid to account for the levels of East Eurasian markers in Anatolia. |
|
corda
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by corda on Dec 30, 2005 18:55:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 30, 2005 20:39:08 GMT -5
Czekanowski's system is worthless and based on unwarranted assumptions about human racial variation and a lack of knowledge of genetics.
|
|
corda
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by corda on Dec 30, 2005 20:58:22 GMT -5
Czekanowski's system is worthless and based on unwarranted assumptions about human racial variation and a lack of knowledge of genetics. With all possible faults it’s quite objective statistical approach and as such provides important info on craniometrical/pigmentation correlation in form which allows connection with genetic markers. We can also use single measurable traits as CI, FI, HLI or % of pigmentation etc instead of Czekanowski forms but the effect IMO would be similar. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 30, 2005 21:03:38 GMT -5
With all possible faults it’s quite objective statistical approach and as such provides important info on craniometrical/pigmentation correlation in form which allows connection with genetic markers. We can also use single measurable traits as CI, FI, HLI or % of pigmentation etc instead of Czekanowski forms but the effect IMO would be similar. Being objective in the sense of being mechanistic does not make it valid, because it is made on unwarranted and erroneous assumptions about the inheritance of physical characteristics. |
|
oguz
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by oguz on Dec 31, 2005 4:31:10 GMT -5
For example j2a has high frequencies in central anatolia (konya and its region) where all the genetic researchers said most turkic place in anatolia. Central Anatolia has high frequency of East Eurasian lineages N (5.5%), and Q (3.3%). That accounts for the "Turkic" specialization of that region. J2a originated in Asia Minor, not in Central Asia where Turkic speakers originated. The high frequency in Central Anatolia is probably due to the fact that this region was shielded from outside contacts. I haven't used for most turkic because of high freqency of N and Q. But you are right most people accept it because of N and Q(I don't understand why). If j2a is originated in asia minor then why it has low frequencies in Greece(expect west Thracia)? I don't think this region was so shielded. Especially for influences from the east. |
|
corda
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by corda on Dec 31, 2005 4:40:55 GMT -5
Being objective in the sense of being mechanistic does not make it valid, because it is made on unwarranted and erroneous assumptions about the inheritance of physical characteristics. Technically there is no strong difference to your racial calculators and all later statistical methods of estimating convergences. The main fault of whole classic anthropology is conviction of constant anthropological traits in homogenous population. As you know well we are forced to base on anthropologic surveys and sources like popular Coon because there are not any newer. |
|
