|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 19, 2004 18:29:27 GMT -5
Seems to be quite unlikely because the most studies speak about a much longer time, although it might be possible that there were more than one waves of "Protoeuropids" or mixture in East Africa what seems to be the most likely hypothesis. Well, 15,000 years is the late figure. It's probably closer to around 23,000~ years. More info here : www.dienekes.com/blog/archives/000531.html
|
|
|
Post by One Humanity on Jun 19, 2004 19:22:19 GMT -5
From here : hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdfIt's possible that future research will sort out the somewhat strange dual East-African/West-Eurasian affinities of the E haplogroup ( notably, the E-M35 mutations and its derived E-M78 mutation ). Until then, we might assume that some kind of 'proto-Caucasoid' type was migrating out of East Africa as recently as 15k years ago(!) Could it be simplified? A real population would sure wander around less calculably but all of the spread shown in those images is expressing in waves. If they describe the reality accurate there couldn't have been a Litoroid-people spreading to coastal regions in all over Europe: www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/bilder/lundraces-map18.jpgA table in the study (AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034) says, the Dutch show 100% neither haplogroup E nor J, is that really true or had they just very few Dutch participants (32)? On this map the Dutch and Danes etc, even the English and Irish show a noteworthy degree of it: i.1asphost.com/berschneider/Haplogroups.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 19, 2004 19:24:59 GMT -5
Berschneider's map uses the old HG1/2/3/etc outdated nomenclature. There are other 'Neolithic' markers besides E and J, however.
It is possible that a larger sample would find E or J, though.
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Jun 19, 2004 20:26:59 GMT -5
In my oppinion this map are simplistic...and with WRONG information! I believe that ancient migration were processed in waves, diluting genes form a central point radially, like waves... People usually do not get far away from the parents home...that is the natural way. Nop, true ancient population migrations would do just that... waves from a central point!
|
|
|
Post by One Humanity on Jun 19, 2004 21:10:54 GMT -5
Berschneider's map uses the old HG1/2/3/etc outdated nomenclature. There are other 'Neolithic' markers besides E and J, however. But the conversation table says: E3b ~ HG 21, J ~ HG 9, exactly what I meant showing up infrequent in Northwestern Europe. Did the researchers move some former subhaplogroups into other groups or why are the results different now? I don't understand what you mean here (thanks for your assistance anyhow . - - - 'Neolithic' = E, F, J G ? or just E3b, F, J2 G2? Yes, I already spotted an amount of E-M78α in most of the European populations, going by another study. The new data (tables and maps in the pdf-stuff) isn't very detailed though, not a clear view. For example only samples of some Dutch and Danes are presented for the whole of NW of Europe and as said, the results shown on Berschneider's map are a little different, due to the sample's size?.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 19, 2004 21:17:45 GMT -5
Did the researchers move some former subhaplogroups into other groups or why are the results different now? Yes. I'm not sure if they did this with HG9, though. I'm not entirely sure at the moment. I'll have to gather a list of Neolithic markers sometime. Well, this study focused on areas of the world which had significant amounts of E and J, i.e., not NW Europe. Yes, a larger sample size would probably give different results.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jun 19, 2004 21:17:45 GMT -5
Did the researchers move some former subhaplogroups into other groups or why are the results different now? Yes. I'm not sure if they did this with HG9, though. I'm not entirely sure at the moment. I'll have to gather a list of Neolithic markers sometime. Well, this study focused on areas of the world which had significant amounts of E and J, i.e., not NW Europe. Yes, a larger sample size would probably give different results.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 19, 2004 21:21:51 GMT -5
What the @((#@@? I didn't edit Agrippa's post!
|
|
|
Post by One Humanity on Jun 19, 2004 21:46:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Jun 19, 2004 21:51:26 GMT -5
It's not only simple waves... It's "simple" waves interconected, millions of them...we have many genes inside!
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Jun 19, 2004 22:02:39 GMT -5
What the @((#@@? I didn't edit Agrippa's post! It's probably a proboards bug.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jun 20, 2004 9:05:47 GMT -5
What the @((#@@? I didn't edit Agrippa's post! Mistake, attack, or another one? Well, I just wrote about the possibility of such migrations like that of the so called "Litorids" especially if they were sea people, because sea was in ancient times like a high way, and if you compare it with Greek settlements, you see that it is at least possible, though I dont know enough about the associated material culture and the archaeological record.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jul 1, 2004 14:50:55 GMT -5
Looks like the "green type", E3a is exclusively Negrid? Genes aren't 'Negrid' or anything of the sort. It would better suffice to say that geographically the green areas are mostly located in a specific area of Africa, but anthropologically speaking the people of sub-Saharan Africa vary.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jul 1, 2004 14:55:52 GMT -5
From here : hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdfIt's possible that future research will sort out the somewhat strange dual East-African/West-Eurasian affinities of the E haplogroup ( notably, the E-M35 mutation and its derived E-M78 mutation ). Until then, we might assume that some kind of 'proto-Caucasoid' type was migrating out of East Africa as recently as 15k years ago(!) And the more easily understandable Middle Eastern J, although it too has its odd variants. A request : If you reply to this, please take the images out of the quote. There's no evidence anthropologiocally speaking of anything "proto-Caucasoid moving out of East Africa. The earliest people there were Nilotic peoples. You just said the high levels of E3b doesn't make Greeks part East African phenotypically, but then you go on to say something about proto-Caucasoids moving out of East Africa? That doesn't match up
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jul 1, 2004 15:06:13 GMT -5
There's no evidence anthropologiocally speaking of anything "proto-Caucasoid moving out of East Africa. The earliest people there were Nilotic peoples. You just said the high levels of E3b doesn't make Greeks part East African phenotypically, but then you go on to say something about proto-Caucasoids moving out of East Africa? That doesn't match up Why didn't you read the last sentence?!
|
|