|
Post by truth999 on Oct 12, 2012 9:54:01 GMT -5
Correction I ment haplogoup G not Q
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 12, 2012 20:10:46 GMT -5
The widespread modern distribution of E1b1b sub-clades in Europe (mainly E-V13) is often attributed to Roman-period settlement. But as you indicated, at least some of those lineages have clearly been present for much longer and don't owe their diffusion to Roman garrisons. Proof of this is the E1b1b sample that was recently found in a Neolithic specimen from Spain (individual Ave07). Along with two other E1b1b carriers from later, Roman-era Germany, Ave07 was analysed for mtDNA/maternal DNA. They each wound up belonging to West Eurasian clades. So basically, we now have palpable evidence of West Eurasian affiliation for the maternal lineages of pretty much all, if not close to all, the analysed E1b1b carriers that have been found so far in Neolithic through to contemporary Europe.
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Oct 18, 2012 0:28:14 GMT -5
Do most modern day European Caucasoids originate from say, Iran or around the Iraq area when they migrated out of "The Fertile Crescent"?
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 18, 2012 2:25:47 GMT -5
Do most modern day European Caucasoids originate from say, Iran or around the Iraq area when they migrated out of "The Fertile Crescent"? Europe is believed to have been populated at different stages, mostly from the direction of West Asia. The two major such phases were during the Upper Paleolithic and the Neolithic. The West Asian peoples that settled Europe during the Neolithic were agropastoralists of a more gracile type. They introduced agriculture to the continent's already in-situ, robust hunter-gatherers (i.e. the so-called "Neolithic package" that also included domesticated animals, pottery, and ground and polished tools). Genetically, modern studies have shown that Europeans retain clinal differences in these two broad ancestral components. Southern Europeans tend to possess more of the later Near Eastern farmers' DNA, whereas Northern Europeans have generally preserved more of the earlier hunter-gatherers' genes. "Northern European Neolithic farmers are most similar to modern-day southern Europeans, contrasting sharply to Neolithic hunter-gatherers who are most similar to extant individuals from northern Europe. With most extant European populations appearing genetically intermediate between the two Neolithic groups, our results suggest that migration from the south by a genetically distinct group of humans accompanied the spread of agriculture to geographic regions where hunting and gathering was the mode of subsistence, but that admixture eventually shaped modern-day patterns of genomic variation."
www.investigativegenetics.com/content/pdf/2041-2223-3-7.pdf
Carleton Coon hypothesized that Europe's population was similarly structured. That is, between peoples mainly descended from the Neolithic West Asian cultivators (Mediterraneans) versus those tracing greater ancestry to the earlier hunter-gatherers (what he termed "Upper Paleolithic survivors"; albeit morphologically reduced/gracilized). He regarded the Arabian Peninsula as harboring the highest proportion of individuals that most closely correspond to the original Mediterranean type: "The Mediterranean racial zone stretches unbroken from Spain across the Straits of Gibraltar to Morocco, and thence eastward to India. A branch of it extends far southward on both sides of the Red Sea into southern Arabia, the Ethiopian highlands, and the Horn of Africa. Of the three main Mediterranean sub-races which this zone contains, the most widespread, the most central, the most highly evolved, and most characteristically Mediterranean is the central Mediterranean form, as best exemplified skeletally by the pre-dynastic Egyptians. Today the largest unified area in which this moderate-sized, intermediate Mediterranean racial type is found in greatest purity is the Arabian Peninsula."
www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/e-books/Races%20of%20Europe%20-%20C%20Coon/chapter-XI2.htm
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Oct 18, 2012 16:51:29 GMT -5
All Caucasoids are though uniform in morphology. What seperates us or the subracial divisions for the most part, is superficial traits like pigmentation (skin color, eye colour etc). I've been thinking about this comment for a rather long awhile and I've never recognized how valid it was until now. Let's say you have a Swede and a Greek for example. Take the Greek, lighten up his skin pigmentation, make the hair blonde or another light color, and change his eye color to blue. After this is done, compare him/her with the original Swede. You would NOT be able to tell the difference between them. I mean, how could you? This is partly why I laugh when people judge who's "White or not white" based on skin tone since anthropologists have never used skin tone when determining race. This exchanging example mentioned before works with any Caucasoid group (Euros/West/Central Asians/N.Africans). I've also changed my naive way of thinking from the previous "base race on skin-tone" theory. It's best to look at skull formation.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 18, 2012 19:02:22 GMT -5
The aforementioned Neolithic Near Eastern farmers (Mediterraneans) and earlier Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherers that populated Europe were both genetically and phenotypically distinct from one another. In fact, the latest studies indicate a non-neglible Northeast Asian affinity in the hunter-gatherers that is absent in the later Neolithic Middle Eastern cultivators. Because all Europeans are partially descended from these early hunter-gatherers, this Northeast Asian affinity is present in some form throughout the continent. By consequence, it is most pronounced in Northern Europe since the populations there trace a greater proportion of their ancestry to the early hunter-gatherers than do Southern Europeans. blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/09/across-the-sea-of-grass-how-northern-europeans-got-to-be-10-northeast-asian/Like Coon asserted, the proto-Mediterraneans constitute the main ancestors of the Hamitic peoples in North Africa and the Horn (via the Capsians), in addition to populations in the present-day Middle East. This has been repeatedly demonstrated, both genetically and skeletally; like in the craniometric study below by Froment (1994): "Les Égyptiens ne présentaient en outre aucune homogénéité (fig. 2), comme le démontre les analyses multivariées de la forme de leur crâne (Froment 1991b, 1992a, 1992b, Simon 1992), qui concluent que les Égyptiens anciens se distinguent aussi bien des Mélano-Africains que des Européens et se situent en position intermédiaire, à proximité des habitants du Maghreb, du Levant, de l'Indus, des Nubiens et des Somaliens. Un gradient de forme régulier entre ces diverses populations interdit d'y établir des barriers "raciales"[...] On remarque que se regroupent au centre de la figure les proto-méditerranéens néolithiques, les Somali et Galla, la moyenne de la Nubie et les Indiens."
HU translation:
"The Egyptians, moreover, did not show any homogeneity (fig. 2), as multivariate analyses of cranial form show (Froment 1991b, 1992a, 1992b, Simon 1992), which conclude that the ancient Egyptians were distinct from Melano-Africans and Europeans alike and are situated in an intermediate position, near the inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Levant, the Indus, the Nubians and the Somalis. A consistent gradiant between these diverse populations precludes the establishment of "racial" barriers[...] We notice that in the center of the figure are clustered the Neolithic Proto-Mediterraneans, the Somali and Galla, the Nubian average and the Indians."
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Oct 18, 2012 23:15:20 GMT -5
The aforementioned Neolithic Near Eastern farmers (Mediterraneans) and earlier Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherers that populated Europe were both genetically and phenotypically distinct from one another. In fact, the latest studies indicate a non-neglible Northeast Asian affinity in the hunter-gatherers that is absent in the later Neolithic Middle Eastern cultivators. Because all Europeans are partially descended from these early hunter-gatherers, this Northeast Asian affinity is present in some form throughout the continent. By consequence, it is most pronounced in Northern Europe since the populations there trace a greater proportion of their ancestry to the early hunter-gatherers than do Southern Europeans. I think modern day Europeans are a mix of Neolithic farms and Paleolithic Hunter/Gatherer's. There was an article that says most British men's ancestry goes back to these Neolithic farmers. The 2 groups might be genetically distinct but I'm guessing they are still similar since all Europeans are similar, just made up of different tribes. Actual sub-Saharan African Negroids have never built a successful civilization. They used to and still do live in mud huts with no actual infrastructure such as (proper roads, clean water, enough food, etc). Not to mention the plentiful diseases that this continent is a host of.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 19, 2012 22:30:12 GMT -5
I think modern day Europeans are a mix of Neolithic farms and Paleolithic Hunter/Gatherer's. There was an article that says most British men's ancestry goes back to these Neolithic farmers. The 2 groups might be genetically distinct but I'm guessing they are still similar since all Europeans are similar, just made up of different tribes. Actual sub-Saharan African Negroids have never built a successful civilization. They used to and still do live in mud huts with no actual infrastructure such as (proper roads, clean water, enough food, etc). Not to mention the plentiful diseases that this continent is a host of. There are basically only two West Eurasian components: a Mediterranean component and an aboriginal European component (the latter of which, as seen, has some built-in Northeast Asian affinity). All others are derivatives of these two original West Eurasian elements, sometimes mixed with other alien components. This can clearly be observed in the work of the genetic company DNA Tribes. Like Coon asserted and the craniometric data indicates, the Mediterranean/Middle Eastern component peaks in Gulf Arab populations and Hamitic peoples in North Africa and the Horn. Varying degrees of Sub-Saharan admixture are also present in the latter, but they are ultimately secondary to the majority Mediterranean/Middle Eastern element. Modern Levantine populations are a mixture of this Mediterranean/Middle Eastern component and the aboriginal European component, with an overweight toward the Mediterranean/Middle Eastern side. Caucasus populations are split almost exactly between the Mediterranean/Middle Eastern component and the European component. Southern European populations have both the aboriginal European component and the Mediterranean/Middle Eastern component, with an overweight toward the autochthonous European side. The aboriginal European component is highest in Eastern and Northern Europeans, who generally have quite low Mediterranean/Middle Eastern influence. Actual sub-Saharan African Negroids have never built a successful civilization. They used to and still do live in mud huts with no actual infrastructure such as (proper roads, clean water, enough food, etc). Not to mention the plentiful diseases that this continent is a host of. Huts are an often misunderstood form of technology. They were used throughout history to great effect by many populations around the world, including in Europe. Like the Celt hut below, for example: Sometimes what has come to pass as a Sub-Saharan cultural trait may not necessarily have always been so, as we saw earlier with the red ochre application ritual.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 19, 2012 23:08:48 GMT -5
Prehistoric Nubians were thinner nosed than the later Negroid populations that came to settle there, yet the climate has got more arid. There were no "wandering thin nosed Blacks" into the region. Nor was it a flat nosed Negroid population in situ who adapted (if that was the case the prehistoric remains should be platyrrhine). That's the irony. Luckily, though, we now have actual uniparental DNA data to guide us on the Neolithic through to Christian-period inhabitants of the Nubian region. The Meroitic populations did not possess the archaic Sub-Saharan paternal haplogroups A and B that characterize both modern and ancient Nilotic populations. They instead largely belonged to the Hamitic haplogroup E as well as haplogroup F.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 22, 2012 1:26:44 GMT -5
Hadn't heard of Grover Krantz until the other day, so I looked him up. Interesting fellow. It seems he did a lot of groundbreaking work. He's also apparently remembered for being the first serious scientist to attempt to tackle the Bigfoot question. In any event, I managed to track down two book reviews of his Climatic Races and Descent Groups. Here's an excerpt from one of them (not sure how accurate this is, though): "While not questioning the reality or validity of these stereotypical categories, Krantz finds them insufficient for a completely satisfactory classification of Homo sapiens. His scheme utilizes two different types of quite independent, cross-cutting categories: climatic races and descent groups. Climatic races are aggregates of similarly adapted people, with no implication that they share common ancestry or membership in a common gene pool. Descent groups are categories of people with similar frequencies of genetic traits, which are "distributed largely by factors of change and breeding limitations" (p. 15). Traits which have been used in making racial distinctions are similarly separated into two major groupings: classical traits and genetic traits[...]
By now we have enough background to assess the author's underlying Bauplan or mental construct. The classical traits show coherent patterns of distribution because they represent responses to a small subset of environmental factors; these traits can be used to recognize convenient, traditional subdivisions of our species. The "genetic traits" show such diverse, difficult-to-summarize distributions that it is more convenient to attribute their frequency differences to accidents of one sort or another. Those few cases where inconvenient distributions correlate with disease patterns are referred to as medical traits and ignored entirely.
The result of all this is immensely disappointing, if only because Professor Krantz combines such evidently abundant factual knowledge about trait distributions, and such evident powers of critical thought and synthesis with either - and I cannot be sure of which - an absence of knowledge about or an outright rejection of truly vast realms of theoretical and applied human population genetics. Since this is a book review rather than a survey of the literature, I cannot here list all of the truly excellent sources which help to build the present near-unquestionable case that various polymorphisms are due to far more than chance. However, a good start can be gotten from chapter 25 of The Distribution of Human Blood Groups and Other Polymorphisms by Mourant et al. (1976). Livingstone's Abnormal Hemoglobins in Human Populations (1967) makes just as excellent sense of the "medical traits" which Krantz finds of such little value for his interpretational scheme.
I should add (lest I sound too condemning) that, from a historical perspective, if Krantz hadn't propounded his theory, it probably would have been necessary for another physical anthropologist to have invented it. Climatic Races and Descent Groups is thus likely to stand as a way station to the next stage, when many more physical anthropologists will begin seriously to entertain the idea that it is worthwhile to investigate the world distribution of each trait (regardless of whether it is single-locus or polygenic) in an attempt to discover why its particular pattern exists[...]
In the final analysis, much data is summarized in Climatic Races of Descent Groups, and there is a lot of potential mental exercise for critical student minds in training. But the way is still clear for a state-of-the-art synthesis of data and theory."
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/676447?uid=3739464&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21101180503833
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 22, 2012 18:55:26 GMT -5
I've read some of those reviews. I actually left out the more scathing parts of the book review. It basically asserted that Krantz was out-of-touch with the latest developments in the genetics field, and this was reflected in his work and selected bibliography. The other review was entirely negative, with no bright spots. Krantz' posited climatic races include a "Saharan" category which he believes includes thin nosed Somalis. I searched for the terms "Ethiopian", "Ethiopians", "Ethiopia", "Somali", "Somalis", "Somalia", etc. in the Google Books snippet preview of Krantz' book. These Hamitic populations/areas don't appear to be mentioned anywhere in that work. He regards the whole of Sub-Sahara Africa to be a single geographical race, and doesn't take much Caucasoid gene flow into account. He doesn't recognise a Negroid taxon, but simply a "Saharan" Krantz does seem to acknowledge the existence of a Negroid (and Caucasoid and Mongoloid) taxon. He also liberally uses the expression Negro Africa. As a positive though, he does maintain that wavy hair was most likely introduced to the few Horners who have it, by Caucasoids. A lot more than a few Horners have wavy hair texture. Some even have light-colored hair (and eyes too) to go along with it. Individual frequencies of the trait vary, though, between ethnic group and clan. From Coon's actual analysis of said communities: "In hair form the Ethiopians also have their own system, which hardly agrees with ours. It has three divisions; l chai, meaning straight, gofari, meaning curly, and another term which signifies extremely negroid, or peppercorn. Actually, no single highland Ethiopian with straight hair was measured in the author's series, although one apparently straight-haired Agau was seen. Among the Amharas, 80 per cent were called curly, and the rest straight, according to native terminology; among the Gallas the same 20 per cent of straight were found, while among the Sidamos this rose to 30 per cent. Actually, the gofari class included both curly hair in a Hadhramaut sense, and frizzly hair of a negroid character. Hair which the Ethiopians themselves considered negroid was confined to a few individuals who were to all purposes pure negroes, and undoubtedly slaves.
According to our own classification, 40 per cent of the Amharas have non-negroid, wavy or curly hair, and the rest frizzly; the non-negroid class among the Gallas is 30 per cent, among the Somalis 86 per cent. Some of the Somalis actually have straight hair. Although our series of Sidamos is too small to be reliable, it indicates that these people are not as frequently negroid in hair form as are the Amharas." Krantz' personal position was that climatic adaptations antedate Homo sapiens, and originated in Erectine ancestors over a million syears ago who he believed already showed different nasal indices, other skeletal traits, hair texture and possibly pigmentation In that case, I wonder what Krantz would make of the discovery that pale skin is a relatively recent adaptation.
My two cents: Krantz was sentencing himself to obsolence (and leaving himself vulnerable to further charges of quackery) by ignoring the latest developments in the field of genetics. Physical traits matter, but at the end of the day, they are largely controlled by genes.
|
|
|
Post by truth999 on Oct 23, 2012 9:46:31 GMT -5
This is a point that really gets to me. Skin color! It was colonialism that come through the world raping of indigenous groups of people's in there own lands resource and goods and made them feel bad because they where not WHITE enough and had a complex over there skin color. What a weak argument to make. Really think about it, how shallow is this skin color that makes a whole group of people LESS than human throughout history you have this race domination of skin color making them more worthy to take their goods and services. And its still going on. The old school of Epicurean groups trying to fit in the flood and the descendants of Noah to fit in the human race. What if not all people died in the flood? What if a group of people are NOT from the seed of Noah? To label a group of people Hamitic Semitic, and Jafitic are the problem trying to figure out if people are cursed to make the other groups feel better about there haplogroup? Its the old story of them VS us that killing this world. Why not learn to label these groups or haplogroups as a culture of people instead of calling them Hamitic, Semitic, and Jefitic lumping them all into these groups. Let them be who they are HUMANS, being of a group of cultures that enhances the diversity of the globe we live in. Celebrate it and dance with it as it is. I am so sick of people trying to say oh I am more whiter than you so I am more superior. Gees get over it.
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Oct 23, 2012 14:06:24 GMT -5
Skin color is probably, if not, the WORST way somebody can base race off of. It has nothing to do with racial make-up at all. You can have a white Negroid (albino), does that make them Caucasoid though? of course not.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 23, 2012 18:57:02 GMT -5
The old school of Epicurean groups trying to fit in the flood and the descendants of Noah to fit in the human race. What if not all people died in the flood? What if a group of people are NOT from the seed of Noah? To label a group of people Hamitic Semitic, and Jafitic are the problem trying to figure out if people are cursed to make the other groups feel better about there haplogroup? Its the old story of them VS us that killing this world. I wouldn't read too much into that. As explained previously, the way the term "Hamitic" is used on this forum is strictly in the classic ethnological sense. It is not intended to have any religious connotations.
The skin color mutation described above is the same one referred to earlier in the thread i.e. the [url= Ala111Thr/rs1426654 allele of the SLC24A5 gene that is associated with lighter skin coloration in West Eurasians. It is also frequent in the Hamitic peoples of North Africa and the Horn, at frequencies ranging from around 65% to 95% . However, it is almost entirely absent from Negroid peoples, except at low frequencies in admixed groups like the Fulani, Hottentot/Khoi, Maasai and African Americans. That SLC24A5 variant is thus not actually exclusively European like that 2007 Science article linked to in my previous post suggests. It is in reality West Eurasian. Researchers at the time of the article's publication thought that it was exclusively European because they had limited data on the global frequency of the polymorphism. As more data started to trickle in, a later publication by Connelly et al. reported lower frequencies in other broad geographical regions, including Hamitic areas in North Africa and the Horn. The individual population frequencies of the allele are now available on the Allele Frequency Database (ALFRED). Note that that SLC24A5 pigmentation variant also didn't evolve that long ago, relatively speaking. This implies that the earliest peoples with Caucasoid skeletal traits were not particularly light-skinned. They were instead most probably brown-skinned.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 25, 2012 20:33:10 GMT -5
He has a discussion on page 133 of eastern Africans, describing them as having tall and prominent noses, curly (not wooly) hair and narrow tooth sizes. I've perused that book further, and Krantz refers to the 'natural inhabitants' of the Sahara and Arabia as representing his Saharan climatic race. He does apparently include Horners collectively in that taxon, which he admits has little support in the way of evidence. "The natural inhabitants of the Sahara and Arabia are the biggest blank spot in this whole scheme. In spite of suggestions there is no solid evidence of a Bushman population for this area. By the rules given here the natural classical traits can be predicted. They would be tall and lineal in build, skins would be very dark or black, hair and eye color would also be dark, and hair form should be curly. Noses ideally should be fairly tall and prominent, and also narrow if the tooth size permitted, as I suspect it would to some degree. People fitting this description can be found in parts of eastern Africa, and many of the characteristics are common along the southern fringe of the Sahara itself. The most novel part of this description is the combination of Negroid skin characteristics with a mainly Caucasoid skull, topped with curly hair, and put on a very lineal body. Actually this trait combination should be no surprise for this area in view of what is known about climatic adaptations. What is surprising is the nearly total demise of this type under pressure of agriculturalists from both north and south. Since there is only modest direct evidence to support this Saharan climatic race it should not be taken as a proven fact." There's also one revealing passage where Krantz indicates that "logic would seem to force the conclusion" that his Caucasoids were largely blonde, with light eyes to boot. Except for a few individuals mainly concentrated in northwestern Europe, that description would by default rule out most modern peoples of predominant West Eurasian ancestry (who are neither blonde nor light-eyed in the main). "It would be tempting to add that all Caucasoids, at least those to the north of the Mediterranean, were also light-eyed and blond-haired. Logic would seem to force this conclusion, but it seems so extreme that emotion pulls away from it. This would picture Neandertals in "Nordic" skins as perhaps the only pure representatives of that coloration pattern." Basically, Krantz's hypothesized "Saharan" and "Caucasoid" climatic races sound like a phenotype-based version of the (real) Middle Eastern and aboriginal European genetic components, respectively. Indeed, based on blood work, he suggests in one passage that the populations in the Horn may be an extension of those in Arabia. "The next major low spot of M would be in western and central Africa where it is mostly under 50%. This contrasts with eastern and southern Africa where about 60% is the central tendency. Eastern Africa would appear to be an extension or flow-over from the high area of Arabia where there is over 70% M. In southern Africa the 60% or more M is an isolated Bushman phenomenon." With respect to Negroid peoples, Krantz regards them as being of the same original stock as Pygmies and the 'natural inhabitants' of the equatorial region. He writes that this Pygmy race evolved relatively recently (much like Coon, Cole, and others indicate and the skeletal record suggests, at least with regard to Negroid peoples). He classifies Bushmen separately in their own so-called 'climatic race'. "The Negroids have dark skin color, wider and flatter noses than most of the world, and a spiral mat of cranial hair with less than average body and facial hair. They often have notable lip eversion, and while they are about as tall as Caucasoids they tend to have more slender bodies[...]
Even if the natural inhabitants of this equatorial region were of normal body size their noses would be notably broad and nonprojecting. This is the case with the modern Negro peoples who live there. The Pygmy nose form takes this to an extreme because of the added influence of very small body size[...]
Prior to sapienization two of the climatic races in the western world, Caucasoid and Saharan, were most likely just as they were later. The Pygmy race didn't exist at all" Yet he rejects the reality that most eastern Africans are an interracial clinal (Caucasoid-Negroid) population. Horners are not merely a mixed race group but rather of the same ancestral stock as most North Africans, with varying degrees of secondary Khoisanoid and Negroid admixture. Actual mixed race Arab-Bantu groups already exist in East Africa, along the Swahili Coast in places like Zanzibar. These Swahili groups lack the dark Caucasoid look that typifies most Horners. Craniometrically, they are also largely Negroid, whereas Horners actually cluster with West Eurasians in general. This is because the Swahili are of Bantu (Negroid) origin, whereas the actual skeletal foundation in Horners is the same as that of other Afro-Asiatic peoples in North Africa and Arabia and has altered little over the years. Further, no mixed Swahili populations are predominantly Duffy positive. Horners, on the other hand, are largely Duffy positive like other Afro-Asiatic communities. There are many other clues that show that Horners do not owe their Caucasoid traits to invading populations, but rather to their own Hamitic ancestors. For example, they have world highs of certain rare, downstream Middle Eastern maternal lineages; clades which are barely found anywhere else today, such as the mtDNA haplogroup I. The fact that Horners share the same E1b1b paternal lineages with North Africans likewise implies not-too-distant common ancestry. In short, Horners did not receive their Caucasoid traits from recent migrants because they themselves are already predominantly of West Eurasian ancestry. Modern genome wide analyses have made this abundantly clear. So have HLA antigen studies, among other genetic analyses. "HLA antigens of the Somali population are not categorised as well as those of other international ethnic groups. We analysed the HLA antigens of 76 unrelated Somalis who lived in the west of England. HLA -A, -B, -C and DRB1 typing was performed by polymerase chain reaction using sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes (PCR-SSOP) at a low-intermediate resolution level. Phenotype frequency, gene frequency and haplotype frequency were used to study the relationship between Somalis and other relevant populations. The antigens with highest frequencies were HLA -A1, A2, and A30; B7, B51 and B39; Cw7, Cw16, Cw17, Cw15 and Cw18; DR 13, DR17, DR8 and DR1. HLA haplotypes with high significance and characteristics of the Somali population are B7-Cw7, B39-Cw12, B51-Cw16, B57-Cw18. The result of HLA class I and class II antigen frequencies show that the Somali population appear more similar to Arab or Caucasoid than to African populations. The results are consistent with hypothesis, supported by cultural and historical evidence, of common origin of the Somali population."
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3148.2006.00694_52.x/abstract
"Blood samples from members of the Oromo and Amhara ethnic groups of central Ethiopia were tested for 10 erythrocyte protein systems: ACP1, ADA, AK1, CA2, ESD, G6PD, GLO1, HBβ, PGD, and PGM1. Differences between the two samples were relatively slight and not statistically significant. Gene frequency distributions were then analyzed in the context of the genetics of the African and Arabian peoples. Considering the erythrocyte enzyme data, the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples. There is evidence for close genetic affinity among the Cushitic- and Semitic-speaking population groups of the Horn."
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6300%281996%298:4%3C505::AID-AJHB11%3E3.0.CO;2-Q/abstract
|
|