Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sat 29 Apr 2006 00:25 Post subject:
William wrote:
It would be wise to clear a few things up, some of which have been addressed already elsewhere; but they have validity here, in light of what was posted above.
Hi, if some of those things are basic primers on these specialised data, a link would be appreciated.
William wrote:
Quote:
But note that the cDe gene is nevertheless present in a fraction of the gene pool almost everywhere in the world. [...] Does it follow that once upon a time everybody in sub-Saharan Africa was homozygous for cDe, and in the rest of the world nobody had this gene? Should Europeans, Asiatics, and Americans who carry the cDe gene be presumed to have some Negro ancestry? There is no basis whatsoever to think so. The gene cDe is almost cosmopolitan in distribution, though for some unknown reason it reaches its highest frequency in Africa.
Also quoted are cDe frequencies from Mourant in 1954:
EUROPE
Spaniards ..... 3.7%
English ....... 2.8%
Germans ....... 2.6%
Danes ......... 1.8%
Italians ...... 1.6%
Basques ....... 0.5%
It is true that cDe is found in many populations of the world, some with no apparent recent connection to sub-Saharans. However, it seems as though a little more has been learned since 1954 and 1962. In fact, the study quoting it in the post above was done in 1978, and the scientists performing the study consider it to be a marker of sub-Saharan origin in Sicilians. There are others from that time and later that also do.
Does this cDe gene have anything to do with mDNA?
Quote:
According to Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza, in The History and Geography of Human Genes [trans. Sarah Thorne (Princeton: Princeton University, 1994) pages 132-133], as far as anyone can tell, our ancestors before the great African diaspora of 60 kya all had "cDe." This was the original haplotype. Hence, it is more common in sub-Saharan Africa than anywhere else, because it originated there. The others, CDe, cde, etc., arose later.
So, since it originated in sub-Saharan Africa, it is definitely a marker of sub-Saharan ancestry. But do we know if the marker as found in other populations is left over from the Great Diaspora, or from later sub-Saharan admixture. No, not really.
What do you mean by Great Diaspora here, is it the common genetic make-up of all humans after the two "Out of Africa" journeys. And sub-Saharan admixture would mean admixture after the dispersed original Africans had stablised into relatively distinct populations?
Quote:
But geography and history can be of assistance. In Eskimos and Javanese, the marker is probably a lingering trace of the Diaspora. In the Navajo, it could very well be of more recent (trans-Atlantic slave trade) origin, since American Indians are known to have mixed with African slaves.
Do you think mixture during the 16th and 19th century in America accounts for significant difference in the frequencies between the Navajo and all the others with the (20th century Egyptians) the next closest to the African levels?
Quote:
In Sicily and Greece (where it has also been found), we can conclude that it probably is not residual Diasporic material, but evidence of later admixture, perhaps during the time of the trans-Saharan slave trade. Why? This is because of these countries' locations in the Mediterranean near Africa, the fact that history mentions the presence of sub-Saharans in these areas, and the fact that several other sub-Saharan markers are present in these populations. All of this lends support to a more recent origin for cDe in these areas.
Can these gene frequencies tell us anything about the make-up of the Moors who invaded Spain?
William, I shall let you answer most of the above. I just wanted to mention two things. First, cDe has nothing to do with mtDNA. It is an autosomal gene that determines the Rh blood factor. See http://backintyme.com/ODR/viewtopic.php?t=823 for a complete explanation. Second, according to the mtDNA Table in Mitochondrial DNA affinities at the Atlantic fringe of Europe sub-Saharan mtDNA runs about 21.8% in north Africa. In other words, Berbers and other North Africans average about as much sub-Saharan admixture as Geraldo Rivera or Rosie Perez.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1072 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon 01 May 2006 14:57 Post subject:
Altertude wrote:
Hi, if some of those things are basic primers on these specialised data, a link would be appreciated.
Welcome. I'm not sure what kind of link you're looking for. I've provided all my sources. Do you mean, how did I draw the conclusions I made about blood proteins' being valid? That is mostly common sense. A quick search on the PubMed site will reveal a plethora of blood protein studies done in the past (as well as some recent ones). They have been studied literally for decades, and so it is well-known which ones are good for determing admixture. A gene specific to one population (as determined, amongst other things, by its occurrence at highest frequency in that population), can only appear in another population by admixture, either direct or indirect. There is no other explanation.
Altertude wrote:
(1)What do you mean by Great Diaspora here, is it the common genetic make-up of all humans after the two "Out of Africa" journeys. (2)And sub-Saharan admixture would mean admixture after the dispersed original Africans had stablised into relatively distinct populations?
(1) Yes, that is what I mean. (2) Yes, indeed.
Altertude wrote:
Do you think mixture during the 16th and 19th century in America accounts for significant difference in the frequencies between the Navajo and all the others with the (20th century Egyptians) the next closest to the African levels?
The frequency of foreign blood group markers doesn't necessarily correlate to the levels of true admixture. It can, but doesn't always. Some blood proteins undergo selection, and so their frequency can be higher than the true admixture. Such markers should be used to show that admixture occurred, but not for quantification. Those that aren't selected for can be used to quantify. But Native Americans have absorbed a significant amount of sub-Saharan and European DNA.
Altertude wrote:
Can these gene frequencies tell us anything about the make-up of the Moors who invaded Spain?
The Moors (and Saracens) were a heterogeneous population. There were Arabs, Berbers, and even a few sub-Saharans involved. And many native Iberians who converted to Islam were later referred to as "Moors." For example, I have a book called My Sicily, by Giacamo Peraino (1962), and the following information is present:
Quote:
During the Saracen rule of Sicily, the population grew tremendously. The newcomers were diverse: Iberians, Arabs, Berbers, Black Africans, Syrians, Egyptians, and a host of others from the Middle East. Despite the resettling of a few Muslims to the mainland after the conclusion of the Saracen period, the vast majority of these immigrants' descendants were absorbed into the mainstream, enriching the already multi-ethnic population of Sicily which was formed from the intermingling of natives, Phoenicians, Greeks, Carthaginians, and Romans, all of whom had slaves of diverse origin. Later, Frenchmen, Spaniards, and Germanic peoples would contribute their legacy, both cultural and genetic.
Last edited by William on Wed 28 Jun 2006 15:42; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 02 May 2006 02:54 Post subject: Moors
William wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Can these gene frequencies tell us anything about the make-up of the Moors who invaded Spain?
The Moors (and Saracens) were a heterogeneous population. There were Arabs, Berbers, and even a few sub-Saharans involved. And many native Iberians who converted to Islam were later referred to as "Moors." For example, I have a book called My Sicily, by Giacamo Peraino (1962), and the following information is present:
Quote:
During the Saracen rule of Sicily, the population grew tremendously. The newcomers were diverse: Iberians, Arabs, Berbers, Black Africans, Syrians, Egyptians, and a host of others from the Middle East. Despite the resettling of a few Muslims to the mainland after the conclusion of the Saracen period, the vast majority of these immigrants' descendants were absorbed into the mainstream, enriching the already multi-ethnic population of Sicily which was formed from the intermingling of natives, Phoenicians, Greeks, Carthaginians, and Romans, all of whom had slaves of diverse origin. Later, Frenchmen, Spaniards, and Germanic peoples would contribute their legacy, both cultural and genetic.
Hi William, Altertude,
I totally agree with you, William. "Moor" was the term used to describe people belonging to a civilization more than a race. Moor was a person belonging to the Muslim Civilization. The term "Arab" comes close to its meaning and also mean the same in certain contexts. Most people that came to Europe are more precisely described as Arabs, mainly North Africans, but also Egyptians, Syrians and even Persians. Now the North Africans Moors were mainly Berbers, a type of people that has always been considered caucasian.
In any case, the Moors were a multiethnic community of people where the "meditarranean" type predominated but was not the only one that existed. And, certainly, since certain Black countries of Subsaharian Africa become Islamized, it was not strange Black Africans move freely through the Muslim world, from Spain to Persia and even Indonesia and China.
In average, though, Muslims in Europe were not completely different in apparience with Europeans, in the same way Turks are not totally different from their neighbours in Europe.
Now, Europeans usually painted Moors as Blacks just because the hate they have against the invaders. It is the same thing that happens when in the U.S. all Hispanics are described as Dominicans, and all Americans are described like blond Germans: stereotype.
The fact is Christian, Jews and Muslims in Europe were the same people, genetically speaking, but the difference was in religion.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
