| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
Apparently V-88 originated among Sub-Saharan Africans, however we also see many cases of it in Europe and the UK.
How would it have ended up in these places and who would have carried it there?
I have never heard of this before actually; do you have a Source?
It could be erroneous. (You know, the last study of the Basque population had about 0.5% haplogroup Q1a. Which is very odd. This is a mostly Mongoloid haplogroup. But I wonder if some of the subclades of Q1a are Indo-European? Sorry to change the subject a little.)
The Q1a in Basque people could be an error. So if R1b-V88 is in British people; that may have came out erroneous as well.
Goodness, where did you get the idea that V-88 originated among Sub-Saharan Africans? The yDna R1 lineages arose in Eurasia. The leading theory, one which I think is supported by the currently available evidence, is that the V-88 branch of R1b moved south from the Levant into Africa, probably with Chadic speaking pastoralists, although today it appears in different language groups.Originally Posted by Learning_Genetics
Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci
V-88 did not orginate in Africa
it originated in Anatolia, from where it left with catlle toward sub-Saharan Africa
there is also V-88 in Jordan, where V-88 passed before entering Africa
I don't know about V-88 in Europe and the UK
I'd like more details and sources
Here is some good easy to follow information from this site with charts and maps to get a better understanding. This is not final of course and there are and will still be many ongoing studies and data might change.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...1b_Y-DNA.shtml
Hm, really interesting that you noticed that R1b-V88 was in the Chadic people; who speak Afro-Asiatic. Interesting ... I never noticed this correlation before.
I would say that it is probably very likely the first R1, or R1a or R1b individuals were very likely Negroid; before becoming fair-skinned; during which these haplogroups mutated in Central Asia. Some of the R1b individuals may have stayed Negroid; during which they migrated back to Africa and managed to take an Afro-Asiatic dialect with them, possibly.
Unless, these paternal R1b Chadic ancestors had fair-skin and mixed with the black africans there. But how did the white skin disappear?
It would also explain other mysteries seen in different ethnic groups/races; such as the Finnish having N1c as well as the Turkic speaking Yakuts. (who are clearly Mongoloid and migrated North into Siberia from Lake Baikal, near modern day Mongolia.)
Maybe all haplogroups out of Africa; even the descending haplogroups of Y-DNA F; were still Negroid when they made it to Asia. And then for example; all European/Asian haplogroups. (I1, I2, G2a, E-V13, T, R1b, R1a, J1, J2, N1c etc.) all developed into fair-skinned Europeans (after breeding with each other) during or after the Mesolithic.
(The same applies for the Mongoloid East Asians who carry Y-DNA C, Q, N, and O for example.)
Most important question is, when they did get there?
Could it be a Hyxos, who were a conglomerat of Semites and probably Indoeuropeans?
Or maybe some unknown earlier migration?
And did they create in later times Sao civilization?
What is this unending fascination with pigmentation? Whatever the original R1b V88 people looked like, their descendents will look like the people with whom they share an autosomal signature. So, a V88 person in the Cameroons will look SSA, a SIWA Berber will look Berber, a Levantine will look Levantine, a Sardinian Sardinian and a Brit will look British. Is it really still necessary to explain that "appearance" snps aren't located on the y chromosome? In six-to-eight generations all trace of the original autosomal signature of the y ancestor can disappear if there is no additional admixture with that original group.
Nor is it helpful to use terms like "Negroid" or "Caucasoid" when speaking about populations that lived 20,000 years ago. Even were they accurate terms, they are modern "groupings".
Well according to wikipedia, R1b is probably around 18,000 years old. So that is plenty of time for it's descendants to mutate into different ethnic groups and races.
The European Y-DNA Haplogroup I (from the Mesolithic) is probably or only a few thousand years older than R1 itself. So if all descendants of I1, I2 or R1a and R1b were Negroid before some of them became fair-skinned or mutated into other races; it's very likely that in only 18,000 years of R1b mutation; some of these Negroid R1b carriers migrated back into Africa and mixed with the local population, without much problem.
Interestingly; in theory...this could also suggest that the Afro-Asiatic language group may have originally been Negroid in origin.
Yes Angela but you must remember most of these Y chromosomes mutated during the Ice Age. Especially the ones that descend from haplogroup F.
It makes better sense that there may have been a Negroid population in Central Asia during the Ice Age. One group of the R1b individuals may have migrated back into Africa where it was warmer; and bred with the natives. The rest of the R1b individuals (and other haplogroup carriers) developed into all the other races.
Edit: My hypothesis also explains why the subclade of E1b1b (E-V13) is almost exclusively found in Europe and almost absent in Africa. (Where E1b1b originated.)
Also that E-V13 individuals are fair-skinned; while most other E1b1b individuals in other subclades tend to be dark-skinned. It is almost like the reverse effect of Central Asian R1b and the subclade R1b-V88 in Chadic Africans. (if you get my point)
R1b V88 split from R1b1 some 10,500 years BP in Central Asia then it started its re migration into Africa via the near east probably when the Sahara was good pasture ground expanding further to Central African regions. At least with today's understanding.
This is not any extraordinary fascination, but simply another factor of some tribe.
The same you can say about "fascination with language", "fascination
with migration", "fascination with Y-hg", fascination with religion", ect.
For example, Papuans have their own appearance and this is part of their identity.
If some group of them would came into f.e. Europe and keep their apperance or
not, then in both cases it would be interesting subject for study and in that fact
is nothing wrong and there is none shocking fascination in that kind of curiousity.
Whatever our ancestors from 20,000 years ago looked like, we can be sure they didn't look much like modern people.
Regardless, you are losing sight of the fact that if R1b V88 in Africa traces a "pastoralist" migration we are talking about time periods long after 18,000 years ago. Indeed, we'd probably be looking at some period around 4,000 to 2,000 BC, probably closer to 2,000 BC, by which time the inhabitants of the Levant were far from "Negroid" looking.
See:http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/01...-speakers.html
(If someone has a markedly different age for the expansion, please post...)
This is a statue from Sumeria dated to around this time period. It appears that to some degree the "Near Eastern" phenotype had already coalesced.
Neolithic populations in Europe were already extremely "modern" looking by 3300 BC. See the reconstruction of Oetzi below. He possessed the full complement of modern skin depigmentation snps. When I first saw the reconstruction, before any genetic tests were done, I said he looked like an old and battered Italian peasant from the Alps or the Apennines.
This Tyrolean rifleman looks like his long lost son, except for the fact that he's red haired.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/ne...photo/82092554
On that map: http://drakenberg.weebly.com/uploads...533655.jpg?834 is written, that it was 15.000 ybp.
So, that kind of guessing is probably not trustworthy...
This is something reasonable.
I used the wrong word...obsession, not fascination.
Like its northern counterpart (R1b-M269), R1b-V88 is associated with the domestication of cattle in northern Mesopotamia. Both branches of R1b probably split soon after cattle were domesticated, approximately 10,500 years ago (8,500 BCE)
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...A.shtml#Africa
Im just quoting Eupidia. Maciamo is usually quite up to date with latest research and it says probably, so Im sure we might have better understanding in the future
So you are saying that these R1b-V88 men may have looked like Levantine people? Or maybe Egyptians?
Last time I checked; Chadic people were extremely dark-skinned Africans. One of the darkest African phenotypes I've ever seen. Even darker than African Americans; [whom some may have some white ancestors as well.] So where did the fair-skin go to? Wouldn't it make sense that these V-88 people were originally, and totally Negroid?
How do we know they were Pastoral people? Or the same pastoral V88 people? They could have been a separate migration?
Did you know N1c is a subclade of haplogroup N? Yet it is prevalent in both Europeans (Finnish) and Mongoloid East Asians (Yakuts). Yet, they both look nothing like each other.
I think 8000 years ago.
Here are the first herders from Asia in Africa :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabta_Playa
There may have been cattle as well.
2 groups of herders made into sub-Saharan Africa : T and R1b-V88.
IMO 2 different groups, but around the same age, when the Sahara was still a savanna.
They ousted the Bantoe HG to the west.
I presumed that, and I don't blame you.
I simply mention that as an example of that kind of dating...
They could looking even like Chinese but they were asimilated by locals, that's all.
The same as above.Did you know N1c is a subclade of haplogroup N? Yet it is prevalent in both Europeans (Finnish) and Mongoloid East Asians (Yakuts). Yet, they both look nothing like each other.
8,000 years ago seems reasonable. Would they be like La Brana man or Loschbour man? If they were; did they have Blue eyes too? Where did the Blue eyes go to? Did they become extinct after breeding with the African natives?
the genetic split can be much older than the geographic split, they don't have to coincideOn that map: http://drakenberg.weebly.com/uploads...533655.jpg?834 is written, that it was 15.000 ybp.
So, that kind of guessing is probably not trustworthy...
This is something reasonable.
Natural selection to suite the environment? besides we are not even sure if they had lighter eyes when there was a split
No, it wouldn't make sense.
Let's say that you move to Senegal tomorrow for work. While there you meet and marry a local Senegalese woman. Your son and his son and his son and his son going forward for six to eight generations each marry and have offspring with native Senegalese women. At the end of that time your descendents will not bear any resemblance to you whatsoever. Now, in this case, it would have been a tribe, but they would still have been totally outnumbered, and eventually the resemblance would be gone, except perhaps for traces.
The Fulani are a case in point. Those Fulani (Fulbe) who believe they are more "pure" than the servant class believe that they look "different" from said servant class, because of their noses and other features. I have no idea if that would be borne out in autosomal testings, but some Fulani do indeed look somewhat different from other SSAs. It remains to be seen how precisely the admixture occurred. However, you can see the same phenomenon in East Africa, where a back to Africa migration of people from the Levant is also proposed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fula_people#Genetics
When I was still a new-comer in the Area, people would ask me: Can you tell Fulɓe and Rimayɓe apart? (aDa waawi sendude Pullo e maccuDo na?). Sometimes, the question would be put to me, upon my arrival at a gathering of people whom I didn't know, and I would be asked to point out the fulɓe and the Maccuɓe, or to say which was which between two men seated next to each other. At the time, I thought of this as a test of my knowledge, since people knew I was studying the language and life of the people. But on reflection, I see that it was also a test of themselves, which was meant to confirm, that even to a fairly ignorant foreigner, the Fulɓe and maccuɓe were easy to differentiate as types. The main differences I was supposed to notice were visual. The ideal is that Fulɓe are tall, slim, and light-skinned; They have thin straight noses, and their hair tends to be long and curly. In contrast, the rimmaybe are stocky, tending towards corpulence, dark-skinned with flat 'squashed' noses, and short kinky hair.
Researchers suggest that human populations over the past 50,000 years have changed from dark-skinned to light-skinned and vice versa as they migrated to different UV zones,[4] and that such major changes in pigmentation may have happened in as little as 100 generations (~2,500 years) through selective sweeps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Age
I disagree with this analysis. Look at the Hispanics/Mestizo people. They are a mix of European Spaniards and indigenous Native American indians. While their skin is obviously more fairer than Native Americans' skin, they still have tan skin; not skin that is very fair at all. There are also (although rare) there are also Hispanics who have blonde hair; from the European admixture. But it is darker than the blonde hair seen in European white people; and is more of a light brown.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
