search this blog

Friday, August 15, 2014

Near Eastern-like mtDNA from Chalcolithic Spain


Ancient DNA studies based solely on low resolution mtDNA sequences aren't exactly cutting edge science nowadays, but this one is still interesting and somewhat surprising in that it describes an unusually Near Eastern-like population from post-Neolithic Iberia. These people were probably either fresh off the boat colonists from the Near East, or, alternatively, the descendants of Neolithic farmers from the Near East who were yet to begin mixing with other distinct populations to produce the modern Iberian mtDNA gene pool. The authors of this paper favor the second scenario:

Abstract: Previous mitochondrial DNA analyses on ancient European remains have suggested that the current distribution of haplogroup H was modeled by the expansion of the Bell Beaker culture (ca 4,500–4,050 years BP) out of Iberia during the Chalcolithic period. However, little is known on the genetic composition of contemporaneous Iberian populations that do not carry the archaeological tool kit defining this culture. Here we have retrieved mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from 19 individuals from a Chalcolithic sample from El Mirador cave in Spain, dated to 4,760–4,200 years BP and we have analyzed the haplogroup composition in the context of modern and ancient populations. Regarding extant African, Asian and European populations, El Mirador shows affinities with Near Eastern groups. In different analyses with other ancient samples, El Mirador clusters with Middle and Late Neolithic populations from Germany, belonging to the Rössen, the Salzmünde and the Baalberge archaeological cultures but not with contemporaneous Bell Beakers. Our analyses support the existence of a common genetic signal between Western and Central Europe during the Middle and Late Neolithic and points to a heterogeneous genetic landscape among Chalcolithic groups.

Of course, these results don't debunk in any way the generally accepted theory that the enigmatic Bell Beakers first expanded from what is now Portugal. Indeed, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) from the paper shows Bell Beaker mtDNA from Germany (BBC) right next to mtDNA from late Neolithic Portugal (NPO). On the other hand, the El Mirador cave sample (MIR) appears most similar to mtDNA from Germany belonging to the middle Neolithic Salzmunde culture (SMC).


Citation...

Gómez-Sánchez D, Olalde I, Pierini F, Matas-Lalueza L, Gigli E, et al. (2014) Mitochondrial DNA from El Mirador Cave (Atapuerca, Spain) Reveals the Heterogeneity of Chalcolithic Populations. PLoS ONE 9(8): e105105. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105105

74 comments:

truth said...

Or the would have come from Central Europe, since he clusters with sample of Salzmünde culture population from Germany and the roughly contemporaneous Treilles culture population from France in the PCA of ancient populations as well as with the previous Rössen and Baalberge cultures from Germany in the hierarchical Ward clustering

Davidski said...

Judging by this abstract title from the upcoming ISBA conference, they probably passed through Hungary. So yeah, they might have also passed through Germany.

"Ancient mitochondrial and Y chromosomal DNA reveals the western Carpathian Basin as a corridor of the Neolithic expansion"

The other option is that they were island hoppers from Cyprus and western Anatolia, and moved both into Iberia and Central Europe at about the same time.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Isn't this group believed to have practiced cannibalism?

Davidski said...

Yes, the remains show signs of cannibalism. It looks like someone was hungry.

Other European farmers practiced headhunting.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Q8MHKQrFeEEC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=Cardial+farmers+heads+as+trophies&source=bl&ots=jcXTAI7bby&sig=GfE_zOna4DSI7th0f4M7CfLOEtg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hNrxU47dBsm78gXWw4CwDw&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Cardial%20farmers%20heads%20as%20trophies&f=false

Peaceful agrarian societies my ass.

Maju said...

Notice that this is the same overall site (Atapuerca) as the ancient autosomal DNA reported by Dasakali 2014, which clustered with modern Tuscans in the PCA. The mtDNA pool is fully in the range of mainline European Neolithic peoples (EEFs).

Also the study has a quite interesting bar graph (fig. 2) plotting the mtDNA pools of most European (and even Central Asian and Siberian) sequenced ancient populations, totaling 21 (mostly from Central Europe and SW Europe). I republished it with minimal annotations which help visualization.

You may think that "Ancient DNA studies based solely on low resolution mtDNA sequences aren't exactly cutting edge science nowadays" but the reality is that these are, jointly, the most comprehensive and extensive survey of ancient European genetics we have at our disposal. By comparison autosomal and Y-DNA data is very limited. This is why ancient mtDNA analysis must be at least a pillar of our attempts at understanding the demographic paleohistory of Europe.

In this regard, a year ago, I performed a similar analysis for the three best studied regions: Germany, Portugal and the Basque Country.

The striking "modernity" of the Basque mtDNA pool since very early and the "hyper-modernity" (all that missing H and more) of Neolithic Portuguese and German Bell Beaker (excluding Kromsdorf) are key elements of judgment in my understanding. Much more than the wild Y-DNA speculations I often read, based on nearly nothing.

spagetiMeatball said...

Well they were middle-eastern, so the head-hunting and beheading was a must...

spagetiMeatball said...

It's gotta suck being beheaded with stone though...

Davidski said...

Yes, it has a long tradition in the Middle East, and currently experiencing something of a revival.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Magdalenian people were also cannibals, as well as the use of skull caps. Seems we enjoyed eating each other until 4-5kya.

Maju said...

You guys are falling into ethnocentric absurdity. Or do not they do the same in Ukraine or Bosnia or, not so long ago, in Germany and Poland? Please: common sense and respect! David: I did not expect this from you.

The only one with common sense in the last comments is Chad, that rightly points that cannibalism and other forms of brutal violence that we rightly find disgusting are widespread.

I would add that those peoples you mention (and whose violence you probably aggrandize a bit happily) are actually your ancestors, as well as mine. Sure: not always our ancestors are to be liked (often not), but they are not the ancestors of West Asians (mostly not at least) but of Europeans in fact.

Maju said...

PS- And in this particular case, if I understand correctly, they were the victims, not the perpetrators.

spagetiMeatball said...

Maju, relax dude...just a joke. I'm from west asia, and heads are rollin' alright.

Btw, I don't think beheading can be limited to any place or group. It really is a universal human past-time. Both pre- and post-mortem.

About Time said...

This is a good point. Agriculture was not so great. Cramped living conditions and bad nutrition can create disordered social behavior. At extremes of distress and hunger, extreme behavior.

The hunters held onto their old ways, maybe for good reasons. They heard of chaos in the farmer settlements. Maybe they thought their old ways, with tribal law, loyalty in the group, etc were much better than selfishness leading at times to extreme disorder in the farmer villages.

Arguably the law givers were people who knew both sides, the old tribal law and egalitarianism of the north and the (sometimes) beneficial agricultural tech from the south.

About Time said...

Here's a weird idea by the way: Maybe the Beaker folk were "Judges." Semi itinerant (traveling a circuit to hear cases in local villages, as in the Anglo-Saxon tradition). They could be traders too with goods and info from other villages.

The beaker itself might have been a mead or ritual beverage used during hearing/discussion of a case. To loosen the tongue and provide an inducement for peace.

They would be semi armed as a symbol of their authority and for protection while traveling.

If this kind if disorder was widespread in farmer villages (violence tends to be more contagious in overcrowded living conditions), the Beakers might have emerged as a social institution to stabilize the frontier.

Like in the story of Sargon. Strong men from the northern frontier establishing order among the many farmers. Would make sense of the patriarchal and legal emphasis plus migratory life in the first Semitic cultures.

Maybe the ProtoSemitic Beakers (?) emerged along the frontier and permeated the European farmers, then spread all the way into the Mideast when they were needed to settle disorder.

About Time said...

Thinking out loud here. If chaos was spreading in farmer settlements (the layers of ashes from burned settlements in Cucuteni-Tripol'e strongly suggest bad events), an opposite response might be the Indo-Iranian reaction:

Running away to the east as pastoralists, and shunning agriculture. Any villages encountered would be shunned or subdued (hierarchical IA pattern) to "contain" the peasant's potential for chaotic behavior.

BB might have been a compromise that tried to be more harmonious. Using law and mediation instead of overt violence or avoidance (both failing strategies). "Shepherding" the villagers in an objective duty-bound way to promote long term order and peace.

Davidski said...

Maju,

mtDNA is better than a poke in the eye, that's for sure. But when all is said and done it's just a big tease, because we're usually discussing here male mediated population expansions and the effects of these expansions on the genome-wide genetics of present-day populations. So we really need ancient Y-DNA and full genomes.

Maju said...

Hmm... Male-mediated population expansions, unless sustained in many successive waves, should only have a limited impact in the overall genetic pool (example: Mexico). Instead the migration of large groups without much gender bias clearly has the potential of radically altering the overall genetic pool (example: USA). Military-commercial conquest alone won't almost alter the genetic pool (examples: Angola, Indonesia, etc.)

Actually what we see in Ancient Europe is that the mtDNA pools changed a lot. First because of the Neolithic colonization but later also because of ill-understood Chalcolithic or even later processes that I largely attribute to Megalithism (although maybe Bell Beaker and even Metal Age processes also played a role in certain areas). The root of these mtDNA pool altering processes can't be in male-only migrations nor in conquests with limited immigration: it must imply whole populations migrating, women included.

The only surveyed place in Europe that seems to have experienced little such change since Neolithic is the Basque Country. While the only surveyed place in Europe able to provide all the excess mtDNA H we find today was Neolithic Portugal, which incidentally played key roles in both Megalithism and Bell Beaker.

As I often say, we need more ancient Atlantic samples to understand all this better but to my eyes the data clearly supports a recolonization of much of Chalcolithic Europe (particularly Central Europe) from Atlantic sources, of which Ancient Portugal may be just a possible source, not necessarily the only one. It was no doubt a complex recolonization with admixture but it was also without doubt a recolonization with lots of migrant women implicated, not just men.

Davidski said...

My point is that male mediated expansions like the Proto-Indo-European expansion can only be tracked effectively via Y-haplogroups and full genomes.

On the PCA above it's probably obvious to most that the Corded Ware (CWC), Unetice (UC), Bronze Age Kazakhstan (BAK) and Bronze Age Siberian (BAS) samples represent R1a-rich populations radiating from the Proto-Indo-European homeland on the steppe.

But the CWC sample already looks very mixed, probably because women were readily incorporated into these groups, like always. So imagine if we didn't have that R1a from the Corded Ware remains from Eulau. Chances are most people would not be convinced by this mtDNA data, and argue that maybe Corded Ware were mostly R1b and I1.

Actually, if we didn't have the R1a from all those Siberian Kurgans, I bet there'd be lots of bozos online trying to argue all sorts of things about the paternal origins of those samples.

Davidski said...

Here's what I'm talking about...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22597/abstract

Now, would testing the mtDNA at these sites tell us anything about Celtic migrations? Probably not.

Maju said...

... "male mediated expansions like the [early] Indo-European expansion can only be tracked effectively via Y-haplogroups"

Possibly. But for that we would need much more ancient Y-DNA (or remain in the terrain of present-day genetics).

The complex dynamics of each branch and the likely nature of some of them as simple conquest ("Angola") instead of large sustained migrations ("Mexico"), plus the growingly apparent fact of those who serve the colonizing purpose often not being members of the dominant ethnicity but pawns or satellites of it (modern examples: Irish, Canarians, African slaves, whoever who was willing to migrate for whatever reason, like Polish or Lebanese to Australia, Chinese to Singapore, etc.), makes it all the herder to expect simple answers of the kind you do, of the kind of conqueror party taking all the girls, by grade or force, and spreading their sperm wildly in a male-only founder effect. I don't say that this didn't happen, just that maybe wasn't that common nor that overwhelmingly effective.

As time went on, and I assure you that IE "migrations" were not a matter of any one single generation but took many millennia and were very complex, each new conquest carried locally acquired lineages, be them from former serfs or necessary allies.

"On the PCA above it's probably obvious to most that the Corded Ware (CWC), Unetice (UC), Bronze Age Kazakhstan (BAK) and Bronze Age Siberian (BAS) samples represent R1a-rich populations radiating from the Proto-Indo-European homeland on the steppe".

Possibly so. It's an mtDNA chart so what it tell us is about the mothers, not directly about the fathers. And in general mother lines tend to correspond better with the autosomal pool than father ones. A moment ago when reading about your conqueror males' scheme, I couldn't but think about lions, but, even among them, what remains in the end is, in essence, the female line: manes come and go while the lionesses keep the society going.

In that chart is striking that Corded Ware (CWC) is pretty much westernized (equal in PC1 to Basque Neolithic-Chalcolithic average), what should not surprise anyone. Considering that CWC had a long previous history in Central Europe (they were not new arrivals in any way) and that they were expanding over huge new swathes of land (most of Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia), which had previously been influenced often by their precursors (particularly in parts of Central and South Germany), I would expect CWC guys to be a complex reality, although maybe less so East of the Elbe-Saale line.

...

Maju said...

...

"Chances are most people would not be convinced by this mtDNA data, and argue that maybe Corded Ware were mostly R1b and I1".

I1 seems to me a Swedish-specific founder effect. While R1b seems to originate further West, what makes its relation with IE expansions very oblique and convoluted at best. And let's not forget that CWC is succeeded by Bell Beaker in Central Europe and that this one looks anything but IE-specific.

But, as you know, my main issue with the R1a hypothesis is that R1a in Europe and Asia seem two different things (different subhaplogroups with different geographic patterns, not centered in Europe nor the steppe as a whole but in or near Iran), each with their own processes. Possibly (most) R1a in Europe has some relation with IE expansion (still to be fully clarified) but in Asia it seems largely unrelated. This last weakens a lot the most basic form of the hypothesis about R1a being spread by IE migrations. But as Asian IE flows are (Afanasevo excepted) late phenomena, this may imply that Chalcolithic expansions in low density areas like Poland had a much larger Y-DNA impact than Bronze/Iron age ones in high density areas, be them in South Asia or Western Europe. Most likely these last were almost purely raw conquests ("Angola", not "Mexico"). Not that we can fully discern from mtDNA pools but that's what Y-DNA geographic patterns suggest. Otherwise R1a in South Asia would need to be more recent than full-chromosome estimates allow and also much more clearly originated in the steppe, what is not the case. Similarly R1b in West Europe would need to be both more recent and more clearly originated around the Elbe or Vistula or even further East, what again is not the case.

So very likely we are largely before circumstances more closely resembling the "Angola model" of acculturation than the "Mexico model", although there is probably some hidden complexity and more direct migration between intermediate (or even secondary-peripheral) nodes in the overall IE expansion process.

"Actually, if we didn't have the R1a from all those Siberian Kurgans, I bet there'd be lots of bozos online trying to argue all sorts of things about the paternal origins of those samples".

Sure. It's a bit like speculating about dark matter while we await any obvious measure of it that can give us direct clues, probably surprising us to no avail.

Something interesting I find in your reference (abstract) is that the migrant male population among the Boii were only a minority ("a small part of the community migrated"), suggesting that there was at least some important continuity on the patrilineages, and even I'd dare say some "matrilocality" overall (no female migration detected). Of course this only applies to changes within the La Tène cultural phase but I do wonder how much of this continuity also happened between cultural phases.

Davidski said...

Eastern European R1a-Z282 is the sister clade of Central and South Asian R1a-Z93.

The Northwest European R1a-CTS4385 is actually the odd one out, but still very closely related to these two, as it also shares the M17 mutation.

The R1a-M420* haplotypes described by Underhill in that last paper are irrelevant to the close relationship between R1a-Z282, R1a-Z93 and R1a-CTS4385. Indeed, all three are obviously linked via the steppe, not the Near East.

You're clearly in denial.

Maju said...

How am I "in denial"?

Z282 is not directly related to Z93 but it is a subclade of Z284. Z284* (essentially Norwegian) and Z282 are related (STR haplotype network) via South Europe/West Asia, so they seem to represent two different migrations northwards via the Balcans.

Z284 and Z93 are related via R1a1a1 (M417), whose "asterisk" paragroup is again found doubly in Scandinavia and Turkey (two different subclades). This is ambiguous but upstream there's only West Asian branches, so, unless you are proposing a Scandinavian origin of R1a1a1 (and not a Steppe one!), the origin of R1a1a1 seems West Asian (although maybe more "Turkish" than "Iranian").

Also (and crucially) the inner workings of Z93 all go via South and West Asia, with the Altai and Volga branches being clearly derivatives of expansions centered in Iran, Southern Central Asia and Northern South Asia. No basal presence of Z93 in Europe or anywhere in the Eurasian steppe is apparent at all.

So in practical terms there is a Europe/Asia duality in R1a1a that does not go through the steppe nor is ambiguous at any meaningful level but clearly has R1a arriving to South Asia directly from West Asia and to the Asian steppe (and even some European offshoots) from West and South Asia via Central Asia.

Also the timing seems too old for IE expansion, although it may still fit in the case of the main European subclade Z282. In Asia (Z93) it would seem Neolithic to me.

As for M17, it only indicates R1a1, what is clearly still an "Iranian" stage.

Refs:
my map showing Underhill's data implications for R1a phylo-geography
Overall discussion of Underhill 2014.

ryukendo kendow said...

I think Davidski raises a valid issue when he points to there being no physical correlates to a spread of R1a via Anatolia.

An expansion of a YHap group from an area does not have to imply it originated there. R1b expanded massively in West Europe, but didn't originate there. R1a might have very well originated in where Underhill thought it did, but the massive expansion could have taken place somewhere else.

Although I am as mystified by the disjunct R1a pools in Europe vs. South/Central Asia as anyone else. Its as though the ancestral population split exactly in half. Davidski you probably have something to say about this.

Davidski said...

There's no reason why the region that was the source of a couple of founder effects for a marker should have higher frequencies of this marker than the regions that experienced the founder effects.

Also, a lot has happened in 5,000 years around the middle Volga and on the Ural steppes. The arrival of Turks for one. So the population linking Europeans and South Asians isn't walking around anywhere today, it's actually buried under the ground. It has to be dug out and tested.

Maju,

You really don't have a clue about R1a.

R1a-Z282 isn't a subclade of R1a-Z284. It's the other way around.

And yes, R1a-Z282 and R1a-Z93 are directly related sister clades sharing the Z645 mutation. Both expanded at about the same time, west and east, respectively.

That last Underhill paper did more harm than good. They even screwed up their simple topology diagram, by placing Z280 above Z282, which is wrong. This is easily verified, so there's no point discussing it.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Maju @ About Time
Actually greg clark and ron unz, amongst others, have marshalled ample evidence of pro-upper-class/pro-high-social-status selection in premodern, preindustrial societies, e.g. England, France, China back to the first millenium, also hunter-gatherers and agricultural Papuans, etc. While the number of births to most couples is the same, the children of the lowest rungs of society are simply much, much more likely to die of disease, malnutrition, deficiencies, unsanitary conditions, infanticide etc. In war, epidemic or famine they were always the first to go. People of lower social status were also less marriageable, and many were childless--especially men in societies where de facto polygamy is tolerated, aka most societies. Also admixed women with a prestigious aristocratic phenotype were constantly recruited into the upper classes. As the chinese say, wealth lasts only three generations, but poverty cannot because there won't be any patrilineal descendants left to inherit the poverty.

Over the long term under malthusian conditions the overreproduction of the aristocrats meant massive downward social mobility, and a tendency toward autosomal replacement. Until the industrial age and public health, and elite female education, and colonization into tropical disease-ridden territory complicated the picture in modern times.

Just look at the rates for blonde hair, or Hap I, or Celtic-specific clades of R1b in England vs Wales to see how a small group of male aristocrats can massively shift the gene pool. Also a single boat of Austronesians vs swarms of Bantus for Madagascar, or 80% European contribution to most Brazilians despite their phenotype, or massive impact of mountain tai tribes on the genomes of not just thailand but Cambodia as well in only the past thousand years.

So male-dominated elite impact is the rule rather than the exception in all but the most recent times. We need to change our mental models.

Maju said...

@Ryukendo: you are mixing categories a bit happily: Hap. Z may well have expanded from X location, its descendant Z1 from Y location while its other descendant Z2 from some W location.

In the case of R1b we must discern between R1b as such, which spread from West Asia, and its various subclades. In the case of Europe its two main subclades appear to have expanded from approximately South France and the Netherlands respectively.

Each subclade's expansion represents a demographic process on its own right, regardless of sharing of the first letters of the nomenclature with other lineages. Exactly the same that the expansion of A (early on in Africa) and the expansion of F (in Asia much later) are different processes even if F is a subclade of A.

In the case of R1a, we can clearly differentiate between the core R1a expansion, which seems to have happened from West Asia, and the derived Z282 and Z93 major subclades, whose expansions seem to be largely independent, not just from core R1a but also from each other.

"R1a-Z282 isn't a subclade of R1a-Z284. It's the other way around."

You are right. My bad. Don't blame Underhill for that though: I apparently committed that error totally on my own and I will see to amend it.

"And yes, R1a-Z282 and R1a-Z93 are directly related sister clades sharing the Z645 mutation. Both expanded at about the same time, west and east, respectively".

Yes, I reckon. But they don't seem to have any obvious shared European or Steppe origin and Z93 seems to have expanded largely from South to North, what makes it unlikely to be of direct IE origins.

"So the population linking Europeans and South Asians isn't walking around anywhere today"...

Do you really think possible that all their lineages vanished so perfectly in agrarian timelines and with such a mega-success in their ethno-cultural expansions? Shouldn't we see greater R1a basal diversity in Europe, particularly in Eastern Europe, and in general the Steppe if what you say is correct?

That's the real problem: that if R1a1a1b1 (PF6217/S339/Z283) would actually be, as you claim, the IE lineage, we should see more diverse and common descendants in Central Asia and much of Europe. We do not.

What we actually see are two different expansions with different core areas: that of Z284 from somewhere in Eastern Europe and that of Z93 from somewhere in southern Central Asia.

Davidski said...

Certainly not.

The R1a topology reported in Underhill et al, 2014 is wrong. This is a fact that can be verified without a problem.

R1a-282 and R1a-ZZ93 are indeed sister clades.

The epicenter of R1a-Z282 is in Eastern Europe. The epicenter of R1a-Z93 is in Central Asia.

Moreover, most R1a-Z93* is found near the Altai and in South Siberia.

So R1a-Z282 and R1a-Z93 are linked via the steppe, and their current distributions derive from the same initial Copper Age expansion of R1a from the Proto-Indo-European homeland. Ancient DNA is showing this, and will continue to do so.

You'll feel pretty stupid when you finally realize this.

Maju said...

@Ryukendo: on your las comment I can't really agree. It's probably true that the rich (particularly rich males) have greater chances of reproductive success. But it is equally true that they are ridiculously tiny fraction of society, now and in the past.

In reality 90% or more of the population in agrarian societies were farmers, with limited mobility both social and geographical, but with clear reproductive persistence. And poverty is a relative category anyhow: a common farmer would not be considered a pauper because he had a job (regardless of who owned the lands technically) and was just like any other man in his social reality, excepted the distant landlord.

Today poor people have children: lots of them often. It is true that health care has improved survivability a lot but in Africa the life expectancy is often under 50 anyhow and still poor Africans have lots of children and the continent's population keeps growing and growing.

In India, even with all their alleged reproductive success, the elite Brahmins make up only ~3% of the population, while the other elite caste, the Ksatriyas are nearly extinct. Instead the masses of farmers and outcasts keep growing.

Even if a particularly powerful man has a harem of a hundred wives (rare but has happened), and manages to have children with all them, there are still thousands and thousands, maybe millions, of other men having more normal (monogamous) reproductive relations outside the gates of the palace. So it's still a drop in the ocean.

Rural chieftains in societies where polygamy is allowed seldom have more than a few wives. Two, three, four... but never dozens. So your elite success hypothesis looks very feeble to my eyes. There is something to it but not as much as you think.

Maju said...

"The epicenter of R1a-Z93 is in Central Asia."

In AfPak and even partly North India. If you think otherwise, I believe you should expose your theory in a blog article with full detail.

"Moreover, most R1a-Z93* is found near the Altai and in South Siberia".

Yes but it is all highly derived as can be seen in the haplotype networks. I repeat what I wrote back in the day:

→ Z93* has three apparent distinct branches stemming [two of them] from West Asia (incl. Caucasus) and another one from South Asia/Altai.
→ Z95* has two apparent distinct branches:
→→ A small one with presence in West Asia and Southern Europe.
→→ Another one (pre-M780?) stemming from South or West Asia.
→ M780 has clear origins in South Asia (incl. most Roma lineages).
→ Z2125 also appears to originate in South Asia, even if it has a greater spread outside it, notably to Central Asia.
→ M580 and M582 appear related and surely originated in West Asia
.

So Iran-AfPak is the only possible conclusion, really.

"You'll feel pretty stupid when you finally realize this".

I feel pretty stupid, as member of the Homo not-so-much-sapiens species, when I see this kind of comments. It's not a matter of being "stupid" or "smart" but of how do the actual factoids fit in a coherent model.

And, sincerely, I don't see the coherence in your model, nor the fit with the available data. Maybe you should try to explain in greater detail, with graphs and maps and all that. Maybe then you persuade me (although I won't feel "stupid" for being wrong: I can be wrong, no problem - I can concede it and change my mind and discourse accordingly without making a personal or emotional issue of it). My impression is that you're judging aprioristically: "it must be IE so I will force it to be no matter what", instead of judging the data by its own merits and without prejudice.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Maju
Read my comment carefully. I was agreeing with you.

The fact that EEur and SAsian R1a pools are so disjunct is very difficult to reconcile with a single expansion. Thats why I asked Davidski that question.

@ Davidski
Actually your answer makes a lot of sense.
In the previous post I proposed that an ANE+BEA population occupied and expanded from the steppe, but were replaced by turkics and especially slavics in historical times, creating the abrupt boundary between WHG+ANE Eastern Europeans and BEA+ANE Caucasus and C.Asians. The Ossetians, descendants of IIr in the Caucasus, might be the closest thing to the original PIE population.

So it is interesting that the Caucasus is the only area where both E.Eur+S.Asian R1a are represented, to the exclusion of more basal Iranian/W.Asian R1as. The Caucasus might not be a source area. Instead the PIE pop that triggered a secondary expansion of R1a to E.Euro and S+C.Asia while excluding W.Asia influences, might be best preserved in the Caucasus region, which fits with autosomal DNA quite well well.

@ Maju
With all due respect, read my comment again.
"While the number of births to most couples is the same"

I'm not talking about genghis khan. You don't have to assume a conqueror fetish in everyone. More people do not have it than you think lol. I'm talking about agricultural, settled societies.

Poor aristocrats became soldiers, landlords, traders. Poor traders and soldiers became criminals, poor landlords farmers. Poor farmers+criminals become nothing. X 10's of generations. No need for the 1%.

Bach had 7 children. 3 survived. A peasant had 7 children. How many survived?

The examples you gave are all modern. Contraceptives+Female education = female choice. Nuff said.

This is not 'my hypothesis'. This is a robust social science finding and is generally accepted now. c.f. nicholas eberstadt, peter turchin, kenneth pomeranz, etc. etc.

Davidski said...

I doubt the steppe populations of the Copper Age resembled the Ossetians, because the Kurgan remains from the Bronze and Iron Ages didn't.

See here...

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2009/05/ancient-siberians-carrying-r1a1-had_24.html

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2009/05/ancient-siberians-carrying-r1a1-had.html

Ossetians don't have enough R1a (in fact, they have hardly any), and their mtDNA is too Near Eastern (the Kurgan mtDNA was basically modern European with some Siberian admixture).

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Davidski
Do you remember which populations Underhill sampled in the Caucasus? I cannot access the paper.

I agree that the Ossetians are a recipient population, not the source. They were probably more near-east like before indoeuropeanization; they might also have lost things along the way, esp as they are a very small endogamous population.

As always I agree with Maju in doubting the correlations of autosomes with Hap genetics. WHG-dominated pops switched their dominant affiliation from YHap I to YHap R1a only in comparatively recent times. R1a is still not associated with WHG in South/Central Asia. And there doesn't seem to be a distinct mtDna pool for ANE carriers anywhere in Siberia; everything is shared with Asians and Europeans, so this is quite nondiscriminatory. So to say R1a+mtDna etc. must be associated with a WHG rich Euro like pop in the past cannot be confirmed at this time I think.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Just a bit of an observation here. If you remove the ena and a bit of ANE at a south Siberian level from Kazakhs, then redistribute that amount relative to how the other components are, they are then pretty much spot on with what I predicted for a steppe population average.

ryukendo kendow said...

This is some information regarding R1a from the Caucasus:

http://kurdishdna.blogspot.sg/2014/03/underhill-et-al-2014.html

This is practically the only population mediating the connection between South Asia and Europe, that does not involve West Asia/Middle East.

So to avoid proposing a population expansion from Iran, we simply have to propose a secondary expansion from an area that influenced the caucasus strongly.

Chad Rohlfsen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maju said...

@Ryukendo

"Actually I was agreeing with you."

Ah, alright. It seems I misunderstood you.

"All the counter-examples you raised are recent. Female education".

How does this apply to Africa? Or if you prefer much of the Muslim World (similar situation with often worse position for women - yet both allowing polygyny), or even India?

All these cases have low female education and lots of children per capita, the overwhelming majority of whom are poor (and so are their fathers). The masses of peasants keep reproducing and, until recently at least, they were in high demand as cheap workforce.

"There are many people without a conqueror fetish. You're not the only one".

Not sure what a fetish has to do with rational science but what a conqueror wants ("needs") is masses of serfs and slaves under his boot, which can provide for his elite household. This is, I understand, what characterizes the Metal Ages' ethno-cultural dynamics, which are based on conquest and hierarchical assimilation, and much less so in colonization (conquerors don't colonize because they don't want to work: just fight and, if lucky, reap the prize).

Instead in older times and then again in the Industrial Era, colonization and democide was/is more common because hierarchies were/are less important. It is the masses and not elitist conquerors who colonize to work the land. Aristocracy is, to some extent at least, a force acting against mass demic flows. Because for them populace and land (usually) come together as prize for the conquest. Some colonizations surely happened anyhow but it seems to me that it was in general a much more stable period than before and after.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Maju
Choice is not distributed evenly. How many children are the African and Middle eastern elites having vs the poor?

The numbers once were very similar. Add death rates and voila.

You need to read my comment carefully. The problem is elite child survival, and peasant child death, under malthusian limitations. Any child of the of the 1% gets squeezed out very quickly, no matter how lazy the sons of aristocrats are there are only a limited number of places. While any child of the bottom 50% faces being squeezed out of the gene pool altogether.


Davidski said...

I never said that R1a was originally associated with a WHG-rich population.

I said it was associated with ANE-rich groups that mixed with different populations wherever they went, usually by absorbing women. In the north that included early European farmers and eastern hunter-gatherers, hence the high levels of haplogroups like T and U4 in the Kurgan remains.

Also, there's really nothing special about the R1a in the Caucasus. It's not at particularly high frequencies there, and most of it is probably due to Turkic influence because it's well under the Z94 mutation.

Really old lineages of Z93 exist in Europe, but they're found at very low frequencies anywhere from the Mediterranean to Siberia.

And again, that Kurdish blog entry is based on the last Underhill paper. Back in 2009 Underhill said R1a was from the Indus Valley. Now he's claiming it's from Iran. He's wrong on both counts. R1a is a steppe marker, just like Q.

barakobama said...

"You guys are falling into ethnocentric absurdity. Or do not they do the same in Ukraine or Bosnia or, not so long ago, in Germany and Poland? Please: common sense and respect! David: I did not expect this from you."

They're just having fun. No one believes AME ancestry has something to do with tenancies towards beheading.

Maju said...

@Ryukendo: The life expectancy does not help that much with reproduction in the boom-and-burst many kids model. As long as you reach 30 or 40, you have already reached far enough. Older ages are mostly auxiliary within extended family structures, even for men (old sperm is not good to make kids, especially healthy ones with high chances of success). Biology (youth) trumps wealth (usually concentrated among the rather old).

But regarding what you said about the other model (semi-planned families) being modern and bourgeois. This is not exactly correct. This model has in fact existed in much of Europe (and I would guess other places as well) since at least the Middle Ages, thanks to legal frames that impeded the division of family farmsteads. In these societies (mostly from the North but also the Basque Country), young men could not effectively marry (and hence have children, normally) before they had an income. For some it meant to look for fortune in the military or other adventurous enterprises, which often ended up badly, for others to await until their parents ceded them (by death or old age) the farm, so they began having children only late in life (only one son would inherit it in any case). Some just became priests or monks, having no offspring (usually). Only when many lands were open for settling, as after the Black Death, their chances improved greatly. Overall this system of controlled growth existed and worked well for many European societies. It's not at all modern, although it has become more widespread with industrialization and education, sure. (Ref. N.G. Pounds 'An Economic History of Medieval Europe', Longman 1974 - as well as some other recollections of my own regarding Basque economic history).

You seem to assume that the boom-and-bust model was the only one but the reality is that there was another system of socio-economically controlled growth and that this apparently worked better in most circumstances. In the end it is either to allow Malthusian forces to work on their own or to dose them in a controlled and socially efficient manner. Many societies chose the latter, with the economic and legal structure favoring it. Call it proto-bourgeois if you want but it's rather a yeomen's world in fact.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Maju
It is true that delayed marriage and child spacing was frequent in areas within the Hajnal line since the Midddle Ages. But that does not change the fact that the evidence from parish and church records across europe show the wealthier the parents, the more surviving children they left. The petty aristocracy left the most children, followed by the traders and landowners, then yeomen. Anyone lower than that had sub-replacement child-survival rates in a malthusian world with slow to no pop growth.

If anything the stem family with delayed marriage, which is what you described, would have intensified this selection by producing large numbers of inheritance-less men. This is the model in much of Germany and Japan, which Emmanuel Todd later used to explain some of their cultural similarities, e.g. feudal fragmentation to very recent times, intense wars, strong aristocratic anti-bourgeois traditions etc.

The primacy given to economic resources meant that around 20% of men were childless in the West up to around 1920. In China this was even more intense.

There is nothing boom-and-bust about this model, just constant downward social mobility and higher death rates for poor children for hundreds / thousands of years.

The evidence for selection amongst settled agricultural societies is robust and widespread. 50% of the Malagasy genome is Austronesian, despite massive bantu movement vs. a 30 Austronesians at most. 50-60% of the genomes of thai and Cambodians is austronesian/tai-like, despite the tai not even on the scene before 1000AD and the Cambodians being Austroasiatic speakers. >60% of the Sumatran, Malay and Javanese genome is Austronesian, despite Austroasiatic farmers being there for 1000s of years prior to the Austronesians. And the impact of the Arab and turkic expansions was simply disproportionate to the population size they conquered. etc.

This also led to rates of MAOA 2-repeat allele, ADHD, alcoholism etc. being inversely correlated with length of farming history and length of history of peaceful centralised states, because such environs tend to promote a certain type of elite individual as strongly as they promoted the elite autosome, though of course this was a radioactive finding for those who did the research, who tried to hide themselves from the negative attention they drew from the cultural anthropology types.

Because its pots, not people, isn't it? Well its the other way round.

Maju said...

"50-60% of the genomes of thai and Cambodians is austronesian/tai-like"

That's a judgment that you make. I mean: Cambodia was an important regional power and they were never fully conquered (excepted the French protectorate and the brief Japanese intervention, which left no signature), so cast me most skeptic of what you see is actually something from outside Cambodia. Much more likely is that you are wrongly interpreting the data and calling "Dai-Austronesian" to what is actually Austroasiatic (or whatever other continuity explanation).

As for the rest, I don't know how sure you can be from what are very mediocre Medieval records (no surnames yet, tax records by homes not individuals, etc.) In fact upward mobility also existed and slaves often became aristocrats, something that is documented to have upset to no avail the old blood families but happened anyhow because they had skills that were useful to their lords and also lacked other loyalties that conflicted with royal power.

Naturally when a conqueror "horde" conquered some new area, they had to:

1. Secure alliances with some of the pre-existing chiefs or other people who may help them. This surely implied absorbing large amounts of new blood in the elite in few generations.

2. Mobilize the serfs for battle (or other quality services), if not now, surely some day, what came at the cost of upward mobility for those social layers. In a matter of centuries, when they finally decided to move over to conquer some other place the conquerors were the conquered at least to large extent.

Things are complicated in real life.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Maju
That figure is from HUGO panAsian, plus analysis of similar data by Dienekes, Razib and Diogenes Artemis. Components mentioned peak in Ami/Atayal/Zhuang.

In SEAsia especially language and genetics are very congruent in every analysis, except for the Cambodians only.

I agree with the historical dynamics you describe. But let's complicate that: names like Mandeville and d'Uberville are overrepresented by six times amongst doctors and lawyers and the richest people now in the UK vs. Smiths, Coopers, Cooks, 1000 years after the Normans. If you share a surname with someone in Oxford 500 years ago it gives you a tenfold advantage today for getting in. Ditto for latinised surnames (e.g. Linnaeus) in Sweden, Biddles and Huntingtons in US, while French-American and Scots-American surnames perform extremely poorly.

A huge number of people in the CCP are descendants of officials in the Qing dynasty. Samurai in Japan, Kings of W.African Kingdoms, ad infinitum.

When greg clark tried to see correlations of income between fathers and sons/male lineages, of course it is 0.2 for year-on-year (which the NYT absolutely loooves). But the longer the timeframe the stronger the correlation. Lifetime earnings is abt 0.65.

When we approach the timeframes mentioned above the correlation was 0.8-0.9 for all societies.

Tech-intense civilisation plus assortative mating cause rapid genetic sorting, creating people whose privileges persist for a long, long time. This had a huge impact on the autosome when death rates were at premodern levels.

I realise you are quite politically engaged. Try reading Greg Clark, Henry Hapending or Kenneth Pomeranz. Scientists all, but will change the way you see the world.

Maju said...

Let's see: the "light green" component in the HUGO consortium study is not necessarily anything as recent or specific as you think but, even if it is, Thais only have like 25% of it (varies among subpopulations) and there are no Cambodians sampled in that study. The Mon for example, who could be a proxy because they speak an Austroasiatic language, have <5% of it.

"Components mentioned peak in Ami/Atayal/Zhuang".

No comparison possible between the Zhuang and the other two: the Zhuang, much like other Daics, are a mix of green and blue and the Zhuang have <40% of the green component, not more than some Negrito populations. The Daics actually behave much like Filipino Negritos: they have some variable (but never hegemonic) "green" (Austronesian-like) element and some "other" (purple for Negritos, blue for Daic). Many Austronesian populations (including Javanese, Malay) also behave like that with lots of the "red" (Austroasiatic-like) component or the Papuan-like "dark green" component for those beyond Wallace Line.

You interpret these patterns in terms of extremely recent conquest but, honestly, I have all kind of doubts. The Thai conquest is in chronology like the Slavic conquest of the Balcans, which left no obvious genetic signature in most places, so either East Asians are particularly prone to genocide (even in areas they never controlled like Cambodia - sarcasm meant) or these elements must be interpreted in older less obvious terms.

...

Maju said...

...

"names like Mandeville and d'Uberville are overrepresented by six times amongst doctors and lawyers and the richest people now in the UK vs. Smiths, Coopers, Cooks, 1000 years after the Normans."

That actually gives me the reason because Smiths, Coopers, Cooks and Jones are still a lot more common that Mandeville and such. So the Smiths and Jones have a lot of reproductive success in practical terms, even if their upwards mobility is somewhat limited.

Anyhow a stern warning on surnames: they only really began being used as the Modern Age set in and, in most places, they were not legally stabilized until well into the 19th century. Earlier people could happily change their surnames (except probably the aristocrats, who were often bound by their inheritances in this).

Another detail: Britain has actually very actively favored its old blood elites, even if there has been some of the unavoidable change, but in other places like France or Russia, this was not really the case because of more intense class war and subsequent quite radical property and other legal reforms. So maybe England is not the best place to look at but maybe one should look at France or Russia instead? If nothing else to balance things.

One might say happily (historical dogma) "there was no class war in antiquity" but when we check the records we see that there was: from the social wars to the bagaudae, going through Spartacus. Many of them had an effective impact, altering the property system and/or favoring upward mobility of the plebs (the highly influential Roman knights were plebs originally, the bagaudae caused a complex but large number of changes in SW Europe, nonetheless the collapse of the Western Empire).

Similar processes surely took place in previous periods, although they are not documented or almost not. Interestingly a "conqueror" and clearly militaristic Celtic tribe like the Vaccei (around modern Valladolid) had a communist society with no obvious elites nor property structure, as reported by Roman geographers (they also were said to be "atheist").

In the end the masses were, even in the periods of greatest importance of specialist warriors, necessary to man up the defenses or even the offensive. And that implied to make concessions, lest be that they worked for the enemy out of resentment, as sometimes happened with the rebel Western "Roman" farmers, who collaborated quite intensely with the Vandals and Suebi, and later favored the less arrogant Franks and even very possibly the Muslims, over the quite detached hyper-aristocratic Visigoths, causing their doom.

Of course unsatisfied or too-ambitious aristocrats also played often the opposite role, helping to defeat non-feudal systems like the Basque one, but what I want to underline is that there was some dialectics going on all the time, producing all kind of complex results. Elite success is not at all as automatic nor as simple as you suggest, rather it faces many challenges: 'the higher they rise, the higher they fall' is not just a saying.

"A huge number of people in the CCP are descendants of officials in the Qing dynasty".

By paternal line? I ask because we all have all kind of ancestors just 500 years ago, you know - what makes the differences is the overall weight of these ancestors in the wider genetic pool. Anyhow, how do you know? Isn't it another Genghis Khan gene delusion?

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Maju

Clark's analysis included US, England, France, China, India, Japan, Sweden, with less numerical but still substantial evidence in other places. One of his central findings was that industrial revolution + political revolutions + socialist policies had no impact on correlations between generations in the long term. Not in China and not in Sweden.

If anything your evidence supports what i'm saying. How many people were cooks and blacksmiths in England vs Single norman lineages? The former groups took on occupation-based surnames later in imitation of aristocrats. That's why their YHaps are so diverse; they are not part of a single lineage. While basically all mandevilles are.

So if anything there are a disproportionate number of mandevilles in england today. As are attenboroughs, Hollands, Montgomerys etc. e.g. the attenboroughs, and there are many, are 87% E1b1b, which tells you how small the founder pop was. prob just one person. And this is common amongst this type of lineage in the parts of the world clark analyzed, not just the UK.

It is true that if the component peaks in atayal then the percentages are lower. But if it peaks in Zhuang (e.g. in Razib Khan's dataset) who are actually tai speaking, the Cambodians soar to 60% and Thais 80%. The figures for all tai groups increase massively, which makes sense because the Tai homeland is in Guizhou and their ancestors were Zhuang-like. Secondly Daic is nested in the Autronesian phylogeny amongst phillippine branches, so it is a double dispersal with relexification and isolation that of course is diluted from Atayal by mainland components, e,g, blue..

For HUGO, a comparison with the Austroasiatic Blang and Lawa remnants in Thailand is instructive. The remnants are 60-80% red austroasiatic. All tai speakers are <15%. The remainder is made up with green+blue. The Zhuang are of course pure green+blue, like you noticed.

The mons have less, you're right, but they were never invaded by tai; they were invaded by Burmese, and prior to that saw a period of importation of Brahmin elites by Mon kings. And dynamics we see with Tais apply there too. Red AA component is only 25%. Indian + blue + green at 75%, with the blue of Sino-Tibetans the largest component.

The only groups in island SEA without 'hegemonic' levels of green are negritos. AA in Sunda are rice farmers by the time Austronesians arrive, so the fact that they reach 40 in Java, 70 in Malaya and 90 in Sumatra is a huge success already.

The impact of the slavic expansion in Europe has been absolutely massive. There exist a multitude of abrupt genetic boundaries between Poland and Germany, not least R1a rates.

The recruitment of the talented and ambitious into the upper classes is part of the slow process by which the dominance of their autosome is secured over time. 'class warfare' tends to fail when class consciousness is not strong.

There's no point carrying this out in terms of words. What we need is numbers. Go look at Clark, Harpending etc. They speak for themselves.

About Time said...

@Maju, in the ancient world, warrior bands probably came closer to egalitarian economies than anyone else. Hierarchy was first about function, who decides what and who acts on those commands.

Look at Lycyrgus and Sparta for an example. Currency was effectively banned to avoid anyone accumulating wealth. Communal life was emphasized from childhood through old age. Hierarchy was mostly about age and giving everyone a suitable task/role.

Or look at story of Temujin and Jamukha (shown in movie "Mongol"): Temujin got loyalty by sharing more equally. Yes he was a head, but he united a huge number of men who were all basically equals and bound by the same law he imposed. Not clan squabbles or political manipulation a like in the more civilized but more plutocratic/Sinicized Tangut state.

As far as reproductive success, it's worth thinking about these male ANE societies spreading out and losing their original composition by marrying many local women.

It was maybe the quiet, peaceful societies with matrilineal traditions that kept their original genomic composition intact, even if they were less flashy and smaller in number. Ironically the "meek" momma's boys kept their genomes, but the Kshatriyas are extinct except in thin paternal lines.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ About Time
@ Maju

That is certainly true.

Post 6000BP has not been good to Hunter Gatherers + farmers who cannot defend themselves, who were reduced to islands of marginal areas basically.

These are of course very pure.

Everyone else seems to have had their autosome changed by intrusive elites, often ridiculously so considering relative pop size originally.

The elites subsequently disappeared but their genetic legacy is everywhere. Language+culture also. The genetic outlines of the world became modern-looking only in the past 6000 years or so.

Attenborough literally means at the castle/fort, so its obvious what you should do if you want to leave 1000s of villagers behind in 2000.

The key is hierarchy + sorting + time in agricultural societies.

Maju said...

@Ryukendo: Don't forget that, much as the freed slaves in North America and other places, serfs and other family clients often got their surname from their overlord family, which worked as a clannish umbrella. In Spain for example there are a lot of Mendozas, a Basque by origin but effectively Castilian aristocratic surname. It is simply impossible that all or even a large fraction of them are direct patrilineal descendants from the 15th century Mendoza grandees: they are actually descendants of people without surname who used to work their lands as serfs.

I insist: for most people surnames were only adopted as the Modern Age set in. Legal formalization only happened in the last two centuries. previously surnames were either non-existent or changed happily with little criterium (excepted possibly aristocrats, who had to name one after another all the sites of their inheritance, some of which persisted as surnames later on). For example the second surname of Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra is clearly not his mother's but something he got out of his wild imagination. And that kind of stuff was going on a lot, for centuries, until laws were issued and registries established to restrict name change.

Also I notice that what you seem to be saying is that those aristocratic surnames are disproportionally common among the very rich (as one would expect) but not that they are overwhelmingly common in any other sense. Even taking your theory at face value, the Cooks and Smiths are the ones who win the race, not the Attenboroughs and Mandevilles. Sure, they don't represent a single ancestor, but they are still way too hegemonic to represent collectively the patrilineal reproductive might of the lower classes. Even taking your theory at face value, there has been no replacement of patrilineages from the aristocratic layers but (at most) just a slight gain.

And we are talking of 500 years!!! With all the unavoidable troubles that anyone on top must face to stay there, it's effectively impossible that those privileged lineages can effectively replace the ones of the masses. Not now and not in the past. The individual chances may be slightly better but overall the forces pretty much balance each other, particularly in the long run.

And let's not forget that, rich or not, the more children you have, the less you can invest in each of them. And it's not just money or other economic resources, it's affection and support, which are probably as important, if not more (as many studies show). In fact emotional neglect may be the most damaging side-effect of large families, strongly favoring anti-social behavior, which has dire consequences - because parenting does matter and economical resources are only one aspect of this, probably not the most important one.

Maju said...

@Ryukendo:

"The impact of the slavic expansion in Europe has been absolutely massive. There exist a multitude of abrupt genetic boundaries between Poland and Germany, not least R1a rates".

The boundary is not so extremely abrupt (all East Germany and even Germany as a whole to some extent acts as buffer between West and East, between R1b and R1a) an I personally attribute the fundamentals of that distribution to the early Indoeuropean migrations, not the Slavs.

The Southern Slavs particularly (excepted Slovenes) are clearly unrelated patrilineally to Northern Slavs, of which they are supposedly descendants. This means that, whatever the exact mechanisms, when the precursors of Serbo-Croats and Bulgarians moved to the Balcans, they essentially absorbed other peoples. Exactly the same that happened when the precursors of Hungarians (presumably similar in genetics to the Ob-Ugrian peoples of West Siberia) arrived to what is now Hungary, or when the Turks arrived to Azerbaijan and Turkey. It is sooooo painfully obvious that the genetic impact of those "migrations" (conquests) was negligible that I'm just flippant that anyone could still argue otherwise. It is striking that their impact was not greater than that of Visigoths and other Germanics in Spain (a drop in the ocean). The only difference is that in those cases the conquerors managed to alter the language and therefore the ethnic identity of the subjugated masses.

Those conquerors eventually were not saying to their serfs: die or leave, but they were saying: become one of us. And so they did, surely because it allowed them improved status or just because they needed to speak their bosses' language for all kind of practical needs.

"Daic is nested in the Autronesian phylogeny"...

I can't judge but AFAIK any relationship between Daic and Austronesian is still under discussion (and is often proposed in wider macro-linguistic contexts such as Sino-Austronesian or Austric). Even among those siding with the Austro-Tai hypothesis, there are many qualms about the exact nature of the relationship.

As for Daic being nested within Malayo-Polynesian, it's the first time ever I read that and clashes with the most parsimonious explanation of Daic expanding from near Guangzhou (Canton) or some other place in South China.

Maju said...

@AT:

"in the ancient world, warrior bands probably came closer to egalitarian economies (...) Look at Lycyrgus and Sparta for an example".

Sparta was extremely unequal: most of its denizens being either serfs (periokoi) or slaves (helots). That the minority of Spartan citizens had a weird sort of barrack society instead of the usual more private-focused economy does not alter that.

"Temujin got loyalty by sharing more equally. Yes he was a head, but he united a huge number of men who were all basically equals and bound by the same law he imposed".

This is indeed more in line what the kind of assimilationist policies that I argue are unavoidable in the mid-run. Would Temujin have been more nit-picky about who could join his horde, he would have never been successful. Very possibly the negative effects of elite racism can be seen in the Mongol and later Manchu China, where such segregationist policies did not help either side of the equation in the long run, much as probably happened with Visigothic arrogance in their Iberian realm (although even these had to eventually tear down apartheid for practical reasons, the state was weaker anyhow). Assimilation works and the best example is the Roman Empire. Also the Chinese Empire in its best days: even today all you need to become a Han is to speak Chinese and integrate in their culture, much as what was needed to become a Roman over here back in the day. Of course they assimilated the local elites faster but these old elites in turn pushed the masses in the same direction of assimilation with the new rulers. This kind of assimilation process must have happened nearly everywhere after each new conquest because it is a basic need of power perpetuation - unless you can actually afford the gory "luxury" of genocide and resettlement, what was not possible in most cases nor even desired at all by the elites.

Maju said...

@Ryukendo:

On your last comment, I can't agree at all (again). The extra ANE element is very weak in Southern Europe and the alleged Y-DNA is pretty much negligible. In NW Europe the ANE element is probably pre-Neolithic (strong in Motala, extrapolating), at least largely so, and again the Y-DNA legacy of IE conquerors is limited (I can estimate ~20% in England but much less in Ireland and yet the ANE element is similar in both countries).

So I really find myself strongly opposing excessive conclusions based only on ANE frequencies. I prefer to count the R1a frequencies as the main actual marker of intrusive IE conqueror legacy. Of course, secondary IE waves would carry much less of that (because of substrate assimilation in Central Europe) but that would also affect the overall genomic influence.

I also think that a key element in the shaping of modern genetic Europe was pre-Indoeuropean and related to Dolmenic Megalithism, Bell Beaker and Funnelbeaker (in its more restricted area) and that it had its origins in farmer populations of the Atlantic shores, which were surely much more intensely admixed with aboriginal (WGH) peoples than mainline early farmers (EEF). I'd call this element "Atlantic" and it's clear that, whatever the exact mechanisms, it had a major impact in Y-DNA and mtDNA (this last quite clearly demonstrated).

Said that, admixed secondary IE waves must have made an impact in places lake Portugal (where mtDNA H frequencies fell by almost half) but then again the "filters" of these waves were so many (Central Europe first but then Catalonia, Iberian Plateau as well) that it is very difficult to ascertain the genetic origins of these waves, although they surely arrived to Portugal as Celts and Lusitanians c. 700 BCE.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Maju
1. I do not disagree about the South Balkans. The Serbs, Macedonians, and Bulgarians are not impacted by the Slavic expansion, this is true, but this is the exception and not the rule for most of human history. This is why Hungary is such an anomaly.
The croats, Ukrainians etc. are on the other hand impacted quite hugely, so this is not a clean case either way.

As for German vs Polish YHaps, they seem to know exactly where to restrict themselves to preempt national boundaries 1000s of years ago didn't they?

Pops were overprinted. Simple as that.

2. As I said, autosomal replacement takes hierarchy + sorting + time, for differential death rates to perform their work. The Visigoths and Vandals did not have the third factor.

3. Assimilation is part of the process by which the elite autosome bleeds over into the commoners. If nomads segregate themselves of course they will die out.
Where they did not, e.g. Central Asian Oases, they managed to replace 50% of the autosome.

They need to stop being warlords and become aristocrats. Which the Vandals and Visigoths did not succeed in doing either.

4. Smith: 720 000 is about 75 times as common as montgomery : 9300, which is another one of those single-lineage surnames.
let's go back to the norman conquest, using the null model.
number of montgomerys in England: 1
number of blacksmiths in England: 75
This is a ridiculous scenario. There must have been > 1000 X more blacksmiths than montgomerys at the time.

Well we saw how that played out.

The later you push the adoption of surnames, the more anemic the Smiths will be and the more prolific the Montgomerys will be, so this if anything supports what i'm saying.

There are many more rare aristocratic surnames than there are common occupation-based ones like Taylor, Smith etc. cos of huge number of parishes and places from which to derive your feudal marker.

Add the long tail of the distribution, + the dynamics of reproductive success, and then we can talk.

4. "Mendozas"
Easy. Just test YHaps. This is not the case in England apparently.

"Legal formalization only happened in the last two centuries."

Probably why Spain was not in the dataset.
England+Scandinavia, China is different.

5. "And let's not forget that, rich or not, the more children you have, the less you can invest in each of them. "

Adult adoptees show 0 correlation with adopted family and 0.5-0.85 correlation with parental family. In study after study. The contribution of shared environment to things like IQ and Big 5/HEXACO is high when young but becomes essentially zero by the time one is 18.

Rmb that smart and talented people rise to join the aristocracy. This is not just about economic inheritance.
c.f. rates of MAOA-2, etc.


6. If your scenario was true, then most of Europe should resemble Basques, most south Chinese Miao, most English Welsh, Malagasy Tanzanians, Malays Semang etc.

They do not.

The genetic landscape of the world does not support your conclusions.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Maju

I agree about the ANE in SW Europe. But what cannot be denied is Spanish and French are shifted in the direction of Caucasus+N Euro compared to Basques by quite an amount.

This is why I asked you about the 'hijacking' of Bell Beaker by Celtic. Cos if it was vasconic first, then backflow was celtic, this explains the distribution of R1b nicely.

Still interested to hear about what you think about this scenario.

About Time said...

@Maju @Ryu,

Surname in most of Europe (France, Spain, Germany, England, etc.) are recent, back to the Middle Ages at best. A few old Roman families that go back further.

The major exception is Gaelic clans, like in Ireland, etc. Some Irish/Scottish clans trace their genealogy back to pagan times, an old Ard Ri, etc. Hard to say how much this was reconstructed by medieval scribes, but it's a very pagan practice.

In a lot of ways, Irish society was a "frozen" version of Iron Age and even Bronze Age practices. We know that in the Rigveda kinship was extremely important. Possibly tied into the pagan IA and Celtic idea of reincarnation. Even the Kurds have partly that.

So how did that archaic clan system shape the selection structure somewhere like Ireland, which was mostly rural and un-bourgeois through the Middle Ages? Definitely very different from dense urban areas like the England, Rheinland, Paris, Benelux, etc.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ AT @ Maju
The domesday book and etc. allowed clark to trace aristocratic lineages for UK back to the 1000s, while church birth and death records did so for Scandinavia.

It is true that the occupation-named were surnameless until recently. But the comparative numbers, and the fact that each smith has to choose between 1000s of ancestors, while basically every montgomery is descended from the same man, is telling.

If we push montgomery and smith to later dates the advantages to montgomery vs. smith per generation become stronger and stronger to achieve the numbers today.

This is a very simplified version of what clark found.

@ AT
The issue of clans is a very radioactive topic in population genetics + sociology. It depends on endogamy.

Different marriage patterns seem to lead to differential pressures on ingroup favouritism, for example.

The most outbred regions of the world are Europe, and East Asia+some parts of SEAsia.

Of these marriage within extended family is strictly forbidden in Jap+Kor and Western Europe only. Permitted elsewhere.

This led very rapidly to the dissolution of tribes and clans. The germanics disappeared as tribes in a few generations due to marriage stipulations from the Catholic church. Primogeniture and suchlike was not implemented in Ireland+scotland until later, which explains the survival there.

Clans in these regions have a tendency to disappear. Nuclear families predominate. About 20% of ppl were childless in these societies typically.

The areas with highest cosanguinity, where clans are retained today, and where the extended family lives together, are in the Muslim world. Cousin marriage, specifically father's brother's daughter, is the favoured form there. 25% of marriages in Turkey are still cosanguineous, for example. The rates are abt 50 for AfPak and so on. Maps of consanguinity are striking.

Tribes are simply moved into the city in these societies, and survive till now, e.g. Arabia, Libya.

This tended to lead to a flatter distr. of children amongst men, as most people were guaranteed marriage.

India has Mother's brother's daughter, but only amongst the Brahmin+Kshatriya, who have thus kept themselves separate. And less, as the daughter is part of a different household (not the same surname lol), so not so easy to give up.

Africa is in between, but is unique anyway because it is the most polygynous society historically. Agriculture was perfomred by women typically. As was Papua NG. Which is completely different from the rest of EurAs.

Most tribal societies had at least some amount of endogamy. Hunter-Gatherers generally try to minimise, though with bands its a problem. Urban civilisation sees the whole spectrum.

For non-agri socs there seems to be some assoc between exogamy and peaceableness to other tribes/bands, which makes sense evolutionarily, but of course causation is complex here.

So there would be differential pressures in different parts of the world.

Emmanuel todd is very good on this, though you need to read french.

Ebizur said...

ryukendo wrote,

"Of these marriage within extended family is strictly forbidden in Jap+Kor and Western Europe only. Permitted elsewhere."

This is patently incorrect. Marriage between (first) cousins is legal in Japan.

It is illegal in Korea, however, as well as in China (including Taiwan), the Philippines, and much of the United States and the Balkans.

The Japanese royal family often has resorted to marrying cousins because of their exceedingly strict limitations on the pool of potential mates. It was not allowed even for political expediency for a member of the Japanese royal family to marry a member of the Qing (Manchu) royal family, so the Japanese arranged a marriage between a daughter of a minor nobleman and Prince Pujie.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Ebizur
The Dream of a Red Chamber, China's most celebrated novel, ended in Jia Baoyu marrying his cousin Xue Baochai.

I am talking about historical realities here.

Passage of law to restrict cousin marriage in China+Taiwan only occurred in the 1980s. You cannot use legal realities today to extrapolate to the past.

The degree of endogamy within elites was always higher than outside of them, simply because they had more to lose. Noble Lineages everywhere suffer from diseases because of this.

Darwin married his cousin, even though it was not common practice at the time, and has never been in Britain.

In any case, here you go:
http://chicagoboyz.net/wp-content/uploads/Todd-Family-Type-Map.png

Maju said...

@Ryukendo:

"If your scenario was true, then most of Europe should resemble Basques"...

Uh? They do: West and even Central Europeans seem (very roughly speaking) "admixed Basques". And that's precisely the core issue here.

... "most English Welsh"...

They are not really distant, very especially in the SW half. The NW relative difference may well date to very early times for all I know, be it either Epipaleolithic or Neolithic (plus of course some extra offshore inputs in the Germanic migrations period).

Where you seem to see big differences I only see hair-splitting.

"The Serbs, Macedonians, and Bulgarians are not impacted by the Slavic expansion, this is true, but this is the exception and not the rule for most of human history. This is why Hungary is such an anomaly".

So Hungary is an anomaly, Croatia is anomaly, Serbia is anomaly, Bulgaria is an anomaly, Turkey is an anomaly, Azerbaijan is an anomaly... every other country is an anomaly. That's not called "anomaly" but standard.

"The croats, Ukrainians etc. are on the other hand impacted quite hugely, so this is not a clean case either way".

I don't see it: Croats are pretty much dominated by I2 of the southern clade, Ukrainians retain a large diversity and, not just that, the core of R1a expansion in Europe seems to be right towards the north of that country (what is probably the product of early IE expansions rather than Slavic ones).

"most south Chinese Miao"

Oversimplifying you are... but South Chinese not only are generally much more similar to South China's non-Han minorities but also much more diverse than Northern Han, what means that they retain much of the pre-Han genetic pool, even in Y-DNA. Only small amounts of their ancestry can be traced to North China.

"Spanish and French are shifted in the direction of Caucasus+N Euro compared to Basques by quite an amount".

That "quite an amount" is very small when I look at any PCA: it'd be something like 80% Basque-like, 20% exotic at most (very roughly and from memory). Part of that must be attributed to their more cosmopolitan (exogamous) nature, i.e. dripping of bidirectional migrants unrelated to invasions.

"As for German vs Polish YHaps, they seem to know exactly where to restrict themselves to preempt national boundaries 1000s of years ago didn't they?"

East Germany is clearly intermediate between West Germany and Poland. Modern Polish demographics were radically reshaped after WWII, with the expulsion of Germans from Poland and that of Poles from the USSR. The result is that, in essence, modern Western Poles are actually Eastern Poles (from Ukraine and Belarus). That's heavily distorting but it's extremely recent.

Well, I'm not going to discuss forever, so I quit here, leaving other of your qualms unaddressed but not at all conceded. It's just too much work...

Ebizur said...

ryukendo wrote,

"I am talking about historical realities here."

What you have written in your previous comment, to which I have replied, is the following:

"Of these marriage within extended family is strictly forbidden in Jap+Kor and Western Europe only. Permitted elsewhere."

And that is patently false. Marriage between cousins is "strictly forbidden" neither in Japan nor in Western Europe, though it is not actively promoted by members of the mainstream of any of those societies.

Maju said...

@About Time:

"Surname in most of Europe (France, Spain, Germany, England, etc.) are recent, back to the Middle Ages at best. A few old Roman families that go back further".

Nope. I have aristocratic Roman ancestry which can be tracked genealogically to Frances of Rome but beyond her epoch (Renaissance) it's all fables. I would tell you some of these absurd heraldic fables but not worth it, really.

In general, excepting aristocratic genealogies, ancestry can only be tracked to the early 19th century at best because records were earlier nearly non-existent. Even among Basques, who traditionally pride of their genealogies a lot, almost like a Bedouin, this is the case as well in almost all cases. Again the few exceptions are more well-off quasi-aristocratic lines, which are extremely rare anyhow.

"Some Irish/Scottish clans trace their genealogy back to pagan times"...

It's possible that the clan can be tracked to those times but clan membership was largely adoptive, household based, so serfs, slaves and other aides would be known as members of that clan and would eventually gain it as surname. This is the same practice as we see with the noble households or freed slaves in general terms.

Or are you going to tell me that Denzel Washington, for example, is necessarily patrilineal descendant of George Washington? It's not impossible, of course, but quite probably not. The same happened in Europe often enough, as well as in Latin America, where most people today carry Spanish surnames, which are those of the colonial landlords of their ancestors in fact. Some serfs could well be the illegitimate sons of their masters but most were not.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Ebizur
Cousin marriage was banned to sixth cousins by the Catholic Church in 11th century, to fourth in 1215, and to second in 1917.

Intrasurname marriage was always pariahized in Korea, and rare in japan until banned in the Meiji period.

@ Maju
I'm keeping this up because I've read your blogs for quite a while, and respect you as a gene blogger, but in this case I think your mental models about pop movements are incorrect.

1. When a closely related pop invades another one even a slight movement in pca/fst involves a large amt of replacement, because of your aformentioned 'hair-splitting'.

So replacements in Europe are larger than they seem.

2. English are halfway between Dutch and Welsh. By clinist logic they should be much closer to welsh.

Half Dutch? Well.

3. The same applies to Turks, who were not invaded by Yakuts, but by a C. Asian pop, which once again increases the replacement % to disproportionate levels to the pop size of intruders.

3. I would challenge your conclusions about Croats and Ukrainians. What matters is not what they are dominated by, but how big the intrusive element is.

4. By aDna, which you yourself have recorded, South China was likely majority/pure O2 Neolithic. O3 is now dominant in Han eveywhere.
The O3 must have come from somewhere.
Once again the issue is not whether diversity is preserved, but what small fraction of the pop it was squeezed into.

The other exceptions you mentioned are like holes that peep through a wall that has been painted over many, many times. How many other parts of the world actually behave this way?

Sorry for any offense given, but that's my viewpoint.

Ebizur said...

ryukendo wrote,

"Intrasurname marriage was always pariahized in Korea, and rare in japan until banned in the Meiji period."

First, intrasurname marriage is not at all the same thing as marriage between cousins. The traditional rule in Korea, according to which one may not marry a person who shares the same recorded patrilineal ancestor (a member of the same bongwan, i.e. patrilineal clan), should not necessarily forbid the marriage of two individuals who are genetically cousins. On the other hand, it does forbid (and this has caused much controversy in Korean society) the marriage of two individuals who happen to share the same recorded patrilineal ancestor, no matter how distant the relationship.

The Japanese in the Meiji period were keen on creating a statute and a republican government after the model of various countries of Western Europe and America. They did create many laws that had little or no foundation in traditional Japanese culture merely in order to keep up with the latest Western fads; some of those laws have since been overturned, of course. However, as fas as I know, marriage between cousins was never outlawed. Such marriages were actually quite common among even urban Japanese in Tokyo in the early 20th century.

As for the Catholic Church, it is not the be-all and end-all of Western Europe, certainly not since the Anglican schism and the Reformation, nor even prior to those changes (it had no influence over Jews, of course, and it was not a civil authority outside the sovereign territory of the Holy See). In recent history, I recall a certain queen of England and a certain Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist who have married a first cousin.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Ebizur
The problem was that the Church had control over canon law, which included marriage and inheritance issues for all people in latin christendom at that time.

This was the reason for anglicans.

The change this caused persisted in society for a long time. Other than getting rid of remnants of tribes permanently, in 1870s 2.2% of marriages in England were consang. 4.5% for the peerage for obvious reasons.

And of course the queen is peer amongst peers.

Consang in Japan was banned by the 1898 civil code, sano tsunetami was worried, western med and all.
1960s consang for japan is 4%.

Compare this with 25% for Turkey today and well over 50% for Saudis and Pakistanis.

In a glance:
http://www.consang.net/images/0/0e/Globalcolorsmall.jpg

Ebizur said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ebizur said...

ryukendo wrote,

"...in 1870s 2.2% of marriages in England were consang. 4.5% for the peerage for obvious reasons."

If 4.5% of all marriages among aristocrats and 2.2% of all marriages in general are concluded between close relatives, you cannot rightly claim that such marriages are "strictly forbidden" in that society.

"Consang in Japan was banned by the 1898 civil code, sano tsunetami was worried, western med and all.
1960s consang for japan is 4%."

The Japanese civil code outlaws marriage between the following categories of individuals:

*Lineal relatives by blood or marriage (e.g. one's father, one's grandfather, one's child, one's grandchild, one's ex-husband's or ex-wife's mother or father, one's stepchild)

*Collateral relatives of first, second, or third degree of consanguinity (三親等内の傍系血族). This forbids marriage between a person and his or her sibling, aunt or uncle, or niece or nephew; unlike the case of lineal relatives, this clause applies to collateral relatives by blood only.

*An adopted child and his or her adoptive parent or any of the adoptive parent's lineal ascendants, or an adoptive parent and any of his or her adopted child's lineal descendants

As I have stated previously, marriage between cousins never has been outlawed in Japan.

It is true that the rate of consanguineous marriage has declined in Japan over the course of the last century, but the change has been inhomogeneous, with a greater decline observed in Asahikawa, Hokkaidō than in Fukue, Nagasaki in the remote Gotō Islands for example. Regardless, it is still incorrect to claim that consanguineous marriage is "strictly forbidden" in Japan unless you do not consider marriage between first cousins to be consanguineous.

barakobama said...

Maju,

It's this type of twisted raciest crap I reacted to at a young age. Before you treat someone like an ass for wrong believes they have, consider where they might be coming from.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/20/opinion/whitaker-ferguson-shooting/index.html?hpt=ju_t3

I don't care if this is way off subject. If you keep your nose so high you're going to drown in a rain storm.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Ebizur

Well it seems you're correct.

"Japan's outcaste abolition":

"...the concern with inbreeding that emerged in the latter part of the Meiji period was much broader in its focus, and it was given legal grounding by the 1898 Civil Code, which prohibited marriages between close relatives"

This plus misunderstanding of "third degree of consanguinity" in Todd produced the mistake above.

Apologize for presumption.

Nevertheless the pattern broadly holds.

@ barakobama
@ Maju

I come from Asia, now studying in the US. I live in the black house in my college. Even though I had not met a single black person before I came here 2+yr ago.

I do not have any 'beliefs'.

Emmanuel Todd is a demographer and French public intellectual who shot to fame because he predicted both the Arab Spring and the collapse of the Soviet Union years before they happened. The former from collapsing rates of consang, and the later from collapse in fertility, rise in promiscuity and infant mort. Graduate from trinity college cambridge.

Greg clark is professor of econ at UC davis, and editor of European review of economic history. He is featured in the NYT.

As for the heritability statistics, they are from Steven pinker.

Hardly the profile of racists here.

Maju you need to stop talking past the evidence presented by some of the world's foremost academics.


Maju said...

@BO: Precisely: stigmatizing ethnic groups as whole is what feeds racist rampages likes those of police in Ferguson yesterday and in New York today, what feeds the total disdain for the more than one hundred thousands killed in the colonialist-financed war in Syria, etc. And precisely for being such a heartless person towards what others feel in these matters is why you were banned from comments at my blog.

I'm not at all worried about your personal "rainstorms", naturally. I just tried to cool down the matter by not raising the issue again, as did most others involved. But if you insist on attempting to tele-pee on me your "rainstorm" of nothingness, I can't remain idle forever.

barakobama said...

Ryukendo kendow, since you’re from “Asia” I’d like to hear your opinon.

Maju, you misinterpreted my last comment. The point I was making is that you haven't considered very much how my background affects my beliefs and that you need to learn to forgive. Me and you have completely different backgrounds, neither of us understand where the other is coming from.

We are also very similar. You don’t understand that I’m against the same things you are. It’s just that you can’t see past hard feelings, insults, and me tending towards the right and you tending towards the left. I’ve been an enemy and a jerk to you in some situations but that doesn’t make my ultimate message wrong. I’m 100% open with being your best buddy and forgetting about all my hard feelings, but the only problem is you refuse to do the same.

I’ve seen the same type of racism towards Europeans that was committed in that CNN article for my whole life. Do you really think that when I was an innocent 5-6 year old kindergartener and told my family about it that I was lying? Even back then I could see it, if you can't you're intentionally ignoring it. It’s safe to assume you didn’t experience this racism while growing up in ethnically-uniform Basque country and racially-uniform southwest Europe in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

You strongly condemned racist beliefs I had in the past which were a reaction to racism against Europeans. I have repented and changed, yet you stubbornly refuse to change the way you see me. That’s why I haven't stopped with these “rainstorms”.

You consider yourself left-winged(by European standards) so if left winged Americans stand up for racism it seems you mostly blindly follow them without deeply looking at the situation. I don't have an opinion on most things the left stands for. The only thing I'm very strongly against is their unrelenting hate for traditional westernism and propaganda-discrimination via the media.

You have great moral rules for your blog against discrimination for many people, and one big group you leave out are conservatives. I can give examples of you insulting religious people and simple non-hateful beliefs traditional western people stand for, yet you don't ban yourself. You should look over your own intolerance.

barakobama said...

"And precisely for being such a heartless person towards what others feel in these matters is why you were banned from comments at my blog."

You misinterpreted my statement and twisted it to make me seem like a “heartless person”. Actually a big reason I care about the Brown thing is because people are using his death to express racist hate.

I do feel sorry for him and his family, friends, etc. I totally understand this is a serious issue. A policeman wrongly murdered someone who had great potential(he was 6’4 and over 250 ibs), his life was ended, it's very sad. I will not lie though and say race had something to do with his murder. I will not ignore the fact that the American media has used his death to express their own racist hate and to send out propaganda.

Come on dude, how do you not notice that the American media is searching as hard as they can to find white racism in his murder? They treated Phil Robertson and Tryevon Martian in a similar way. CBS even messed with tapes from the Martian murder to make it seem like Zimmerman was racial profiling him. They called Zimmerman a white man as much as they could, despite the fact his mother was Mexican.

Why wasn't there Nazi-like political correctness(aka discriminating)) in the 90's or even 10 years ago? It's not that America is becoming more homophobic and racist, it's that our media is being controlled by left wing extremist who discriminate, twist the truth, and know Americans are very ignorant and easy to brain wash.

“stigmatizing ethnic groups as whole is what feeds racist rampages likes those of police in Ferguson yesterday”

Currently in 2014, European Americans aren’t the main thing stigmatizing African Americans. Racist ideologies African Americans and other Americans have for African Americans and thug-worshiping cultures are the main things stigmatizing them. There are racist ideas many Americans and African Americans have about African Americans(I don’t understand that very much because I’m a millennial), but the Ferguson thing is not a good example.

The violent protesters who put up signs “kill the pigs” and the American media which is twisting the story did nothing wrong? The main people who are feeding racist rampages are the American media and the violent protesters(some were peaceful and good people addressing a real issue). As long as you and others ignore this America will keep igniting in racist hate.

I’ve spoken to African Americans about the Ferguson issue. I don’t see different beliefs from my own, I see a different interpretation. The ones I have spoken to sincerely believe Brown was murdered because of racist ideas Wilson had. They’re addressing a real problem in America, but I don’t think it relates to the Brown murder.


“I'm not at all worried about your personal "rainstorms", naturally. I just tried to cool down the matter by not raising the issue again, as did most others involved. But if you insist on attempting to tele-pee on me your "rainstorm" of nothingness, I can't remain idle forever.”

I’m not trying to worry you. I’m confronting a problem you have and trying to get on friendly terms with you. If I say liberal discrimination, you profile me as an angry racist. Without prejudice read what I wrote, am I really that bad? Maybe you’re not as wise and tolerant as you assume you are.

barakobama said...

Maju, I'm not the only one.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=84

Maju said...

I don't want to continue with this off-topic discussion, BO. You can email me if you wish (although I'm not personally enthusiastic at the prospect). Whatever the case, sentences like "our media is being controlled by left wing extremist" shows how far from reality your mind is. US media is controlled by very few hands with names and surnames of the kind of Rupert Murdoch, all of which are reactionary, even to the extremes. Why not even that pleases you is something that you may want to meditate about.