PDA

View Full Version : Haplogroup 16: Mongoloid or Caucasoid?



Tore
Saturday, June 7th, 2003, 11:21 PM
Y chromsome frequency of haplogroup 16 (Uralic haplogroup)

Finnish 61
Lithuanian 47
Saami 42
Estonian 37
Mari 33
Latvian 32
Chuvash 18
Russian 14
Ukranian 11
Northern Swedish 8
Gotlander 6
Polish 4
Norwegian 4
German 3
Armenian 3
Slovakian 3
Danish 2
Belarusian 2
Turkish 1

________________________________________ ____________

Personally, I believe hg 16 is of Caucasoid derivation, as an East -West gene flow appears to be present, as populations such as the Mari and Chuvash have a lessened incidence of hg 16 a comparitive to European populations as the Saami, Finns, and Balts, who appear to have brought the gene East, as oppose to vice versa.

However, I am no geneticist by any means, and would appreciate any input on the subject.

Feel free to respond.

StrÝbog
Saturday, June 7th, 2003, 11:27 PM
It would help if there were data for clearly Mongoloid populations like Manchus, Han Chinese, Mongolians, etc. for comparison.

Von Braun
Monday, June 9th, 2003, 10:32 PM
The frequency seems to increase as you go north and east. So that indicates it is either specific to a Caucasoid group that is heavily concentrated in those parts (Finland, Russia, etc.) and not in others (such as East Baltics), or that it is the result of a Mongoloid mixing gradient that basically fades out by the time it reaces central Europe (in terms of longitude) and moderate northern Europe (Denmark) and south of that.

Tore
Monday, June 9th, 2003, 11:10 PM
The frequency seems to increase as you go north and east. So that indicates it is either specific to a Caucasoid group that is heavily concentrated in those parts (Finland, Russia, etc.) and not in others (such as East Baltics), or that it is the result of a Mongoloid mixing gradient that basically fades out by the time it reaces central Europe (in terms of longitude) and moderate northern Europe (Denmark) and south of that.

Yes, geographically speaking, hg 16 is much more concentrated in North-East Europe than it is in other parts of the continent, suggesting that its presence may be non-European, yet I see the influence as being much to high, even if one takes into account that it is indicitive of paternal lineages only.

I think mongoloid ancestry is better shown by hg 12, from a purely statistical viewpoint.

Mari 17
Czech 6
Russian 4
Estonian 4
Cypriot 2
Yugoslavian 2
Finnish 2
Pakistani Brahui 1
Turkish 1
Slovakian 1
Polish 1

There is hg 26 as well, which, if I remember one of Ross' posts, is hunnish/avar influence, so not distinctly mongoloid, but definitely not European.

Kurdish Jews 19
Chuvash 18
Indian Uttar Pradesh Muslims 16
Sephardic Jews 8
Palestinian Arabs 7
Italian 6
Pakistani Pathan 6
Turkish 5
Estonian 5
Moroccan Berber 4
Ossetian 4
Cypriot 4
Pakistani Burusho 4
Ashkenazi Jews 4
Muslim Kurds 4
Greek 3
German 3
Northern Portuguese 3
Indian Uttar Pradesh Rajputs 3
Scottish 2
Gotlander 2
Southern Portuguese 2
Pakistani Baluch 2
Romanian 2
Armenian 2
Georgian 2
Belarusian 2
Egypt 2
Pakistani Brahui 1
Russian 1
Slovakian 1
Yugoslavian 1
Spanish 1
Belgian 1
East Anglian 1

StrÝbog
Tuesday, June 10th, 2003, 12:02 AM
Huns were Turko-Mongol, so I am fairly certain they were Mongoloid in appearance. Has it been proven that Huns and Avars are the same group? I have gotten a great deal of contradictory information on central Asian ethnic groups.... I have heard the Kurgans, for example, described as everything from swarthy Turkics to blonde/blue BA's. This general confusion is due to the obvious migratory/nomadic nature of central Asian groups. The Alans, Sarmatians, and Scythians are others about which I am uncertain, though I am increasingly inclined to believe that the Scythians were Pontid.

Tore
Tuesday, June 10th, 2003, 04:23 AM
Huns were Turko-Mongol, so I am fairly certain they were Mongoloid in appearance. Has it been proven that Huns and Avars are the same group? I have gotten a great deal of contradictory information on central Asian ethnic groups.... I have heard the Kurgans, for example, described as everything from swarthy Turkics to blonde/blue BA's. This general confusion is due to the obvious migratory/nomadic nature of central Asian groups. The Alans, Sarmatians, and Scythians are others about which I am uncertain, though I am increasingly inclined to believe that the Scythians were Pontid.

Yes, the discrepency evident when pertaining to the physical appearance of each central asian ethnicty only complicates interpretation of genetic evidence.