The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Gene Expression BlogTeasers
Admixture Beyond the Single Pulse
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Graham Coop’s group has been exploring the implications of more complex models of spatial structured genetic variation and admixture for the last few years. I’ve already pointed Gideon Bradburd’s SpaceMix preprint, which attempts to differentiate genetic relatedness due to geographic proximity and therefore continuous gene flow, as opposed to an admixture event which is not congruous with spatial position (e.g., the Norwegian Sami have more Siberian than many groups to their east). Alisa Sedghifar now has a paper out in Genetics, The Spatial Mixing of Genomes in Secondary Contact Zones. Here’s the abstract:

Recent genomic studies have highlighted the important role of admixture in shaping genome-wide patterns of diversity. Past admixture leaves a population genomic signature of linkage disequilibrium (LD), reflecting the mixing of parental chromosomes by segregation and recombination. These patterns of LD can be used to infer the timing of admixture, but the results of inference can depend strongly on the assumed demographic model. Here, we introduce a theoretical framework for modeling patterns of LD in a geographic contact zone where two differentiated populations have come into contact and are mixing by diffusive local migration. Assuming that this secondary contact is recent enough that genetic drift can be ignored, we derive expressions for the expected LD and admixture tract lengths across geographic space as a function of the age of the contact zone and the dispersal distance of individuals. We develop an approach to infer age of contact zones using population genomic data from multiple spatially sampled populations by fitting our model to the decay of LD with recombination distance. To demonstrate an application of our model, we use our approach to explore the fit of a geographic contact zone model to three human genomic datasets from populations in Indonesia, Central Asia and India and compare our results to inference under different demographic models. We obtain substantially different results to the commonly used model of panmictic admixture, highlighting the sensitivity of admixture timing results to the choice of demographic model.

k10064 In a stylized fashion what’s going on here is that genome-wide data sets have allowed for the inference of admixture events which usually assume a single pulse of rapid random mating between two extremely diverse populations. This works in a controlled laboratory situation, but is less plausible for humans. There are cases which fit, such as the settlement of Pitcairn by the mutineers from the Bounty, but they’re exceptional (another case might be the admixture you see in some areas of Latin America from Amerindians, where the indigenous groups seem to have disappeared after a few generations, but it turns out that native women were assimilated into the European and African populations in a very short period of time). An alternative scenario is one where two populations come into contact, and admixture takes a longer period of time. In a spatial rendering there’d be a “contact zone” where gene flow might occur in fashion well modeled as a diffusion process. To give a concrete example of the latter case I will offer the Kalmyk people. The Estonian Biocentre has posted some data from this population, and all of them have varying levels of European admixture. As there is variance it is likely that this admixture did not happen all at once. Rather, once the Kalmyks migrated to Russia three hundred years ago there has been continuous gene flow into the community, as opposed to a frenzy of admixture, after which barriers might be thrown up. The latter scenario actually might be likely to occur in a case where only male Kalmyks migrated, but as it was the population it was a full folk wandering, where the tribes evacuated Dzungaria as a whole (I am aware that there were also back migrations, please don’t leave a comment explaining this to me!).

journal.pgen.1003925.g002

Citation: Moreno-Estrada, Andrés, et al. “Reconstructing the population genetic history of the Caribbean.” (2013): e1003925.

So what happens after an admixture event? As noted in this paper assuming a simple pulse admixture the distribution of ancestry tract lengths and LD decay is exponential. This is a function of the fact that recombination is going to break apart ancestral multi-locus allelic associations as a function of generation time. As an extreme example, the F1 offspring of two very different populations would have alternative ancestry tracts on their paternal and maternal chromosomes. Obviously LD would be very high as well. But as the F1 population randomly mates the LD would be broken apart by recombination, as ancestry tracts would begin to alternate on chromosomal segments. You can see it when you perform ancestry deconvolution on groups such as Puerto Ricans. There are short segments due to old Native American ancestry which entered the population over a narrow period of time which has been chopped up by recombination. In contrast, the African segments have a wider range of block lengths in part because there has been more continuous admixture since the settlement of the island by the Spaniards.

Sedghifar et al. building an analytical framework to allow one to make inferences which are hopefully true to the more multi-textured manner in which populations actually admix than the single pulse. As the paper is open access I invite readers to peruse the formalism as well as the simulations which were performed to evaluate their framework. It strikes me that this is a definite first-pass, but a necessary one. As noted in the paper, but well known for years, the single pulse admixture models tend to underestimate the dates of mixing (or, more charitably, they pick up the last “pulse”). So, often when I saw a paper giving an admixture estimate, I took that as a floor, and nothing more.

In the final section the framework is applied to real data sets. There are two issues that jump out into the foreground. As noted by the authors, the HUGO Pan-Asian data set, which is what you need to use for many maritime Southeast Asian groups, has very few markers. At ~50,000 SNPs it’s really an animal grade set of chip data, not human grade one (and even for animals they’re going beyond 60K SNP-chips). The second issue is geographical coverage. It strikes me that ideally they’d have transects that with more sampling by position. This obviously isn’t something that can be changed right now, so I assume that in the future the situation will improve on the data side and the methods can more robustly be applied.

They compared admixture in India, Southeast Asia, and Central Asia. It seems that their framework did not yield much in India, probably because the admixture patterns are complex and old, and could not be easily retrieved from the data with the few assumptions they had (though that in itself tells you something about the real dynamics). This is really a situation where hopefully ancient DNA will allow researchers to fix some parameters in the future. There are cases where compound pulse admixtures are actually a better model for reality than contact zones and diffusion gene flow across the borders. India may be an instance. For example, the Tamil Brahmins seem to have some indigenous South Indian admixture, but very little variation of this admixture across individuals. That implies that once the admixture occurred, there was a long period where gene flow did not occur due to strict endogamy, else you’d see more variation. In a world unencumbered by social constraints a contact zone model would work well, but South Asia may not be that world.

As expected the secondary contact zone model gave an older date of admixture for Southeast Asia, where Austronesians arrived over the lat 4,000 years. Perhaps even too old! They note: “Linguistic evidence suggests that the Austronesian expansion through Indonesia dates to ∼ 4000 years ago (Gray et al. 2009)…Our estimate of timing based on fitting a geographic contact zone (5800 years ago) is much older than dates estimated by single pulse models, but is also considerably older than the Austronesian expansion.” The citation for Gray et al. seems to be this paper, but I’m pretty sure it was meant to be Language Phylogenies Reveal Expansion Pulses and Pauses in Pacific Settlement. In a inter-disciplinary field like this you need to rely on other researchers to complement your own understanding of specific domains. As it happens I am now more skeptical of linguistic phylogenetics than I was, so I don’t put too much stock that the date inferred was much older using their methods than what the linguists believe. Rather, I’d put more of an emphasis on material remains and archaeology, though dating and provenance can be hard to pin down on some occasions.

The last empirical illustration has to do with Central Asia, and I have a bit to say about this. The authors seem to be concerned that their signal of admixture is much older than the period of the Mongol invasions, ~700 years ago. Other studies, based on a pulse admixture model, pin this exact date, and others do not. The problem I have with this is that the real demographic history actually aligns well in my opinion with the dates that are given this paper. I don’t think they needed to take the Mongol model nearly as seriously as they did. But, I doubt that any Central Asianists peer reviewed this for Genetics, so a lot of weight was given probably to the older papers in genetics, where the Mongol angle is always played up. The reality is that there was a massive continuous movement of Turkic peoples from about 500 A.D. from greater Mongolia down into the Persianate world of Central Asia. While in India a contact zone model may not work well due to a history of endogamy, the situation is more amenable to that in Central Asia. I think further extensions of this framework in Inner Asia will be fruitful and necessary.

Though the authors here focus on human data sets, presumably because there was data and we know something about human demographic history, the secondary contact zone model formalized in this paper may be more useful with populations of animals and plants, where social constraints don’t exist to enforce endogamy (unless you count reinforcement!). Also, it probably will be useful in island situations, such as in Japan, where the migration patterns are probably defined by a single admixture followed by a wave of advance which likely had secondary contact zone dynamics (the Ainu have Yayoi ancestry).

Citation: Sedghifar, Alisa, et al. “The Spatial Mixing of Genomes in Secondary Contact Zones.” Genetics (2015).

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Genomics 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Vijay says:

    How does the contact zone model work? Does everyone in the contact zone have similar admixtures after a few hundred years?

    The other thing about central Asia is the current residents do not look Turkic in Kazakhstan or Uzbekstan, even as the language sounds Turkish; how does the contact zone model resolve the Oghuz and the Kipchak?

    Basically it appears that I have no understanding of the contact zone model. My crude picture of the Grand Turkish subcontinent is much more of a soup than India, and the stretch from Anatolia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Central Asian Stans is one big subcontinent with various three way admixtures between Greeks, Asian and Old Iranian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    How does the contact zone model work? Does everyone in the contact zone have similar admixtures after a few hundred years?

    no. the zone is defined by distance from the contact zone. anyway, the paper is open access. the math is not THAT long-winded, as the model is pretty concisely described. you should check it out.
    , @Nicky
    @Vijay
    >The other thing about central Asia is the current residents do not look Turkic in Kazakhstan or Uzbekstan, even as the language sounds Turkish; how does the contact zone model resolve the Oghuz and the Kipchak?

    Excuse me, what do you mean by "the current residents do not look Turkic in Kazakhstan or Uzbekstan, even as the language sounds Turkish"? "Turkic" is a linguistic category and Gagauz and Yakut people are equally Turkic. If you mean appearance, well, it seems that Turkic people were very diverse in terms of appearance already by 5th century AD, you can compare description of Gokturks and Yenisei Kyrgyz in sources. Basically Gokturks described as typical East Asians, while Yenisei Kyrgyz described as having European-like appearance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /gnxp/admixture-beyond-the-single-pulse/#comment-1096491
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. anowow says:

    Two populations that come to mind are Ashkenazi Jews and the South African Coloured.

    How long was the window for admixture between Levantine men and Mediterranean European women which produced the first population?

    How long also was the window for admixture between European, African and Asian men and KhoiKhoi women? Was it pretty much complete by the end of the 18th century? There was probably continued external gene flow into the Christian Coloured Community from black Africans particularly in the Northern and Eastern frontier, but how significant was it? Would there be real differences between Coloured from the Western Cape and those from the Nothern Cape or Griquas? The Cape Muslims probably practiced moderate to strong endogamy after the initial early period. The Natal Coloured population would be a distinct group from the Cape community, being far less Khoisan or Dutch in terms of their ancestry and said community being formed in the 19th century from a union of mostly British men and Nguni women (a single pulse admixture?) with a later and smaller Mauritian element, itself a mixture of diverse Subsaharan African, Madagascan, French and South Asian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    ashkenazi jews are a good case of single pulse. or at least, they've been sealed off for so long that there's not much inter-individual variance. you don't see a 'european' vs. 'middle eastern' cline within them, for example.

    most of the work on coloreds is with cape coloreds. they're a mix of europeans, indians, indonesians, khoikhoi and bantu. http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/3/411.full.pdf+html
  3. @Vijay
    How does the contact zone model work? Does everyone in the contact zone have similar admixtures after a few hundred years?

    The other thing about central Asia is the current residents do not look Turkic in Kazakhstan or Uzbekstan, even as the language sounds Turkish; how does the contact zone model resolve the Oghuz and the Kipchak?

    Basically it appears that I have no understanding of the contact zone model. My crude picture of the Grand Turkish subcontinent is much more of a soup than India, and the stretch from Anatolia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Central Asian Stans is one big subcontinent with various three way admixtures between Greeks, Asian and Old Iranian.

    How does the contact zone model work? Does everyone in the contact zone have similar admixtures after a few hundred years?

    no. the zone is defined by distance from the contact zone. anyway, the paper is open access. the math is not THAT long-winded, as the model is pretty concisely described. you should check it out.

    Read More
  4. @anowow
    Two populations that come to mind are Ashkenazi Jews and the South African Coloured.

    How long was the window for admixture between Levantine men and Mediterranean European women which produced the first population?

    How long also was the window for admixture between European, African and Asian men and KhoiKhoi women? Was it pretty much complete by the end of the 18th century? There was probably continued external gene flow into the Christian Coloured Community from black Africans particularly in the Northern and Eastern frontier, but how significant was it? Would there be real differences between Coloured from the Western Cape and those from the Nothern Cape or Griquas? The Cape Muslims probably practiced moderate to strong endogamy after the initial early period. The Natal Coloured population would be a distinct group from the Cape community, being far less Khoisan or Dutch in terms of their ancestry and said community being formed in the 19th century from a union of mostly British men and Nguni women (a single pulse admixture?) with a later and smaller Mauritian element, itself a mixture of diverse Subsaharan African, Madagascan, French and South Asian.

    ashkenazi jews are a good case of single pulse. or at least, they’ve been sealed off for so long that there’s not much inter-individual variance. you don’t see a ‘european’ vs. ‘middle eastern’ cline within them, for example.

    most of the work on coloreds is with cape coloreds. they’re a mix of europeans, indians, indonesians, khoikhoi and bantu. http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/3/411.full.pdf+html

    Read More
  5. Nicky says:
    @Vijay
    How does the contact zone model work? Does everyone in the contact zone have similar admixtures after a few hundred years?

    The other thing about central Asia is the current residents do not look Turkic in Kazakhstan or Uzbekstan, even as the language sounds Turkish; how does the contact zone model resolve the Oghuz and the Kipchak?

    Basically it appears that I have no understanding of the contact zone model. My crude picture of the Grand Turkish subcontinent is much more of a soup than India, and the stretch from Anatolia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Central Asian Stans is one big subcontinent with various three way admixtures between Greeks, Asian and Old Iranian.


    >The other thing about central Asia is the current residents do not look Turkic in Kazakhstan or Uzbekstan, even as the language sounds Turkish; how does the contact zone model resolve the Oghuz and the Kipchak?

    Excuse me, what do you mean by “the current residents do not look Turkic in Kazakhstan or Uzbekstan, even as the language sounds Turkish”? “Turkic” is a linguistic category and Gagauz and Yakut people are equally Turkic. If you mean appearance, well, it seems that Turkic people were very diverse in terms of appearance already by 5th century AD, you can compare description of Gokturks and Yenisei Kyrgyz in sources. Basically Gokturks described as typical East Asians, while Yenisei Kyrgyz described as having European-like appearance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    fwiw, that comment confused me. he needs to elaborate what was meant. also: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005068
  6. @Nicky
    @Vijay
    >The other thing about central Asia is the current residents do not look Turkic in Kazakhstan or Uzbekstan, even as the language sounds Turkish; how does the contact zone model resolve the Oghuz and the Kipchak?

    Excuse me, what do you mean by "the current residents do not look Turkic in Kazakhstan or Uzbekstan, even as the language sounds Turkish"? "Turkic" is a linguistic category and Gagauz and Yakut people are equally Turkic. If you mean appearance, well, it seems that Turkic people were very diverse in terms of appearance already by 5th century AD, you can compare description of Gokturks and Yenisei Kyrgyz in sources. Basically Gokturks described as typical East Asians, while Yenisei Kyrgyz described as having European-like appearance.

    fwiw, that comment confused me. he needs to elaborate what was meant. also: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005068

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vijay
    That was exactly what I needed. Surprisingly, Indians are poorly versed in all the other nations outside the periphery, including all Stans, Burma, Cambodia. We probably know more about US and UK than about Asia.
  7. notanon says:

    Marriage pattern must be a major factor in this. Strict close cousin marriage for example would act as a natural barrier to admixture between two adjacent populations. In that case captives might be the main source of admixture or maybe marriage alliances between the two elites which then trickle down?

    Either way different combinations of the various kinds of marriage practice would probably lead to different results.

    Read More
  8. Vijay says:
    @Razib Khan
    fwiw, that comment confused me. he needs to elaborate what was meant. also: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005068

    That was exactly what I needed. Surprisingly, Indians are poorly versed in all the other nations outside the periphery, including all Stans, Burma, Cambodia. We probably know more about US and UK than about Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    this is true of non-white people in general unfortunately. they obsess about white people and their own ethnicity. one of my pet peeves. indians are definitely a major culprit, but you see the same with chinese, or latin americans, or africans.
  9. @Vijay
    That was exactly what I needed. Surprisingly, Indians are poorly versed in all the other nations outside the periphery, including all Stans, Burma, Cambodia. We probably know more about US and UK than about Asia.

    this is true of non-white people in general unfortunately. they obsess about white people and their own ethnicity. one of my pet peeves. indians are definitely a major culprit, but you see the same with chinese, or latin americans, or africans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vijay
    Sorry to beat this dead horse, but this is a bit different. The Turks (Mughals) made it all the way from Altai or wherever to India and Anatolia through huge swaths of central Asia almost at the same time (as they reached Anatolia). The Turkic influence on language, culture, food and government is substantial. However, the Indian history sweeps this under the Muslim invasions from the northwest, when it is not clear if the Turkic people were nominally Islamic in 9-10 century AD. In contrast, the British invasion is treated as a positive, and are not viewed as the other or Christian. The entire process of Turks traversing a huge continent, picking up food, culture, new language, etc are all swept away in Indian history.
  10. Vijay says:
    @Razib Khan
    this is true of non-white people in general unfortunately. they obsess about white people and their own ethnicity. one of my pet peeves. indians are definitely a major culprit, but you see the same with chinese, or latin americans, or africans.

    Sorry to beat this dead horse, but this is a bit different. The Turks (Mughals) made it all the way from Altai or wherever to India and Anatolia through huge swaths of central Asia almost at the same time (as they reached Anatolia). The Turkic influence on language, culture, food and government is substantial. However, the Indian history sweeps this under the Muslim invasions from the northwest, when it is not clear if the Turkic people were nominally Islamic in 9-10 century AD. In contrast, the British invasion is treated as a positive, and are not viewed as the other or Christian. The entire process of Turks traversing a huge continent, picking up food, culture, new language, etc are all swept away in Indian history.

    Read More
  11. @vijay

    You got it the other way around. It’s not the Centrals Asians who don’t look Turkic, it’s the Anatolians who don’t look Turkic. The original Turks (speakers of proto-Turkic) were from Central Asia and were equestrian nomads who invaded Anatolia. They likely had a mongoloid appearance. Just because the modern Anatolians have called their state “Turkey” does not mean they are the definitive Turks. It somewhat analogous to the emergence of the first German nationalism and the German empire whose purview did not include other Germanic speaking peoples such as the English, Swedes, or Crimean Goths. (It is not actually analogous because the English and Swedes do not identify as German whereas, to my understanding, the Kazakhs and the Uzbeks do identify as Turks).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    They likely had a mongoloid appearance.

    some of the older paintings make it pretty clear that they had a mongoloid appearance. i've talked to people from turkey who claim that some of the people in central anatolia who were pastoralists until recently usually look more like 'turks' (mongolian).

    It is not actually analogous because the English and Swedes do not identify as German whereas, to my understanding, the Kazakhs and the Uzbeks do identify as Turks

    goes further. pan-turkism is why uighur nationalism is such a big deal in turkey, even though recently some turkish nationalists beat the crap out of a uigher worker at a chinese restaurant because they assumed he must have been chinese based on his look.

    , @bossel
    " the emergence of the first German nationalism and the German empire whose purview did not include other Germanic speaking peoples such as the English, Swedes, or Crimean Goths. (It is not actually analogous because the English and Swedes do not identify as German"
    You seem to confuse German with Germanic. English, Swedish & German are Germanic languages (there is no Germanic as such, at least not any time in the last 2000 years), yes, but German nationalism was not some kind of pan-Germanic nationalism. It focused on German-speaking populations (or if you like, on German - not Germanic - ethnicity).
  12. @Bao JianKang
    @vijay

    You got it the other way around. It's not the Centrals Asians who don't look Turkic, it's the Anatolians who don't look Turkic. The original Turks (speakers of proto-Turkic) were from Central Asia and were equestrian nomads who invaded Anatolia. They likely had a mongoloid appearance. Just because the modern Anatolians have called their state "Turkey" does not mean they are the definitive Turks. It somewhat analogous to the emergence of the first German nationalism and the German empire whose purview did not include other Germanic speaking peoples such as the English, Swedes, or Crimean Goths. (It is not actually analogous because the English and Swedes do not identify as German whereas, to my understanding, the Kazakhs and the Uzbeks do identify as Turks).

    They likely had a mongoloid appearance.

    some of the older paintings make it pretty clear that they had a mongoloid appearance. i’ve talked to people from turkey who claim that some of the people in central anatolia who were pastoralists until recently usually look more like ‘turks’ (mongolian).

    It is not actually analogous because the English and Swedes do not identify as German whereas, to my understanding, the Kazakhs and the Uzbeks do identify as Turks

    goes further. pan-turkism is why uighur nationalism is such a big deal in turkey, even though recently some turkish nationalists beat the crap out of a uigher worker at a chinese restaurant because they assumed he must have been chinese based on his look.

    Read More
  13. bossel says:
    @Bao JianKang
    @vijay

    You got it the other way around. It's not the Centrals Asians who don't look Turkic, it's the Anatolians who don't look Turkic. The original Turks (speakers of proto-Turkic) were from Central Asia and were equestrian nomads who invaded Anatolia. They likely had a mongoloid appearance. Just because the modern Anatolians have called their state "Turkey" does not mean they are the definitive Turks. It somewhat analogous to the emergence of the first German nationalism and the German empire whose purview did not include other Germanic speaking peoples such as the English, Swedes, or Crimean Goths. (It is not actually analogous because the English and Swedes do not identify as German whereas, to my understanding, the Kazakhs and the Uzbeks do identify as Turks).

    ” the emergence of the first German nationalism and the German empire whose purview did not include other Germanic speaking peoples such as the English, Swedes, or Crimean Goths. (It is not actually analogous because the English and Swedes do not identify as German”
    You seem to confuse German with Germanic. English, Swedish & German are Germanic languages (there is no Germanic as such, at least not any time in the last 2000 years), yes, but German nationalism was not some kind of pan-Germanic nationalism. It focused on German-speaking populations (or if you like, on German – not Germanic – ethnicity).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bao JianKang
    No I am not confusing German and Germanic. My point was that the German nationalism was far narrower in scope than Turkic nationalism. All Turkic speaking peoples identify as Turk whereas not all Germanic speaking people identify as German which is why my analagous was not entirely accurate.
  14. @bossel
    " the emergence of the first German nationalism and the German empire whose purview did not include other Germanic speaking peoples such as the English, Swedes, or Crimean Goths. (It is not actually analogous because the English and Swedes do not identify as German"
    You seem to confuse German with Germanic. English, Swedish & German are Germanic languages (there is no Germanic as such, at least not any time in the last 2000 years), yes, but German nationalism was not some kind of pan-Germanic nationalism. It focused on German-speaking populations (or if you like, on German - not Germanic - ethnicity).

    No I am not confusing German and Germanic. My point was that the German nationalism was far narrower in scope than Turkic nationalism. All Turkic speaking peoples identify as Turk whereas not all Germanic speaking people identify as German which is why my analagous was not entirely accurate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nicky
    @Bao JianKang

    >All Turkic speaking peoples identify as Turk

    This is not true. There are numerous example when Turkic speaking people don't identify as Turks. The most clear examples - ethnic clashes between Turkic speaking peoples, like Ferghana riots of 1989 and Osh riots of 1990 and 2010. I read interview by Kyrgyz ambassodor in Turkey, where he insisted that Kyrgyz people are not "Turkler".
  15. Nicky says:
    @Bao JianKang
    No I am not confusing German and Germanic. My point was that the German nationalism was far narrower in scope than Turkic nationalism. All Turkic speaking peoples identify as Turk whereas not all Germanic speaking people identify as German which is why my analagous was not entirely accurate.

    >All Turkic speaking peoples identify as Turk

    This is not true. There are numerous example when Turkic speaking people don’t identify as Turks. The most clear examples – ethnic clashes between Turkic speaking peoples, like Ferghana riots of 1989 and Osh riots of 1990 and 2010. I read interview by Kyrgyz ambassodor in Turkey, where he insisted that Kyrgyz people are not “Turkler”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bao Jiankang
    Haha! I thought someone might jump on me for that. Considering the number of Turkic languages and how geographically widespread they are, it seemed unlikely that every single last turkic speaking group would identify as Turk. I wasn't sure about my statement so I initially intended to use the term "most" but I changed it to "all" because I thought it would sound weak (as if i were to say "virtually all"). Thanks for the clarification.
  16. @Nicky
    @Bao JianKang

    >All Turkic speaking peoples identify as Turk

    This is not true. There are numerous example when Turkic speaking people don't identify as Turks. The most clear examples - ethnic clashes between Turkic speaking peoples, like Ferghana riots of 1989 and Osh riots of 1990 and 2010. I read interview by Kyrgyz ambassodor in Turkey, where he insisted that Kyrgyz people are not "Turkler".

    Haha! I thought someone might jump on me for that. Considering the number of Turkic languages and how geographically widespread they are, it seemed unlikely that every single last turkic speaking group would identify as Turk. I wasn’t sure about my statement so I initially intended to use the term “most” but I changed it to “all” because I thought it would sound weak (as if i were to say “virtually all”). Thanks for the clarification.

    Read More
  17. terryt says:

    “Linguistic evidence suggests that the Austronesian expansion through Indonesia dates to ∼ 4000 years ago (Gray et al. 2009)…Our estimate of timing based on fitting a geographic contact zone (5800 years ago) is much older than dates estimated by single pulse models, but is also considerably older than the Austronesian expansion.”

    There is not necessarily any contradiction here. The earlier date corresponds reasonably well with dates given for the change of the Hoabinhian,, Papuan/Australian Aborigine-looking people, to the more Mongoloid-looking of present day SE Asians. Austronesians did not occupy all regions of the Hoabinhian and so Austronesians must have been only a part of that replacement population. It seems reasonable to suppose that when the Aborigines arrived in Australia they were part of a similar looking population lived as far west as South Asia, and presumably much of SE Asia. How far north such a population reached is more problematic but a recent paper claims the presence of something related to the Aborigines in South America. But that population was largely replaced by a later population expansion.

    Whether the EDAR370A mutation is indicative of the Mongoloid phenotype or not it seems some population expansion carried the mutation into SE Asia, and from there into the Pacific (with the Austronesians) and into South Asia. The mutation did not reach Australia and is found in New Guinea only where it is obviously part of the Austronesian expansion.

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored