Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maori Haplogroup

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Maori Haplogroup

    Am I reading Underhill's 2001 paper, "Maori Origins, Y-Chromosome Haplotypes and Implications for Human History in the Pacific" correctly?

    (1) Almost half of the Maori samples in the study show a European paternal lineage. I quote "Haplotypes ht7, 8, 10, 11, and 21 are common in Europe [Semino et al., 2000]. Taken together these five European haplotypes occur at 48.1% in Maori and 23.5% in our Polynesian samples, respectively." i.e., There was a lot of inbreeding between Europeans and the Maori.

    (2) The article identifies 3 mutations that show up in the Maori population - M38, M9, and M122. About these he states. "The identification of ht3 defined by M38 in Maori and Polynesians (in 23/54 and 7/17 subjects respectively—Table 1) unequivocally defines an important lineage with Melanesian heritage. The occurrence of ht16 lineage, although only defined by M9, is suggestive of an additional signature from Melanesia. .. In contrast to ht3 and ht16, haplotype ht12, defined by M122, indicates a Southeast Asian ancestry (in 3/54 Maori and 3/17 Polynesians; see Table 1), possibly brought to the Pacific area after the expansion of agriculture from Asia"

    If you look at the ISOGG URL below, other researchers have identified specific haplogroups for these mutations. For example, M38 means that you are haplogroup C2, M9 is haplogroup K, and M122 is O3.
    http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_YDNA_SNP_Index07.html

    So, if you show up in DNA testing as Haplogroup C2, K, or O3 then your paternal line is indigenous to that part of the world. If you show up as R1b, then your paternal line is likely European.

  • #2
    Colonists, advanced in technological skills, have had the upper hand in native societies. This ascendancy has, unfortunately, resulted in warfare for control of resources and territory, with negative consequences for local male populations. In such circumstances, availability of surplus eligible females would be -- and has been -- well exploited. Also, upward social mobility for native females would be highly attractive in such a scenario. So what we see in the case of Maoris is: European (primarily English) colonists having successful reproductive unions with Maori women, thus skewing the local Y-chromosome break-up considerably.

    India has seen a similar situation where purely indigenous women (mtDNA Haplogroups M, M2,M3, M5, U2i, U7, R*) number as much as 70% (Metspalu et al, 2004) while indigenous men (Y-Haplogroups H1, R2, L1, F*, H*, H2, C5) add upto 48% only (Sengupta et al, 2006). It is obvious that "outside" males (belonging to Haplogroups R1a, J2b2, J2a, R1b3) have done what English colonists did in New Zealand, to skew the male lineages in their favour by reproducing through local women.

    PS: My observation about India applies to early IE-speakers (Aryan??) and not later English colonists. Why the Englishmen did not leave behind a widespread R1b signature in India could be an interesting research topic in itself!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by K. Campbell
      So, if you show up in DNA testing as Haplogroup C2, K, or O3 then your paternal line is indigenous to that part of the world. If you show up as R1b, then your paternal line is likely European.
      To be fair, I would point out that 'indigenous' is a somewhat relative term. C2 may be genuinely indigenous, in the sense of being the first modern humans in the area; then came K, then O3. After many centuries, not to mention millennia, it is difficult to know whether each such wave of immigration came as guests, merchants, evangelists, settlers, colonizers, or even invaders.

      Comment


      • #4
        Kaiser:

        it seems to me the case of the British in India is different in that, first, they were a tiny number relative to the existing Indian population, and second, they were not colonists who planned to settle their families and remain there, they were more government workers in mission. So they remained socially distinct and in general were against marrying local women, they usually brought their wives from Britain. Certainly there must have been many out of wedlock children, but again, given the numbers, not enough to have any relevant impact. In New Zealand, they were colonists who planned to remain there indefinitely. I also assume that the ratio of male to female colonists was high, which then naturally leads to intermarrying. A more extreme case could be Latin America, where the Y chromosome fraction of native haplogroups are even smaller.

        cacio

        Comment


        • #5
          Maori Arrival in vacant land?

          "Aotea is the vessel,
          Te-Roku-o-Whiti is the steering-oar....."

          The long-recited Maori oral tradition of the first arrival from Polynesia/Melanesia says nothing about finding any indigenous population to be overcome or joined.
          Last edited by derinos; 22 January 2007, 07:15 PM. Reason: Melanesia

          Comment


          • #6
            In my extended DNATRIBES report I match Maori. I have no known Maori ancestry. Maori's were being abducted by the English since the 1760s.
            I am currently reading "The Fox Boy: The Story of an Abducted Child" by Peter Walker. It is a biography of a Maori child snatched from New Zealand in the mid-1800s and sent to England. He was raised by an Englishman who became the Prime Minister (Fox). Other children were kidnapped too, but only one became famous.

            Comment


            • #7
              Cacio: Succinct and well-versed as usual. Thanks. A point about R1b3 in India. Does it point to a British colonists' signature? YSearch shows most of the R1b3 entries as English or Scottish.

              PS: Though it is a Maori thread, we drifted off to British colonists, so might just continue here.

              Comment


              • #8
                Kaiser:

                I am a little confused with the terminology of R1b's, which I have not been following. What markers define R1b3? Is it like the standard European R1b1c? I believe the European R1b types are also present in Turkey, Anatolia and Iran, so if this is the case, they may not represent British admixture, at least, not all of them. Of course, R1b's among the Maori (or among Native Americans) would indeed point out to a European origin.

                cacio

                Comment


                • #9
                  cacio: We are talking of R1b3 (M-269), undifferentiated, as Sengupta does not discuss downstream markers like M-37, M-65, M126, M-153, M60, M-222, SRY2627 (which define R1b3a through R1b3g). It leaves things a bit ambiguous, but then we aren't comparing surnames.

                  By the way, I have not come across any Y-DNA study on South Asia that mentions R1b3, except for Sengupta's. Most of them discuss R*, R1*, R1a and R2.

                  Just a small stat to note: R1b3 has a incidence of 2.8% in Pakistan versus 0.6% in India. Seems more like a traders' North-South cline than any Tommy at work.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Kaiser:

                    thanks for clearing up. I think now in many projectis it is referred to as R1b1c (as per the isogg tree).

                    It seems that what you said is the story. According to Cinnioglu, Anatolia has 76/530 R1b3, ie 15% (plus a bunch of other R1, including 36 R1a). Iran has 10% or so, and Armenia quite a bit too. (I don't know about Central Asia, though I suspect it has some). So here's a clear gradient.

                    cacio

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      How do you guys on here think most of the J2a*-M410 in India got there? I have read that it most likely came with Indo-Europeans but I have also read that it may have came with Dravidians? Sengupta also says that some J2 may have even went to India before the Neolithic. What do you think?




                      Y-DNA: J2a*

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kaiser
                        Colonists, advanced in technological skills, have had the upper hand in native societies. This ascendancy has, unfortunately, resulted in warfare for control of resources and territory, with negative consequences for local male populations. In such circumstances, availability of surplus eligible females would be -- and has been -- well exploited. Also, upward social mobility for native females would be highly attractive in such a scenario. So what we see in the case of Maoris is: European (primarily English) colonists having successful reproductive unions with Maori women, thus skewing the local Y-chromosome break-up considerably.

                        India has seen a similar situation where purely indigenous women (mtDNA Haplogroups M, M2,M3, M5, U2i, U7, R*) number as much as 70% (Metspalu et al, 2004) while indigenous men (Y-Haplogroups H1, R2, L1, F*, H*, H2, C5) add upto 48% only (Sengupta et al, 2006). It is obvious that "outside" males (belonging to Haplogroups R1a, J2b2, J2a, R1b3) have done what English colonists did in New Zealand, to skew the male lineages in their favour by reproducing through local women.

                        PS: My observation about India applies to early IE-speakers (Aryan??) and not later English colonists. Why the Englishmen did not leave behind a widespread R1b signature in India could be an interesting research topic in itself!
                        Hitler claims he's Aryan -was the fool an Indian? Then why did they not support India instead Germany? Or did all the Indians move to Germany?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jambalaia32
                          Hitler claims he's Aryan -was the fool an Indian? Then why did they not support India instead Germany? Or did all the Indians move to Germany?
                          I'm an American whose ancestors came from Europe. My DNATRIBES results matches me to several non-European places. One of those is Pakistan! Maybe my Pakistan match reflects my ancient Indo-European Aryan ancestors who poured into Europe from India/Pakistan?

                          I also match Oriya Brahmin, Javanese, Maori, Dubai, Mozambique, and West Polynesia. Very weird.

                          My ABDNA says I'm 17% Native American, but I have no known Native American ancestry, and DNATRIBES has not linked me to American Indians. I initially matched Alaskan Athabaskan, but the score dropped to a non-match in my updated report. DNATRIBES says I have no American Indian matches. But I match Pakistan! and Maori!

                          Either ABDNA is wrong or DNATRIBES is wrong. Maybe both are?

                          I'm 1/4 Czech. DNATRIBES extended report lists my Czech Republic match at 1.45. Pakistan match is 9.46 (increased from original report). Maputo, Mozambique at 11.23. Mozambique at 10.44. Syria at 8.39 (increase). Denmark 7.49 (makes sense because the Danes invaded England. I'm an Anglo-American). Austria 7.17. Iran 7.82. Maori at 5.69. Canary Islands 4.88
                          Last edited by rainbow; 10 February 2007, 04:33 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            rainbow: Yours seems like a very interesting case. What's your Y-DNA Haplogroup? ... and your ysearch ID might help as well.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kaiser
                              rainbow: Yours seems like a very interesting case. What's your Y-DNA Haplogroup? ... and your ysearch ID might help as well.

                              I don't have a y-dna. I'm female. mito only.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X