Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hypergamy's Genographic implications

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

  • Hypergamy's Genographic implications

    I encountered the term hypergamy in a paper on human population genetics several years ago. The meaning was obvious from the context. The Lithuania paper I recently referenced reminded me of the suggestion. There are modern examples such as Osama ben Ladin who is one of around 50 sons. Of course we have the recods of ancient Harems with the many wives and eunuchs to guard them. There are also accounts of conquering armies exterminating or castrating the male population and "marying" the women.

    I suspect this boastful account reflects some event remembered by one of the many disparate populations of ancient Palestine.

    6: And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
    7: And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
    8: And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
    9: And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
    10: And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
    11: And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
    12: And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
    13: And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
    14: And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
    15: And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
    16: Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
    17: Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
    18: But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
    What are the impications of these practices on the results we see in Genographic studies of modern populations?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Hetware
    I encountered the term hypergamy in a paper on human population genetics several years ago. The meaning was obvious from the context. The Lithuania paper I recently referenced reminded me of the suggestion. There are modern examples such as Osama ben Ladin who is one of around 50 sons. Of course we have the recods of ancient Harems with the many wives and eunuchs to guard them. There are also accounts of conquering armies exterminating or castrating the male population and "marying" the women.

    I suspect this boastful account reflects some event remembered by one of the many disparate populations of ancient Palestine.

    [Bible quote]

    What are the impications of these practices on the results we see in Genographic studies of modern populations?
    What are the implications you ask? Well, answering to those who are familiar with genealogical terminology such as trees and branches, can we say that the Midianites were prunned out of existence, courtesy of Moses and his warriors?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Victor
      What are the implications you ask? Well, answering to those who are familiar with genealogical terminology such as trees and branches, can we say that the Midianites were prunned out of existence, courtesy of Moses and his warriors?
      I wonder if the impact of that shows up in the current population of the region. I also wonder where else such events may have impacted the current genetic frequencies.

      But that is only one side of the issue. In the Stoneking et al paper on Lithuania, the male reproduction rate was significantly higher than that of the females. That means someone was "hording" women. One man can parent hundreds of children. A woman will rarely get to 20 children in a lifetime.

      There is also the consideration of dispraportionate relative population growth rates. The evidence I'm seeing suggests some populations, such as the Slavs may have more or less "come out of nowhere". That is, we won't find a significant archaeological record because they started fairly recently with a small population and reproduced very rapidly. These factors don't appear to get much attention in the genographic literature.

      Comment


      • #4
        It would not surprise me to see the effects of hypergamy in populations around the world, but not at the higher level haplogroups R1b, R1a, Q etc...

        These were established while humans were still mostly hunter gatherers. I think hypergamy would have played a bigger role when people settled down in localized farming communities.

        If the Genographic project manages to get enough data so that we can get down to some sub-subclades, I think we will start to see the effects of factors like hypergamy, and as a side benefit start to put haplogroups in an hiostoric context.

        I have my doubts about the , Ghengis Khan tests.....

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Hetware
          I wonder if the impact of that shows up in the current population of the region. I also wonder where else such events may have impacted the current genetic frequencies.
          IMO, there has to be a noticeable impact.

          Everytime someone wonders why they don't have any genetic neighbors, meaning similar haplotypes, there's the possibility that they could be a lonely surviving branch and that other near branches around them were somehow wiped out in the past either in natural catastrophes or by man made destruction.

          In an ideal world, we should find a gradual progression from one haplotype to another without such big gaps in-between. Of course there are still very, very few records in haplotype databases to conclude such a thing but the possibility is very real.

          But that is only one side of the issue. In the Stoneking et al paper on Lithuania, the male reproduction rate was significantly higher than that of the females. That means someone was "hording" women. One man can parent hundreds of children. A woman will rarely get to 20 children in a lifetime.
          Hording women. Hasn't that been every man's secret fantasy always?

          There is also the consideration of dispraportionate relative population growth rates. The evidence I'm seeing suggests some populations, such as the Slavs may have more or less "come out of nowhere". That is, we won't find a significant archaeological record because they started fairly recently with a small population and reproduced very rapidly. These factors don't appear to get much attention in the genographic literature.
          Well, it must surely have gotten the attention of some racialist groups for sure. Is this a fact or just a rumor?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Victor
            IMO, there has to be a noticeable impact.

            Everytime someone wonders why they don't have any genetic neighbors, meaning similar haplotypes, there's the possibility that they could be a lonely surviving branch and that other near branches around them were somehow wiped out in the past either in natural catastrophes or by man made destruction.
            I am convinced that there have been several catastrophic events that impacted regional and global populations. Many Westerners fail to realize that the bubonic plague pandemic of the 14th Century began in South East Asis and spread first to China where it wiped out as much as 90% of the population in some regions before spreading along the trade routes into Europe.

            But that is only once such pandemic. There have been many that history does tell about. There were probebly more that are virtually forgotten.

            Originally posted by Victor
            Well, it must surely have gotten the attention of some racialist groups for sure. Is this a fact or just a rumor?
            Is what a fact or rumor?

            Comment


            • #7
              America example

              This what you referer to happend in even bigger scale in the America's. The male population got wiped out while the surviving female population become wifes or got offspring with spanish or portugise males. I do not know how much this happend in the US and in Canada, but for shure it must have happend at large scale resulting in the "mestis" population of mixed spanish/portugise and indian populations.

              Comment


              • #8
                I do not know how much this happend in the US and in Canada
                I can comment for Quebec, which was a point of early contact. The population is well documented to the beginning of the colony and so most people (French Canadians) can trace their pedigree back in all directions to the first colonists i.e. early 1600s.

                It would appear that native populations mixing in with Europeans from France happened very little. I don't know of any genetic studies, I am speaking purely from a genealogical perspective. I would be very curious to see the genetic makeup of the "Québecois de souche".

                Going back to the comment of Hypergamy. I would just say that the prevalence of one haplotype over another in a modern population is due to many factors. Some of the processes are still poorly understood. In Quebec particularly, hypergamy did not play a role because it was socially taboo. Yet we see examples of some families vastly outnumbering others in terms of descendants. The Tremblays, Bouchers, Morins and Michauds for example.

                I am no anthropologist (I'm certain you have noticed ) but my general understanding is that individuals that are polygamous are usually high status or well to do. An arab co-worker of mine told me a man with 3 wives who wanted a 4th for example would have to demonstrate a certain amount of wealth.

                The case for Hypergamy, would have to be a super star like a Ghengis Khan or fantastically wealthy like a Bin Laden.

                As we all know, family fortunes can change very quickly. So after an intial generation or two, how big of an impact does this have compared to others?

                I think the biggest factor of all is time. Therefore those factors that existed in the past (genetic drift, founders effect) influenced the numbers more than factors that came later on.

                Hence my argument about Hypergamy not playing as big a role because I don't think it exisited in hunter gatherer societies.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by EBurgess
                  It would appear that native populations mixing in with Europeans from France happened very little. I don't know of any genetic studies, I am speaking purely from a genealogical perspective. I would be very curious to see the genetic makeup of the "Québecois de souche".
                  It would be interesting to see mtDNA study resuts. I know of at least one American author who didn't put much stock in the Quebec pedigrees. Interestingly, the Cajuns are said to be the offspring of Frenchmen and Na Dené women who left Quebec long ago. This is not attributed to Conquitadore methods, but rather more diplomatic means.

                  Originally posted by EBurgess
                  In Quebec particularly, hypergamy did not play a role because it was socially taboo.
                  We are talking about the French, are we not?

                  Originally posted by EBurgess
                  The case for Hypergamy, would have to be a super star like a Ghengis Khan or fantastically wealthy like a Bin Laden.
                  I suspect Ghengis Khan had a cousin or 10 willing to stand in as proxys. But that, in fact, was more the model I was envisioning. I'm far from sold on the model, but some scholars have proposed the existance of "Indo-European Männerbunde" who spread their seed far and wide without the help of the sisters of their comrads.

                  If, for example, a thechnologically more advanced band of hores-riding warriors invaded a fairly isolated and peaceful primitive population and managed to kill or drive off all the men at a ratio of say 10 to 1, that would leave every warrior, on average, 10 wives. In the next generation, like father like son....

                  It's interesting to observe the difference in marital relations of Lakshman and Rama verses Ravna in the Ramayana. Though the former are the sons of different wives of the same father, they both are monogamous[*]. In contrast, wicked Ravna is said to have countless wives in his Lanka stronghold.
                  [*] There are different versions of the Ramayana, and I am only familiar with one. The details may not be the same in other versions.

                  Originally posted by EBurgess
                  As we all know, family fortunes can change very quickly. So after an intial generation or two, how big of an impact does this have compared to others?
                  We also know that in some cultures fraternal loyalty can be very strong. If such a practice became institutionalized as a class or caste system, it could have reprocussions for many generations.

                  Originally posted by EBurgess
                  I think the biggest factor of all is time. Therefore those factors that existed in the past (genetic drift, founders effect) influenced the numbers more than factors that came later on.

                  Hence my argument about Hypergamy not playing as big a role because I don't think it exisited in hunter gatherer societies.
                  It exists as a rule in Chimpanzee societies. As a statistical bias in prehistoric times, it seems probable that the fraction of males who reproduced verses the total number born was significantly smaller than the similar fraction of females. In purly reproductive terms, men are far more expendable than women.

                  Suppose there were a fishing village of 1000 adults. One day 90% of the adult male population is destroyed by a storm while out to sea. As long as they are able to acquire sufficient food to survive for the next few years, that population will recover fairly quickly. OTOH, imagine a tsunami passed under the fishermen unnoticed, but wiped out 90% of the female population along with 90% of the boys. That population will have a much harder road to recovery.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by hetware
                    I know of at least one American author who didn't put much stock in the Quebec pedigrees.
                    Well this does not surprise me at all. All I can say is that there are now a handful of independant sources corroborating large parts of the genealogy. I think the first work was the genealogical dictionary by jetté ( a priest) dated to the mid 1800s. Then there is the work done by the Drouin institute, as well as the P.R.D.H. It is important to note that future works did find mistakes in earlier versions like Jetté. Also important to note that the source documents remain the same for the most part. Notary records, Parish records etc...

                    That being said there is no escape from the line of criticism that says these works were politically motivated (hope noone burns me at the stake for that one). This would be a whole other thread and probably not appropriate for this forum.

                    Much of the work cited above has been validated independantly by hobbyists. Don't forget that France wanted tight control over its new colony.

                    I had to think for a second when you said Mtdna tests (instead of Y-dna) for corroborating the data. But yes you are correct. I did see a French Canadian Group at FTDNA, unfortunatley I don't see it getting much traction in Quebec. The administrator is in California.


                    We are talking about the French, are we not?
                    Ok that was funny..

                    It exists as a rule in Chimpanzee societies.
                    Yes, but I wonder... The dominant male changing in the group can happen in one lifetime, do we see the first Alpha chimp well represented 20 generations down given the other factors at play? For example chimps have been known to raid and kill the males in rival (tribes?) Some of the females probably going to lower level chimps.

                    Your point is a good one, in that it would be a factor as far back in time as the others. I just wonder in a statistical model how much weight this factor would have compared to the others.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X