Why agnatic succession at all - there must be some
reasons deep in archaic politics, to explain why males
got preference in inheritance patterns.
Y chromosome is inherited agnatically (in other words,
common to a whole patriline), but only by males,
females do not have the Y. Some hereditary features
(in addition to the gender itself) are inherited in
the genes more or less permanently joined in the Y
chromosome. Many of so-joined hereditary traits are
so-called manly heritage: eagerness, instinctiveness,
depth of interest, to hunting, building, sports and
like. Strongly-together-joined parts of the Y
chromosome (i.e, most of it) do not get shuffled at
all, mixed with others, and half left out; when
passing to next generations, but remain very stable
and "wholesome". Environment and upbringing, as well
as genes in other chromosomes have their effect, but
still: as examples, on one hand a father and a son, on
the other hand paternal brothers, have practically
identical Y chromosome and tend to have fairly similar
keenness between themselves to several "manly" things
and behaviors. It is easy to believe that a son or
brother, agnatic successor, tends to exhibit fairly
similar temperament as the predecessor, because of
their common heritage. A ruler will tend to be as good
as a defender and protector as his male-line kinsmen,
which leads to accept agnates of a "good" previous
monarch as natural successors. The modern science of
genetics has a few interesting if historically
irrelevant things to say about agnatic succession: the
human Y chromosome is unable to recombine with the X
chromosome, except for small pieces of pseudoautosomal
regions at the telomeres (which comprise about 5% of
the chromosome's length).
For genealogy: because the human Y chromosome changes
relatively slowly over time and is only passed along
the direct male line, it may be used to trace
patrilineage. However, in remains of the deceased it
destructs fairly soon, within decades even, to too
small or destruct remnants to facilitate any
meaningful DNA testing.
Mitochondrial DNA survives multiply longer times (for
example in bones): centuries, millennia, even longer,
in doses big enough to be meaningfully tested and
compared. Mt-DNA passes through matriline, and is
inherited both by sons and daughters of its carrier.
It is common to the whole uterine lineage.
However, rare societies have surnames and succession
to pass along matriline.
Mitochondrial DNA tends to effect to metabolism of the
body, being conducive to energy conversion functions
of the cell. Seemingly, traits of this feature have
not been very important to "rulership character", as
such heritage (body fat?) did not become a factor to
favor in succession.
I am puzzled why not: after all, good heritage in
metabolism is important for survival: those survive
winters and famines better whose metabolism is more
suitable, and/or who are able to store nutrition
better in their bodies.
Agnatic seniority tends in long run, in scope of
century or more, to favor a sort of ultimogeniture,
because princes born in a certain generation to the
most junior lines tend to be more likely alive at the
demise of the predecessor (the last of the immediately
preceding generation). In a situation where
representatives from any later generation are not
allowed to succeed until the last ones of the earlier
generation die, plenty of dynasts, usually from more
senior branches, will die before their turn on the
throne (no wonder they would prefer primogeniture).
This tendency is one of causes of disputed
successions: some desire to succeed before they die,
and plead the seniority or better blood of their
branch. This is further acerbated if a dynast is not
allowed to succeed in case his father was not regnant
(or is regarded just as a spare, eligible to succeed
only after all those males whose fathers were regnant)
- senior branches will with high likelihood sooner or
later lose their places in succession. Agnatic
seniority tends to favor boys who are born to fathers
in their old age. And favor branches where sons are
born in fathers' old age generation after generation.
Which also is an unhealthy biological trait to instill
to genome, as it more easily leads to genetic defects
(mutations and so forth) and increased age in
procreation. Increased to its utmost, it will be a
recipe for biological extinction - no family can
sustain for long procreation only in seventies,
generation after generation. In addition, spouses of
aged husbands are more likely to get pregnant by
others than their nominal husbands, the very bloodline
thus getting interrupted.
Saudi Arabia employs agnatic seniority in its royal
succession praxis. And, really, sons born to the
elderly king Ibn Saud are holding the throne, to some
consternation of their nephews born of eldest sons of
the same progenitor.
Japan is a monarchy stable enough to pass within one
patriline for more than one and a half millennium, and
having a customary succession pattern which mostly
resembles agnatic seniority. Those who know long-term
genealogy of the "Yamato dynasty", identify easily
that the throne has more often than not passed onwards
through relatively junior branches of the
predecessor's progeny. As time passed enough from
their last reigning ancestor, mostly senior lines
tended to be demoted to be surnamed noble families
rather than imperial princes.
--
The preference for males which exists in most systems
of hereditary succession came mostly from the
perceived nature of the role of the monarch.
- tribal chiefs (proto-monarchs) were personally
required to participate in violent activities such as
war, duels, and raiding expeditions.
- it was very useful, or even required, that the ruler
be a warrior and a military commander. Warriors
(almost always males) often would only accept other
males as their commanders. (A ruler's income was
dependent on the "protection money" or corvee labor
collected from those people he was supposed to protect
from violence, both from outside (war) and from within
(crime). Of course, the collection of these funds or
services often required the threat or actual use of
force by the monarch, but more politely labeled
"taxes" and "duties".)
- additionally, in some monarchies, the monarch held a
certain mystical, almost priestly, position. That
role, depending on the tradition in question, was
often denied to females. In the French monarchy, one
of the official explanations for the Salic Law was
that the monarch was obliged to use certain sacred
instruments, which females were forbidden even to
touch.
In earlier centuries, perhaps in every second or every
third generation on average, the male line often
became extinct and females were needed to convey
onwards the line of succession. During this period,
male lines tended to become extinct relatively
quickly, usually due to violent death. Therefore,
"pure" agnatic succession was impossible to maintain,
and frequent exceptions were made - eligibility being
granted to the eldest sons of sisters or other female
relatives of the monarch.
In the later Middle Ages, violence directly involving
the monarch and his heirs became less of a factor, as
they gradually decreased their personal participation
in combat. Sons were much more likely to survive to
adulthood and to marry than in previous centuries,
when many noble families lost adolescent sons to
constant warfare. In addition, the living conditions
and nutrition of the nobility improved, leading to
fewer miscarriages and decreased infant and childhood
mortality. Daughters were therefore needed less and
less to trace succession.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ
What was a king anyhow? (was Re: Granada - king or Emir ?)
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: What was a king anyhow? (was Re: Granada - king or Emir
On Jan 27, 2:03 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
For those that are agnatic, I don't think we need look further than
the fact that a property was traditionally held by force, and men are
the ones that most successfully apply that force. He who has the club
makes the rules. That being said, many traditional societies practice
a pattern whereby the groups are matrilineal, even though the leaders
are men. (think Picts, but it also applied in some native American
societies)
As to this genetic explanation, it is attractive, but almost entirely
wrong, to attribute it to the unusual inheritance of mtand Y DNA.
There are few recognizable genetic traits that are on the Y chromosome
except those directly related to being male (i.e. the switch). Most
of the genes on the Y have analogs on the X that effectively do the
same thing, or are poorly characterized but are not linked to any
known trait. Yes, there are several that when mutated give you crypto-
gendered or hermaphroditic phenotypes, such as SRY and TDFY that are
required to be male, but it is not like there are characterized
gradations between manly men, and sit-and-belch-in-front-of-the-TV-
watching-football men and men-who-love-Judy-Garland that can be traced
to differences in the Y chromosome.
I don't know that any of these are linked to the Y-chromosome, per se.
(Perhaps not the word you were aiming for.)
Umm, no. There is no such relationship between 'manliness' and a
shared Y chromosome. Most of the characterized difference in Y
chromosomes are in regions that have no role in gene regulation or
phenotype at all.
It is easy to believe that a son or
Well, yes, but this is the total genetic heritage from all parts of
the pedigree. Tell me, who did Henry II resemble more in his
initiative and fitness to rule? His father, Geoffrey, or his maternal
grandfather, Henry I?
A ruler will tend to be as good
I think you would be better served to look at more social causes,
rather than genetic.
The modern science of
True, but largely irrelevant to history, except in so much as it
allows independent evaluation of descents.
This is not specific to the Y chromosome - it is a trait common to all
DNA. By the way, more important than breaking of DNA in loss of
signal is the chemical modification of the DNA - acylation,
depurination, etc. The chain is still intact but cannot be copied,
which is how DNA is studied and characterized. Recent breakthroughs
(such as in determining the hair color of Neanderthal through
determination of the sequence of an autosomal gene) have come through
a combination of the development of micro techniques and through
reversing these chemical modifications.
Under very rare circumstances.
This is the key - big doses. mtDNA is no more stable than nuclear
DNA. It is, however, present in hundreds to a thousand copies per
cell, rather than one or two, so while every one is damaged, between
the whole you can put together an intact sequence.
(with rare exceptions)
Not so rare globally and historically.
Again, while the mtDNA provides basic machinery for energy, a visible
phenotype is not likely to be related to a mtDNA difference. The vast
majority of mtDNA mutations cause severe difference - in other words,
these lines would be selected against in any society under stress,
which basically describes the entirety of human history up to the 20th
century. The visible metabolic phenotypes we see are much much MUCH
more likely to be autosomally derived.
taf
Why agnatic succession at all - there must be some
reasons deep in archaic politics, to explain why males
got preference in inheritance patterns.
For those that are agnatic, I don't think we need look further than
the fact that a property was traditionally held by force, and men are
the ones that most successfully apply that force. He who has the club
makes the rules. That being said, many traditional societies practice
a pattern whereby the groups are matrilineal, even though the leaders
are men. (think Picts, but it also applied in some native American
societies)
As to this genetic explanation, it is attractive, but almost entirely
wrong, to attribute it to the unusual inheritance of mtand Y DNA.
Y chromosome is inherited agnatically (in other words,
common to a whole patriline), but only by males,
females do not have the Y. Some hereditary features
(in addition to the gender itself) are inherited in
the genes more or less permanently joined in the Y
chromosome.
There are few recognizable genetic traits that are on the Y chromosome
except those directly related to being male (i.e. the switch). Most
of the genes on the Y have analogs on the X that effectively do the
same thing, or are poorly characterized but are not linked to any
known trait. Yes, there are several that when mutated give you crypto-
gendered or hermaphroditic phenotypes, such as SRY and TDFY that are
required to be male, but it is not like there are characterized
gradations between manly men, and sit-and-belch-in-front-of-the-TV-
watching-football men and men-who-love-Judy-Garland that can be traced
to differences in the Y chromosome.
Many of so-joined hereditary traits are
so-called manly heritage: eagerness, instinctiveness,
depth of interest, to hunting, building, sports and
like.
I don't know that any of these are linked to the Y-chromosome, per se.
Strongly-together-joined parts of the Y
chromosome (i.e, most of it) do not get shuffled at
all, mixed with others, and half left out; when
passing to next generations, but remain very stable
and "wholesome".
(Perhaps not the word you were aiming for.)
Environment and upbringing, as well
as genes in other chromosomes have their effect, but
still: as examples, on one hand a father and a son, on
the other hand paternal brothers, have practically
identical Y chromosome and tend to have fairly similar
keenness between themselves to several "manly" things
and behaviors.
Umm, no. There is no such relationship between 'manliness' and a
shared Y chromosome. Most of the characterized difference in Y
chromosomes are in regions that have no role in gene regulation or
phenotype at all.
It is easy to believe that a son or
brother, agnatic successor, tends to exhibit fairly
similar temperament as the predecessor, because of
their common heritage.
Well, yes, but this is the total genetic heritage from all parts of
the pedigree. Tell me, who did Henry II resemble more in his
initiative and fitness to rule? His father, Geoffrey, or his maternal
grandfather, Henry I?
A ruler will tend to be as good
as a defender and protector as his male-line kinsmen,
which leads to accept agnates of a "good" previous
monarch as natural successors.
I think you would be better served to look at more social causes,
rather than genetic.
The modern science of
genetics has a few interesting if historically
irrelevant things to say about agnatic succession: the
human Y chromosome is unable to recombine with the X
chromosome, except for small pieces of pseudoautosomal
regions at the telomeres (which comprise about 5% of
the chromosome's length).
True, but largely irrelevant to history, except in so much as it
allows independent evaluation of descents.
For genealogy: because the human Y chromosome changes
relatively slowly over time and is only passed along
the direct male line, it may be used to trace
patrilineage. However, in remains of the deceased it
destructs fairly soon, within decades even, to too
small or destruct remnants to facilitate any
meaningful DNA testing.
This is not specific to the Y chromosome - it is a trait common to all
DNA. By the way, more important than breaking of DNA in loss of
signal is the chemical modification of the DNA - acylation,
depurination, etc. The chain is still intact but cannot be copied,
which is how DNA is studied and characterized. Recent breakthroughs
(such as in determining the hair color of Neanderthal through
determination of the sequence of an autosomal gene) have come through
a combination of the development of micro techniques and through
reversing these chemical modifications.
Mitochondrial DNA survives multiply longer times (for
example in bones): centuries, millennia, even longer,
Under very rare circumstances.
in doses big enough to be meaningfully tested and
compared.
This is the key - big doses. mtDNA is no more stable than nuclear
DNA. It is, however, present in hundreds to a thousand copies per
cell, rather than one or two, so while every one is damaged, between
the whole you can put together an intact sequence.
Mt-DNA passes through matriline, and is
(with rare exceptions)
inherited both by sons and daughters of its carrier.
It is common to the whole uterine lineage.
However, rare societies have surnames and succession
to pass along matriline.
Not so rare globally and historically.
Mitochondrial DNA tends to effect to metabolism of the
body, being conducive to energy conversion functions
of the cell. Seemingly, traits of this feature have
not been very important to "rulership character", as
such heritage (body fat?) did not become a factor to
favor in succession.
Again, while the mtDNA provides basic machinery for energy, a visible
phenotype is not likely to be related to a mtDNA difference. The vast
majority of mtDNA mutations cause severe difference - in other words,
these lines would be selected against in any society under stress,
which basically describes the entirety of human history up to the 20th
century. The visible metabolic phenotypes we see are much much MUCH
more likely to be autosomally derived.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: What was a king anyhow? (was Re: Granada - king or Emir
On Jan 27, 2:03 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
For those that are agnatic, I don't think we need look further than
the fact that a property was traditionally held by force, and men are
the ones that most successfully apply that force. He who has the club
makes the rules. That being said, many traditional societies practice
a pattern whereby the groups are matrilineal, even though the leaders
are men. (think Picts, but it also applied in some native American
societies)
As to this genetic explanation, it is attractive, but almost entirely
wrong, to attribute it to the unusual inheritance of mtand Y DNA.
There are few recognizable genetic traits that are on the Y chromosome
except those directly related to being male (i.e. the switch). Most
of the genes on the Y have analogs on the X that effectively do the
same thing, or are poorly characterized but are not linked to any
known trait. Yes, there are several that when mutated give you crypto-
gendered or hermaphroditic phenotypes, such as SRY and TDFY that are
required to be male, but it is not like there are characterized
gradations between manly men, and sit-and-belch-in-front-of-the-TV-
watching-football men and men-who-love-Judy-Garland that can be traced
to differences in the Y chromosome.
I don't know that any of these are linked to the Y-chromosome, per se.
(Perhaps not the word you were aiming for.)
Umm, no. There is no such relationship between 'manliness' and a
shared Y chromosome. Most of the characterized difference in Y
chromosomes are in regions that have no role in gene regulation or
phenotype at all.
It is easy to believe that a son or
Well, yes, but this is the total genetic heritage from all parts of
the pedigree. Tell me, who did Henry II resemble more in his
initiative and fitness to rule? His father, Geoffrey, or his maternal
grandfather, Henry I?
A ruler will tend to be as good
I think you would be better served to look at more social causes,
rather than genetic.
The modern science of
True, but largely irrelevant to history, except in so much as it
allows independent evaluation of descents.
This is not specific to the Y chromosome - it is a trait common to all
DNA. By the way, more important than breaking of DNA in loss of
signal is the chemical modification of the DNA - acylation,
depurination, etc. The chain is still intact but cannot be copied,
which is how DNA is studied and characterized. Recent breakthroughs
(such as in determining the hair color of Neanderthal through
determination of the sequence of an autosomal gene) have come through
a combination of the development of micro techniques and through
reversing these chemical modifications.
Under very rare circumstances.
This is the key - big doses. mtDNA is no more stable than nuclear
DNA. It is, however, present in hundreds to a thousand copies per
cell, rather than one or two, so while every one is damaged, between
the whole you can put together an intact sequence.
(with rare exceptions)
Not so rare globally and historically.
Again, while the mtDNA provides basic machinery for energy, a visible
phenotype is not likely to be related to a mtDNA difference. The vast
majority of mtDNA mutations cause severe difference - in other words,
these lines would be selected against in any society under stress,
which basically describes the entirety of human history up to the 20th
century. The visible metabolic phenotypes we see are much much MUCH
more likely to be autosomally derived.
taf
Why agnatic succession at all - there must be some
reasons deep in archaic politics, to explain why males
got preference in inheritance patterns.
For those that are agnatic, I don't think we need look further than
the fact that a property was traditionally held by force, and men are
the ones that most successfully apply that force. He who has the club
makes the rules. That being said, many traditional societies practice
a pattern whereby the groups are matrilineal, even though the leaders
are men. (think Picts, but it also applied in some native American
societies)
As to this genetic explanation, it is attractive, but almost entirely
wrong, to attribute it to the unusual inheritance of mtand Y DNA.
Y chromosome is inherited agnatically (in other words,
common to a whole patriline), but only by males,
females do not have the Y. Some hereditary features
(in addition to the gender itself) are inherited in
the genes more or less permanently joined in the Y
chromosome.
There are few recognizable genetic traits that are on the Y chromosome
except those directly related to being male (i.e. the switch). Most
of the genes on the Y have analogs on the X that effectively do the
same thing, or are poorly characterized but are not linked to any
known trait. Yes, there are several that when mutated give you crypto-
gendered or hermaphroditic phenotypes, such as SRY and TDFY that are
required to be male, but it is not like there are characterized
gradations between manly men, and sit-and-belch-in-front-of-the-TV-
watching-football men and men-who-love-Judy-Garland that can be traced
to differences in the Y chromosome.
Many of so-joined hereditary traits are
so-called manly heritage: eagerness, instinctiveness,
depth of interest, to hunting, building, sports and
like.
I don't know that any of these are linked to the Y-chromosome, per se.
Strongly-together-joined parts of the Y
chromosome (i.e, most of it) do not get shuffled at
all, mixed with others, and half left out; when
passing to next generations, but remain very stable
and "wholesome".
(Perhaps not the word you were aiming for.)
Environment and upbringing, as well
as genes in other chromosomes have their effect, but
still: as examples, on one hand a father and a son, on
the other hand paternal brothers, have practically
identical Y chromosome and tend to have fairly similar
keenness between themselves to several "manly" things
and behaviors.
Umm, no. There is no such relationship between 'manliness' and a
shared Y chromosome. Most of the characterized difference in Y
chromosomes are in regions that have no role in gene regulation or
phenotype at all.
It is easy to believe that a son or
brother, agnatic successor, tends to exhibit fairly
similar temperament as the predecessor, because of
their common heritage.
Well, yes, but this is the total genetic heritage from all parts of
the pedigree. Tell me, who did Henry II resemble more in his
initiative and fitness to rule? His father, Geoffrey, or his maternal
grandfather, Henry I?
A ruler will tend to be as good
as a defender and protector as his male-line kinsmen,
which leads to accept agnates of a "good" previous
monarch as natural successors.
I think you would be better served to look at more social causes,
rather than genetic.
The modern science of
genetics has a few interesting if historically
irrelevant things to say about agnatic succession: the
human Y chromosome is unable to recombine with the X
chromosome, except for small pieces of pseudoautosomal
regions at the telomeres (which comprise about 5% of
the chromosome's length).
True, but largely irrelevant to history, except in so much as it
allows independent evaluation of descents.
For genealogy: because the human Y chromosome changes
relatively slowly over time and is only passed along
the direct male line, it may be used to trace
patrilineage. However, in remains of the deceased it
destructs fairly soon, within decades even, to too
small or destruct remnants to facilitate any
meaningful DNA testing.
This is not specific to the Y chromosome - it is a trait common to all
DNA. By the way, more important than breaking of DNA in loss of
signal is the chemical modification of the DNA - acylation,
depurination, etc. The chain is still intact but cannot be copied,
which is how DNA is studied and characterized. Recent breakthroughs
(such as in determining the hair color of Neanderthal through
determination of the sequence of an autosomal gene) have come through
a combination of the development of micro techniques and through
reversing these chemical modifications.
Mitochondrial DNA survives multiply longer times (for
example in bones): centuries, millennia, even longer,
Under very rare circumstances.
in doses big enough to be meaningfully tested and
compared.
This is the key - big doses. mtDNA is no more stable than nuclear
DNA. It is, however, present in hundreds to a thousand copies per
cell, rather than one or two, so while every one is damaged, between
the whole you can put together an intact sequence.
Mt-DNA passes through matriline, and is
(with rare exceptions)
inherited both by sons and daughters of its carrier.
It is common to the whole uterine lineage.
However, rare societies have surnames and succession
to pass along matriline.
Not so rare globally and historically.
Mitochondrial DNA tends to effect to metabolism of the
body, being conducive to energy conversion functions
of the cell. Seemingly, traits of this feature have
not been very important to "rulership character", as
such heritage (body fat?) did not become a factor to
favor in succession.
Again, while the mtDNA provides basic machinery for energy, a visible
phenotype is not likely to be related to a mtDNA difference. The vast
majority of mtDNA mutations cause severe difference - in other words,
these lines would be selected against in any society under stress,
which basically describes the entirety of human history up to the 20th
century. The visible metabolic phenotypes we see are much much MUCH
more likely to be autosomally derived.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: What was a king anyhow? (was Re: Granada - king or Emir
On Jan 27, 2:03 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
For those that are agnatic, I don't think we need look further than
the fact that a property was traditionally held by force, and men are
the ones that most successfully apply that force. He who has the club
makes the rules. That being said, many traditional societies practice
a pattern whereby the groups are matrilineal, even though the leaders
are men. (think Picts, but it also applied in some native American
societies)
As to this genetic explanation, it is attractive, but almost entirely
wrong, to attribute it to the unusual inheritance of mtand Y DNA.
There are few recognizable genetic traits that are on the Y chromosome
except those directly related to being male (i.e. the switch). Most
of the genes on the Y have analogs on the X that effectively do the
same thing, or are poorly characterized but are not linked to any
known trait. Yes, there are several that when mutated give you crypto-
gendered or hermaphroditic phenotypes, such as SRY and TDFY that are
required to be male, but it is not like there are characterized
gradations between manly men, and sit-and-belch-in-front-of-the-TV-
watching-football men and men-who-love-Judy-Garland that can be traced
to differences in the Y chromosome.
I don't know that any of these are linked to the Y-chromosome, per se.
(Perhaps not the word you were aiming for.)
Umm, no. There is no such relationship between 'manliness' and a
shared Y chromosome. Most of the characterized difference in Y
chromosomes are in regions that have no role in gene regulation or
phenotype at all.
It is easy to believe that a son or
Well, yes, but this is the total genetic heritage from all parts of
the pedigree. Tell me, who did Henry II resemble more in his
initiative and fitness to rule? His father, Geoffrey, or his maternal
grandfather, Henry I?
A ruler will tend to be as good
I think you would be better served to look at more social causes,
rather than genetic.
The modern science of
True, but largely irrelevant to history, except in so much as it
allows independent evaluation of descents.
This is not specific to the Y chromosome - it is a trait common to all
DNA. By the way, more important than breaking of DNA in loss of
signal is the chemical modification of the DNA - acylation,
depurination, etc. The chain is still intact but cannot be copied,
which is how DNA is studied and characterized. Recent breakthroughs
(such as in determining the hair color of Neanderthal through
determination of the sequence of an autosomal gene) have come through
a combination of the development of micro techniques and through
reversing these chemical modifications.
Under very rare circumstances.
This is the key - big doses. mtDNA is no more stable than nuclear
DNA. It is, however, present in hundreds to a thousand copies per
cell, rather than one or two, so while every one is damaged, between
the whole you can put together an intact sequence.
(with rare exceptions)
Not so rare globally and historically.
Again, while the mtDNA provides basic machinery for energy, a visible
phenotype is not likely to be related to a mtDNA difference. The vast
majority of mtDNA mutations cause severe difference - in other words,
these lines would be selected against in any society under stress,
which basically describes the entirety of human history up to the 20th
century. The visible metabolic phenotypes we see are much much MUCH
more likely to be autosomally derived.
taf
Why agnatic succession at all - there must be some
reasons deep in archaic politics, to explain why males
got preference in inheritance patterns.
For those that are agnatic, I don't think we need look further than
the fact that a property was traditionally held by force, and men are
the ones that most successfully apply that force. He who has the club
makes the rules. That being said, many traditional societies practice
a pattern whereby the groups are matrilineal, even though the leaders
are men. (think Picts, but it also applied in some native American
societies)
As to this genetic explanation, it is attractive, but almost entirely
wrong, to attribute it to the unusual inheritance of mtand Y DNA.
Y chromosome is inherited agnatically (in other words,
common to a whole patriline), but only by males,
females do not have the Y. Some hereditary features
(in addition to the gender itself) are inherited in
the genes more or less permanently joined in the Y
chromosome.
There are few recognizable genetic traits that are on the Y chromosome
except those directly related to being male (i.e. the switch). Most
of the genes on the Y have analogs on the X that effectively do the
same thing, or are poorly characterized but are not linked to any
known trait. Yes, there are several that when mutated give you crypto-
gendered or hermaphroditic phenotypes, such as SRY and TDFY that are
required to be male, but it is not like there are characterized
gradations between manly men, and sit-and-belch-in-front-of-the-TV-
watching-football men and men-who-love-Judy-Garland that can be traced
to differences in the Y chromosome.
Many of so-joined hereditary traits are
so-called manly heritage: eagerness, instinctiveness,
depth of interest, to hunting, building, sports and
like.
I don't know that any of these are linked to the Y-chromosome, per se.
Strongly-together-joined parts of the Y
chromosome (i.e, most of it) do not get shuffled at
all, mixed with others, and half left out; when
passing to next generations, but remain very stable
and "wholesome".
(Perhaps not the word you were aiming for.)
Environment and upbringing, as well
as genes in other chromosomes have their effect, but
still: as examples, on one hand a father and a son, on
the other hand paternal brothers, have practically
identical Y chromosome and tend to have fairly similar
keenness between themselves to several "manly" things
and behaviors.
Umm, no. There is no such relationship between 'manliness' and a
shared Y chromosome. Most of the characterized difference in Y
chromosomes are in regions that have no role in gene regulation or
phenotype at all.
It is easy to believe that a son or
brother, agnatic successor, tends to exhibit fairly
similar temperament as the predecessor, because of
their common heritage.
Well, yes, but this is the total genetic heritage from all parts of
the pedigree. Tell me, who did Henry II resemble more in his
initiative and fitness to rule? His father, Geoffrey, or his maternal
grandfather, Henry I?
A ruler will tend to be as good
as a defender and protector as his male-line kinsmen,
which leads to accept agnates of a "good" previous
monarch as natural successors.
I think you would be better served to look at more social causes,
rather than genetic.
The modern science of
genetics has a few interesting if historically
irrelevant things to say about agnatic succession: the
human Y chromosome is unable to recombine with the X
chromosome, except for small pieces of pseudoautosomal
regions at the telomeres (which comprise about 5% of
the chromosome's length).
True, but largely irrelevant to history, except in so much as it
allows independent evaluation of descents.
For genealogy: because the human Y chromosome changes
relatively slowly over time and is only passed along
the direct male line, it may be used to trace
patrilineage. However, in remains of the deceased it
destructs fairly soon, within decades even, to too
small or destruct remnants to facilitate any
meaningful DNA testing.
This is not specific to the Y chromosome - it is a trait common to all
DNA. By the way, more important than breaking of DNA in loss of
signal is the chemical modification of the DNA - acylation,
depurination, etc. The chain is still intact but cannot be copied,
which is how DNA is studied and characterized. Recent breakthroughs
(such as in determining the hair color of Neanderthal through
determination of the sequence of an autosomal gene) have come through
a combination of the development of micro techniques and through
reversing these chemical modifications.
Mitochondrial DNA survives multiply longer times (for
example in bones): centuries, millennia, even longer,
Under very rare circumstances.
in doses big enough to be meaningfully tested and
compared.
This is the key - big doses. mtDNA is no more stable than nuclear
DNA. It is, however, present in hundreds to a thousand copies per
cell, rather than one or two, so while every one is damaged, between
the whole you can put together an intact sequence.
Mt-DNA passes through matriline, and is
(with rare exceptions)
inherited both by sons and daughters of its carrier.
It is common to the whole uterine lineage.
However, rare societies have surnames and succession
to pass along matriline.
Not so rare globally and historically.
Mitochondrial DNA tends to effect to metabolism of the
body, being conducive to energy conversion functions
of the cell. Seemingly, traits of this feature have
not been very important to "rulership character", as
such heritage (body fat?) did not become a factor to
favor in succession.
Again, while the mtDNA provides basic machinery for energy, a visible
phenotype is not likely to be related to a mtDNA difference. The vast
majority of mtDNA mutations cause severe difference - in other words,
these lines would be selected against in any society under stress,
which basically describes the entirety of human history up to the 20th
century. The visible metabolic phenotypes we see are much much MUCH
more likely to be autosomally derived.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: What was a king anyhow? (was Re: Granada - king or Emir
On Jan 27, 2:03 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
For those that are agnatic, I don't think we need look further than
the fact that a property was traditionally held by force, and men are
the ones that most successfully apply that force. He who has the club
makes the rules. That being said, many traditional societies practice
a pattern whereby the groups are matrilineal, even though the leaders
are men. (think Picts, but it also applied in some native American
societies)
As to this genetic explanation, it is attractive, but almost entirely
wrong, to attribute it to the unusual inheritance of mtand Y DNA.
There are few recognizable genetic traits that are on the Y chromosome
except those directly related to being male (i.e. the switch). Most
of the genes on the Y have analogs on the X that effectively do the
same thing, or are poorly characterized but are not linked to any
known trait. Yes, there are several that when mutated give you crypto-
gendered or hermaphroditic phenotypes, such as SRY and TDFY that are
required to be male, but it is not like there are characterized
gradations between manly men, and sit-and-belch-in-front-of-the-TV-
watching-football men and men-who-love-Judy-Garland that can be traced
to differences in the Y chromosome.
I don't know that any of these are linked to the Y-chromosome, per se.
(Perhaps not the word you were aiming for.)
Umm, no. There is no such relationship between 'manliness' and a
shared Y chromosome. Most of the characterized difference in Y
chromosomes are in regions that have no role in gene regulation or
phenotype at all.
It is easy to believe that a son or
Well, yes, but this is the total genetic heritage from all parts of
the pedigree. Tell me, who did Henry II resemble more in his
initiative and fitness to rule? His father, Geoffrey, or his maternal
grandfather, Henry I?
A ruler will tend to be as good
I think you would be better served to look at more social causes,
rather than genetic.
The modern science of
True, but largely irrelevant to history, except in so much as it
allows independent evaluation of descents.
This is not specific to the Y chromosome - it is a trait common to all
DNA. By the way, more important than breaking of DNA in loss of
signal is the chemical modification of the DNA - acylation,
depurination, etc. The chain is still intact but cannot be copied,
which is how DNA is studied and characterized. Recent breakthroughs
(such as in determining the hair color of Neanderthal through
determination of the sequence of an autosomal gene) have come through
a combination of the development of micro techniques and through
reversing these chemical modifications.
Under very rare circumstances.
This is the key - big doses. mtDNA is no more stable than nuclear
DNA. It is, however, present in hundreds to a thousand copies per
cell, rather than one or two, so while every one is damaged, between
the whole you can put together an intact sequence.
(with rare exceptions)
Not so rare globally and historically.
Again, while the mtDNA provides basic machinery for energy, a visible
phenotype is not likely to be related to a mtDNA difference. The vast
majority of mtDNA mutations cause severe difference - in other words,
these lines would be selected against in any society under stress,
which basically describes the entirety of human history up to the 20th
century. The visible metabolic phenotypes we see are much much MUCH
more likely to be autosomally derived.
taf
Why agnatic succession at all - there must be some
reasons deep in archaic politics, to explain why males
got preference in inheritance patterns.
For those that are agnatic, I don't think we need look further than
the fact that a property was traditionally held by force, and men are
the ones that most successfully apply that force. He who has the club
makes the rules. That being said, many traditional societies practice
a pattern whereby the groups are matrilineal, even though the leaders
are men. (think Picts, but it also applied in some native American
societies)
As to this genetic explanation, it is attractive, but almost entirely
wrong, to attribute it to the unusual inheritance of mtand Y DNA.
Y chromosome is inherited agnatically (in other words,
common to a whole patriline), but only by males,
females do not have the Y. Some hereditary features
(in addition to the gender itself) are inherited in
the genes more or less permanently joined in the Y
chromosome.
There are few recognizable genetic traits that are on the Y chromosome
except those directly related to being male (i.e. the switch). Most
of the genes on the Y have analogs on the X that effectively do the
same thing, or are poorly characterized but are not linked to any
known trait. Yes, there are several that when mutated give you crypto-
gendered or hermaphroditic phenotypes, such as SRY and TDFY that are
required to be male, but it is not like there are characterized
gradations between manly men, and sit-and-belch-in-front-of-the-TV-
watching-football men and men-who-love-Judy-Garland that can be traced
to differences in the Y chromosome.
Many of so-joined hereditary traits are
so-called manly heritage: eagerness, instinctiveness,
depth of interest, to hunting, building, sports and
like.
I don't know that any of these are linked to the Y-chromosome, per se.
Strongly-together-joined parts of the Y
chromosome (i.e, most of it) do not get shuffled at
all, mixed with others, and half left out; when
passing to next generations, but remain very stable
and "wholesome".
(Perhaps not the word you were aiming for.)
Environment and upbringing, as well
as genes in other chromosomes have their effect, but
still: as examples, on one hand a father and a son, on
the other hand paternal brothers, have practically
identical Y chromosome and tend to have fairly similar
keenness between themselves to several "manly" things
and behaviors.
Umm, no. There is no such relationship between 'manliness' and a
shared Y chromosome. Most of the characterized difference in Y
chromosomes are in regions that have no role in gene regulation or
phenotype at all.
It is easy to believe that a son or
brother, agnatic successor, tends to exhibit fairly
similar temperament as the predecessor, because of
their common heritage.
Well, yes, but this is the total genetic heritage from all parts of
the pedigree. Tell me, who did Henry II resemble more in his
initiative and fitness to rule? His father, Geoffrey, or his maternal
grandfather, Henry I?
A ruler will tend to be as good
as a defender and protector as his male-line kinsmen,
which leads to accept agnates of a "good" previous
monarch as natural successors.
I think you would be better served to look at more social causes,
rather than genetic.
The modern science of
genetics has a few interesting if historically
irrelevant things to say about agnatic succession: the
human Y chromosome is unable to recombine with the X
chromosome, except for small pieces of pseudoautosomal
regions at the telomeres (which comprise about 5% of
the chromosome's length).
True, but largely irrelevant to history, except in so much as it
allows independent evaluation of descents.
For genealogy: because the human Y chromosome changes
relatively slowly over time and is only passed along
the direct male line, it may be used to trace
patrilineage. However, in remains of the deceased it
destructs fairly soon, within decades even, to too
small or destruct remnants to facilitate any
meaningful DNA testing.
This is not specific to the Y chromosome - it is a trait common to all
DNA. By the way, more important than breaking of DNA in loss of
signal is the chemical modification of the DNA - acylation,
depurination, etc. The chain is still intact but cannot be copied,
which is how DNA is studied and characterized. Recent breakthroughs
(such as in determining the hair color of Neanderthal through
determination of the sequence of an autosomal gene) have come through
a combination of the development of micro techniques and through
reversing these chemical modifications.
Mitochondrial DNA survives multiply longer times (for
example in bones): centuries, millennia, even longer,
Under very rare circumstances.
in doses big enough to be meaningfully tested and
compared.
This is the key - big doses. mtDNA is no more stable than nuclear
DNA. It is, however, present in hundreds to a thousand copies per
cell, rather than one or two, so while every one is damaged, between
the whole you can put together an intact sequence.
Mt-DNA passes through matriline, and is
(with rare exceptions)
inherited both by sons and daughters of its carrier.
It is common to the whole uterine lineage.
However, rare societies have surnames and succession
to pass along matriline.
Not so rare globally and historically.
Mitochondrial DNA tends to effect to metabolism of the
body, being conducive to energy conversion functions
of the cell. Seemingly, traits of this feature have
not been very important to "rulership character", as
such heritage (body fat?) did not become a factor to
favor in succession.
Again, while the mtDNA provides basic machinery for energy, a visible
phenotype is not likely to be related to a mtDNA difference. The vast
majority of mtDNA mutations cause severe difference - in other words,
these lines would be selected against in any society under stress,
which basically describes the entirety of human history up to the 20th
century. The visible metabolic phenotypes we see are much much MUCH
more likely to be autosomally derived.
taf