Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T19:42:19.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Micromigrations of isolated Tuareg tribes of the Sahara Desert

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2012

Philippe Lefevre-Witier
Affiliation:
Centre d'Hemotypologie du CNRS, C.H.U
Derek F. Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
N. Fujiki
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Genetics, Fukui Medical School, Japan
K. Torizuka
Affiliation:
Fukui Medical School, Japan
Get access

Summary

If the main objective of anthropology is the study of variation among and within human groups (Gomila, 1976), it is necessary to ‘determine first the structure and distribution of any identifiable units’ (Roberts, 1965). But this task presents difficulties. Such units are fluid. Human populations are groups of living and reproducing entities. Like any living system, they demonstrate a combination of different levels of organisation and integration, primary as cells, secondary as tissues and, yet more complex, tertiary as the whole morphology. Obviously these different levels and their combinations have different functions, the regulation and evolutionary meaning of which have barely been explored.

It is convenient to distinguish two different levels of population organisation and structure (Lefevre-Witier, 1976). A first level of discontinuity is that of the ‘genetic population’. This consists of the mating circle and the circle of fertile offspring. This definition differs from that of isolates of Dahlberg (1948) which concerns mating only; from that of the panmictic mendelian populations of Dobzhansky (1970) which extends the circle up to panmixia but excludes mate selection; and from the isogamic population of Malecot (1966) which also excludes selection. These three have in common a human group where the maximum of gametic transmission and exchange occurs as well as a strong tendency to genetic homogeneity; the principal limitations are the absence of differential fertility and infant mortality generation by generation expressing the action of natural selection. Our definition is more comparable to the endogamic circle of Henry (1968) and the natural effective population of Wright (1946).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×