There is a brand new paper on Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1:
B. Trombetta et al., A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms. PLoS ONE 2011. Open access.
The new phylogeny is available in the graphic at the left (B, click to expand). And it includes the following changes:
Haplogroup reorganization
E1b1c is now known to be part of a shared upstream haplogroup with E1b1a, which become E1b1a2 and E1b1a1, respectively. In this clade a new downstream haplogroup is also described by the name E1b1a1g1d (V39).
The other haplogroup E1b1b, also sees some changes in its downstream clades: two new small subclades are described: E1b1b1f (V42) and E1b1b1g (V92). Former E1b1b1f (P72) becomes now part of the somewhat larger haplogroup E1b1b1e (M293). Also a new small clade is described by the SNP V23 and named E1b1b1c1c.
In this major lineage, maybe more intriguing is the finding that the two haplogroups with notable presence in Europe, are now subsumed into larger clades: E1b1b1a (V68) and E1b1b1b (V257). These two haplogroups are notable because:
Within E-M35, there are striking parallels between two haplogroups, E-V68 and E-V257. Both contain a lineage which has been frequently observed in Africa (E-M78 and E-M81, respectively) [6], [8], [10], [13]–[16] and a group of undifferentiated chromosomes that are mostly found in southern Europe (Table S2). An expansion of E-M35 carriers, possibly from the Middle East as proposed by other Authors [14], and split into two branches separated by the geographic barrier of the Mediterranean Sea, would explain this geographic pattern. However, the absence of E-V68* and E-V257* in the Middle East (Table S2) makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis.
How can this be?
This is most intriguing, really. And it is worth hence considering which populations harbor these two paraphyletic clusters:
- E-V68* (E1b1b1a*) is found only in Sardinians.
- E-V257* (E1b1b1b*) is found (at low frequencies) in a larger array of populations: Iberians (Cantabrians and Andalusians), Corsicans, Sardinians, Marrakesh Berbers and Borana (Oromo) from Kenya.
For comparison with their larger sister clades (and in general Y-DNA E), I include here fig. 1 from Semino 2004, after annotated current YSOGG nomenclature (in red) and, where needed, the new proposed nomenclature of this paper (in blue):
Notice that the actual distribution of these lineages is somewhat imprecise, for example, if you look at the more detailed compilation by Argiedude, you will notice that E-M81 in Iberia has a mostly Western distribution, with some presence in the East but very low in the SE, it is not the simplistic South-North cline depicted above (E-M78 follows a very similar pattern). It may be the same in other areas.
I would think that this maritime migration proposed for these two paragroups, is highly suggestive of a flow into Iberia in the context of the Oranian (or Iberomaurusian) culture genesis in North Africa and the related changes (back-tip and wings in arrow heads notably) in the Iberian Gravetto-Solutrean complex, which influenced West Iberia up to Asturias but not for example the Basque area, which remained closer to the Aquitanian and Occitan Solutrean (a purer variant of this techno-culture, not influenced by Gravettian, which appears intrusive in any case, nor the Aterian-Dabban North African substrate).
As I have said before in many occasions, I strongly suspect that this prehistorical episode is responsible for the mtDNA H and V in North Africa, as well as from mtDNA U6 and probably also some L(xM,N) in Iberia.
Similarly it is probable that the small presence of Y-DNA R1b and I in North Africa (which must be somewhat old if we have to judge from the Guanche mummies DNA) and the presence of Y-DNA E1b1 in Iberia (with "strange" extension towards the NW specially) dates from this Paleolithic episode, which happened around the Last Glacial Maximum.
The flow to Corsica and Sardinia might well be of Megalithic age.
I must admit that just a few years ago I would have been most surprised if anyone would have told me that the presence of African lineages in Iberia and other European locations was a proof of the deep Paleolithic roots of European Y-DNA (and mtDNA). Nobody told me... but it seems it is the case.
Overall haplogroup E distribution
Just for the reference, I am closing this brief review with a map of the overall distribution of haplogroup E, taken from Chiaroni 2009:
Notice how the European and West Asian presence of this major haplogroup is just an epiphenomenon in an otherwise clearly African clade.
I don't have a lot of confidence in your timing of a maritime migrations, simply because there has been lots of cross-Mediterranean migration in thie historic era and sorting the Epipaleolithic from the Phonecians, Romans, Vandals, Moors and colonial or neo-colonial ties of Southern Europe out is non-trivial. There are all sorts of stories one can spin to make sense of it and it is hard to discriminate one from the other.
ReplyDeleteRecent paleoclimate data makes an early Holocene date for populations to surge across the Sahara and into Iberia look attractive as an earliest or first wave.
"... there has been lots of cross-Mediterranean migration in the historic era"...
ReplyDeleteNot so much really. Of course there have been lesser flows (i.e. a few elites or soldiers resettling, some slaves, some exiles) but in these cases we are talking of:
1. Y-DNA E1b1 with a shocking pattern that does not correspond at all with the pattern of Muslim conquest and alleged settlement.
2. mtDNA H in North Africa amounting to as much as 24% (almost 30% after we add V) of all regional ancestry and confirmed to be a subset of SW European diversity. This really needs an explanation and I am providing one.
3. "European" Y-DNA lineages R1b (almost exclusively of West European derivation) and I, specially high among the extinct Canary Islands' natives (Guanches): 17% (double than among modern North Africans).
4. A strict barrier however between Y-DNA J1 (in Africa) and J2 (in Europe), indicating these lineages arrived after the flow events. J1 however was very common among the Guanches, so it must have arrived before Semitic expansions.
I am providing a model that explains it: contact around the LGM, with greater flow from Iberia to North Africa than in the opposite direction.
The theory of Oranian (or Iberomaurusian) being derived from Iberian Solutrean is old. It was challenged by a hypothesis that proposed NE Africa as origin but radiocarbon dates support NW Africa as the true origin instead.
To this I have added my own knowledge of Iberian Paleolithic, detailing some events that are mostly unknown to most researchers, namely the complexity of Iberian Gravetto-Solutrean and its influence in NW Iberia (otherwise linked to the Franco-Cantabrian region).
One could speculate on the Megalithic period (when there was also major West European influence in North Africa, as well as other Mediterranean regions, specially parts of Italy) but the pattern does not fit well because:
1. It requires E1b1 expansion in North Africa after the European influence, what is best justified by Capsian culture.
2. It requires that all these flows happened before J1 spread in North Africa and J2 in Europe, and J1 can only have spread (because of the Guanche evidence) with the Capsian migrations.
So for me this is the best explanation by far.
Maju, I agree with pretty all you are saying and you know that I fought the same battle, but this is just a war more than a battle, and I disagree with you only in one point, that wars may be fought by the weapons of the peace.
ReplyDeleteRemember what I have suffered: two banishments, remember who funds studies and articles one after the other, etc.
You know that I disagree with you only on the fact that I think that some R1b haplotypes were born in Italy more than in Iberia, simply because R-L51 and the next haplotypes have more frequency and variance in Italy. But for me Iberia is right at the same time: Dienekes has demonstrated that autosomal level Tuscans, North Italians and Iberians are the same thing, and this will mean something at an historic level.
By the “Etymological Dictionary of Basque” I found on this site (and I thank you very much for this) I resolved a linguistic problem on “Worldfamilies”, and, knowing that Basque has/had a diminutive suffix like –zto, I can say that probably, before the diffusion of the IE languages, there were in Europe many languages from Caucasus to Iberia of the same stock (Basque-Caucasian-Sino-Tibetan-Na-Dené) if in Etruscan there was a diminutive suffix like –za, that could be linked with Basque.
Maju, I agree with pretty all you are saying and you know that I fought the same battle, but this is just a war more than a battle, and I disagree with you only in one point, that wars may be fought by the weapons of the peace.
ReplyDeleteRemember what I have suffered: two banishments, remember who funds studies and articles one after the other, etc.
You know that I disagree with you only on the fact that I think that some R1b haplotypes were born in Italy more than in Iberia, simply because R-L51 and the next haplotypes have more frequency and variance in Italy. But for me Iberia is right at the same time: Dienekes has demonstrated that at autosomal level Tuscans, North Italians and Iberians are the same thing, and this will mean something at an historic level.
By the “Etymological Dictionary of Basque” I found on this site (and I thank you very much for this) I resolved a linguistic problem on “Worldfamilies”, and, knowing that Basque has/had a diminutive suffix like –zto, I can say that probably, before the diffusion of the IE languages, there were in Europe many languages from Caucasus to Iberia of the same stock (Basque-Caucasian-Sino-Tibetan-Na-Dené) if in Etruscan there was a diminutive suffix like –za, that could be linked with Basque.
"I disagree with you only on the fact that I think that some R1b haplotypes were born in Italy more than in Iberia, simply because R-L51 and the next haplotypes have more frequency and variance in Italy".
ReplyDeleteI do not have any particular problem with that: L51 is R1b1b2a1 (with an "asterisk" I presume, i.e. excluding L11), which is the first transition of the main European clade, which is found (at low levels) in North Italy, Carpathian basin and some Western populations (mostly in Iberia) - and also in Crete.
It is reasonable to think that the transitional L51(xL11) clade coalesced either in North Italy or the Carpathian Basin, in the context of the Aurignacoid colonization of Europe (or the Gravettian wave at the latest). We can agree on that in principle.
"Dienekes has demonstrated that autosomal level Tuscans, North Italians and Iberians are the same thing"...
In his last exercise (the first time he works only with West Eurasians, plus Pakistanis, minus NW Africans), he got Tuscans closely related to Greeks. The North Italian-Iberian link does stand. But I'm not sure how seriously to take Dienekes autosomal exercises in absence of a proper sequence for all Ks (I'm talking his K=46 here but I know nothing of the intermediate steps except K=15).
I'm cautious about all that, so "demonstrated" is not a word I'd use.
Also Basques and Lyonais ("French") appear in their own clusters, as do Sardinians and South Italians (clustered with Ashkenazim, you probably like this part).
It's difficult to get stuff straight only on autosomal DNA, unless you can look at various K levels and the samples are well selected and similar in number - and even then.
In Bauchet 2007, an academic study, North Italians did not cluster with Iberians at all (some minor alignment but mostly clustered with NW-Central Europeans instead). So I have good reasons to be cautious.
Also based on looks, North Italians seem to have diverse affinities (including unique components of the region): they are probably not an homogeneous group and a lot depends where you get the sample(s). It's surely not the same Friulians, Ligurians, Tridentines, Piamontese, Milanese or Romagnesi, not to mention Tuscans, which seem a bit apart and closer to SE Europe.
...
...
ReplyDelete"Basque has/had a diminutive suffix like –zto"...
Never heard of it. You may mean ancient Aquitanian -sko. Nowadays it's -txo (and also palatalization in tx (ch), from z, and tt, from t). However I can well agree that somehow there is a Vascoid linguistic substrate element in Italy, more common than one would expect, and that I tend to attribute to Ligurian but may also be Neolithic (or who knows?)
"I can say that probably, before the diffusion of the IE languages, there were in Europe many languages from Caucasus to Iberia of the same stock (Basque-Caucasian-Sino-Tibetan-Na-Dené) if in Etruscan there was a diminutive suffix like –za, that could be linked with Basque".
I am somewhat open to Vasco-Caucasian but I am sure that the hypothetical connection with Sino-Tibetan and probably Yenisean-Na-Dené is fictitious. I do not know if and how Etruscan could fit in the equation (haven't been able to spot any link) and I am reluctant (though unsure) to consider the North Caucasian super-family as real and the Basque-Caucasian (NE Caucasian more clearly) connection as Neolithic (too tenuous to be so recent, IMO).
I do think that there is a tenuous connection between Basque and NE Caucasian (Chechen et al.) and between this one and Hurro-Urartean and probably Sumerian. But that's all what I'm ready to accept as clear in this matter. My hypothesis A is about a Gravettian era connection but a Neolithic connection (hypothesis B) is possible too, as I am not any glottochronologist.
But in any case Vascoid stands as a distinct family and should be studied in its own terms. Sadly we lack of enough survivors to tell clearly.
In general I agree with Venneman in this aspect, though a Neolithic connection could explain some Balcanic oddities (like the river Ibar and others).
This map can be interpreted in almost two ways:
ReplyDelete1) R1b1b2/M269* arose in Middle East and expanded to Europe (but we don’t understand why not to East, like hg. J2, which is clearly the haplogroup of the agriculturalists from Anatolia
2) the origin in the intermediate point (Italy) and a first expansion to East after the Younger Dryas diffused only the most ancient haplotype and that there was a second expansion with agriculture (you are citing the Cardium pottery diffusion from the Balkans, but I have said that Italy added R1b1b2/L51+ etc.)
This was my first thinking when I did my test with DNAHeritage in 2004 and, having being resulted R1b1b2/L23+, was said that my origins were in Iberia, but I was intermediate between Iberia and Anatolia and I became to think that my origins were here where I was born: in Italy.
Give a glance to these haplotypes I found on SMGF and put on Ysearch.
1) by CAJZT (Marcelli) and Ramsey (NAWXY) I thought having demonstrate two years ago that Celts of the British Isles were derived from Italy
2) by 7CPTR (Mirabelli) and 5HXNP (Gudgel) I think having now reinforced this assumption
3) being they E1b1b1a (see the paper of Trombetta et alii) I think having demonstrated their ancient presence in Italy (from Africa via sea?), but Gudgel hasn’t the fractionated values at DYS385 and Wilson (FGDC3) hasn’t DYS459=6-9, but 9-9
4) these last findings of E1b1b1a from Mongolia (HENJR) and China (NAU9K), one with DYS459=6-6 and the other with DYS459=9-9, demonstrate that: a) the mutation of DYS459a from 9 to 6 is frequent in this haplogroup; b) the astronomical GD of the Mongolian/Chinese haplotypes from the European ones demonstrate the ancient dispersal of this haplogroup and, like I have supposed from so much time, it isn’t said that it was born in Africa, despite its huge diffusion there, and that a more ancient link with Asiatic hg. D could be the response, i.e. an Asiatic origin.
I have written to Rosaria Scozzari, but usually they don’t reply.
If you notice in Morelli 2010 (discussed here), the "Anatolian" clade, as of now still labeled R1b1b2a* but probably deserving to be described as R1b1b2a2 (as soon as the defining SNPs are found), is a distinct star-like structure on its own right.
ReplyDeleteCuriously, following her phylogeny, one could well argue for a Balcan origin of R1b1b2a as most of the remaining intermediate clade sits there.
Whatever the case, Western R1b1b2a1 (L51, M412), most of which is R1b1b2a1a (L11) does not look Neolithic at all. The fact that both R1b and I have been found in rather high apportions (17%) among the native Canarian Guanche mummies, yells that these lineages were here when the flow to North Africa of mtDNA H and V happened. This must have been around the LGM, when Oranian culture coalesced in an scenario of contacts with Iberian Gravetto-Solutrean.
As I say, this is probably also the moment of expansion of Y-DNA E1b1 and mtDNA U6 (maybe some L(xM,N) too) to SW Europe and instead neither Y-DNA J1 nor J2 were still present (nor G2a, etc.). It also suggests that Y-DNA I was in SW Europe at that time, maybe in greater apportions than today (though exact subclade we do not know - about half of SW I is not I2a1 but something else).
"you are citing the Cardium pottery diffusion from the Balkans, but I have said that Italy added R1b1b2/L51+ etc."
I do not think this is a correct interpretation. Specially CP does not seem involved in any way in the main R1b1b2a1 expansion, which must be much older.
Also I think you emphasize Italy at the expense of the Balcans and the Carpathian basin (where the same transitional lineages, L51* and L11*, are found - and they are also found in Iberia and some other places, for the record). At this moment I can't say for sure but I think this emphasis on Italy of you would at least require a demonstration.
As I said before, I think that North Italy was the main corridor for the arrival of Aurignacoid industries to West or at least SW Europe. Proto-Aurignacian did that way almost for sure and so did true Aurignacian probably (first found at the Rhône, west of the Alps). After that however the Franco-Cantabrian region was the main pump, at least for R1b1b2a1a2 (S116), with some secondary role for Iberia proper (specially in relation to North Africa). Its sister clade R1b1b2a1a1 (U106) has some other origin, surely in Central or even NW Europe (Low Countries/Rhine are a good candidate).
"... I became to think that my origins were here where I was born: in Italy".
Sounds logical. But remember that the peoples of Europe and also West Asia are all closely related and that "we" all came at some point from West Asia, via the Balcans and either North Italy or Central Europe.
As for E1b1b1a erratics in Mongolia, you cannot challenge with that the African origin of haplogroup E overall: the basal diversity of this clade is clearly in this continent, not anywhere else. They may need some explanation but always under E, E1, E1b1, E1b1b1 and E1b1b1a. They easiest explanation is of course that they are Silk Road erratics, though Indoeuropean flows or Central Asian Neolithic are probably better explanations.
ReplyDelete"a more ancient link with Asiatic hg. D could be the response, i.e. an Asiatic origin".
E is only related to D via DE. DE* has been found in two Tibetans but has been more commonly found in Africa, in spite of the poor research of the region. DE surely coalesced in Africa - of course a good analysis of DE* haplotype structure is still in the to-do list but I am as sure as one can be in these cases that the Tibetan individuals are just a single subclade and probably even a pre-D stage, instead the African DE* lineages are likely to show much greater diversity. But we can only hope that this matter is clarified by the experts some day.
I am also all for embracing the African heritage of Europeans with due love.
In any case, nothing to do with such a highly derived sublineage as E1b1b1b1a (in Mongolia or anywhere else).
1. Y-DNA E1b1 with a shocking pattern that does not correspond at all with the pattern of Muslim conquest.
ReplyDeleteI agree that E1b1 is a poor fit for Muslim conquest. But, the case for Roman, or pre-Roman distributions is much harder to rule out. North Africa was the bread basket of the Roman Empire, and a disproportionate share of this took a Levantine path to Anatolia and Greece (recall that the Justinian Plague made its was to Constantinopole from Egypt on a grain boat -- this trade was vigorous for thousands of years) and the Roman Empire was a much more impressive presence in the East than in the West. The Roman demographic impact on points within the empire, particularly for a Y-DNA marker, may be pretty significant, there were a lot of campaigns fought in that region and it was thoroughly Romanized.
The sack of Carthage is a really intense demographic event that shouldn't be underestimated as a potential population genetic impact on South Iberia, and the much longer Moorish occupation of Granada relative to the rest of Iberia could also account for the E-M35/E-M78 there.
If E-M35/E-M78 were Upper Paleolithic, rather than Iron Age, one would expect a greater distribution of it everywhere the R1b and the Franco-Cantobrian refugia spread and a much more uniform distribution in Iberia after that many thousands of years, yet it is almost absent in the Atlantic area and rare in Northern Iberia (which had a weaker Roman demographic influence than Southern Iberia). Likewise E-M35/E-M78 are absent in places where V is common. This says that E-M35/E-M78 are "post-Megalithic"/"post-Celtic" to me.
Given the ill fit of E-M35/E-M-78 to Muslim conquests that you have noted, and the relative lack of migration across the Mediterranean after then (apart from the last four or five decades), the Roman Empire fits neatly a post-Celtic and pre-Muslim era driver of this migration.
2. mtDNA H in North Africa amounting to as much as 24% (almost 30% after we add V) of all regional ancestry and confirmed to be a subset of SW European diversity. This really needs an explanation and I am providing one.
ReplyDeleteThe case for this being Upper Paleolithic via Iberia, particularly given its appearance of V from Berbers to the Saami, and the very old North African ancient DNA that supports its antiquity is much stronger than the E1b1. The fact that the E1b1 geography looks much different than the H/V geography also argues for separate causes for each. I am agnostic about a North African to Iberian and points North v. an Iberian to North Africa and Iberian to points North scenario, and it isn't clear to me that all of these lineages are part of a single flow (as opposed to some being North African to Iberian, e.g. V, while others being Iberian to North African).
3. "European" Y-DNA lineages R1b (almost exclusively of West European derivation) and I, specially high among the extinct Canary Islands' natives (Guanches): 17% (double than among modern North Africans).
Possibly. I have doubts about how accurately existing data are distinguishing African and Western European R1b clades, and I also think that there is probably more African clade R1b in Sahel nomads than existing studies have revealed, with the lack simply being a matter of undersampling.
4. A strict barrier however between Y-DNA J1 (in Africa) and J2 (in Europe), indicating these lineages arrived after the flow events. J1 however was very common among the Guanches, so it must have arrived before Semitic expansions.
In North Africa, I'm inclined to see J1 as a largely marker of Arab Muslim conquest. In Europe, I'm inclined to see J2 as a marker of migrations from Anatolia and Mesopotamian fringe Iranian highlands that migrated as part of a largely haplogroup mix with Indo-European in the Bronze and Iron Ages.
For both R1b and J1, in the Guanches, I'm inclined to see a marker of Phoenician or pre-Phoenician mariners, something that may also supplement the North African mix in addition to the Arab component.
"I agree that E1b1 is a poor fit for Muslim conquest. But, the case for Roman, or pre-Roman distributions is much harder to rule out".
ReplyDeleteIn fact I used to think that it was a Neolithic input but not anymore.
Roman input is hard to justify because the Atlantic was not their main area of interests and, as in the case of Muslim influx, it'd be more logical to find such inputs in the south (Baetica) and the east, much more civilized and economically important areas.
"North Africa was the bread basket of the Roman Empire"...
Essentially the Province of Africa (formerly Carthage, later Vandal Kingdom, now Tunisia mostly). This is an area of strong J1 and J1 is very rare in Iberia.
As I say, one of the reasons to reject Neolithic or post-Neolithic flows is the lack of J1 in Iberia (and lack of J2 and G2a in North Africa). This is a true Gibraltar Strait divide but does not apply so much to other, apparently older, haplogroups.
I understand that J1 spread to NW Africa (along with some E1b1) with the Capsian culture (late UP, continued in Epipaleolithic and Neolithic). So this is effectively an "ante quam" date for the Iberian-North African interaction.
"The Roman demographic impact on points within the empire, particularly for a Y-DNA marker, may be pretty significant, there were a lot of campaigns fought in that region and it was thoroughly Romanized".
Yet very little Italian or otherwise transmediterranean genetics are found, notably in the Y-DNA side, so clearly your conclusions are way beyond what factual reality can support. In Antiquity and the Middle Ages, some 90% of the population were peasants who never traveled far away. This surely also applies to all the Metal Ages and even most of the Neolithic.
When there were depopulations and repopulations, they were generally very localized and the people arrived often from nearby places.
"The sack of Carthage is a really intense demographic event that shouldn't be underestimated as a potential population genetic impact on South Iberia"...
The destruction of Carthage happened long after Iberia was Roman territory. While wars in antiquity were very cruel (a usual practice was amputation of the right hand, so as to turn people unable to fight) and some resettling of veteran soldiers and aristocrats (and whatever slaves survived the extreme hardships of ancient slavery) did happen indeed, these probably had limited impact, if any, in overall demographics.
"... and the much longer Moorish occupation of Granada relative to the rest of Iberia could also account for the E-M35/E-M78 there".
But SE Andalusia, including Granada, is low in North African markers, specially E1b1. However it is where most of J1 (very little) is concentrated. The reality is that Spanish Muslims were essentially native converts with thin layer of Arab and specially Berber (and sometimes Slavic too) aristocracy. Of course the 1490s expulsions (mostly forced conversion and aculturation) may have impacted negatively in this particular layer but still the impression is that the migrants involved were rather few also in the Muslim period.
...
...
ReplyDelete"If E-M35/E-M78 were Upper Paleolithic, rather than Iron Age, one would expect a greater distribution of it everywhere the R1b and the Franco-Cantobrian refugia spread"...
Not really. You can see that Basques have almost no E1b1 and that largely applies to the Franco-Cantabrian region, with the exceptions of Asturias and Cantabria.
Iberia proper did not influence the rest of Europe directly (with the said Asturian exception). It was always a cultural (and presumably demic) flow in the opposite direction. This applies for Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrean, Magdalenian, Azilian (laminar microlithism) and Tardenoisian (geometric microlithism). All pre-Neolithic cultures flowed from North to South.
The true demographic (and cultural) reservoir was the Franco-Cantabrian province, essentially Southern France and very specially Dordogne, whose population densities almost allow us to speak of the "Paleolithic metropolis" of Europe.
Only since Neolithic we can see that Iberia takes a more central role, specially Southern Portugal (where Dolmenic Megalithism originates and that later held the only civilization of the Atlantic before the fabled Tartessos, playing a key role in Bell Beaker contexts as well).
Probably the E1b1 that is found scattered along Atlantic Europe has those origins.
"Likewise E-M35/E-M78 are absent in places where V is common".
Not absent but certainly lower. I understand that the main flow cycle is as follows:
1. Iberian flow to North Africa (genesis of Oranian): Y-DNA R1b, I and mtDNA H and V flow into North Africa.
2. North African flow to Iberia (some cultural feedback, notably back-tipped winged points). Y-DNA E1b1 and mtDNA U6 flow into Iberia, but with founder effects mostly in the West (Portugal), extending then to the NW (Asturias, Salamanca).
Excepting Asturias, which has an older settlement pattern since Aurignacian, all this area was populated at low density and owing culturally to the much more dense SE, where the North African impact seems minor.
...
...
ReplyDelete"I have doubts about how accurately existing data are distinguishing African and Western European R1b clades"...
There's no African-specific R1b1b clades. There is European and West Asian clades (see Morelli 2010). African-specific R1b is all R1b1a and should be easy to tell apart by haplotype (and is rare in North Africa).
I worked a bit in the past with Alonso 2004 data and most North African clades look European related. The presence of as much as 7% I (among ancient Guanches) is also very telling about such origins.
There is only one haplotype that looks Anatolian by origin, all the rest should be R1b1b2a1, the European clade.
"In North Africa, I'm inclined to see J1 as a largely marker of Arab Muslim conquest".
It is impossible because they should also have brought some J2 with them and J2 is almost non-existent in the region, while J1 is very abundant. There are other reasons such as deep-in-the-structure North African haplotypes that even suggest a back-flow from North Africa to West Asia (Semino 2004, grayed cluster) for much of J1. There is even some people who claim an African origin for J1, though at the moment I think it is a far-fetched claim.
People at historical densities do not migrate with just one haplogroup, even if it is the main one: they should bring with them a roughly balanced mix of all haplogroups in their homeland in the corresponding apportions, not just one. This kind of founder effects tells of smaller populations and also of older scenarios when the various clades were more neatly separated (because of strong drift).
"In Europe, I'm inclined to see J2 as a marker of migrations from Anatolia and Mesopotamian fringe Iranian highlands that migrated as part of a largely haplogroup mix with Indo-European in the Bronze and Iron Ages".
It is the most clear Neolithic marker of all. Nothing to do with Indoeuropeans.
Anyhow there were no significant migrations from West Asia in the Bronze and Iron ages (no idea where do you get that from), just some Cypriot and later Phoenician coastal flows at best. In Iberia for instance J2 is widespread (at low densities), as corresponds to the main Neolithic marker, but more dense in the East and SE (where Neolithic impact was obviously greater). This area was not Indoeuropean at all at the arrival of the Romans but ethnically Iberian.
"For both R1b and J1, in the Guanches, I'm inclined to see a marker of Phoenician or pre-Phoenician mariners".
While Phoenicians knew of the Fortunate Islands they never settled them. Phoenician impact should be an almost equal apportion mixture of J1 and J2, as is typical in Western Jews too, along with other West Asian clades. Neither in the North nor the South of the Mediterranean we find anywhere such apportion, clearly saying that Phoenician impact was very limited at best.
Your point about J1/J2 mixes isn't very convincing, because we don't know how recent that mixing took place. If it took place late, then the data make sense. And, the historical case that there might have been a pretty great division between the two populations outside of a few token elite marriages until Bronze Age collapse looks pretty good. Phoenecian trade routes pretty much stuck to the Levant and North African shore and up to some very select Southern European points from there. If J1/J2 diffentiation comes late, that makes sense and the people the Phoenicians drop in the Canaries don't have to be Phonecians themselves, just passengers. Guanches are old, but only about 1000 BCE give or take, not that old.
ReplyDelete"Of course the 1490s expulsions (mostly forced conversion and aculturation) may have impacted negatively in this particular layer but still the impression is that the migrants involved were rather few also in the Muslim period."
You don't need really intense migration at any one time when you have Muslim rule from 750 CE to 1492 CE, and the explusions could easily leave a gap in the SE from a final very racialized push in the Reconquista at the end, while the push may have been less complete in places that fell more easily.
"Iberia proper did not influence the rest of Europe directly (with the said Asturian exception). It was always a cultural (and presumably demic) flow in the opposite direction."
There is pretty strong genetic influence of an Iberian gene flow to the British Isles. Yet, there is virtually no E1b1 in there. If E1b1 is as old in Iberia as you suggest how did this happen? This requires very high levels of population structure within Iberia that is sustained for about twelve thousand years or more all the way to the present that is hard to square with the evidence.
The case for greater Roman mobility than during Antiquity or the Middle Ages is also good. That was the essence of Pax Romana.
The Bronze Age/Iron age migration I allude to is Indo-Europeanization. You are clearly of the impression that it was mostly a cultural shift. I'm inclined to think that it was at least as demic in Europe as it was in South Asia.
Then maybe the first thing you should consider is when J1 and J2 got mixed in West Asia. IMO this happened in the Neolithic mainly, because:
ReplyDelete1. West Asia is where the Neolithic began (at least in this part of the World) and that means their populations were high since the beginning, preventing further major changes.
2. The presence of J2 in Arabia must also be that all, Semitic expansion at the latest (4000 BCE roughly).
In any case, Phoenicians settled Southern Spain as much as they did North Africa, yet we cannot recognize their imprint in either J1, J2 nor the mixture of both I would expect.
But it's clear that you want to see these stuff in more recentist terms, and I cannot persuade your desires, only your reason - and that may not be enough.
"... don't have to be Phonecians themselves, just passengers".
First time I read that Phoenicians were in the passenger transport business. Not too convincing you sound either, sincerely.
Whatever the case, Guanches are by language and archaeology of North African derivation. Their genes must be too and in truth we find them in the mainland, except that in lower frequencies for some Y-DNA clades, which must have receded since then or earlier times.
"You don't need really intense migration at any one time when you have Muslim rule from 750 CE to 1492 CE".
But as a separate state since early on (Cordoba Independent Emirate, later Caliphate, later first Taifas). The periods of political union with North Africa were minor. Since the early 12th century the area of Muslim control is just Granada. So the last three centuries do not really count for most of the Peninsula.
Whatever the case, we do not see almost E1b1 in Granada or otherwise SE Spain. This clearly indicates that the Moorish demographic influence was almost trivial.
"There is pretty strong genetic influence of an Iberian gene flow to the British Isles".
Really? I would not be so sure. And, if there is some, it has never been researched AFAIK. Sykes does not count because he confused R1b with Basques and Basques with Iberians, all of which is not realistic.
There is SW European influence (and also independent NW European one, maybe even a bit stronger, specially in England). Confusing SW Europe with Iberia is a serious error: the Paleolithic core was in today's France instead, the Southern half specially. It's not my preference but a fact.
"Yet, there is virtually no E1b1 in there. If E1b1 is as old in Iberia as you suggest how did this happen?"
Do I have to repeat myself? Because Iberia was not that source but the Franco-Cantabrian region (and other areas). However, the little E1b1 that exists is probably of Chalcolithic Iberian origin.
...
...
ReplyDelete"This requires very high levels of population structure within Iberia that is sustained for about twelve thousand years or more all the way to the present that is hard to square with the evidence".
For me it is no problem, rather a solution: it squares with the evidence perfectly. And that's exactly my argumentation. You may be (irrationally) sceptic about that but you cannot make the puzzle fit but that way.
Of course if one begins by confusing South France and Basques with Iberia, everything becomes very blurry. Basques are most clearly related with Gascons and maybe other South and West "French", then, in Iberia, to the peoples of near the Pyrenees (High Aragonese, Catalans) and also close surroundings by the West (Cantabria, parts of Burgos).
"The case for greater Roman mobility than during Antiquity or the Middle Ages is also good. That was the essence of Pax Romana".
The history of the aristocrats is the late prehistory of the peoples, who are almost never mentioned. Aristocrats were numerically irrelevant (for instance, in modern India Brahmins are like 3%, so they can be safely ignored). Peasants essentially stay put, working their lands generation after generation and marrying neighbors from not far away.
"The Bronze Age/Iron age migration I allude to is Indo-Europeanization. You are clearly of the impression that it was mostly a cultural shift".
To begin with I am sure that there is no archaeological evidence of any such Bronze Age migration of any sort from West Asia. To continue I think Indoeuropeans are from between the Volga and the Urals (Kurgan theory, the only one that makes sense). To finish, there were two phases in the Indoerupeanization of Europe: (1) up to the Rhine culminating c. 2400 BCE (Corded Ware) and (2) West of the Rhine, south of the Alps and also the British islands, which happened since c. 1300 BCE (Urnfields) and has its origins in South Germany and East Switzerland. Obviously the second are not the same as the former and the general lack of R1a1 (and very specially R1a1a7, directly associated with Corded Ware) West of the Rhine is a clear indicator of the switch of driving population for one of mostly Western background (slaves were assimilated and became warriors).
“I don't have a lot of confidence in your timing of a maritime migrations”
ReplyDeleteNor do I.
“DE surely coalesced in Africa”
Either that or it entered early. But my pick is that either way it was forced south by desiccation of the Sahara. I’ve found it useful at times to view haplogroup diversification in the same way as one would look at a stud animal’s pedigree. So it is interesting to work from the present back to DE. But first your comment from our other discussion on Y-hap E:
“We should not overstretch our conclusions when the extant data is feeble or otherwise inconclusive”.
Whoever has done the Y-hap E entries on Wiki has provided considerable information as to the haplogroups’ present distribution. I believe we have enough data in the case of E to draw reasonable conclusions, although more information would be useful as further proof. I’ll try to simplify the explanation. Obviously drift and founder effect have had an influence, and several ‘generations’ would actually have been involved between ‘fathers’ and ‘sons’.
But we can easily imagine that the ‘father’ E1b1b1-M35 had seven sons. The ‘family clan’ had not yet reached Northwest Africa. They lived somewhere around the Horn of Africa and as far inland as the Kenya/Sudan border. By the time members of the E1b1b1-M35 ‘clan’ had started moving north one of the ‘sons’ (E1b1b1a-V68) had produced a ‘son’ of his own (E1b1b1a1-M78), and even five E1b1b1 ‘grandsons’. Some of these ‘grandsons’ were able to move north along the Nile with their ‘father’, ‘grandfather’ and two of their ‘grandfather’s brothers’ (E1b1b1b-V257 and E1b1b1c-M123). Two of the ‘grandsons’ dropped off along the Nile (E1b1b1a1a-V12 and E1b1b1a1c-V22), and their descendants are today found in Egypt and the Sudan. The others reached the Mediterranean and spread around its shore. In order, from the mouth of the Nile, we have E1b1b1c-M123 (as in the map you posted), E1b1b1a1e-M521, E1b1b1a1b-V13, E1b1b1a1d-V657 and E1b1b1b-V257. A son of the last has spread through much of Northwest Africa (E1b1b1b1-M81, and again see the map). Perhaps the members of the two older generations (E1b1b1c and E1b1b1b) were in the vanguard of the migration. They finished up at the eastern and western ends respectively while the ‘grandsons’ took over the middle. It would make sense that the migration was not a single, simple affair, but involved a series of pulses. I believe that the migration can be securely dated to between 8500 BP and 7000 BP.
Turning to E1b1b1-M35’s western relation E1b1a1-M2. That ‘father’ had eight sons who formed a widespread ‘clan’. From the west we have: E1b1a1h-P268 (Gambia), E1b1a1b-M116.2 (Mali), E1b1a1d-M155 (Mali), E1b1a1a-M58 (Birkina Faso), E1b1a1e-M10 (Central Africa and Tanzania) and E1b1a1c-M149 (Southern Africa). We also have two widespread haplogroups: E1b1a1f-M191 and E1b1ag-U175. The latter is present from Algeria to the Cameroon, and one of its subclades (E1b1a1g1) is known as the ‘Bantu’ clade.
From the distribution of E1b1a1-M2’s clan we can surmise that they lived originally in West Africa, probably spread along the Niger River, from Senegambia to Nigeria and the Cameroon. But their ‘cousins’ clan (E1b1a2-M329), is found in East Africa, as are many members of their ‘grandfather’s brother’s clan, E1b1b-M215. So E1b1a1-M2 may have come from East Africa, unless E1b1a2-M329 moved east with E1b1a1f-M191.
E1b2 has disappeared in the new phylogeny so we move back to E1b-P177 as the ‘great-grandfather’ of both E1b1a and E1b1b. In the old phylogeny E1b-P177’s ‘brother’, E1a-M33, is centred on Mali, as you can see in the maps you posted. A generation back we have E2-M75 spread through much of Africa, but especially in the Cameroon (again you’ve shown us the map). And DE* has been found in Nigeria. So we look to have a pattern of different overlying layers of migration, most likely from a population originally pushed back to around Lake Chad by an ancient drying of the Sahara.
(continued)
To summarise: we have the first expansion of E from near Nigeria: E2-M75 through much of the Sahel across to the Sudan. E1b-P177 went along with it into East Africa. E1a-M33 remained behind in Mali, as did many E2s. From the eastern population E1b1a1-M2 moved back west to populate the Niger River. From there, just a few thousand years ago, E1b1a1g1-U206 expanded with both agriculture and the Bantu languages. E1b1a1-M2 had probably left E1b1a2-M329 behind in the east and, of course, it left E1b1b-M215. From that eastern population some members of E1b1b1-M35 were next able to spread into the Mediterranean. They moved up the western coast (the Levant), from where they reached Cyprus early in the Holocene (what E haplogroups do Crete and Cyprus have?). They established a foothold in the Balkans, crossed from Sicily to the Maghreb and established a staging post on Sardinia. From where they pushed out into the Atlantic through the Strait of Gibraltar.
ReplyDeleteYour alleged dessication of the Sahara would have caused extinctions and limited migrations but I see no particular reason why it would have triggered any large migration capable of colonizing other much more fertile areas and maybe even replacing the previous inhabitants (male side).
ReplyDeleteIt's just speculating for the sake of it.
"I believe that the migration can be securely dated to between 8500 BP and 7000 BP".
What happened to the people who lived in all that vastness before that?
I don't believe in mass migrations conveniently placed "yesterday" so to say. I rather believe in small migrations in times when all populations were small, so small flows had sometimes big impacts in the long run.
I still think that there was a large replacement in the particular case of North Africa but much less intense than you suggest, specially because M81 was not involved as immigrant but as aboriginal lineage, having arrived much much earlier (because, among other reasons, it's also found in Asturias and Cantabria in rather high frequencies and that needs a good, solid explanation only provided by a Solutrean founder effect).
"... we have the first expansion of E from near Nigeria"...
I've always though that from near Sudan, on the wake of mtDNA L2"6. So why "near Nigeria"?
You have put much emphasis in details up to E1b1b1, when the real interest (for our discussion) is under this level at the E1b1b1a and E1b1b1b levels and even below them.
You are hiding the evidence with that lengthy but mostly pointless discourse: these are huge haplogroups, perfectly comparable in size to O3 or R1b1b2 each, but you prefer to ignore the distinctions known from at least 2004 just because it is convenient for your discourse in which, mysteriously, the differences between E1b1b1a and E1b1b1b suddenly vanish.
"you prefer to ignore the distinctions known from at least 2004 just because it is convenient for your discourse in which, mysteriously, the differences between E1b1b1a and E1b1b1b suddenly vanish".
ReplyDeleteMaju, it is you who is ignoring the distinctions. E1b1b1a is certainly different from E1b1b1b. Both are subclades of E1b1b1 though, and are part of the to E1b1b1c, E1b1b1d, E1b1b1e, etc. clade. A fact you are determined to ignore. There is something very basic you do not understand, or are determined not to understand.
"M81 was not involved as immigrant but as aboriginal lineage, having arrived much much earlier (because, among other reasons, it's also found in Asturias and Cantabria in rather high frequencies and that needs a good, solid explanation only provided by a Solutrean founder effect)".
That is perhaps your problem. You are determined to see the Spanish E haplogroups as being ancient. On what grounds do you insist they are Solutrean and not part of a Mediterranean expansion?
"You have put much emphasis in details up to E1b1b1, when the real interest (for our discussion) is under this level at the E1b1b1a and E1b1b1b levels and even below them".
We cannot possibly understand those haplogroups without considering them in context. A consideration you are determined to avoid.
"I rather believe in small migrations in times when all populations were small"
The E1b1b1a and E1b1b1b migrations could well have involved small populations. But there is no reason to believe they were particularly ancient.
"Your alleged dessication of the Sahara would have caused extinctions"
Presumably it did so. Do you really believe that the Sahara has remained unchanged over the whole period of human presence on the planet?
"I see no particular reason why it would have triggered any large migration capable of colonizing other much more fertile areas"
Surely periods of increased precipitation would have promoted large migrations into the Sahara.
"What happened to the people who lived in all that vastness before that?"
I was actually refering specifically to the movement through the Mediterranean. Presumably before E1b1b arrived along the coast, and subsequently ventured inland, Y-hap R1b1c, E2, E1a and possibly B were present there.
"I still think that there was a large replacement in the particular case of North Africa"
So what's your problem?
"I've always though that from near Sudan, on the wake of mtDNA L2"6. So why 'near Nigeria'?"
As far as I'm aware that is where Y-hap DE has been found. I agree that drift, founder effect and extinction may have altered the haplogroup distribution. However I prefer to discount those if the evidence is capable of supporting a solution without invoking them. The different haplogroup proportions may indicate not much more than the proportions of the population each arrival originally made. The connection with mtDNA L2"6 is irrelevant. Men don't always take their own women with them.
"You are hiding the evidence with that lengthy but mostly pointless discourse"
Why don't you try to follow the trail instead of dismissing it simply because it doesn't fit your belief? I'll email you a diagram that you may find is easier to follow.
When you say that E1b1b carriers "established a foothold in the Balkans, crossed from Sicily to the Maghreb and established a staging post on Sardinia. From where they pushed out into the Atlantic through the Strait of Gibraltar".
ReplyDeleteWho is ignoring the distinctions or the African nature of E1b in general?
E1b1b1b does not fit in that scheme. Actually, AFAIK, E1b1b1a does not either - but by not making the distinction you extend your newly discovered E1b1b1a Sardinian peculiarity to all the lineage.
Not to mention the lack of archaeologically identifiable such migrations.
You are just ranting without analyzing. Maybe because you are thinking that your "metaphor of the sons" makes any sense (when the "sons" are separated by random lapses of maybe thousands of years: thinking of them as "close family" is absolutely wrong).
"Do you really believe that the Sahara has remained unchanged over the whole period of human presence on the planet?"
No but it has been very dry most of the time. Rather than thinking in "dessication", I think in pluvial periods as "opening the gates" between Tropical Africa and the Mediterranean (though there's always the Nile and the Red Sea as corridors).
"So what's your problem?"
My problem is that your logic is wrongly construed altogether: it's a total messy nonsense I cannot swallow even with a whole kilo of sugar.
And specifically that I think that while E1b1b1a1 and J1 replaced in NW Africa (I think) an older layer with greater "European" Y-DNA genetics, this process did not arrive from the Sea but from Nubia across the Sahara (Capsian tends to be an "inland" culture, in contrast with "coastal" Oranian).
It also did not involve, at least not centrally, E1b1b1b1, which was in NW Africa since much older times.
...
...
ReplyDelete"As far as I'm aware that is where Y-hap DE has been found".
Not DE but DE(xD,E) or DE* for short. It's not Nigeria but further West in fact (Guinea Bissau and some other place, Ghana? Burkina?) This may be because oversampling.
Whatever the case you should consider that this DE* is not E (not yet) but something else (just like D), so it says nothing directly about the origin of E.
E is divided into E1 and E2. Half the weight is in E2 and E2 does not look like having any particular Western tendency. As always in Africa it is very difficult to get a defined structure by geography but I fail to see any particular "Western" tendency of E2, rather East/Southern Africa if anything.
E1 is split into E1a and E1b. I think that it's also clear that E1b is original from East Africa (towards Ethiopia maybe). E1a is most concentrated in Mali but it's not impossible that it expanded from further East (and I'd think so, on mere parsimony grounds, unless proven wrong).
So IMO E looks like original from the Horn... or otherwise the Central-to-East Africa arch that is arguably the original region of Humankind as a whole as well.
"Men don't always take their own women with them".
This argument is tricky because if they did that, they would not have descendants and we would not need to discuss this matter today.
The issue is not that men migrated (if they did) but how did they take dominance over other men (and hence "their" women). It may have been a peaceful gradual process (seen in the dripping of agricultural bloodlines into forager nations) or it may have been violent... or it may not have happened at all and is a mirage.
Whatever the case it's a complex matter that should not be explained hastily.
IMO it's best explained if the mtDNA L2"6 "nation" never really fully split before the OoA, so CDEF coalesced into massively dominant E (or DE, considering the few DE* found) by mere drift, while women lineages remained more diverse. CF was then drifted out (but survived in Asia, where it became dominant eventually) and DE(xE) was also drifted out, excepting a few survivors in the far West (as far as we can tell).
So we had:
1. CDEF + L2"6 people in East Africa
2. DE + L2"6 people in East Africa & CF + L3 (and L0) people in Arabia/Eurasia (with some DE spillover eventually becoming D)
3. E + L2"6 people in East Africa
etc.
Probably L2 (and some L3) spread to West Africa with E1a mostly.
You have to think in terms of small populations and intense drift or you end up having all women kidnapped and raped all around the World, what seems a most unlikely mechanism to my eyes, specially in forager contexts.
"Not DE but DE(xD,E) or DE* for short. It's not Nigeria but further West in fact (Guinea Bissau and some other place, Ghana? Burkina?)"
ReplyDeleteEither way E obviously spread from the savanah/forest boundary somewhere between the Ivory Coast and the Sudan. Perhaps from Lake Chad?
"E is divided into E1 and E2. Half the weight is in E2 and E2 does not look like having any particular Western tendency. As always in Africa it is very difficult to get a defined structure by geography but I fail to see any particular 'Western' tendency of E2, rather East/Southern Africa if anything".
From your link:
"It has been suggested that haplogroup E2b1-M85 Y-chromosomes have spread through Sub-Saharan Africa quite recently based on the fact that Y-STR microsatellite haplotypes associated with these chromosomes show a low degree of differentiation throughout their broad geographic range. Furthermore, the mean variance of STR alleles of E2b1-M85 chromosomes is higher in Central-Western Africans than in the Southern African Khoisan, leading researchers to propose that E2b1-M85 might have been involved in the range expansion of Bantu-speaking peoples from Central-Western Africa toward Southern Africa".
And that is what the Chiaroni map shows: E2 centred in Northwest Nigeria, possibly on the Niger River, although it stretches east into Egypt and the Sudan. And even along the West Arabian coastline. Its spread outside West Africa may indeed be recent.
"E1 is split into E1a and E1b. I think that it's also clear that E1b is original from East Africa (towards Ethiopia maybe). E1a is most concentrated in Mali but it's not impossible that it expanded from further East"
But it is more likely iy remained behind when E2 spread from somewhere near Mali. We have no idea where E1b coalesced. But I agree E1b1b and E1b1a2 are from East Africa. But E1b1a1 is obviously West African.
That takes us to E1b1b, and we're still in east Africa. It is not until we get to E1b1b1 that we get an expansion of that clade. So E1b1a''e presumably spread from the Horn, which is what I've been trying to tell you for some days. This strongly suggests that the presence of E1b1b1a and E1b1b1b at the western end of the Mediterranean is a relatively recent event. and it is the product of expansion through the Mediterranean, not along an inland route.
"Who is ignoring the distinctions or the African nature of E1b in general?"
ReplyDeleteAs I've just explained: you are.
"You are just ranting without analyzing".
And you obviously have done no analysis at all:
"E1b1b1b does not fit in that scheme".
It must do. Do you believe it magically appeared out of thin air independent of E1b1b1?
"E1b1b1a does not either - but by not making the distinction you extend your newly discovered E1b1b1a Sardinian peculiarity to all the lineage".
E1b1b1 is no way 'Sardinian'. Read what I write for a change. Anyway it wasn't me who discovered it, which you'd know if you'd read your own post. Either that, or the significance of the discovery has not yet become apparent to you. Both haplogroups derive from E1b1b1, which is primarily an East African clade. Four of the seven E1b1b1 haplogroups remain in East Africa. And even in the case of E1b1b1a we find half the haplogroups are East African. And if Sardinia had been settled from North Africa we would expect Sardinia's E1b1b1a to be a subset of the African E1b1b1as. But in fact it seems the opposite is so. African E1b1b1a is a subset of Sardinian E1b1b1a. A quote from your original post:
""E-V68* (E1b1b1a*) is found only in Sardinians. E-V257* (E1b1b1b*) is found (at low frequencies) in a larger array of populations: Iberians (Cantabrians and Andalusians), Corsicans, Sardinians, Marrakesh Berbers and Borana (Oromo) from Kenya"
If E1b1b1b is found in Kenya, and E1b1b is East African, surely that indicates that E1b1b1b started out from there, unless you're proposing a back migration from Iberia to Kenya.
"It also did not involve, at least not centrally, E1b1b1b1, which was in NW Africa since much older times".
How can you possibly believe that? I agree there are almost certainly a different number of mutations on different lines but, for example, Y-hap E1b1a1g1 is know as the 'Bantu haplotype'. The Bantu expansion is only a few thousand year old, although the haplogroup is presumably older. Your belief requires a huge magnitude of difference.
"You have to think in terms of small populations and intense drift or you end up having all women kidnapped and raped all around the World"
Men are often accepted into 'tribal' societies. Many Maori tribes were more than happy to have Europeans join their tribe. As were many North American tribes. So 'kidnapped and raped' doesn't come into it.
"Whatever the case it's a complex matter that should not be explained hastily".
Exactly. And we shouldn't assume women always accompany men.
"when the 'sons' are separated by random lapses of maybe thousands of years: thinking of them as 'close family' is absolutely wrong"
Why do I bother when you don't read what I write?
"several ‘generations’ would actually have been involved between ‘fathers’ and ‘sons’"
"I think in pluvial periods as 'opening the gates' between Tropical Africa and the Mediterranean"
And then they close again, pushing Saharan populations either south of out of Africa. Presumably that is why DE is found in 'Nigeria but further West in fact (Guinea Bissau and some other place, Ghana? Burkina?)'.
I've just realised how inconsistent you are. Until now you've always argued that basal haplogroup diversity is an indication of origin, which I agree with. However you've often claimed 'basal diversity' when it has been most probable that the 'diversity' in question is a product of separate arrivals of related haplogroups. That would be the case for example for Y-hap C in India and the Os in SE Asia.
ReplyDeleteBut now, when we have clear and obvious cases of undoubted basal diversity, you've suddenly changed your mind and are arguing that basal diversity tells us nothing.
The aplomb with which you carry off your inconsistency is admirable.
"Do you believe [E1b1b1b] magically appeared out of thin air independent of E1b1b1?"
ReplyDeleteNo but both lineages are found in the same area (the West), so they can't have originated in any "Neolithic" flow or otherwise East-to-West one, like Capsian culture. The lineage must therefore have coalesced in the West (either NW Africa or SW Europe) from a very ancient "seed" migration o undifferentiated ancestral E1b1b (Dabban?, Aterian?).
I presume that the differential levels of detection of E1b1b1* (that is: "brothers" of E1b1b1b) in SW Europe and NW Africa are derived from similarly differential levels of sampling and research. Otherwise one could well argue for a E1b1b1 coalescence in Europe but I consider it extremely unlikely.
Whatever the case it is by the West, not far from the Atlantic/Western Med and not near the Red Sea/Eastern Med where this lineage coalesced.
"... you've suddenly changed your mind and are arguing that basal diversity tells us nothing".
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that: I'm saying that we may not have enough data to judge.
I agree that on the data you have provided E1b1b must have coalesced in Sardinia (or rather Asturias, following Adams 2008 - I did not bother making the point but there's some data for that too). But we both agree (don't you?) that such thing is most unlikely and that this is a product of oversampling of European areas and undersampling of Africa.
We do not have this problem in East Asia, with China being oversampled and SE Asia, specially Indochina, clearly undersampled and under-researched.
Also the amounts of rare clades detected are tiny, true erratics. In these cases, as happens with mtDNA U8, it is best to remain cautious. Have you ever read me arguing that U8 is European because there is one lineage (the hyper-rare U8a) not found in Asia? No, you have not and you won't. Why? Because the data is confusing, inconclusive.
"I'm not saying that: I'm saying that we may not have enough data to judge".
ReplyDeleteThat has never stopped you from making claims about Y-haps C and O. Anyway, from a few days ago:
"Not to mention the lack of archaeologically identifiable such migrations".
Didn't we agree a few days before that that 'someone' had traveled through the Mediterranean islands, from Cyprus to Sardinia, about 8500 years ago? This movement was pre-Neolithic so can't have involved Y-haps J or G. So what people were they? And where did they come from?
"I agree that on the data you have provided E1b1b must have coalesced in Sardinia"
Who is confusing the haplogroups now? the downstream haplogroup E1b1b1a 'might' have coalesced in Sardina/Asturias, but certainly not E1b1b.
"both lineages are found in the same area (the West), so they can't have originated in any 'Neolithic' flow or otherwise East-to-West one"
Why not? You can't draw valid conclusions for those two lines by ignoring E1b1b1c, E1b1b1d, E1b1b1e, E1b1b1f and E1b1b1g. Of course I realise exactly why you are prepared to ignore the remainder of the clade. It conflicts absolutely with your already-formed belief.
"The lineage must therefore have coalesced in the West (either NW Africa or SW Europe) from a very ancient 'seed' migration o undifferentiated ancestral E1b1b (Dabban?, Aterian?)".
So how do you account for the above downstream E1b1b haplogroups in Ethiopia and the Horn? And don't forget the downstream E1b1b1a1 haplogroups in Egypt (E1b1b1a1a, E1b1b1a1a). Did they move south up the Nile at some prehistoric moment? But, of course, you are intent on ignoring that inconvenience because it conflicts with you belief. And that belief prevents you from looking at the actual evidence.
in an unbiased manner.
"Otherwise one could well argue for a E1b1b1 coalescence in Europe but I consider it extremely unlikely".
It is virtually impossible to argue in favour of that. On the other hand it is very easy to make a case for the Horn/Ethiopia.
"Whatever the case it is by the West, not far from the Atlantic/Western Med and not near the Red Sea/Eastern Med where this lineage coalesced".
Rubbish. You're ignoring the valuable information you've actually gone to the trouble of posting here. The post is called, 'Some new insights in the phylogeny of Y-DNA E1b1' but you are determined to avoid considering those 'new insights' because your mind is already made up.
An important aspect you are refusing to consider is how the new phylogeny and the older distribution maps coincide exactly with the series of haplogroup expansions I have proposed. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fit the information contained to the scenario you propose. The maps of E1b1b1-M35 and E1b1b1a1 both show basically three centres of expansion: The Bab al Mandab, the Balkans and North Africa. How can you interpret that as showing a movement from East Africa to Northwest Africa via the Sahara? And even though E1b1b1b1-M81's distribution is centred in Northwest Africa it is a derived from E1b1b1b, not a 'basal' haplogroup. And E1b1b1c-M123's distribution is centred on the Levant, exactly as you would expect under the scenario I propose.
"And don't forget the downstream E1b1b1a1 haplogroups in Egypt (E1b1b1a1a, E1b1b1a1a)".
ReplyDeleteSorry. E1b1b1a1a and E1b1b1a1c.
"Didn't we agree a few days before that that 'someone' had traveled through the Mediterranean islands, from Cyprus to Sardinia, about 8500 years ago?"
ReplyDeleteNo. You may have agreed with yourself because I did not agree with that. Maybe you are thinking on a paper that suggested that the way of life of Epipaleolithic Corsica and that of Cyprus were similar but that's about it.
And I do not have to agree with every single line of a paper I'm mentioning just to prove pre-Neolithic inhabitation (which you rejected in the case of Cyprus, by the way).
It's night on impossible for anyone to have traveled by sea "from Cyprus to Sardinia" without colonizing Crete. But Crete seems to remain a case of Neolithic colonization, notwithstanding the MP tools.
And there would be easy to spot even more and more inconsistencies to such weird idea because obviously Sardinians and Cypriots have little genetic relation, if any at all.
"Who is confusing the haplogroups now? the downstream haplogroup E1b1b1a 'might' have coalesced in Sardina/Asturias, but certainly not E1b1b".
I meant E1b1b1b, my bad.
"So how do you account for the above downstream E1b1b haplogroups in Ethiopia and the Horn?"
They represent parallel ancient expansions (or rather lack of such expansions because they remained stuck in the Upper Nile with little distribution).
"And don't forget the downstream E1b1b1a1 haplogroups in Egypt (E1b1b1a1a, E1b1b1a1a). Did they move south up the Nile at some prehistoric moment?"
That's what has been proposed, as mentioned in the other conversation. I'm just borrowing on others' ideas in this particular case - and I don't feel even searching for that particular paper right now.
It may be the other way around or from some intermediate area like the Beja Country. And I don't even really care too much as long as it does not affect E1b1b1b. But IMO, as far as I can discern, E1b1b1a is original from Nubia and the main carrier of Afroasiatic languages (along J1 and occasionally other clades).
"It is virtually impossible to argue in favour of that. On the other hand it is very easy to make a case for the Horn/Ethiopia".
We agree here. Then why all the fuzz about Sardinia?
Sardinia is generally considered to be in Europe, you know - and in any case very far away from The Horn.
Also E1b is a rare clade in Sardinia, btw - unlike The Horn.
...
...
ReplyDelete"The maps of E1b1b1-M35 and E1b1b1a1 both show basically three centres of expansion: The Bab al Mandab, the Balkans and North Africa. How can you interpret that as showing a movement from East Africa to Northwest Africa via the Sahara?"
Not sure which maps nor how you imagine that the Balcans is a center of expansion at this phylogenetic level. The Balcans only play a role in E-V13, a late development, for all the rest, it's an African matter.
Not sure exactly what the difference in your mind is between crossing the Sahara and crossing Libya (between NE and NW Africa) but I understand that they are about the same thing.
"And even though E1b1b1b1-M81's distribution is centred in Northwest Africa it is a derived from E1b1b1b, not a 'basal' haplogroup"...
E1b1b1b is also centered in NW Africa (or alternatively SW Europe but we have both agreed already that this is just a mirage, right?)
You cannot track the origin of E1b1b1b with so little E1b1b1b(xE1b1b1b1) known to exist, so we better skip. You'll say: that's because it's convenient to your argumentation and I say in advance: re-read the previous paragraph: E1b1b1b is centered in the West and almost only exists here: it is not any Eastern clade (African or Mediterranean context).
To explain E1b1b1b you need a deep founder effect in NW Africa (or SW Europe - but unlikely).
"And E1b1b1c-M123's distribution is centred on the Levant, exactly as you would expect under the scenario I propose".
It's a different lineage. I can imagine that E1b1b1c and E1b1b1a coalesced North of the ancestral E1b1b1 area in the Upper Nile within the context of an ancient Northwards migration, maybe related to the OoA or somewhat more recent.
You must realize that each of these lineages require an ancient founder effect followed by at least some good millennia of drift. A recent migration would not create such large haplogroups but many smaller haplotypes, often interconnected between the various affected areas.
You do not see new haplogroups in the USA for example: you see diverse European (and other) lineages. No founder effect, no drift... just large recent migrations (somewhat similar to what we can expect to have happened in the Neolithic and such). There was replacement but there was no coalescence of any new lineages we can identify. Not even in Mormonland!
In order to have such a dominant unique lineage(s), we need to have an ancient founder effect followed by a long period of low densities (so drift can act and consolidate the dominance of that lineage).
"Not sure which maps"
ReplyDeleteThe seven maps at your other Y-hap E post. Why don't you have a look at what you post? But here they are again:
http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TSdPN7-ItxI/AAAAAAAADJ0/o9BqFbFTVjA/s1600/journal.pone.0016073.g001.png&imgrefurl=http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html&usg=__sF84_xDGuku-Pg6NXvVQ4A5BChQ=&h=586&w=600&sz=130&hl=en&start=199&zoom=1&tbnid=w93H7cPgGHTepM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=123&ei=nUXSTc7OL4i8sAOrpPGTCQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dy-chromosome%2Bhaplogroup%2Be1b1b%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D786%26bih%3D391%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=110&page=25&ndsp=9&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:199&tx=58&ty=50
"The Balcans only play a role in E-V13, a late development, for all the rest, it's an African matter".
But E1b1b1a1 includes Egyptian and Ethiopian clades, as well a Sardinian, so I would guess it was a 'staging post' during the original expansion. E1b1b1a1b-V13 developed in the Balkans from E1b1b1a1. From where it expanded independently later.
"To explain E1b1b1b you need a deep founder effect in NW Africa"
No you don't. You just need a movement down the Nile and into The Mediterranean from Ethiopia. E1b1b1b1 developed in Northwest Africa from E1b1b1b. Simple. Surely?
"You cannot track the origin of E1b1b1b with so little E1b1b1b(xE1b1b1b1) known to exist"
Perhaps not. But you can get a very good idea of its origins by looking at its closest relations, other E1b1b1s. It cannot have sprung up out of thin air. But you are determined to believe that it did.
"it is not any Eastern clade (African or Mediterranean context)".
But all its relations are.
"I can imagine that E1b1b1c and E1b1b1a coalesced North of the ancestral E1b1b1 area in the Upper Nile within the context of an ancient Northwards migration, maybe related to the OoA or somewhat more recent".
I'd say much more recently than any OoA. But apart from that I see you are beginning to see the light.
"You must realize that each of these lineages require an ancient founder effect followed by at least some good millennia of drift".
You can use that argument to claim humans came from America. Most haplogroups are geographically near their closest relations, and we should assume this to be so unless we see a very definite discontinuity.
"A recent migration would not create such large haplogroups but many smaller haplotypes, often interconnected between the various affected areas".
And that's exactly what we see with the E1b1b1 and E1b1b1a1 clades. Each haplogroup in each clade is geographically proximate to at least one other member of the clade.
"In order to have such a dominant unique lineage(s), we need to have an ancient founder effect followed by a long period of low densities (so drift can act and consolidate the dominance of that lineage)".
But we're talking relatively 'downstream clades' here. And their diversification is much older that 2-300 years. Take Polynesians for example. They have left SE Asia no more than 4-5000 years ago yet have distinct clades. derived from SE Asian ones of course. But in the Case of E we're talking possibly 10,000 years of diversification and drift.
"But all its relations are".
ReplyDeletePointless: we are here before "a wayward son". Ancestors are left behind only present and future matter now. You could film an epic movie...
"But E1b1b1a1 includes Egyptian and Ethiopian clades, as well a Sardinian"...
Pointless in relation with E1b1b1b(1). The origin of E1b1b1a(1) seems to be in Egypt (Nubia probably).
"E1b1b1b1 developed in Northwest Africa from E1b1b1b. Simple. Surely?"
Of course, but there is no E1b1b1b in Ethiopia, most E1b1b1b(xE1b1b1b1) is in the West. Are you founding all this nonsense on a Kenyan erratic?
What I say is that E1b1b1b evolved from E1b1b1 in NW Africa (or SW Europe). Would it be a dog it'd had already bitten you.
"You can use that argument to claim humans came from America".
No you can't. I'm not saying humans came from NW Africa. Only one modest lineage, which is still mostly found in that area anyhow.
"Most haplogroups are geographically near their closest relations, and we should assume this to be so unless we see a very definite discontinuity".
I do not have to assume anything just because you say so. We do see a clear discontinuity here anyhow because there's no way on Earth (nor Mars, nor Venus...) that E1b1b1b can have coalesced in the Upper Nile. Much less in the Eastern Mediterranean, where there's not a single track.
I'm about to think you are crazy, Terry, that you see things that are not there...
"Each haplogroup in each clade is geographically proximate to at least one other member of the clade".
This looks like a nonsense imaginary pseudoscientific "rule" to me. Whatever the case, E1b1b1b is close to E1b1b1a, via the Libyan desert (actually even closer, because E1b1b1a has spilled over NW Africa already).
"But in the Case of E we're talking possibly 10,000 years of diversification and drift".
Woot!? 10,000 years only for all E?! Drift in the Neolithic?!
Please stop making nerd jokes, most people don't get them. I don't in fact and I suspect you are attempting to be serious... tell me I am wrong, please!
hehehe..... Terry what yea doing?
ReplyDelete"hehehe..... Terry what yea doing?'
ReplyDeleteTrying to show Maju where he is wrong.
"And I do not have to agree with every single line of a paper I'm mentioning just to prove pre-Neolithic inhabitation".
Your inconsistency is a beacon of light, offering hope for religious fundamentalists everywhere. Just a few days ago you were arguing that the paper you linked to proved people reached Cyprus, Sardinia and Corsica before the Neolithic. You're now arguing that they didn't. Make up your mind.
"(which you rejected in the case of Cyprus, by the way)"
Rubbish. I've always accepted Cyprus was settled during the early Holocene, which the paper you linked to proved to be so.
"Woot!? 10,000 years only for all E?! Drift in the Neolithic?!"
Sorry. My bad. I meant E1b1b1. And its expansion is not 'Neolithic' but 'early Holocene'.
"They represent parallel ancient expansions (or rather lack of such expansions because they remained stuck in the Upper Nile with little distribution)".
Exactly. Many haplogroups in the E1b1b1 clade remained 'stuck in the Upper Nile with little distribution'. So presumably the other E1b1b1 haplogroups started out from that region. You have even come to accept it to be so because you say:
"E1b1b1a is original from Nubia and the main carrier of Afroasiatic languages".
But you are still claiming that E1b1b1b has no connection to E1b1b1.
"(Pointless: we are here before 'a wayward son')".
And the 'a wayward son' appears out of thin air.
"Sardinia is generally considered to be in Europe, you know - and in any case very far away from The Horn. Also E1b is a rare clade in Sardinia, btw - unlike The Horn".
Which strongly suggests that the ultimate origins of the Sardinain E1b1b1s are also there, including that of E1b1b1b.
"What I say is that E1b1b1b evolved from E1b1b1 in NW Africa (or SW Europe)".
But E1b1b1 had come from East Africa as part of the expansion of several other E1b1b1s. Presumably in what was a single movement including an E1b1b1 (that coalesced into E1b1b1c and E1b1b1a). But the expansion almost certainly included already-coalesced E1b1b1a because several derived E1b1b1a 1 haplogroups are found through Egypt and out into the Mediterranean. So at a minimum the expansion included basal E1b1b1and basal E1b1b1a1. From those two haplogroups five clades coalesced in various regions around the Mediterranean.
"I'm not saying humans came from NW Africa".
I know you're not. But if you use drift, bottleneck and founder effect indiscriminately to explain discrepancies in your theory you are using the same tactics as is someone else who is claiming humans came from America. Surely if it is possible to explain a distribution without resorting to those tactics your theory is much more likely to be correct.
"I do not have to assume anything just because you say so".
You are assuming an incredible amount.
"We do see a clear discontinuity here anyhow"
No we don't. We see E1b1b1b in NW Africa, its relation E1b1b1a nearby in Sardinia (and neighbouring regions), a subclade of E1b1b1a (E1b1b1a1d) in Spain, Italy and NW Africa, another two of those subclades (E1b1b1a1b and E1b1b1a1e) in Greece and another E1b1b1 clade (E1b1b1c) in the Levant. All other clades of both E1b1b1 and E1b1b1a1 are East African.
"E1b1b1b is close to E1b1b1a, via the Libyan desert"
They're even closer via the Mediterranean.
"Just a few days ago you were arguing that the paper you linked to proved people reached Cyprus, Sardinia and Corsica before the Neolithic. You're now arguing that they didn't".
ReplyDeleteStop twisting my words to fit your fantasies. I said that:
"I do not have to agree with every single line of a paper I'm mentioning just to prove pre-Neolithic inhabitation".
So... I stand by pre-Neohilithic inhabitation. I just do not have to agree with every single line that the authors wrote. This is not like voting at elections, here you can choose the part of the discourse you agree with and discard the junk.
I follow no one. I'm no follower.
"Exactly. Many haplogroups in the E1b1b1 clade remained 'stuck in the Upper Nile with little distribution'. So presumably the other E1b1b1 haplogroups started out from that region".
Wrong! Fundamental misunderstanding!
It means that E1b1b1 (and only this clade) began from there (probably) but says nothing about where the descendants coalesced.
This last should be in or near their respective areas of highest diversity within themselves. So between E1b1b1 and E1b1b1b we have an interesting long journey across what is now the Libyan Desert... surely still in form of E1b1b1-root.
Unless you want to claim a SW European origin for this clade, which would imply an even longer and less likely journey before it expanded. But, IMO, this is not probable.
E1b1b1 (Upper Nile) -> E1b1b1b (NW Africa and SW Europe). That's it. There's no E1b1b1b in the Upper Nile other than some low frequencies of derived E1b1b1b1 in Sudan and that random Kenyan erratic.
"But if you use drift, bottleneck and founder effect indiscriminately to explain discrepancies in your theory you are using the same tactics as is someone else who is claiming humans came from America".
You are truly evil.
That's not true: I am not claiming mass extinctions anywhere (the opposite in fact: local continuity as far into the past as the evidence can support) nor I use normally the ugly and extinction-implying word "bottleneck".
Founder effects and drift are like the laws of Nature: they cannot be ignored without causing a massive failure of the theory and praxis. When a small clan or clans found a new colony and remain isolated for millennia, that is a strong founder effect. When any population remains in small numbers, just like Europeans in the Ice Age (maybe just 5000 most of the time), we have a perfect scenario for massive drift and some good fixation events.
You hate the laws of Nature (population genetics) because you'd love to see a zillion extinctions and replacements and bottlenecks. But that's not realistic: people has normally extremely deep local roots, even if they also have more or less immigrant blood of more or less recent arrival. I know it's not the case with modern colonists in New Zealand or other places but, excluding them... that's about it.
E1b1b1b's "relation E1b1b1a nearby in Sardinia".
Fallacy. There's no relation. Only via E1b1b1-root (in the Upper Nile probably). Unless you suddenly know for a fact (you do not) that they are otherwise directly related under that node, in which case... you'd be arguing for a Sardinian origin that I am not willing to accept.
It's like relating R1a and R1b... you need to look first for where the shared root of R1 may be (and that was surely Pakistan or India, not Germany or Turkey, where they live side by side).
Terry "But we can easily imagine that the ‘father’ E1b1b1-M35 had seven sons. The ‘family clan’ had not yet reached Northwest Africa. They lived somewhere around the Horn of Africa and as far inland as the Kenya/Sudan border".
ReplyDeletethats a great "imagination" you have.
much greater than mine...
maybe you can fit it in with Noah... oh yea Noah had four sons it wouldn't fit.lol
If you're presuming all these theories in phenotype of a people look no further, look at the mtDNA mixed with sub Saharan Africans in contrast to more northernly populations.
I will not debate with you I just wanted to give you advise...
IMO at least part of that "sub-Saharan" mtDNA is in fact local North African. I am persuaded (and Terry agrees, even if we disagree on exact timing) that some L(xM,N) lineages migrated to North Africa and Arabia early on in the process of dispersal of AMHs out of Africa.
ReplyDeleteIt is however confuse how does Y-DNA fit in that: I think that E1b1b1 subclades, at least E1b1b1b, are implicated, while for Terry they are just "Holocene arrivals", leaving no possible trace of any of the earliest Y-DNA in NW Africa remaining.
"thats a great 'imagination' you have.
ReplyDeletemuch greater than mine...
maybe you can fit it in with Noah... oh yea Noah had four sons it wouldn't fit.lol"
I used the 'seven sones' as a simplification, because, from Wikipedia:
"As of 2011, there are seven known branches that have resulted from different mutations on M35: M68, V257, M123, V6, M293, V42 and V92. In order to show what is known of their relationships to E1b1b1 and other related clades, these are also currently referred to as E1b1b1a to E1b1b1g, respectively (see image)".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)
So there you have it.
"I do not have to agree with every single line of a paper I'm mentioning just to prove pre-Neolithic inhabitation".
The problem is that you don't agree with the main thrust of the paper. You just selectively choose one of the conclusions. So I presume you will do the same with the following:
"It means that E1b1b1 (and only this clade) began from there (probably) but says nothing about where the descendants coalesced".
From Wiki:
"All major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in the same general area as the parent clade: in North Africa, East Africa, or nearby areas of the Near East".
I think we both now agree that 'the parent clade' probably originated in Ethiopia.
"So between E1b1b1 and E1b1b1b we have an interesting long journey across what is now the Libyan Desert... surely still in form of E1b1b1-root".
Across 'what is now the Libyan Desert'? Are you sure? Wiki again:
"E-M81 is also quite common among North African Arabic-speaking groups. It is generally found at frequencies around 45% in coastal cities of the Maghreb (Oran, Tunis, Tizi Ouzou, Algiers)".
Note: 'coastal cities of the Maghreb'. And:
"In smaller numbers, E-M81 men can be found in areas in contact with the Maghreb, both around the Sahara, in places like Sudan, and around the Mediterranean in places like Lebanon, Turkey, and amongst Sephardic Jews".
Sounds suspiciously like a migration by sea through the Mediterranean.
"Only via E1b1b1-root (in the Upper Nile probably)".
Wiki:
"In this key area from Egypt to the Atlantic Ocean, Arredi et al. (2004) report a pattern of decreasing STR haplotype variation (implying greater lineage age in those areas) from East to West, accompanied by a substantial increasing frequency. At the eastern extreme of this core range, Kujanova et al. (2009) found M81 in 28.6% (10 out of 35 men) in El-Hayez in the Western desert in Egypt".
So M81 is found in the east.
"I think that E1b1b1 subclades, at least E1b1b1b, are implicated, while for Terry they are just 'Holocene arrivals', leaving no possible trace of any of the earliest Y-DNA in NW Africa remaining".
ReplyDeleteWiki again:
"Arredi et al. (2004) believe the pattern of distribution and variance to be consistent with the hypothesis of a post Paleolithic 'demic diffusion' from the East. The ancestral lineage of E-M81 in their hypothesis could have been linked with the spread of Neolithic food-producing technologies from the Fertile Crescent via the Nile"
So this supports an eastern origin for E1b1b1b. Consequently we have to look for other haplogroups as being pre-Holocene arrivals in NW Africa. Perhaps E1b1a? Or R1c? Wiki again:
"E1b1b and E1b1b1 are quite common amongst Afro-Asiatic speakers. The linguistic group and carriers of E1b1b1 lineage have a high probability to have arised and dispersed together from the region of origin of this language family".
And:
"Underhill (2002), for example, believes that the structure and regional pattern of E-M35 sub-clades potentially give 'reagents with which to infer specific episodes of population histories associated with the Neolithic agricultural expansion'".
So not Paleolithic. Maju again:
"You hate the laws of Nature (population genetics) because you'd love to see a zillion extinctions and replacements and bottlenecks".
On the contrary I understand 'the laws of Nature (population genetics)' very well. It seems to be you who cannot see the similarity between humans and all other species.
"The problem is that you don't agree with the main thrust of the paper. You just selectively choose one of the conclusions".
ReplyDeleteOF COURSE: that is critical though. It'd be stupid in order to agree with rocket science one would also have to be a Nazi, like Von Braun.
You do not need and you often do not agree with all some individual says in one or many expressions. Papers are nothing but more or less explicit data and elaborations of this basic data arranged within a discursive logic. The discursive logic, which is often most of the text, is the subjective part. You can actually often skip most of the text and focus on the figures almost only, however I do not recommend to do this too often, only if the author is vain and annoying.
Anyhow, you doubted that there was Epipaleolithc/Mesolithic inhabitation of these islands and I looked for evidence and voilá. The rest is irrelevant because those papers have been summoned to this debate only to demonstrate as much as possible that the first colonization of some Mediterranean islands (but surely not others) is pre-Neolithic.
"All major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in the same general area as the parent clade: in North Africa, East Africa, or nearby areas of the Near East".
North Africa!!! *wink*
"Across 'what is now the Libyan Desert'? Are you sure?"
I am quite sure that Capsian culture spread that way, yes. Even in NW Africa, Capsian is an interior, epi-Saharan culture initially (Oranian by contrast would be more "coastal").
"E-M81 is also quite common among North African Arabic-speaking groups. It is generally found at frequencies around 45% in coastal cities of the Maghreb (Oran, Tunis, Tizi Ouzou, Algiers)".
That clade would have remained more concentrated among peoples of deeper Oranian roots. Logically if it is pre-Capsian, as I sustain.
You're kicking your own ass. Thanks for the extra arguments in favor of what I say.
Maybe if you'd be looking for M78 instead... This is the haplogroup I most strongly associate with Capsian (and Afroasiatic) cultural spread (along with J1, hitchhiking the movement from maybe Egypt or Palestine).
M81 in my model is quite older in North Africa, potentially as old as Aterian (but unsure). In any case, it was there at the Oranian genesis and that's how we can best explain its presence in Europe with the patterns it has, including the old Paleolithic areas of Asturias and Cantabria.
"At the eastern extreme of this core range, Kujanova et al. (2009) found M81 in 28.6% (10 out of 35 men) in El-Hayez in the Western desert in Egypt".
An oasis? What's your point? It's such an obvious highly localized founder effect case... If M81 would have an eastern origin, we'd surely find it not just in some random oasis but all through Egypt... and somewhere else (because the lack of wood made Egypt a horrible place to begin naval migrations - historically Egypt was not really oriented to the Sea either, surely for that reason mostly).
"So this supports an eastern origin for E1b1b1b".
ReplyDeleteNope. You are not providing data, just an opinion, scholarly maybe but an opinion anyhow. And I have by now seen too many scholars confuse themselves and others to believe in their word blindly.
(Particularly they tend to lack "Paleo-imagination" and "Paleo-knowledge" to see what is really going on, so they attribute everything to recent phenomena by default).
Which is the data that supports that opinion, if any at all?
"Which is the data that supports that opinion, if any at all?"
ReplyDeleteMost of it. On the other hand it is very difficult to manipulate the data to support your opinion.
"OF COURSE: that is critical though".
The problem is that you agree with the conclusion of the paper but disagree with the evidence they use. An inconsistency that is difficult to justify.
"Anyhow, you doubted that there was Epipaleolithc/Mesolithic inhabitation of these islands and I looked for evidence and voilá".
Not so. I just used the term 'Neolithic' as shorthand. The inhabitation is only 1500 years before the Neolithic. It is you who are denying the inhabitation was as late as early Holocene.
"those papers have been summoned to this debate only to demonstrate as much as possible that the first colonization of some Mediterranean islands (but surely not others) is pre-Neolithic".
But it does apply to Corsica and Sardinia. Regarding the 'eratics' in Kenya and the Maghreb we have to consider the following from Wiki:
"They found 6 'E-V257*' individuals in their samples who were E-V257, but not E-M81. A Borana from Kenya, a Marrakesh Berber, a Corsican, a Sardinian, a southern Spaniard and a Cantabrian".
So, disregarding the 'eratics' we have E1b1b1* in Corsica and Sardinia. Suggests that the haplogroup reached those islands very early during its expansion.
"I am quite sure that Capsian culture spread that way, yes".
Quite possibly so. But you have failed to show that E1b1b1b was involved.
"M81 in my model is quite older in North Africa, potentially as old as Aterian (but unsure)".
On what grounds do you claim that? A few days ago you wrote, 'In order to have such a dominant unique lineage(s), we need to have an ancient founder effect followed by a long period of low densities (so drift can act and consolidate the dominance of that lineage)'. In reply I mentioned the Polynesian Y-haps. C2a1 is found only in Polynesians to the west of Fiji. Humans arrived there just a little more than 3000 years ago, so C2a1 can be no older than that.
http://s6.zetaboards.com/man/topic/8570894/1/
Quote:
"Haplogroup C2a1-P33 seems to be exclusive to, as well as predominant among, Polynesians. It also seems to be a very young haplogroup; the time to coalescence of the haplotypes observed on a C2a1-P33 background may be as short as 1,500 years".
Even more interesting is y-hap M2-M353.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(Y-DNA)
Quote:
"M2-M353 Found at a low frequency in Fiji and East Futuna.[6] M2a-M177 Found in one Nasioi individual from the eastern coast of Bougainville and in one individual from Malaita Province of the Solomon Islands"
Again the arrival in Fiji isnot much earlier than 3000 years ago. Interestingly the derived M2a haplogroup is found west of where we'd expect it. But that is easily explained. We know Polynesians moved back into Melanesia and today form the 'Polynesian outliers'. So there is no problem in considering downstream haplogroups to be quite recent.
"If M81 would have an eastern origin, we'd surely find it not just in some random oasis but all through Egypt..."
Why so? Surely we are looking at a founder effect.
"If M81 would have an eastern origin, we'd surely find it not just in some random oasis but all through Egypt..."
ReplyDeleteRemember that 'eratic' in Kenya. Check on where the Nile rises. E1b1b1 haplogroups are found in Ethiopia and the Horn. And what I find really interesting is the presence of J* across the Bab al Mandab from the Horn, especially on Socotra:
"Haplogroup J* includes all of J except for J1 and J2. J* is rarely found outside of the island of Socotra, where it is quite frequent at 71.4%[2]. Haplogroup J* also has been found with lower frequency in Oman,[3] Ashkenazi Jews,[4] Pakistan,[5] Saudi Arabia,[6] Greece,[3] the Czech Republic,[3][7] and several Turkic peoples".
To me it is obvious that J didn't originate on Socotra. But J*'s presence there indicates that J arrived there early in the piece. J1 and J2 had barely differentiated. And, what's more, J must have arrived in Socotra by boat. That argues strongly for a sudden improvement in boating around the Bab al mandab. Was it an indigenous development? Or was it introduced from further east with Y-hap T's arrival? And humans arrived on Socotra at most 11,000 years ago (page 5):
http://www.socotraproject.org/userfiles/files/Van%20Damme%20%20Banfield%202011%20Socotra%20Conservation.pdf
That is stunningly close to the date I've propsed for E1b1b1's arrival in, and expansion around, the Mediterranean. You'll find the paper interesting for its comments on human-induced extinctions.
"Most of it".
ReplyDeleteVagueness instead of hard data. That's what you build your discourse around.
"... we have E1b1b1* in Corsica and Sardinia. Suggests that the haplogroup reached those islands very early during its expansion".
We have a founder effect. That's about it.
"So, disregarding the 'eratics'"...
All the cases are erratics. That's the problem with clades only found in a few scattered individuals: that they are not really informative. They are just to susceptible to random events: historical ones, sampling accidents, sampling patterns (Sardinia is clearly oversampled, North Africa and Africa in general undersampled instead).
"But you have failed to show that E1b1b1b was involved" [in Capsian expansion].
It was never my intention: my whole point is that Capsian was related to E1b1b1a1 (not b!) and J1. My whole point is that E1b1b1b1 (and therefore also the extremely rare paragroup E1b1b1b* most likely) was already in NW Africa and SW Europe when the Capsian (and proto-Berber) cultural expansion happened.
"On what grounds do you claim that? A few days ago you wrote, 'In order to have such a dominant unique lineage(s), we need to have an ancient founder effect followed by a long period of low densities (so drift can act and consolidate the dominance of that lineage)'".
Precisely.
"In reply I mentioned the Polynesian Y-haps. C2a1 is found only in Polynesians to the west of Fiji".
On virgin land. That's a totally different case, because no native peoples can disturb, obstruct, the founder effect of the new arrivals.
Also Polynesian islands hold mostly low populations (better than "densities" - I correct that), so even drift would have been intense.
"the presence of J* across the Bab al Mandab from the Horn, especially on Socotra"...
Probably indicating an extremely old origin for that (para-)lineage: while much of the ancestry of modern South Arabians is Neolithic (J1 and such), there's also an older layer which must be represented in places like Mahra and Socotra. This J* could well be from the very time when J split into J1, J2 and others (asterisk), and then also in their major subclades, which IMO is very early in the Upper Paleolithic history of the region.
"Haplogroup J* includes all of J except for J1 and J2"...
Well, technically correct but the J* of Socotra is surely more like "J3", a distinct lineage with its own founder effect, either in Socotra itself or in Southern Arabia. We'd need to characterize at least the haplotype structure in order to say something more but the fact that J* is found also in Oman and Saudia, suggests to me that the Socotra lineage may have that origin.
"But J*'s presence there indicates that J arrived there early in the piece".
This is very different from E1b1b1b*: 74% vs. one erratic!!!
But anyhow it does not indicate necessarily that "J arrived there early in the piece", i.e. as "root J" but surely, as said before, it has its own pattern of Arabian-specific phylogeny ending up in a founder effect in the island of Socotra, which was not colonized before Holocene either anyhow.
J may well have 40 Ka., J in Socotra can only have 11 Ka. at most. The lineage "J3" dominant in Socotra is probably much older... but in the mainland.
In the end it's the same as I say about your fetish C2a1: I say it's from Wallacea or Papua, from areas inhabited from old, you claim it only coalesced on a canoe sailing to Tahiti, so to say.
And your only "support" is frequency and wishful thinking.
"On virgin land. That's a totally different case, because no native peoples can disturb, obstruct, the founder effect of the new arrivals".
ReplyDeleteSo Sardinia and Corsica were not 'virgin land' 10,000 years ago?
"We have a founder effect. That's about it".
I'm glad that we agree.
"the extremely rare paragroup E1b1b1b* most likely) was already in NW Africa and SW Europe when the Capsian (and proto-Berber) cultural expansion happened".
Because you say so? Any evidence?
"Also Polynesian islands hold mostly low populations (better than "densities" - I correct that), so even drift would have been intense".
As in Sardinia and Corsica before others arrived.
"there's also an older layer which must be represented in places like Mahra and Socotra. This J* could well be from the very time when J split into J1, J2 and others (asterisk), and then also in their major subclades"
Almost certainly so.
"and then also in their major subclades, which IMO is very early in the Upper Paleolithic history of the region"
Surely the arrival on Socotra can hardly be part of 'the Upper Paleolithic history of the region'.
"the J* of Socotra is surely more like "J3", a distinct lineage with its own founder effect, either in Socotra itself or in Southern Arabia. We'd need to characterize at least the haplotype structure in order to say something more but the fact that J* is found also in Oman and Saudia, suggests to me that the Socotra lineage may have that origin".
Perhaps so. But we're left with the arrival on Socotra as a date we have to use, by default.
"The lineage 'J3' dominant in Socotra is probably much older... but in the mainland".
But nobody but you has ever proposed a haplogroup J3. Of course I realise you're proposing it simply to make the data fit your belief.
"This is very different from E1b1b1b*: 74% vs. one erratic!!!"
We're still talking basal haplogroup though.
"In the end it's the same as I say about your fetish C2a1: I say it's from Wallacea or Papua, from areas inhabited from old, you claim it only coalesced on a canoe sailing to Tahiti, so to say".
That's what the evidence shows, although it coalesced a little before people reached Tahiti. Of course its ancestry is 'from Wallacea or Papua', but C2a1 is found only in regions that can have been settled no more than 3000 years ago. Nowhere else.
"So Sardinia and Corsica were not 'virgin land' 10,000 years ago?"
ReplyDeleteSuddenly you totally change the reference, decontextualizing all the debate: I was talking about North Africa.
"But we're left with the arrival on Socotra as a date we have to use, by default".
Not at all. Neither Socotra, nor Sardinia nor Fidji. They all came from somewhere else most likely, so the dates of such colonizations are just minimal ages for the respective clades but never maximal ones.
"But nobody but you has ever proposed a haplogroup J3".
Nobody, not me either, has ever been paid for researching that matter. Nobody has researched it and therefore the founding mutations or other details of Socotra's and Arabian J* remain unknown.
However any amateur geneticist with some common sense knows that it is a strong probability. Do you have some common sense or just like to argue pointless self-defeating battles?
"We're still talking basal haplogroup though".
No: catch-all asterisk category, a paragroup. Don't magnify the importance of "asterisk" paragroups: they may in theory hide huge diversity but often they are monophyletic for a particular geography.
"... but C2a1 is found only in regions that can have been settled no more than 3000 years ago"...
Was not it found also in Papua and Philippines. I can't recall the details but I'm sure it was also found in areas of ancient colonization (and that you pretended that it had back-migrated from the islands, what is laughable).
"you pretended that it had back-migrated from the islands, what is laughable"
ReplyDeleteMad Maju strikes again. Such an authoritative statement. Made from a position of profound ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_outlier
Quote:
“Based on archaeological and linguistic analysis, these islands are believed to have been colonized by seafaring Polynesians, mostly from the area of Tonga, Samoa and Tuvalu”.
So a back-migration is almost certainly the explanation for Y-hap M2a-M17’s presence in Melanesia. We know that people moved back to Melanesia from somewhere in Polynesia, and M2a fits that scenario remarkably well. So M2a can be no more than 3000 years old.
"Was not it found also in Papua and Philippines".
No. C2a has been. Not C2a1.
"the dates of such colonizations are just minimal ages for the respective clades but never maximal ones".
But in those two cases we know the timing of the spread across the Pacific, so the ages for the colonizations are also the 'minimal ages for the respective clades'.
"They all came from somewhere else most likely"
Yes. C2 came from Southern Wallacea. C2a developed somewhere in Melanesia, and then, somewhere around Vanuatu or Fiji, C2a1 developed. In the case of M2a: M2 is found in Fiji and Futuna so M2a presumably came from there. Fiji and Futuna were also settled around 3000 years ago so M2a can be no older than that. M came from Melanesia, near New Guinea.
"Nobody has researched it and therefore the founding mutations or other details of Socotra's and Arabian J* remain unknown".
But we know it is neither J1 nor J2.
"catch-all asterisk category, a paragroup".
Probably not a single haplogroup. Its presence therefore suggests minimal drift on the island.
"Nobody has researched it and therefore the founding mutations or other details of Socotra's and Arabian J* remain unknown".
But its presence on Socotra hints strongly at an arrival before J1 or J2 had spread to anywhere nearby. And we can be sure that J did not arrive on Socotra more than about 11,000 years ago.
"Suddenly you totally change the reference, decontextualizing all the debate: I was talking about North Africa"
Yes. You're extremely reluctant to consider E1b1b1b's wider distribution because it makes your belief difficult to support. You’re prevented from seeing the facts by your obsession with the idea that the distribution of modern haplogroups was established during the Upper Paleolithic, and that no haplogroup movement has since that time. Apart from the nasty Europeans over the last 2-400 years.
I got the two Polynesian motifs swapped, I was thinking in the polynesian motiff of B4 (mtDNA), which is indeed found in Philippines and other locations and you claimed that it was a back-migration.
ReplyDeleteAs for the C2 motif, that's different because Y-DNA SPNs can happen at any one generation, what is not true for mtDNA, only happening every several thousand years, I estimate.
...
As for Socotra:
"Probably not a single haplogroup".
Probably yes.
"But its presence on Socotra hints strongly at an arrival before J1 or J2 had spread to anywhere nearby".
Yes, if you mean arrival to the mainland. It's very possible that this "J3" was important in South Arabia before Neolithic. Socotra however was surely not colonized until that period, so it acted as "refuge" with founder effects of its own, much as Sardinia in Italy/SW Europe.
"You're extremely reluctant to consider E1b1b1b's wider distribution"...
When discussing a subclade? Yes.
"Probably yes".
ReplyDeleteOn what grounds?
"Socotra however was surely not colonized until that period, so it acted as 'refuge' with founder effects of its own, much as Sardinia in Italy/SW Europe".
I agree with the similarity of the two regions, and that they were not colonised until the early Holocene. However I see no reason at all to claim the arrival at either place happened long after the relevant haplogroups had arrived on the nearby mainland. In fact the haplotyope diversity (or rather lack of it) argues against that idea. We would surely expect a subset of contemporary mainland haplogroups to reach any island, rather than representatives of the basal version of those haplogroups.
Italy and SW Europe are better researched than Arabia: you do see every single haplogroup in Sardinia having its mainland counterpart. Even "hyper-Sardinian" R1b1c (former R1b1a) is derived from the corresponding Italian lineages most likely.
ReplyDeleteWe can hypothesize that Sardinians have colonized the world around them but it's very much implausible in fact. Much more parsimonious is that diverse lineages arrived to the island at various times from around them, in some cases experiencing notable founder effects (R1b1c and I2a1).
"On what grounds?"
ReplyDeleteComparison with Sardinian (and other) haplogroups, which tend to be monophyletic.
Whatever the case the same grounds you have to proclaim huge diversity under the asterisk: ignorance. My ignorance is parsimonious and conservative however, while yours is arrogant and wildly speculative. I'm likely to be right.
"It's very possible that this 'J3' was important in South Arabia before Neolithic".
ReplyDeleteI can't see how you can claim that when, at another of your posts, you wrote:
"That's the amazing thing: how a lineage that should have been erased once and again if we are to hear to the population replacement mongers like you and so many others, is still there at very small levels, surviving migrations and even drift!"
Haven't you just joined the 'population replacement mongers'? So J3 was virtually 'erased' on the mainland? Aren't you once again manipulating the evidence to fit your belief?
"My ignorance is parsimonious and conservative however, while yours is arrogant and wildly speculative. I'm likely to be right".
I'm sure you are wrong. But we'll wait and see.
"you do see every single haplogroup in Sardinia having its mainland counterpart".
Except for E1b1b1a*. Perhaps you'd prefer to call that a single haplogroup, and change its name to E1b1b1a2. And, while we're at it, we could call E1b1b1b* a single haplogroup, and call it E1b1b1b2. That would certainly fit very well with your ideas.
"Even 'hyper-Sardinian' R1b1c (former R1b1a) is derived from the corresponding Italian lineages most likely".
And it probably arrived in Sardinia some time after E1b1b1a* or E1b1b1b* did. Quite likely with the actual Neolithic.
"We can hypothesize that Sardinians have colonized the world around them but it's very much implausible in fact".
I have never claimed that to be the case. What I'm saying is that the haplogroup evidence suggests that the two E1b1b1 haplogroups (E1b1b1a and E1b1b1b) arrived in Sardinia about the same time as they arrived in the land around the western Mediterranean. And probably not much later than E1b1b1 had arrived in the eastern Mediterranean, where it formed E1b1b1c along the Levant.
"Much more parsimonious is that diverse lineages arrived to the island at various times from around them, in some cases experiencing notable founder effects (R1b1c and I2a1)".
Exactly. And E1b1b1a* is another notable founder effect there. And E1b1b1b* also occurs on Sardinia and Corsica, as well as some other regions around the western Mediterranean.
"Comparison with Sardinian (and other) haplogroups, which tend to be monophyletic".
Exactly. The various E1b1b1 haplogroups all tend to be monophyletic in the various regions around the Mediterranean, along the Nile and in the Sudan. Founder effect. We just seem to have three in Ethiopia. Suggests that's where they originated.
"So J3 was virtually 'erased' on the mainland?"
ReplyDeleteThere is strong indication of a Neolithic demic "replacement" in Southern Arabia, specially on the male side. I mean: if 70% of Yemenis are J1 (low diversity) and J1 comes from Palestine (or otherwise the Fertile Crescent)...
It's not a mere genetic matter but also an archaeological one as far as I can tell.
My whole point anyhow is that there is, even under such replacement conditions, a relatively large survival of pre-Neolithic haplogroups, some really old, such as the L(xM,N) mtDNA clades but also Y-DNA J* (possible "J3").
"Except for E1b1b1a*. Perhaps you'd prefer to call that a single haplogroup, and change its name to E1b1b1a2".
I do not know but it is a possibility. What I know is that you can't just go assuming around that every handful of whatever-asterisk hides huge diversity. Often it's just one undescribed unique lineage.
E1b1b1a* is not critical to my understanding anyhow, as it's not a relative of E1b1b1b(1) but of E1b1b1a1, the Eastern Mediterranean clade, so to say. I hunch a distinct origin and route for this lineage to Sardinia, related somehow (though don't ask me how) to E1b1b1a1.
Hard to say until more examples are known.
That's really the problem: that instead of shrugging off when faced with such confusing erratics, you attempt to build whole theories on them. And theories that have a lot of exceptional and unlikely, that need to be pushed and that lack any other support. Tomorrow some more "asterisk" individuals are found here or there and all changes. Better remain cautiously silent and not build weird conjectures on what amounts to practically nothing.
"And it probably arrived in Sardinia some time after E1b1b1a* or E1b1b1b* did. Quite likely with the actual Neolithic".
You do not know that, I do not know that. But geneticists have evolved a rule of thumb for Sardinia: all that is more common in the interior regions is old, what is instead found only by the coasts is more recent. Where does your "asterisk" individual live: Nuoro or Cagliari?
"I have never claimed that [Sardinians colonizing the World] to be the case".
You could well have done with your Sardino-centric logic and it is indeed the ultimate conclusion one can reach from it.
Otherwise anything in Sardinia must come from somewhere else. For example E1b1b1b* must have arrived from Iberia or otherwise SW Europe, much like I2a1 (arguably). Other lineages (R1b1c) look original from Italy. The first ones at least are almost for sure Epipaleolithic, as we have discussed elsewhere, while the latter may be either Epipaleolithic or Neolithic - but early in any case.
"... the two E1b1b1 haplogroups (E1b1b1a and E1b1b1b) arrived in Sardinia about the same time as they arrived in the land around the western Mediterranean".
I do not think you can push that conclusion around so easily. If so you must not just justify an almost total wipe of whatever pre-existent Y-DNA lineages existed in NW Africa but also an origin for E1b1b1b (other than NW Africa) that is nowhere to be found.
You then appeal to the parent of E1b1b1b but that's cheating. You must look at E1b1b1b on its own, on its own internal logic ("in a bubble" so to say). If you do that, the NW African or otherwise West Mediterranean origin is unquestionable.
What you do is like judging where the son of the Amesbury archer grew in based on the enamel of his father, not his own.
"And E1b1b1a* is another notable founder effect there".
An erratic is not a founder effect. Don't be silly: you are claiming that a single individual is as important and informative as half all Sardinians?
It's like concluding that Peru is Japanese based on Fujimori. ;)
Just because someone stands out in the crowd does not mean he is more important: the crowd is what matters, the exception is always exceptional, odd, mostly unimportant.
"you are claiming that a single individual is as important and informative as half all Sardinians?"
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find there were two. And none in Africa or Europe.
"You then appeal to the parent of E1b1b1b but that's cheating".
How is it 'cheating'? E1b1b1b is simply a subclade of E1b1b1. E1b1b1b may derive from the arrival of E1b1b1 itself somewhere near, or on, Sardinia. We have no need to look for E1b1b1b anywhere else. And we certainly have other E1b1b1-derived clades along the route I've postualted.
"If you do that, the NW African or otherwise West Mediterranean origin is unquestionable".
At least we agree on that. It's just that you desire to place E1b1b1b in a totally different time period than its related clades.
"E1b1b1a* is not critical to my understanding anyhow, as it's not a relative of E1b1b1b(1) but of E1b1b1a1, the Eastern Mediterranean clade"
That's amazing, don't you think? E1b1b1a in the Eastern Mediterranean, and E1b1b1b in the Western Mediterranean. And E1b1b1c apparently expanding from along the Levant. And you are convinced there is no significance in that? It's all just an amazing coincidence.
"I hunch a distinct origin and route for this lineage to Sardinia"
On what grounds?
"related somehow (though don't ask me how) to E1b1b1a1".
I've provided an consistent interpretation of the haplogroup evidence that shows exactly how they are related, and what route the two haplogroups took. It is just that you have a problem fitting that explanation into your pre-existing beliefs.
"If so you must not just justify an almost total wipe of whatever pre-existent Y-DNA lineages existed in NW Africa"
Several other haplogroups survive in NW Africa. And you wrote:
"There is strong indication of a Neolithic demic 'replacement' in Southern Arabia, specially on the male side".
So replacement is certainly possible in NW Africa to some extent. You're not being consistent in how you consider the haplogroup evidence.
"Otherwise anything in Sardinia must come from somewhere else. For example E1b1b1b* must have arrived from Iberia or otherwise SW Europe"
Why not via the Mediterranean itself? E1b1b1a certainly looks likely to have arrived on the Balkan Peninsular via the Mediterranean.
"instead of shrugging off when faced with such confusing erratics, you attempt to build whole theories on them".
You wrote:
"Often it's just one undescribed unique lineage".
You have consistently been building 'whole theories' on your interpretations of 'unique lineages' as long as I've had anything to do with you.
Well then what the hell. Natl Geographic says I'm a E1b1b1a1c-V22, and me and my kids are practically snow geese with blonde hair and blue eyes. We're American for several generations, but Irish, German, Dutch, English, and, apparently, Masai.
ReplyDeleteIt has nothing to do. The patrilineage is obviously African (remote, via Epipaleolithic Balcans/Neolithic Europe) but your overall ancestry can perfectly be >99% Nordic (just an example). It's like the legend of the grains of rice and the chessboard: in the second square (~parents) you put two grains, in the third one (grandparents) four, etc. But it the 64th square it becomes a number of 20 figures (well above the trillion tier). 64 generations is just some 2000 years, so imagine since Neolithic!
DeleteThat implies that Y-DNA alone is not too informative of ancestry. Hitler was also E1b-V13, incidentally (although in his case it's quite possible that his biological father was Jewish).
The Y-chromosome is just one of the 46, so don't worry your cock is Masaian)
DeleteI feel that you're being a racist jerk here, GingleGangle. I ban people for that, so I demand an apology or a very good and convincing explanation.
DeleteOtherwise please abstain from commenting further on this blog: the first rule is RESPECT, the others are:
1. No racism, no sexism, no homophobia, no fascism.
2. I hold the ultimate word in issues of order, after all this is my blog, i.e. my turf. Visitors are welcome but should respect me and the (hopefully) rather nice environment for cold-headed debate.
Group E is the greatest one and a carrier of civilization! It goes from the human origin straight to Europe and Asia, without linger all over the world + is one of 2 oldest in Europe and take place in 80% of Africa.
ReplyDeleteAgain, GingleGangle, you're sounding racist-supremacist -- and utterly wrong: there's no such thing as any single "greatest" haplogroup, all are fine and neutral. Also: neither civilization is so "great" (I long for the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, really, as do most people unconsciously because it's in our genes, civilization makes us pay a heavy toll, even if it's obviously non-reversible) nor it can be at the origin tightly associated with the macro-haplogroup E or even its most relevant descendant E1b. Sure people carrying that lineage and also others (notably J1) were important in some key developments in Nubia, Egypt and Palestine but there are other areas of "civilizational" (agricultural or proto-agricultural) development, quite notably the Zagros region (no E1b but lots of J2 and also some at the origin of other key lineages like G2, R1a, etc.) and the Yangtze basin of China (would be haplogroup O). Finally there is an independent Neolithic or two in America (mostly Q1). And we should not forget the matrilineages, because I'm positive that women had something to do with these developments, agriculture has something very "feminine" to it but our foremothers may even have breastfed some of the first domesticated calves themselves. Naturally this is only a quick review of the very basics: many many other developments have happened in many places with many peoples carrying many invisible lineages implicated in them. Claiming any sort of supremacy is just the guarantee for failure: it is a fact that racists are generally quite dumber.
DeleteIf you're going to throw trash around instead of properly debating with some cold-headed respect, I'd rather not have you around, really.
... "is one of 2 oldest in Europe"...
DeleteThat's also almost certainly wrong. It might (or not, lack of evidence yet) be one of the oldest ones in Iberia but not elsewhere in Europe until the Neolithic (via West Asia). On the other hand it is now demonstrated that Paleolithic Europe was not all haplogroup I, at the very least there is one instance of R1b1 in Vilabruna, North Italy, dated to 14,000 years ago.