September 16, 2011

Echoes from the past (Sep 16)

A. sediba
Is Australopithecus sediba in fact Homo sediba? Both brain and hand (but also pelvis and ankle) make, in the opinion of some researchers, this australopithecine the best candidate for ancestor of our own principal ancestor: Homo erectus. Science Daily has a whole series on this theory and the facts that back it: 1, 2, 3 and 4 articles. Also at PhysOrg and some of the original papers at Science (pay per view of course): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5


More on the Southern Iberian Neolithic idols (in Spanish but with many nice photos) at Neolítico de la Península Ibérica.


The oldest 'pub' of Scotland? Chalcolithic or Neolithic (c. 4600 years ago) building at Jarlshof (Shetland) was at least a beer brewery and bakery. It is possible that the site was also used as tavern of some sort ··> Daily Record.

The Jarlshof brewery

Reproduction with Neanderthals was rare ··> France24 (and, update!, a criticism by John Hawks).


Ötzi, the Chalcolithic herder from La Lagozza culture, was also Y-DNA G2a according to a video reported by Dienekes. This is the second time that G2a (a relatively small haplogroup today of quite clear West Asian origins) has been reported in post-Cardial Neolithic peoples in Mediterranean Europe. Earlier this year it was reported in the majority of a related population of Occitania (SE French state), together with some I2a. It is notable that both populations were culturally related, not just because of their shared Cardium Pottery roots, but also because of the Chassey-La Lagozza cultural fusion, which I'd dare suggest as precursor of the historical Ligures.

Still it is hard to explain the apparent high frequency of the lineage back then and the low one today (c. 5% on average across Europe). As for high tier exceptions, nowadays G (usually G2a in Europe) reaches 12% in mainland Italy,  14% in Sardinia (reaching as much as 21% in some locations), 12% in Corsica, 7% in Austrian Tyrol, up to 14% in some locations of Croatia, up to 11% in some locations of Greece, 13% in Moldova, 12% in Portugal and 8% in Spain. It may be a fluke that 2/3 known lineages from the Chassey-La Lagozza cultural complex are in this category (it is statistically quite reasonable) but we can't of course avoid rising an eyebrow.


Caucasian and European peoples are not really very much related. A new paper confirms that Caucasus peoples are on their own (maybe related to Anatolia, not sampled) within the West Eurasian macro-population, clustering better with West Asians than Europeans in any case, even North Caucasus populations like Chechens and such. The paper by B. Yunusbayev is also PPV, so I'll refer to Dienekes again, who includes nice, rather informative, graphs like this one:



Amber-trapped feathers show light on the evolution of birds and dinosaurs ··> BBC.


Astronomy and cosmology:
  • Preferred direction of spacetime challenges the Cosmological Principle which claimed that everything was equally boring ··> PhysOrg.
  • Fifty new exoplanets discovered in a row ··> BBC.
  • Star rips exoplanet to shreds with X rays ··> Discovery News.

And soon to come in this blog (in separate articles to be written later):
  • Is West African skull from Late Upper Paleolithic 'archaic' (meaning another species than Homo sapiens) ··> PLoS ONE.
  • Gene influences behavior but... culture influences the gene that influences behavior ··> Not Exactly Rocket Science.

33 comments:

  1. Wrote a long comment and Blogger ate it!

    Bottom line, John Hawks is correct. There is NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for using low gene frequency to assume genetic incompatibility or mating taboos. All it takes is massive introductions of settler populations into sparse native populations. My Native American Great Great Grandmother would agree with that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It did not go to spam folder. :(

    What you say makes sense but precisely demands huge sustained numbers of immigrants: the kind of imbalance that only a huge technological differential can make (for example industrial vs. hunter-gatherer or early farmer, as in what is now the USA). Sapiens did not have any such a difference vs. Neanderthals, nor did early farmers vs. Epipaleolithic Europeans.

    Also Hawks ignores that if we should expect large admixture in Europe, we should also expect it in West Asia before it. So if West Asians replaced Epipaleolithic Europeans, they should also carry high amounts of Neanderthal admixture and that's nowhere to be seen.

    In the end Hawks like all stubborn multirregionalists is just wishful thinking and not facing the facts for what they are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hawks is very much on target. Keep in mind that the relevant issue is the amount of replacement since 30 kya, in Europe, which includes post 30kya pre-LGM population infusions, post-LGM population infusions and replacements, Neolithic population infusions and replacements and post-Neolithic population infusions and replacements. Moreover, you can still have something on the order of 5%-10% pre-30kya ancestry with a quite high level of Neanderthal admixture (perhaps 20%) and it would still be invisible to within the margin of error via dilution.

    To my knowledge, no one has even seriously attempted to quantify the percentage of pre-Neanderthal ancestry in epipaleolithic humans immediately prior to the Neolithic (e.g. the demographic impact of the LGM). The only real quantitative estimtes start from that population and estimate its contribution to modern populations.

    Europeans should have an enhanced level because they would include populations at the Neanderthal-border for tens of thosuands of years more than anywhere else. West Asian interaction was much shorter relatively and could predate or mostly predate European/Asian population splits.

    One can also legitimately have some post-East Eurasian/West Eurasian split admixture that is in roughly equal amounts with proto-East Eurasians having some additional admixture in Iran/Pakistan and West Eurasians having additional admixture in the Balkans/Caucasus so long as the duration and intensity is roughly similar, and get the same results.

    ReplyDelete
  4. RE G

    There is a fair amount of G in the Levant and Egypt as well, although it pretty much disappears by the time you get West of Benghazi. The distribution seems a good fit to being an important component of the early Neolithic in the directions of Egypt, LBK and Cardial Pottery, with more later replacement in LBK than elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Andrew: the people that allegedly replaced those early Europeans would all come from West Asia where there would have been necessarily the same amount of admixture (more or less) as in Europe.

    West and Central Asia were also Neanderthal territory. There's no logic behind claiming that sapiens admixed in Europe and did not in West Asia. It's just sloppy thinking.

    ...

    Re. G: it is surely too old to think of it a Neolithic as a whole. Maybe G2a is, very possibly, but not all G.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Re. G: it is surely too old to think of it a Neolithic as a whole. Maybe G2a is, very possibly, but not all G".

    I agree that G is much older than the Neoloithic somewhere in SW Asia, but its spread into Europe and parts of North Africa is almost certainly early (or even slightly pre-) Neolithic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why do you say North Africa with such an apparent certainty. You seem to think that just emphasizing an "I think so" sentence is enough to make you right.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Europeans should have an enhanced level because they would include populations at the Neanderthal-border for tens of thosuands of years more than anywhere else"

    Not sure why you are saying this. In Europe, the interaction was the shortest, from ~5,000 to 10,000 years, the most, depending on location. In the rest of the world, the maximum interaction time would be something like >100,000 years.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Why do you say North Africa with such an apparent certainty".

    Do you think G originated there?

    ReplyDelete
  10. By the way, concerning North Africa Andrew wrote:

    "The distribution seems a good fit to being an important component of the early Neolithic in the directions of Egypt, LBK and Cardial Pottery, with more later replacement in LBK than elsewhere".

    I simply agree with him on that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I do not think that G originated in North Africa (most likely not) but your claim was not about origins and destinations but time frames:

    ... "its spread into Europe and parts of North Africa is almost certainly early (or even slightly pre-) Neolithic".

    Why not in the Paleolithic? What information do you have (or more like you should before making that judgment) on North African G diversity and structure that could lead you to such conclusion. In Europe nearly all G is G2a (a single subclade found rather frequently) but... in Egypt?

    Where is the data?

    ReplyDelete
  12. As I posted at Dienekes', when looking at the distribution of the various G subgroups, it makes most sense to me that the majority of G in Europe entered in two instances: once before LGM (as G2a*), and once with LBK/Cardium as G2a3b1*, G2a3b1a1* and G2a3b* (but perhaps already being present in the Balkans from the Black Sea/Anatolian connection before agriculture).

    As I have mentioned numerous times, the weird haplogroups of LBK can be explained if we assume most of them are just from those idiosyncratic groups that happened to be at the middle Danube when LBK got started (plus some Anatolian admixture).

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm not sure exactly why G2a* could not have arrived also at Neolithic. But I can well agree with this: "perhaps already being present in the Balkans from the Black Sea/Anatolian connection before agriculture".

    This is a good point because it even the Balcans were not merely colonized by "Anatolian farmers" (there's no Balcanic Neolithic in Anatolia, even if there MIGHT be precursors and Thessaly Neolithic, specially its pottery, is very old in the general West Eurasian context).

    Something that irks me the most of Neolithic origin models is that they suggest the wrong original areas: Anatolia (or even the Caucasus) instead of Greece and Bulgaria, Lebanon instead of the coastal portions of former Yugoslavia and Albania, etc. And then they also ignore the cultural distinctions within Europe: all Neolithic is the same for them in their utmost ignorance. That's not acceptable.

    Now, if someone could posit a model from the Balcans, with Balcan haplogroups, with two different routes of expansion (and a different scenario for East Europe), with persistence of pre-Neolithic lineages in at least some degree (as demonstrated by archaeology in so many cases), with a central role for Portugal (and secondarily West France and Brittany) for a "Neolithic" R1b in West Europe. Then I could take that as possible: but Neolithic replacement theorists are totally out of touch with the archaeological reality and their models are so simple and wrong in key fundamental assumptions that they are extremely unreal.

    "... the weird haplogroups of LBK can be explained if we assume most of them are just from those idiosyncratic groups that happened to be at the middle Danube when LBK got started (plus some Anatolian admixture)".

    That's reasonable. However what is not so easy to explain is why the Danubian Neolithic lineages vanished after that. For the Neolithic model to stand, the farmer-settlers should have made the major genetic impact in Europe, yet what we see is that, while they made some impact (lineages like mtDNA K or T, or Y-DNA G2a, and probably others, seem to have arrived with them), their impact was not so important in the long run.

    We don't see anything like modern genetic pools anywhere in Neolithic Europe... except where we also see them in Epipaleolithic Europe, case of Portugal.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There seem to be several G2a* subgroups with extremely wide and diffuse distribution, and no star-like patterns within Europe - that could be indicative of small pre-LGM populations with no subsequent neolithic growth.

    An interesting point that I raised at Dienekes' is that if you go upstream along some of the largest tributaries to the Danube: the Drava in Croatia/Hungary, the Inn in SE Bavaria/Austria, or the Lech and the Isar (of Oktoberfest fame) - each time you end up in Tyrol (Oetzi country), in the end. Of course, the southernmost route of the Drava is through northern Italy and thus may also have had connections with Cardium. To compound that, there is the very nearby, almost parallel river (Etsch/Adige) that ends up in the Adriatic right with the Po delta, instead. At any rate, all that may explain today's larger than average G fraction along the Drava, in Northern Italy, in the alps, and in the regions from there towards the Danube.

    My working hypothesis is that there were climatic conditions and diseases (made worse by inbreeding of life stock) that contributed to the partial collapse of LBK - at which time groups at the margins could move in and form their own regional cultural centers. I assume that farther away from the middle Danube, local people increasingly got integrated, and at the margins you really had a high fraction of locals involved in both the agriculture and in local trade. Trade benefits must have been important, because without it, the highly-skilled indigenous hunters would have gotten rid of the easy-target LBK people from the get-go. (We also know from the Spondylus shells that LBK kept their trade routes to the Black Sea open, so it seems clear that a lot happened on the river highways - which evidently also benefited local hunter-gatherers and fishing people).

    Of course, in addition, cultures coming from the south into the Swiss/Rhine/Paris basin area may have very well carried fairly pure SW y-haplogroups (R1b), from the get go.

    In the East, I see a very early expansion along the northern Black Sea shores that did not become very successful, some late expansion from the Danube (likewise), and - most importantly - an at first eastern movement of northern LBK through Poland and then south along the rivers through the Ukraine (documented by LBK-style type houses appearing, there). This latter movement could have incorporated increasing fractions of local R1a, making some R1a a staple in the general area long before Slavic expansion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "However what is not so easy to explain is why the Danubian Neolithic lineages vanished after that. For the Neolithic model to stand, the farmer-settlers should have made the major genetic impact in Europe, yet what we see is that, while they made some impact (lineages like mtDNA K or T, or Y-DNA G2a"

    I think Eurologist may have the explanation:

    "My working hypothesis is that there were climatic conditions and diseases (made worse by inbreeding of life stock) that contributed to the partial collapse of LBK - at which time groups at the margins could move in and form their own regional cultural centers".

    Most farming methods are unsustainable in the long term without the addition of some sort of fertilizer. The population numbers probably increased greatly with the first farming expansion but collapsed to at least some extent as the land became impoverished, even though much was loess. The other explanations Eurologist provides make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Eurologist: what you say about G2a* is very interesting. I wish there was a good study on the structure and distribution of Y-DNA G so I could make up my mind. AFAIK there's not one, just scattered info, right?

    Of course Tyrol is at one end of the two Neolithic "colonization" routes. But it's also true that it was only in Ötzi's time when the mountain zones began to be exploded enough as to produce archaeological remains. That applies also to almost whole countries like Switzerland, Slovenia, Slovakia, which (with lowland or brief exceptions) were only colonized (in meaningful amounts we can detect archaeologically) from the Chalcolithic onwards.

    We must not forget that both the Treilles clan and Ötzi are not strictly Neolithic but actually from the more advanced (and densely populated, and violent) Chalcolithic era.

    The peoples of America who resisted (to a large extent) the advance of European colonists (and became "European" by linguistic and cultural assimilation) were in the Chalcolithic era as well, yet we see little G2a today.

    "Trade benefits must have been important, because without it, the highly-skilled indigenous hunters would have gotten rid of the easy-target LBK people from the get-go".

    IMO, LBK people were not easy target at all. Specially Western Danubians (Germany and surroundings) were probably quite violent: they were the only Danubians buried with weapons and they are among the first peoples on Earth known to have grown opium (which is a remedy against pain, both physical and emotional). The "Battle of Talheim" tells of their violence (though it could also be foragers the attackers) but it's not the only element. In fact I think that it were the squabbles within the Western Danubian cultural area which attracted some Indoeuropean mercenary avantguard to the Elbe Basin (Baalberge culture), eventually leading to the indoeuropeization of all Central and Northern Europe.

    While Kurgan IEs are typically seen as brutal conquerors and Danubian farmers as idyllic, this is actually the "dark side" of Gimbutas: a rosy idealization of farmers and demonization of IE conquerors. Probably farmers, specially in Germany-plus (also North France, Low Countries, Germanic Switzerland, Bohemia) were armed peoples involved in what I perceive as more or less continuous conflict, specially between the "innovative" Michelsberg culture of the North and the "conservative" Epi-Rössen complex of the South, with constant fluctuation of cultural (and hence ethnic) borders, certain expansiveness in France, etc. When Indoeuropeans (and to lesser extent Aquitanians) finally took over and effectively destroy the Danubian cultural complex c. 2400 BCE, peace seems to have reigned for more than a thousand years (mostly within the trading context of Bell Beaker phenomenon).

    That's the impression I get from what I know of the archaeological record of Central Europe: Danubians were anything but Flower Power: they were troublemakers in fact.

    Since I know of Ötzi I imagine that he was victim of a cross-border Danubian raid (he belonged to the Italian culture of La Lagozza, of Cardium heritage). But of course I cannot demonstrate it.

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  17. ...

    "Of course, in addition, cultures coming from the south into the Swiss/Rhine/Paris basin area may have very well carried fairly pure SW y-haplogroups (R1b), from the get go".

    It does not work that way: European R1b has, we know now, a defined structure and, while a major subhaplogroup is centered around the Netherlands, the largest one is clearly of SW European origin (probably Franco-Cantabrian region but it could be Iberia as well). Present day distribution (not just frequency but specially structure) of this major haplogroup R-S116 cannot be explained by Neolithic flows... unless it is Megalithism (and that would be from South Portugal and have the Ocean as main waterway).

    "In the East, I see (...) most importantly - an at first eastern movement of northern LBK through Poland and then south along the rivers through the Ukraine (documented by LBK-style type houses appearing, there)".

    That is indeed the route of Danubian Neolithic in that area (and resembles nothing else I know of).

    Why do you "see" this pattern in R1b? It's not like this lineage is very common East of the Elbe.

    Would I be very wrong if I assume that you see this in R1b-U106 and not all R1b nor Western R1b (L11)? It is a clade I have not paid too much attention to its substructure, not just because it is second in numeric importance but also because most of the research has been done in private commercial venues like FTDNA, with all the sampling bias it implies.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Terry: We know a bit about the (reconstructed) demography of the period and it seems to say that you are right up to a point but that the "farming collapse" happened just a few centuries after the arrival of farmers.

    However LBK and derived cultures (in yellow-orange colors in this graph) continued for millennia after that. The demographic collapse happened around 5000 BCE and the cultural collapse did not arrive until c. 3500 BCE (or later: the "transition" to full IE takes us for many other centuries of late, and troublesome, Danubian ethno-cultural survival).

    After the crisis you describe, Danubians still survived in rather stable manner (demographically speaking) for more than 1500 years. It's therefore not a sufficiently good explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  19. In Talheim, the LBK people were the victims.

    I am sure there was lots of violence here and there elsewhere, but I simply cannot see a successful LBK advance with nothing for the hunter-gatherers in it. LBK didn;t come in with any "military" advantage I know of.

    My words regarding the East were directed to R1a, not R1b.

    As to neolithic R1b from the SW, to me certain subgroups (e.g., U106) show clear neolithic expansion. Of course, they could have come from many places within Europe- the SW is just on of them where we know of such neolithic movement.

    At any rate, at least the new paper (see Dienekes) about Hungarian early neolithic mt-DNA kills the near-east connection theory - but opens a whole other can of worms. Early LBK mean as rock stars? Sex slave traders? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  20. But who were the aggressors? Could be foragers but could also be other LBK people, La Hoguette (Cardium?) people, etc.

    "LBK didn;t come in with any "military" advantage I know of".

    Numbers. Otherwise they were probably in similar techno-military conditions.

    "My words regarding the East were directed to R1a, not R1b".

    Ok. No idea if R1a was so early in those parts of Europe. Still could you explain why you see that pattern?

    "to me certain subgroups (e.g., U106) show clear neolithic expansion".

    Could not it be mainly late Paleolithic (with some IE/Germanic final touch)? The density of R1b in general or R1b-U106 in particular in Central Europe is very low. I do not know well how the substructure goes or how reliable is what we know but following FTDNA-like findings, one would think that the greatest diversity is by the North Sea (former Doggerland) and therefore that we should think of a Hamburgian-Ahrensburgian-Maglemösean origin for this essentially Nordic haplogroup.

    Other possibilities may exist but they would need of a better, exposition of the why.

    "At any rate, at least the new paper (see Dienekes) about Hungarian early neolithic mt-DNA kills the near-east connection theory - but opens a whole other can of worms".

    I read it yesterday night and I'm still quite confused. Most of my brain yells: "it can't be, it must be an error". One thing is that there are Oriental erratics and something very different is that all haplogroups are from far away in Asia (per modern distribution).

    They only used HVS-I markers which seem to be quite misleading, so maybe that's the error. But of course many other aDNA studies have done the same: are all them in error too?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Maju: "One thing is that there are Oriental erratics and something very different is that all haplogroups are from far away in Asia"

    Judging by this (at Polako's), not all.

    http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/7413/table2g.png

    There were one N1a and 3 H in that time period.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes, the data says so but it's like very hard to believe. That's what I mean and nothing else.

    The fact that they use only HVS-1 sequences is an element of possible doubt. For example it's not impossible that in another lineage those mutations evolved independently (the sublineage could even exist today but not being studied/documented as haploGROUP), the late marker 16261 seems to be hypervariable (or at least has mutated in many different lineages), however 16257 seems a quite unique mutation site, exclusive for N9a as far as I can see.

    I'd be safer with coding region mutations tested. It's not the first time that HVS- causes issues.

    Also, I imagine that if we have to accept these hard to swallow findings, we'll also accept H17'27 in Sunghir 30 Ka ago, right?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ok, but among the non-N9a haplotypes, at least C5 is believable in Europe, it seems.

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0015214

    "Four of the new and two previously published sequences (one Teleut and one Tubalar from the Altai region of southern Siberia, three Poles from northern Poland, and one FamilyTreeDNA project individual of unknown ancestry) clustered into uncommon branch, named C5c, harboring the diagnostic motif 10454-16093-16518T-16527. Several mtDNAs with the same control-region motif were detected earlier at a low frequency in some European, Asian and southern Siberian populations – in Poles (0.4%), Belorussians (0.3%), Romanians (0.6%), Persians (0.2%), Kirghiz (1.1%), Altaians (0.9%), Teleuts (7.5%), Khakassians (0.9%) and Shors (4%) [4], [10], [22]–[28]. "

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yes, C and D specially are known to have a weak distribution in NE Europe mostly and are therefore typically associated with Uralic prehistory (and related IE/Kurgan flows). What is surprising is to find them so early in a Hungary that nobody would expect to have got any Uralic nor Kurgan connection yet.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The 1.1% C5 (2.8% C) in Romania is curious and surely related but while C may be a bit like N1a: a lineage that once was larger and now has shrunk, N9a is totally unexpected and never before AFAIK has been reported in Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  26. G2a4 is very rare Haplogroup ! ! !

    Even more , we have 2 Moroccans and one Tunisian from FTDNA Arab Project wich they are G2a4 ! ! !

    http://www.familytreedna.com/public/maghreb/default.aspx?section=yresults

    KIT Numbers :

    N64601
    N12444
    200030

    I ask myself if they are relatives to Otzi Men ... or maybe it was a neolithic Migration from North Africa Into Europe ...

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Neolithic_expansion.svg/680px-Neolithic_expansion.svg.png

    ReplyDelete
  27. Notice that one of the North Africans with G2a4 has the Spanish surname Pérez. He's probably descendant of Morisco or Sephardi exiles or something like that. However the other haplotype (the one shared by two people) may be genuine North African (yet it could have arrived also with Romans, Vandals, etc.)

    I'm glad to see that my old European Neolithic map of Wikipedia has outlived my understanding of the process. :D

    ReplyDelete
  28. too bad ! and u think really that North african jews can not be natives but only immigrants from spain or mixed vandals, Romans with others ?
    the same case with berbers which they must be mixed arabs vandals romans europeans etc ..I don't why claiming already north africans for mixed population ?! too pathetic really ...

    Lopez is a tunisian Jewish , the one who has declared his sample for Otzi's relatives on DNA FORUM

    another thing , the moroccan kit called alaoui is probably Linked to the royal family of Morocco. since alaoui surname in Morocco is referenced for those who are descandant of the Prophet Mohammed

    from the study of Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al 2011

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/08/tunisian-y-chromsomes-and-mtdna.html

    The Tunisian Andalusians, who are supposed to be migrants from southern Spain, do not exhibit any substantial contribution of European lineages, suggesting a North African origin for this ethnic group

    anyhow , surmnames does not meant origins
    north africans are multicultural peoples. they can speak a lot of languages and right now they became chritianized in algeria and morocco and even being super-atheists ...
    having such languages or culture does not meant really Mixed !!

    ReplyDelete
  29. "u think really that North african jews can not be natives"

    No. I think that someone with such a Ibero-Romance surname as Pérez can't come from Iberia in the last millennium (with extremely high likelihood).

    "Lopez is a tunisian Jewish"...

    It's Perez, not Lopez. Anyhow, it is not a Tunisian (Arab or Berber) surname but an Ibero-Romance one, so the guy's paternal ancestors (notwithstanding adoption or 'illegitimate' conception) must be from Iberia, probably Castile.

    "The Tunisian Andalusians, who are supposed to be migrants from southern Spain, do not exhibit any substantial contribution of European lineages, suggesting a North African origin for this ethnic group"...

    I am aware: either they are a "bounced" population (who first emigrated to Iberia from North Africa and then went back) or they have lost the paternal ancestry through the centuries.

    "anyhow , surmnames does not meant origins"

    They are supposed to mean paternal ancestry and Perez is NOT an Arab nor Berber surname. So his ancestors must have been rooted in Iberia at the time of the adoption of the surname. Same for Israel's President and criminal against Humankind Shimon Peres (though in this case the -s ending suggest Portuguese ancestry instead).

    ReplyDelete
  30. thx for the correction .I meant Perez Not Lopez Lol !
    Perez or whatever you wants , you must have G2a4 sample from spain to prove that he is from Iberia or europe in general ... but having 3 samples from North africa ..two are moroccans and one is tunisian thats a specific case since I have loonking on G-ftdna project
    most of G's in spain and Portugal are in G2a1a's , The Italian ones are mostly on G2a3a's

    I find only
    one greeck
    one english
    one Italian
    one Iranian
    one Irish
    one german who are G2a4.
    and another german family who are G2a4a

    VS

    two Moroccans
    and one Tunisian who are G2a4

    so the most europeans who have G2a4 are germans ! ! !
    for u to see that on FTDNA G-Project

    anyway my last name is Andy and I am Moroccan ... my parents are berbers. but what already know that I am not european by origins ..many families here have demi-european names as we have many spanish and portuguese words in our moroccan dialect and berber languages like cuzina , ruina , coche "kushi" , sandala , sakwila "escuela", bombilla, caro , etc big list ....

    anyway , it does not meant that we are mixed with Iberians ..but what already know ...we are multicultural group ... now I speak 4 languages, and others here speak more than 6 languages.
    we are just opened minded and we have adapted what we want .

    for example I have read that madrid meant majrit in arabic ! but in reality this word is not founded in arabic "its an arabocentric Lie" to claimed that there was arabs in the islamic spain... and because spaniards can not usually speak the letter T ..they have remplaced with D
    madrid in correct senses is ma'trit which meant in berber language what do you wants!

    I have seen in some of your posts that you posted some Moroccan Haratin pics for the fake reconstruction of Buchra...after all she is not the oldest children in the world ..plus she is aterian look-like Pre-neanderthals "they forget the childrens of Jebel Irhoud" 160.000BC

    as u have jebel Irhoud who many french experts classified him as Laferassie Looks-alike.

    anyway , we are familiar with many stupid claims made by middle easterns , afro-americans and some europeans such things like mixed vandals europeans arabs etc ...or then they negrify us for sub-saharans or even gypsies .Lol !

    carlenton coon and Hotoon have never claimed such things Like that, and they never said that we are mixed races like many retarded think so , thx for them they have explained many things about us and others.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Whatever you choose to believe, Pérez is a Spanish (Castilian most likely) surname meaning "son of Peter" (Pero in archaic Castilian, now Pedro), López means "son of Wolf" (Lope), González "son of Gonzalo", Giménez "son of Gimeno", Estbánez "son of Esteban", Martínez "son of Martín", Velázquez "son of Velasco", Vélez son of Vela (< Bela in Basque means raven), etc. That's the origin of all those -ez/-es surnames.

    The why of the -ez/-es suffix is under debate (some say it's Germanic and others that it's pre-IE) but whatever the case it sets a pattern for antroponyms in Spain and Gascony.

    ReplyDelete
  32. yeah I understand ..don't worry
    but basically you know that we are influenced culturally by Iberians , middle easterns mainly "Egyptian" and French peoples , as you can find many Europeans surnames , you can find also arabic and berber even some persian surnames among us. all over the maghreb.

    but it does not meant origins or mixed races, thats why I tell u . in our case surnames does not meant origins. the moroccan G2a4's is called alaoui the same surname of the king of Morocco ! ! !
    so, thats a serious problem if every name must have origins ...
    do you know David Guetta , he is Moroccan jew and one of his cousin have tested his DNA in FTDNA Maghreb in Tunisia and he is positive for E1b1b1-M81
    so don't tell me that Guetta surmane meant spanish or castillian or European origins ?!
    sometime I find my surname Andy very known among the Anglo-saxons. Lol :)
    anyway North African jews are so known to be very opened towards Iberians than muslims specially after 1549 , they mayhave strongest cultural ex-changes , and as u have adapted many official arabic words , we have also adapted many spanish and portuguese words and surnames
    its natural :)
    so peoples here speak many languages for example in morocco ; people speak berber languages , standard arabic "even more we speak all over arabic dialects including egyptian lebanese syrian etc .." , we speak also french , spanish , italian , deutch , english , etc ...
    I tell u for serious , north africans are multicultural peoples since the ancient times " roman and byzantine era"
    they didn't adapt the languages of conquerors just for being similar to them but they do that for their political and ideological situations. mainly to absrob their cultural potential and use that for our emperial goals.
    the way why carthagians do that when thy have adapted the canaanite and egyptian cultures and languages , numidians towards romans , berber dynasties towards abassids and ommeyyads. the alaouite and bayats towards ottomans. taifais towards castillians etc, Al makhzan towards france...many examples here.
    which explains many things ...as why there is no real arabs in north africa or why there is no historical european genetic impact on north africans etc ..
    the major movement was happened a long time before the historical times its mainly after the Holocene Era .

    ReplyDelete
  33. Your viewpoint does not stand, sorry. Equating common words to surnames is not valid. Nobody is named here almohada (pillow) no there kuzina (kitchen, I guess). It is a very distinctive surname that cannot have North African or otherwise Arab or Jewish roots: Pérez is a typical Spanish surname that must have emigrated there at some point (how? I guess that Jewish or Morisco exiles but who knows).

    Guetta is not Spanish. It might be related to the Italian word ghetto (Jewish quarter) but it's for sure not Spanish nor I have any reason to think it's immigrant.

    Finally there can be "illegitimacy" in birth (or just perfectly legitimate adoption, even of a former slave which takes the name and religion). There's no 100% guarantee that a surname indicates patrilineal ascendancy but it's quite likely.

    Otherwise I'm quite in agreement but you should be more open to striking facts like the one I am pointing to: someone surnamed Perez appears to have recent (last few centuries) origins in Iberia.

    ReplyDelete

Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. Personal attacks, manipulation and trolling are also very much unwelcome here.The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.

Preliminary comment moderation is... ON (sorry, too many trolls).