PDA

View Full Version : On the origin of E-M183



Pages : [1] 2

Shamayim
03-06-2019, 03:01 PM
E-M183 is the most dominant subclade of E-M35 in Northwest Africa and Iberia, although traditionally considered as the Berber marker[1], this post will try to prove that, rather than being a Berber marker it should be considered as a Canaanite marker.

Chronology
The MRCA of E-M183 ought to have lived around 2900BP (3500-2400BP)[2]'[3] while Proto-Berber is theorized to have spread earlier (circa 9000BP)[4] or later (circa 1800BP)[5] than the expansion of E-M183 into North Africa. The expansion of Proto-Berber clearly does not fit with the expansion of E-M183 unlike the expansion of Canaanites (circa 3100BP) into Spain (Gadir), Morocco (Lixus) and Tunisia (Utica)[6]. It is worth nothing that E-M183* was so far only found in Spain, Libya and Morocco[3].

Distribution
It is commonly noted that E-M183 peaks among Berber-speakers (65-100%)[7]'[8], sometimes as high as 100%[7]. We should, however, examine the distribution of E-M183 through a geographic lense rather an ethnic lense. E-M183 peaks in Morocco (67%) and Tunisia (62%), the two North African countries with the earliest Canaanite settlements, it is rather low in Algeria (44%) which was never colonized by Canaanites[3].

Furthermore, not all Berber-speakers have a high percentage of E-M183 e.g. Zenatas (48%)[9], some Tuareg groups (16-39%)[10]'[11] and Siwis (12%)[12], nor do all Semitic-speakers have a low percentage of E-M183 e.g. Reguibates(80%)[9]. Thus, it appears that E-M183 cannot be linked with linguistic affiliations.

Archeogenetics
Paleolithic North Africans lacked haplogroups ancestral (E-Z827 & E-L19) to E-M183, rather, they carried E-V68 and E-M78 which is ancestral to E-V65[13]. Epipaleolithic Levantines, on the other hand, carried E-Z830[14] which is downstream of E-Z827 like its brother clade E-L19[15]. It seems quite likely that the ancestors of E-M183 North Africans thus lived in the Levant rather than North Africa.

History
Antiquity writers attest that North Africa was extensively settled by Canaanites. Procopius, as an example, mentions that the Moors were the first Canaanites to settle into North Africa and were quickly followed by the Phoenicians[16], Sallust mentions that only the Gaetuli and the Libyans were truely native to North Africa, he claims that the Moors and the Numidians [Carthaginians] came from the Middle East[17]. "Berbers" themselves claimed to be Canaanites[18].

Conclusion
E-M183 is most likely Canaanite-derived, its MRCA matches the arrival of the Canaanites and E-M183 carriers claim(ed) to be Canaanites. Antiquity writers also attest that Modern North Africans differed from the prior inhabitants of North Africa which is confirmed by genetic testing of Paleolithic North Africans. E-M183 carriers are most likely linked with the spread of Iron or Bronze and Canaanite to North Africa, using their superior weapons they displaced the original inhabitants who carried mainly E-V65, T-M184 and perhaps R1b-V88. Some adopted the language of the prior inhabitants i.e. Berber while most kept their language until the arrival of the Banu Sulaym and the Banu Hilal
.


[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_North_Africa
[2]: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-M81/
[3]: Whole Y-chromosome sequences reveal an extremely recent origin of the most common North African paternal lineage E-M183 (M81), Morata et al. 2017
[4]: Prehistoric Iberia: Genetics, Anthropology, and Linguistics, Page 111
[5]: Burials, Migration and Identity in the Ancient Sahara and Beyond, Page 437
[6]: The Near East, the Cradle of Western Civilization, Page 43-44
[7]: Phylogeography of E1b1b1b-M81 haplogroup and analysis of its subclades in Morocco, Reguig et al. 2014
[8]: Genetic Structure of Tunisian Ethnic Groups Revealed by Paternal Lineages, Bekada et al. 2014
[9]: Genetic Heterogeneity in Algerian Human Populations, Bekada et al. 2015
[10]: Deep into the roots of the Libyan Tuareg: a genetic survey of their paternal heritage, Ottoni et al. 2011
[11]: Linking the sub-Saharan and West Eurasian gene pools: maternal and paternal heritage of the Tuareg nomads from the African Sahel, Pereira et al. 2010
[12]: The Berber and the Berbers, Dugoujon et al. 2009
[13]: Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations, Loosdrecht et al. 2018
[14]: The genetic structure of the world's first farmers, Lazaridis et al. 2016
[15]: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z827/
[16]: Procopius, History of the Wars, Vandalic War, Book 4
[17]: Sallust, The War With Jugurtha
[18]: Berbers and Others: Beyond Tribe and Nation in the Maghrib, Page 64

palamede
03-06-2019, 05:25 PM
E-M183 is the most dominant subclade of E-M35 in Northwest Africa and Iberia, although traditionally considered as the Berber marker[1], this post will try to prove that, rather than being a Berber marker it should be considered as a Canaanite marker.

Chronology
The MRCA of E-M183 ought to have lived around 2900BP (3500-2400BP)[2]'[3] while Proto-Berber is theorized to have spread earlier (circa 9000BP)[4] or later (circa 1800BP)[5] than the expansion of E-M183 into North Africa. The expansion of Proto-Berber clearly does not fit with the expansion of E-M183 unlike the expansion of Canaanites (circa 3100BP) into Spain (Gadir), Morocco (Lixus) and Tunisia (Utica)[6]. It is worth nothing that E-M183* was so far only found in Spain, Libya and Morocco[3].


The Yfull datation is not right. The real datations are older.
E-M183*M81 has no connection with the Phoenician expansion of the first millenium BC and maybe the 11e centuy BC.

There is no Canaanite expansion before Phoenician expansion.

There were severe genetic bottleneck with the great climatic crisis of the 4.2k event (2200BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event , the same event which was responsible of the falls of the Old Egyptian Empire and the Akaddian empire.

This was also responsible of the recent TMRCAs of M81/M183 and V65 while their birthes are a lot older.

Shamayim
03-06-2019, 05:44 PM
The Yfull datation is not right. The real datations are older.
It's not just Y-full, Morata et al. 2017 too place the MRCA of E-M183 between 3000 to 2000 BP.


E-M183*M81 has no connection with the Phoenician expansion of the first millenium BC and maybe the 11e centuy BC.
What are your proofs?


There is no Canaanite expansion before Phoenician expansion.
Phoenician is a greek exonym for Canaanite...


There were severe genetic bottleneck with the great climatic crisis of the 4.2k event (2200BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event , the same event which was responsible of the falls of the Old Egyptian Empire and the Akaddian empire.

This was also responsible of the recent TMRCAs of M81/M183 and V65 while their birthes are a lot older.
E-V22 (8500BP)[1] in Egypt experienced no bottleneck nor did E-M34(15000BP)[2] in the Levant. As for E-V65, its carriers were most likely Berbers who lived along the coast and benefited from the introduction of Iron/Bronze by E-M183 Cananites, they may have assisted them in the conquest of North Africa too.



[1]: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V22/
[2]: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-M34/

E_M81_I3A
03-06-2019, 06:06 PM
"Paleolithic North Africans lacked haplogroups ancestral (E-Z827 & E-L19) to E-M183" but Fregel et al 2018 found, even if they dont have have enough information to be certain, that two Neolithic individuals from Morocco (6100-6200 BP) they analysed may belong "to a Y-chromosome lineage that is ancestral to the 557 branch, which comprises the North African E-M81 haplogroup"

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/06/11/1800851115.DCSupplemental/pnas.1800851115.sapp.pdf (page 41)

"Within the E-M35 cluster (branch 593), sample IAM.4 is only derived for branch 558 (Figure S5.6). This branch of the tree comprises E-L19 (542 branch) and E-M183 (557 branch) samples. As we also have some information on derived branches from 558, it seems IAM.4 does not cluster with either 542 or 557. A similar result is observed for IAM.5 (Figure S5.7), but in this case one out of 30 SNP intersected within 557 branch is derived. Although, we do not have enough information to be certain, this result could mean that IAM.5 (and maybe IAM.4) belong to a Y-chromosome lineage that is ancestral to the 557 branch, which comprises the North African E-M81 haplogroup. This scenario is plausible as E-M81, and its main clade E-M183, are younger than IAM samples (2,000 – 3,000 years ago)"

Shamayim
03-06-2019, 06:38 PM
"Paleolithic North Africans lacked haplogroups ancestral (E-Z827 & E-L19) to E-M183" but Fregel et al 2018 found, even if they dont have have enough information to be certain, that two Neolithic individuals from Morocco (6100-6200 BP) they analysed may belong "to a Y-chromosome lineage that is ancestral to the 557 branch, which comprises the North African E-M81 haplogroup"

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/06/11/1800851115.DCSupplemental/pnas.1800851115.sapp.pdf (page 41)

"Within the E-M35 cluster (branch 593), sample IAM.4 is only derived for branch 558 (Figure S5.6). This branch of the tree comprises E-L19 (542 branch) and E-M183 (557 branch) samples. As we also have some information on derived branches from 558, it seems IAM.4 does not cluster with either 542 or 557. A similar result is observed for IAM.5 (Figure S5.7), but in this case one out of 30 SNP intersected within 557 branch is derived. Although, we do not have enough information to be certain, this result could mean that IAM.5 (and maybe IAM.4) belong to a Y-chromosome lineage that is ancestral to the 557 branch, which comprises the North African E-M81 haplogroup. This scenario is plausible as E-M81, and its main clade E-M183, are younger than IAM samples (2,000 – 3,000 years ago)"

E-M81 was already formed long before IAM, so these guys are most likely a dead-end and not ancestral to E-M81 carriers. IAM are more Levantine-shifted than Taforalt too, there is a big chance that they were Proto-Semitic (Para-Semitic?) speakers and most likely a part of the people responsible for the spread of farming in North Africa.

Shamayim
03-06-2019, 07:50 PM
Morata et al. argued for an Arabian origin or a Post-Carthaginian (Canaanite?) origin, based on E-M183's TMRCA, are they low IQ as well?

Anyway, feel free to refute my "low IQ arguments", it shouldn't be too hard ;)




Regardless of using a Bayesian or a Rho-based approach, our findings when using SNP data suggest that E-M183 originated around 2,000 years ago (ya). It is worth to notice that when the tree is calibrated with a slow mutation rate23,24, the TMRCA of E-M183 given by BEAST reaches ~3,000 ya. However, age estimates computed using STR data strongly support that the coalescence time for this haplogroup is around 2,000 ya. We have also computed the coalescence times for each subclade by using Y-STRs (Table 2). The TMRCAs of E-SM001, E-CTS1227, and E-Z5009 are all ~2,000 ya and their confidence intervals broadly overlap with each other and with that of the whole of E-M183, pointing to a rapid radiation. On the contrary, E-PF6794 and its subclade E-PF6789 appear to be more recent, at ~1,500 ya. Interestingly, E-PF6789 is present in most of North Africa and the Near East (Table 1); if, as discussed below, E-M183 may have expanded from East to West, then ~1,500 ya sets an upper limit for this expansion.

...

Regarding E-M183, as mentioned above, we cannot discard an expansion from the Near East and, if so, according to our time estimates, it could have been brought by the Islamic expansion on the 7th century, but definitely not with the Neolithic expansion, which appeared in NW Africa ~7400 BP and may have featured a strong Epipaleolithic persistence31. Moreover, such a recent appearance of E-M183 in NW Africa would fit with the patterns observed in the rest of the genome, where an extensive, male-biased Near Eastern admixture event is registered ~1300 ya, coincidental with the Arab expansion20. An alternative hypothesis would involve that E-M183 was originated somewhere in Northwest Africa and then spread through all the region. Our time estimates for the origin of this haplogroup overlap with the end of the third Punic War (146 BCE), when Carthage (in current Tunisia) was defeated and destroyed, which marked the beginning of Roman hegemony of the Mediterranean Sea. About 2,000 ya North Africa was one of the wealthiest Roman provinces and E-M183 may have experienced the resulting population growth.

NetNomad
03-06-2019, 09:29 PM
How about an expansion from Egypt rather than the Levant.. that may seem more likely.

palamede
03-06-2019, 09:35 PM
The STR date calculation is worse than Yfull date. In Yfull M183 formed 13900BP, tmrca 2900BP , M65 formed 8700BP, tmrca 2800BP. The 2 great Maghrebin haplogroups knew the same bottleneck at the same time 2200BC and not 850 or 950BC the erroneous yfull date.


Berbers were very numerous in North Africa all along the first millenium BC . Punic wars, Jugurtha war . During the phoenician colonization who was commercial firstly , involved an already populated inland, then Carthage levered mercenary armies of tens of thousand Berbers/Lybians/Numids/Maures
During the reign of Pharaons Merneptah (reigned July or August 1213 BC – May 2, 1203 BC) and RamsesIII (He is thought to have reigned from 1186 to 1155 BC they must struggle against armies of Libyians/Berbers, then there was two Pharaon dynasties issued of Libyans/Berbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Dynasty_of_Egypt from c. 943 BC until 716 BC and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Dynasty_of_Egypt This dynasty consisted of a number of Meshwesh ancient Libyan (Berber) kings, who ruled either as pharaons or independent kings of parts of Upper Egypt from 880 BC to 720 BC, and pharaohs from 837 BC to 728 BC.
The tribe of the two dynasties was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meshwesh who were known since Amenhotep (Amenophis) III reigning from June 1386 to 1349 BC

In any way, if the Lybians of these time were E-M183 or not, their great numbers and permanence would not allow the M183 bearers to develop in a way we know nowadays thru North Africa and Sahara until the limits of the Sahel, if M183 hadn't recovered a lot of population from Morroco to Libya thru the 2nd millenium BC from the 2200BC bottleneck.

So V22, V12 and M34 in Egypt and Levant knew a demographic crisis in 2200BC, but less deeper due probably to the continuous permanence of the water of weakened but always flowing Nile river . At this time, a pharaon complained the Asiatic invasion of rural Egypt , probably the Asiatics fleeing the droughness in the Levant (also remind Abraham and Jacob taking refuge in Egypte)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_for_King_Merykara
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt

Megalophias
03-07-2019, 12:56 AM
E-M183 peaks in Morocco (67%) and Tunisia (62%), the two North African countries with the earliest Canaanite settlements, it is rather low in Algeria (44%)....
Continuing that series: 46% in Libya, which was colonized by Phoenicians, 56% in Western Sahara, which wasn't. Mozabites from interior Algeria (n=87) 85%; Tuareg from Mali (n=11) 82%; Tuareg from Burkina Faso (n=18) 78%; Tuareg from Libyan Sahara (n=47) 48%; Tuareg from Niger (n=40) 10%; population of Sousse, which was ancient Hadrumetum (n=220) 45%. I'm not seeing a Phoenician pattern here.


Paleolithic North Africans lacked haplogroups ancestral (E-Z827 & E-L19) to E-M183, rather, they carried E-V68 and E-M78 which is ancestral to E-V65[13]. Epipaleolithic Levantines, on the other hand, carried E-Z830[14] which is downstream of E-Z827 like its brother clade E-L19[15]. It seems quite likely that the ancestors of E-M183 North Africans thus lived in the Levant rather than North Africa.
There's one site and one lineage in each case. E-L19 and E-Z830 are united by 4 SNPs, or about 200 years longer than they are with E-V68 per YF. So this is quite meaningless.


Procopius, as an example, mentions that the Moors were the first Canaanites to settle into North Africa and were quickly followed by the Phoenicians
Yeah? What does he say exactly?


Sallust mentions that only the Gaetuli and the Libyans were truely native to North Africa, he claims that the Moors and the Numidians [Carthaginians] came from the Middle East.
Sallust claims to have heard from Carthaginian histories that the Mauri and Numidians (who are not Carthaginians) were descended from Medes, Persians, and Armenians who were part of the army of Hercules. They fled to North Africa after Hercules died in Spain and intermarried with the indigenous Gaetuli and Libyans. After that the Phoenicians colonists arrived. Lots of stuff from ancient sources is straight up bullshit.


"Berbers" themselves claimed to be Canaanites.
Yeah, and Englishmen, Cherokees, Pashtun, and Igbo claim to be lost tribes of Israel.

Shamayim
03-07-2019, 03:08 PM
[QUOTE]Continuing that series: 46% in Libya, which was colonized by Phoenicians, 56% in Western Sahara, which wasn't. Mozabites from interior Algeria (n=87) 85%; Tuareg from Mali (n=11) 82%; Tuareg from Burkina Faso (n=18) 78%; Tuareg from Libyan Sahara (n=47) 48%; Tuareg from Niger (n=40) 10%. I'm not seeing a Phoenician pattern here.

Libya was less heavily settled by Canaanites than the rest of North Africa, it was also the home of nomadic Berbers such as the Luwata. As for the Tuaregs, it is well known they came from Tafilalt in Morocco.


There's one site and one lineage in each case. E-L19 and E-Z830 are united by 4 SNPs, or about 200 years longer than they are with E-V68 per YF. So this is quite meaningless.
The point is that North Africa was predominantly E-M78/E-V65, and then suddenly E-M183 appears and dominates North Africa.


Yeah? What does he say exactly?

When the Hebrews had withdrawn from Egypt and had come near the boundaries of Palestine, Moses, a wise man, who was their leader on the journey, died, and the leadership was passed on to Joshua, the son of Nun, who led this people into Palestine, and, by displaying a valour in war greater than that natural to a man, gained possession of the land. And after overthrowing all the nations he [14-24] easily won the cities, and he seemed to be altogether invincible. Now at that time the whole country along the sea from Sidon as far as the boundaries of Egypt was called Phoenicia. And one king in ancient times held sway over it, as is agreed by all who have written the earliest accounts of the Phoenicians. In that country there dwelt very populous tribes, the Gergesites and the Jebusites and some others with other names by which they are called in the history of the Hebrews.[33] Now when these nations saw that the invading general was an irresistible prodigy, they emigrated from their ancestral homes and made their way to Egypt, which adjoined their country. And finding there no place sufficient for them to dwell in, since there has been a great population in Aegypt from ancient times, they proceeded to Libya. And they established numerous cities and took possession of the whole of Libya as far as the Pillars of Heracles, and there they have lived even up to my time, using the Phoenician tongue. They also built a fortress in Numidia, where now is the city called Tigisis. In that place are two columns made of white stone near by the great spring, having Phoenician letters cut in them which say in the Phoenician tongue: "We are they who fled from before the face of Joshua, the robber, the son of Nun." There were also other nations settled in Libya before the Moors, who on account of having been established there from of old were said to be children of the soil. And because of this they said that Antaeus, their king, who wrestled with [24-2] Heracles in Clipea,[34] was a son of the earth. And in later times those who removed from Phoenicia with Dido came to the inhabitants of Libya as to kinsmen. And they willingly allowed them to found and hold Carthage. But as time went on Carthage became a powerful and populous city. And a battle took place between them and their neighbours, who, as has been said, had come from Palestine before them and are called Moors at the present time, and the Carthaginians defeated them and compelled them to live a very great distance away from Carthage. Later on the Romans gained the supremacy over all of them in war, and settled the Moors at the extremity of the inhabited land of Libya, and made the Carthaginians and the other Libyans subject and tributary to themselves. And after this the Moors won many victories over the Vandals and gained possession of the land now called Mauretania, extending from Gadira as far as the boundaries of Caesarea,[35] as well as the most of Libya which remained. Such, then, is the story of the settlement of the Moors in Libya.

Coincidently, the Jebusites have been linked to the Bronze Age Yabusu[1] and one of the subclan of the Yabusu were the Amurru[2].


Sallust claims to have heard from Carthaginian histories that the Mauri and Numidians (who are not Carthaginians) were descended from Medes, Persians, and Armenians who were part of the army of Hercules. They fled to North Africa after Hercules died in Spain and intermarried with the indigenous Gaetuli and Libyans. After that the Phoenicians colonists arrived. Lots of stuff from ancient sources is straight up bullshit.
Yeah, and Englishmen, Cherokees, Pashtun, and Igbo claim to be lost tribes of Israel.

Englishmen are R1b, Cherokees Q, Pashtuns R1a, and Igbos E1b1a, all these lineages are unrelated to the Prehistoric Levant unlike E-M183. Furthermore, these claims were made under heavy Islamic/Christian influence. Are you denying that there were Canaanite speakers in North Africa?


[1]: The Old Testament: In the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia, Page 324
[2]: Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Page 15

Megalophias
03-07-2019, 08:41 PM
Libya was less heavily settled by Canaanites than the rest of North Africa, it was also the home of nomadic Berbers such as the Luwata. As for the Tuaregs, it is well known they came from Tafilalt in Morocco.
The frequencies just don't really match Phoenician settlement; of course that could be due to thousands of years of migration and drift since then, but that is the same as any other origin.


The point is that North Africa was predominantly E-M78/E-V65, and then suddenly E-M183 appears and dominates North Africa.
We don't know that North Africa was predominantly E-M78. We only know E-M81 is young (as is E-V65). Appearing suddenly in the Levant doesn't magically work better than appearing suddenly in North Africa. Now if we find (pre-)E-M81 in the Levant at the appropriate time period, of course that would be different. So far the closest we have is Bronze Age Sidon, with J1-Z2313 and J2b1-M205. The same in Bronze Age Jordan; T1a and E-Z830 in Chalcolithic Israel; E-Z830, E-M78, H2-P96, and T1 in Neolithic Jordan; and E-Z830 in Epipalaeolithic Israel. On the other hand in Neolithic Morocco we have at least a cousin to E-M81. E-PF2431 is next closest, but not really clear where that comes from (and it's much older).


When the Hebrews had withdrawn from Egypt and had come near the boundaries of Palestine, Moses, a wise man, who was their leader on the journey, died, and the leadership was passed on to Joshua, the son of Nun, who led this people into Palestine, and, by displaying a valour in war greater than that natural to a man, gained possession of the land. And after overthrowing all the nations he easily won the cities, and he seemed to be altogether invincible. Now at that time the whole country along the sea from Sidon as far as the boundaries of Egypt was called Phoenicia. And one king in ancient times held sway over it, as is agreed by all who have written the earliest accounts of the Phoenicians. In that country there dwelt very populous tribes, the Gergesites and the Jebusites and some others with other names by which they are called in the history of the Hebrews. Now when these nations saw that the invading general was an irresistible prodigy, they emigrated from their ancestral homes and made their way to Egypt, which adjoined their country. And finding there no place sufficient for them to dwell in, since there has been a great population in Aegypt from ancient times, they proceeded to Libya. And they established numerous cities and took possession of the whole of Libya as far as the Pillars of Heracles, and there they have lived even up to my time, using the Phoenician tongue. They also built a fortress in Numidia, where now is the city called Tigisis. In that place are two columns made of white stone near by the great spring, having Phoenician letters cut in them which say in the Phoenician tongue: "We are they who fled from before the face of Joshua, the robber, the son of Nun." There were also other nations settled in Libya before the Moors, who on account of having been established there from of old were said to be children of the soil. And because of this they said that Antaeus, their king, who wrestled with Heracles in Clipea, was a son of the earth. And in later times those who removed from Phoenicia with Dido came to the inhabitants of Libya as to kinsmen. And they willingly allowed them to found and hold Carthage. But as time went on Carthage became a powerful and populous city. And a battle took place between them and their neighbours, who, as has been said, had come from Palestine before them and are called Moors at the present time, and the Carthaginians defeated them and compelled them to live a very great distance away from Carthage. Later on the Romans gained the supremacy over all of them in war, and settled the Moors at the extremity of the inhabited land of Libya, and made the Carthaginians and the other Libyans subject and tributary to themselves. And after this the Moors won many victories over the Vandals and gained possession of the land now called Mauretania, extending from Gadira as far as the boundaries of Caesarea, as well as the most of Libya which remained. Such, then, is the story of the settlement of the Moors in Libya.
Thank you. So we have only the word of Procopius for the Moors being of Phoenician origin, a couple thousand years after the supposed migration would have occurred. North Africa was heavily Christian for centuries before Procopius; the same skepticism should apply to his sources as to other people trying to find their origins in the Bible.

Shamayim
03-08-2019, 11:42 AM
The frequencies just don't really match Phoenician settlement; of course that could be due to thousands of years of migration and drift since then, but that is the same as any other origin.
E-M81 peaks in Morocco and Tunisia, the only countries dominated by Canaanites.


We don't know that North Africa was predominantly E-M78. We only know E-M81 is young (as is E-V65). Appearing suddenly in the Levant doesn't magically work better than appearing suddenly in North Africa. Now if we find (pre-)E-M81 in the Levant at the appropriate time period, of course that would be different.
Taforalt and Afalu are considered the most representative sites, anthropologically speaking, of the Iberomaurusian culture. Iberomaurusians, as a whole, were much closer to the Taforalt population than to the IAM population. It is obvious that coastal North Africans are descended from White Canaanites rather than Somali-like Iberomaurusians.


So far the closest we have is Bronze Age Sidon, with J1-Z2313 and J2b1-M205. The same in Bronze Age Jordan; T1a and E-Z830 in Chalcolithic Israel; E-Z830, E-M78, H2-P96, and T1 in Neolithic Jordan; and E-Z830 in Epipalaeolithic Israel. On the other hand in Neolithic Morocco we have at least a cousin to E-M81. E-PF2431 is next closest, but not really clear where that comes from (and it's much older).

These Bronze Age "Levantines" are clearly non-AA speakers (Mittanians), they have as much Iran_N as Levant_N and their uniparental markers aren't related to the Natufians. Natufians represent the core of the pre-Arab Levantine population[1].


Thank you. So we have only the word of Procopius for the Moors being of Phoenician origin, a couple thousand years after the supposed migration would have occurred. North Africa was heavily Christian for centuries before Procopius; the same skepticism should apply to his sources as to other people trying to find their origins in the Bible.

The Moors weren't Christian[2], they hunted them and burnt down their churches. Only Africa Proconsularis and Aegyptus were somewhat Christian.


1: Faces from the past: diachronic patterns in the biology of human populations from the eastern Mediterranean : papers in honour of Patricia Smith, Page 258
2: Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity, Page 487

Tz85
03-08-2019, 08:00 PM
E-M81 peaks in Morocco and Tunisia, the only countries dominated by Canaanites.


Taforalt and Afalu are considered the most representative sites, anthropologically speaking, of the Iberomaurusian culture. Iberomaurusians, as a whole, were much closer to the Taforalt population than to the IAM population. It is obvious that coastal North Africans are descended from White Canaanites rather than Somali-like Iberomaurusians.


These Bronze Age "Levantines" are clearly non-AA speakers (Mittanians), they have as much Iran_N as Levant_N and their uniparental markers aren't related to the Natufians. Natufians represent the core of the pre-Arab Levantine population[1].



The Moors weren't Christian[2], they hunted them and burnt down their churches. Only Africa Proconsularis and Aegyptus were somewhat Christian.


1: Faces from the past: diachronic patterns in the biology of human populations from the eastern Mediterranean : papers in honour of Patricia Smith, Page 258
2: Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity, Page 487


Morocco and Tunisia were never dominated by Canaanites.

Agamemnon
03-08-2019, 11:56 PM
These Bronze Age "Levantines" are clearly non-AA speakers (Mittanians), they have as much Iran_N as Levant_N and their uniparental markers aren't related to the Natufians. Natufians represent the core of the pre-Arab Levantine population[1].

On the contrary, it's pretty clear that the EBA samples from Ayn Ghazal and the MBA samples from Sidon were early NW Semitic speakers. All samples predate the emergence of the Mitanni kingdom, which never ruled Sidon or Ayn Ghazal for that matter. Furthermore, both of the lineages that were found in the samples, J1-Z2324 and J2b1-M205, are closely tied to Semitic-speaking groups, seem to track the dispersal of early Semitic speakers both in terms of distribution and phylogeny and have TMRCA estimates that correlate with the break up of Proto-Semitic during the first half of the 4th millennium BCE. The sample from Sidon was even positive for FGC11, a branch of J1-L858 most commonly found amongst Arabic and Old South Arabian-speaking groups, that should tell you how incorrect your claim is.

Shamayim
03-09-2019, 01:12 AM
Morocco and Tunisia were never dominated by Canaanites.
Sure
Carthage and the other Canaanite settlements never existed, and the thousands of Punic inscriptions (as opposed to a few hundred Berber inscriptions, mostly found in Algeria) are all fake.



On the contrary, it's pretty clear that the EBA samples from Ayn Ghazal and the MBA samples from Sidon were early NW Semitic speakers. All samples predate the emergence of the Mitanni kingdom, which never ruled Sidon or Ayn Ghazal for that matter. Furthermore, both of the lineages that were found in the samples, J1-Z2324 and J2b1-M205, are closely tied to Semitic-speaking groups, seem to track the dispersal of early Semitic speakers both in terms of distribution and phylogeny and have TMRCA estimates that correlate with the break up of Proto-Semitic during the first half of the 4th millennium BCE. The sample from Sidon was even positive for FGC11, a branch of J1-L858 most commonly found amongst Arabic and Old South Arabian-speaking groups, that should tell you incorrect your claim is.

These samples aren't representative of the whole Levant at most of Sidon and Ayn Ghazal, which i doubt. Christian Palestinians aka Canaanites are the best representative of the pre-Arab population of the Levant and they are E1b1b-rich unlike Jews and Arabs who both wholeheartedly admit to be invaders from Iran_N-rich Sumer.

J1/J2 Levantines are Canaanite-speakers but not Canaanite, just like E1b1a Jamaicans are IE-speakers but not Indo-European.

Edit: E-M81 is found among Pure-Blooded Levantines (some Lebanese and Palestinian Christians) while E-V65 is absent among them. Coincidence? I think not.

Agamemnon
03-09-2019, 01:23 AM
These samples aren't representative of the whole Levant at most of Sidon and Ayn Ghazal, which i doubt. Christian Palestinians aka Canaanites are the best representative of the pre-Arab population of the Levant and they are E1b1b-rich unlike Jews and Arabs who both wholeheartedly admit to be invaders from Iran_N-rich Sumer.

J1/J2 Levantines are Canaanite-speakers but not Canaanite, just like E1b1a Jamaicans are IE-speakers but not Indo-European.

Arguing with you is a waste of time. I strongly encourage the moderators here to take an interest in you.

Megalophias
03-09-2019, 02:57 AM
Wait, what do Palestinian Christians have to do with it? And what *is* their genetic make-up - apart from having 32% E-M35 in a sample of 44?

Missouri1455
03-09-2019, 05:08 AM
Autosomal results in modern Maghrebis is pointing towards the Levant; for example M183 carriers in Libya hold Ibereomaurisian% at 11%; and are Middle Eastern-shifted, while Tunisians hold ibereomaurisian affinity somewhere around 20% while their Levantine% shifts at around 40%;So its highly possible M183 could have came from the East; because ibereromaurisian% show an East to West Cline; where it peaks in the West and Unpeaks in the East; any form of continuation with ibereomaurisians would have to at least exceed 50% yet many Moroccans/Algerians manage to share only 30% affinity with ibereomaurisian which in my opinion is not enough for a continuum. Taforalts themselves cluster much closer to the horn while modern NA cluster closer to the Middle East. so its very hard to dismiss a Middle Eastern expansion for M183.

Farroukh
03-10-2019, 07:18 AM
E-M183 occured 14 Kya, but it's TMRCA is 2.6 Kya only. Such situation called "bottleneck" and states autosomal status quo only for later period.
Modern Maghreeb peoples autosomal portrait us not the same as 14 Kya of course.

Levantine inclusions traced to late Islamic period.

Shamayim
03-10-2019, 05:23 PM
E-M183 occured 14 Kya, but it's TMRCA is 2.6 Kya only. Such situation called "bottleneck" and states autosomal status quo only for later period.
Modern Maghreeb peoples autosomal portrait us not the same as 14 Kya of course.

Levantine inclusions traced to late Islamic period.

Apart from Palestinian refugees, there was never a "wide" Levantine migration in Post-Carthage Maghreb.

Shamayim
03-10-2019, 05:24 PM
While i was reading "The Archeology of society in the Holy Land" i found some interesting passages!


Arensburg (1973) suggested that the Natufians and their descendants formed a 'core' population in Israel that could be traced down to recent periods, but was added to, or temporarly displaced at certain times.


Most of the MBII samples that have been studied are dated to the MBIIB or MBIIC. Specimens studied here are derived from Efrat, Nahal Refaim, Tel Dan, Ganei HaTa'arucha, Megiddo, Sasa and Hazor (see Figure 4.). They show significant differences from all of the earlier populations in this region in craniofacial characteristics.In the MBII samples the head is shorter and wider, with a high rounded skull and shorter broader face and nose than in any earlier or most of the later populations inhabiting Israel. Statistically significant differences are present in five out of the seven measurementsshown in Figure 5, abd the direction of change found differs from that to be expected as the result of microevolutionary trends or environmental factors affecting growth and development. The MBII samples studied here then represent an intrusive group, and their characteristics suggest that they originated from a damper and/or more temperate climate than that of Israel.


From the MBII to recent periods the archeological and written records suggest very rapid change as well as considerable admixture.Space limitation preclude a detailed discussion of all the population samples associated with the different cultures identified, but a brief overview is presented here. For the Late Bronze Age there are a few specimens from Megiddo (Hrdlicka 1938) and Tel Dan (Arensburg, 1973) that appear to be intermediate in physical characteristics between the MBII and the Iron Age Phoenicians from Achziv. They are, however, too few for detailed analysis and were ommited from the statistical calculations

The Iron Age is represented by the Phoenicians Achzib (Smith et al. 1993), a small sample of the First Temple Jews from Jerusalem (Aresnburg and Rak 1985) and the large Iron Age sample from Lachish (Risdon 1939). The Iron Age Phoenicians from Achzib most closely ressemble Late Bronze Age sample from Megiddo, followed by the MBII samples, whereas Lachish more closely ressembles the 'core' population represented both by the pre-MBII populations and by the more recent Arab population. The First Temple Jews from Jerusalem appear to lie between the two, but the sample is too small for rigorous statistical analysis [Plate 8).


It seems clear that all current Bronze Age samples (Lazaridis et al. 2016; Haber et al. 2017) aren't Semitic speakers and that Coastal "Canaanites", their descendants, are language shifters, if Lachish samples (Amorites) are tested one day, they will be packed with E-M81 and E-M123. I'd like to add that it is not the first time that geneticists test the "wrong" site (Schuenemann et al. 2017) and end-up with an elevated amount of J instead of E.

Farroukh
03-11-2019, 12:59 AM
But why don't you consider Arabian invasion in Maghreeb and islamization factor of Levantine/Arabia admixture?

Missouri1455
03-11-2019, 02:54 AM
While i was reading "The Archeology of society in the Holy Land" i found some interesting passages!








It seems clear that all current Bronze Age samples (Lazaridis et al. 2016; Haber et al. 2017) aren't Semitic speakers and that Coastal "Canaanites", their descendants, are language shifters, if Lachish samples (Amorites) are tested one day, they will be packed with E-M81 and E-M123. I'd like to add that it is not the first time that geneticists test the "wrong" site (Schuenemann et al. 2017) and end-up with an elevated amount of J instead of E.

There's a big evidence that most of these Levantine effects most likely happend 2500-3000 years ago; but we should also never rule out the Levantine effects of post islamic invasions; because modern Maghrebi genome is shifted far from isolated Berbers such as Chenini-Douriet who are seen as proxy berber; so we can't fully dismiss a post Islamic admixture.

29279

Agamemnon
03-11-2019, 04:21 AM
While i was reading "The Archeology of society in the Holy Land" i found some interesting passages!








It seems clear that all current Bronze Age samples (Lazaridis et al. 2016; Haber et al. 2017) aren't Semitic speakers and that Coastal "Canaanites", their descendants, are language shifters, if Lachish samples (Amorites) are tested one day, they will be packed with E-M81 and E-M123. I'd like to add that it is not the first time that geneticists test the "wrong" site (Schuenemann et al. 2017) and end-up with an elevated amount of J instead of E.

The only thing that is clear so far is your unfamiliarity with Levantine archeology.

First off, the samples from Ayn Ghazal predate the MBA II period, the dates range from the EBA III to the EBA IV/MB I, in case you've already forgotten these samples are J2b1-M205 and J1-Z2324 (so these lineages definitely did not arrive during the MB II, they arrived earlier). More importantly, the intrusive MB II population that is mentioned here is closely linked to the MB IIA-B/C transition which saw the return to an urban lifestyle throughout the region, the cultural assemblage associated is tied to Amorite settlement, here is a map of the sites exhibiting the hallmarks of the Amorite cultural assemblage:

https://i.imgur.com/fv5ZFTF.jpg

This cultural assemblage originated in the Northern Levant and spread southwards. More importantly, Ugarit was continually occupied starting from the MB IIB (it had previously been a necropolis), all the way down to the LBA collapse with no interruption by which time we have written evidence of the Ugaritic language. Likewise, Tell eḍ-Ḍabʿa (Avaris) basically looks like a large Amorite settlement, this coincides with the arrival of the NW Semitic-speaking "Asiatics" in Egypt and indeed, Avaris was the capital of the XVth dynasty (the Hyksos dynasty). The MB IIA-B/C transition also coincides with the appearance in the highlands of historical Judea-Samaria of toponyms which follow a pattern widespread in the Amorite kingdoms of Syria, this too is bound to be associated with the Amorite cultural assemblage and probably some form of migration from the north. The coastal areas were not affected by this intrusive group (as you can see on the map) and retained older patterns in the place names, more to the point the Sidonian samples date back to the MB IIB/C period, as you can see Sidon did not have the Amorite cultural assemblage and its re-urbanisation was a local phenomenon, in other words these samples are unlikely to have arrived with the MB II migrants (Amorites). This is further evidence that J1-L862 and J2b1-M205's presence in the Levant predates the MB II period.

Long story short: You have no idea what you're talking about and are misinterpreting the evidence in order to promote a strange narrative where a typically NW African branch of E-Z827 closely tied to the spread of Libyco-Berber somehow becomes Canaanite. If you're going to peddle absurd theories, you might as well try to put some effort into it.

Shamayim
03-11-2019, 05:42 PM
The only thing that is clear so far is your unfamiliarity with Levantine archeology.
First off, the samples from Ayn Ghazal predate the MBA II period, the dates range from the EBA III to the EBA IV/MB I, in case you've already forgotten these samples are J2b1-M205 and J1-Z2324 (so these lineages definitely did not arrive during the MB II, they arrived earlier). More importantly, the intrusive MB II population that is mentioned here is closely linked to the MB IIA-B/C transition which saw the return to an urban lifestyle throughout the region,

I did not mention Ayn Ghazal samples, I did talk about Coastal Canaanites (Sidon_BA) who as a reminder are dated between 3750 to 3650 BP i.e. MBAIIB (1700 BC). The pre-MBA population of Israel, including Sidon, was closer to the IA Lachish samples than to the post-MBA coastal populations of Israel. This claim was made by fully-fledged archeologists and anthropologists, not by me btw.
As for Ayn Ghazal samples, not only are they outside of the Natufian core area but they were most likely descended from natives displaced by Proto-Canaanitic Natufians.



the cultural assemblage associated is tied to Amorite settlement, here is a map of the sites exhibiting the hallmarks of the Amorite cultural assemblage:
https://i.imgur.com/fv5ZFTF.jpg
Your map confuses Amorite settlements with Hanean settlements and even Hurrian settlements (Hazor, Schechem, Megiddo). Again, the Amorites were a group of the Jebusites who themselves were a group of the Haneans, what laymen mistakenly call Amorites. The Amorites/Jebusites inhabited the central part of Israel i.e. Lachish, Hebron, Eglon, Jerusalem and Jarmuth.


This cultural assemblage originated in the Northern Levant and spread southwards. More importantly, Ugarit was continually occupied starting from the MB IIB (it had previously been a necropolis), all the way down to the LBA collapse with no interruption by which time we have written evidence of the Ugaritic language. Likewise, Tell eḍ-Ḍabʿa (Avaris) basically looks like a large Amorite settlement, this coincides with the arrival of the NW Semitic-speaking "Asiatics" in Egypt and indeed, Avaris was the capital of the XVth dynasty (the Hyksos dynasty). The MB IIA-B/C transition also coincides with the appearance in the highlands of historical Judea-Samaria of toponyms which follow a pattern widespread in the Amorite kingdoms of Syria, this too is bound to be associated with the Amorite cultural assemblage and probably some form of migration from the north. The coastal areas were not affected by this intrusive group (as you can see on the map) and retained older patterns in the place names, more to the point the Sidonian samples date back to the MB IIB/C period, as you can see Sidon did not have the Amorite cultural assemblage and its re-urbanisation was a local phenomenon, in other words these samples are unlikely to have arrived with the MB II migrants (Amorites). This is further evidence that J1-L862 and J2b1-M205's presence in the Levant predates the MB II period.

Ugarit, like other cities in the Levant, was multiethnic. There were several languages (Hurrian, Hititte, Akkadian, Egyptian) spoken there beside "Ugaritic". The so-called Amorite kingdoms in Syria were in fact Yamin and Sim'al Kingdoms, the actual Amorites from Lachish were identical to the 'core' E1b1b population and unrelated to MBAII invaders. Your so called Bronze Age Amorite migrants are merely Hurrians.


Long story short: You have no idea what you're talking about and are misinterpreting the evidence in order to promote a strange narrative where a typically NW African branch of E-Z827 closely tied to the spread of Libyco-Berber somehow becomes Canaanite. If you're going to peddle absurd theories, you might as well try to put some effort into it.
...

Shamayim
03-11-2019, 06:20 PM
Two great confederations were active in the region of present-day northeastern Syria: the Bensimalites, ‘‘The Sons of the North,’’ who originally occupied the region of the triangle of the upper Habur tributaries, and the Benjaminites, ‘‘The Sons of the South,’’ who occupied the Syrian steppe along the Euphrates, from the zone around Mari, known as The Banks of the Euphrates, upstream between the Euphrates and the Balih River (Anbar 1985: 24). The Bensimalites at some time came to occupy the Middle Euphrates and were then called Yaradu, ‘‘those who descended,’’ and displaced some groups of the Benjaminites, subjecting those who remained. This factwas at the origin of the Benjaminite hostility toward the Bensimalites. The Mari rulers Yahdun-lim and Zimri-lim, of Bensimalite ancestry, thus gave themselves the title King of Mari and of the land of the Haneans with which they tried to reclaim at the same time the sovereignty over the urban state of Mari as well as over all the tribal groups, including Bensimalites and Benjaminites, both of them under a common denomination of Haneans (Charpin and Durand 1985: 337)


Zimri-Lim was a Sim¬al and his kingdom in essence a Sim¬al government that subjugated the Yamina living within the borders of the kingdom. There were about one dozen Sim¬al clans.39 Groups constituting the clan of Nihad are called subclans by Anbar.40 In 24 235, two members of the Amurru clan are classified as Yabasu, so Amurru appears to be a sub-clan of Yabasu.



The use of the designation “Hana” presents an interesting semantic field that was discovered step by step and still presents difficulties. Kupper, in his classic study of 1957 on nomadism in Mari,103 encountered passages in which Hana and Yamina are contrasted and concluded that the term “Hana” designates a tribal unit on the same level as Yamina and Sim¬al. This view became untenable when the expression “Yamina Hana” was found. I. Gelb concluded that an originally ethnic designation “Hana” had developed into the generic term “nomad, Bedouin.”104 Charpin and Durand concluded from the same evidence that “Hana” must designate a tribal unit above the Yamina and Sim¬al.105 As more passages were published, the usefulness of Gelb’s translation became ever more apparent and was adopted generally, as well as by Durand, who then declared that the term did not designate ethnicity. 106 I believe we should retain Gelb’s, Charpin’s, and Durand’s original conclusion and allow both meanings of “Hana” to coexist. In fact, contexts indicate three meanings: (1) the ancestral tribal unit from which the Sim¬al and Yamutbal, and probably also the Yamina and Numha, considered themselves to be descended; (2) pasturalists or nomads, regardless of tribal identity; and (3) Sim¬al pasturalists. The first meaning is clearly attested in sources outside Mari. Hana, spelled Hia- na, appears as an ancestor of Amorite tribal groups, including the Numha, Awnan, and Yahrur, in a late Old Babylonian text that lists the recipients of offerings given and organized by the king of Babylon for his ancestors.107 In the Assyrian king list, Hana, here spelled Ha-nu-˙, appears as one of seventeen kings in the past “who dwelt in tents.” The relevant passage probably dates to the time of Samsi-Adad.108 At Mari, this meaning is attested in A.3572,109 if I understand the passage correctly: Hittipanum, a servant of Atamrum, king of Andarig in the Hilly Arc, writes Bahdi- Lim, the governor of the district of Mari, complaining about Hana, who took some property belonging to a Yamutbal: “[Yamutbal] and Sim¬al have always related as brothers and are divisions110 of Hana. And, without being aware (of this), Hana pillaged household goods of your brothers, the Yamutbal. Are the Yamutbal not your brothers?” If brotherhood with Sim¬al implies descent from Hana, the Numha were presumably also regarded as being a group of Hana, because they likewise declared themselves to be a “brother of Sim¬al” (A.3577).

In view of the correspondence of terms—the Sim¬al as northerners and the Yamina as southerners—the Yamina may also have been considered as descendants of Hana. If so, Hana would essentially equal our term “Amorite.” An intriguing passage in 28 95 may be relevant here, too: inhabitants of the city of Kiduh in the land of Apum in the center of the Northern Plains were described as follows: “Those men are sons (dumu.mes) of Hana (Hanaki). They are not citizens of his (Ili-Estar’s) land (of Suna).”


Below is a graph summarizing the Hanean genealogy:
29294

sam-iJ-ZS1727
03-11-2019, 09:37 PM
TMRCA of E-m81 is between 1900 and 2300 years, exactly the time Carthaginian cities collapsed.
we can imagine an immigration from south or from interior part of North west Africa i(the mountains and deserts).
Samples in the levant with E-m81 descend certainly from Fatimide berber spldiers who conquered Egypt and parts of the Levant.
The Euro-asiatic autosomal of the e-m81 samples is due to the mtdna not to ydna. 80% of feminine samples in North Africa are of Euro-Asiatic and Middle-eastern origin.
Remember the ancient Greek called people living in the carthaginian frontier Mauri and ethiopians : They were Black
The Libyan inscriptions found in dugga in Tunisia are of an unknown language which is the sister of Berber and Egyptian but not berber. We assume that those Mauri/Mauritanians were the brothers of fulani and ancient west Egyptians. R-V88 of the Fulani/Siwa must have lived in North west africa too. It is responsible for the spread of chadic languages and perhaps berber.
the berber e-m81 and libyan e-v65, in my opinion lived between Egypt and Libya perhaps close to the Lake chad.
Nothing links Berbers to Phoenicians in coastal cities in north west africa, even the name Lbw or Libyans in Punic appeared after the invasion of Rome, no text before the invasion mentions them or an other tribe.
the collapse of Carthaginian cities and the advance of "Numides" which means Nomads was due in part to the Berbers.

NetNomad
03-13-2019, 05:41 PM
E-M81 is clearly linked to the Amoritic expansion as demonstrated above. As for E-M81 being linked to blackness, the populations with the highest frequencies of E-M81 are also the whitest, the most Arab-admixed and Native-admixed populations are typically more SSA-looking which isn't surprising considering that the Arab homeland is right next to Ethiopia, and that J* and J1 peak among two black populations, namely Socotris and Yemenis. Blackness in North Africa is linked to three sources: Natives (E-V65), Arabs (J1) and West Africans (E-M2).

The J* lineage in Socotra is most likely actually J1 (J-Y19093) and the frequency on that small island is due to a founder effect. Socotra has little to do with the origins of J1.

J overall originated somewhere near the Caucasus mountains as the proto-Socotra lineage has been found in an ancient sample from the Caucasus (Satsurblia Cave, Georgia).

Missouri1455
03-13-2019, 07:03 PM
The J* lineage in Socotra is most likely actually J1 (J-Y19093)

Source?

NetNomad
03-13-2019, 07:13 PM
Source?

Speculative based on the result of YF15567 from Hadramaut who caries a basal J1 clade. The Socotri are of Hadramauti origin. With all these hundreds of Arabians on yfull I highly doubt that the Socotra lineage isn't on there.

Shamayim
03-14-2019, 12:16 PM
Sumerian Syria Mari [12] 2550 BC L2a1 16223T, 16256T, 16261T, 16278T, 16294T, 16309G Fernßndez 2005
A Northwest African mtdna (L2a1) was found in Mari. Mari was the home of an Hanean confederacy that ruled over the Iran_N/Anatolia_N-rich populace. It seems that Haneans conquered the Iran_N-rich population ranging from the Levant to Pakistan and Haneanized them. Haneans were later displaced by the people responsible for the Bronze Age collapse.

29358

NetNomad
03-14-2019, 11:00 PM
A Northwest African mtdna (L2a1) was found in Mari. Mari was the home of an Hanean confederacy that ruled over the Iran_N/Anatolia_N-rich populace. It seems that Haneans conquered the Iran_N-rich population ranging from the Levant to Pakistan and Haneanized them. Haneans were later displaced by the people responsible for the Bronze Age collapse.

29358

L2a1 is pan-African. Found all over Africa. It is not of Northwest African origin. You can't claim that.

Mohammed Zayani
03-15-2019, 12:48 AM
anthrogenica is suppose to be an anthropology / genetic forum for sharing informations based on hard data not a place for personal fantasies or trolling.

this is a new low :(

Mohammed Zayani
03-15-2019, 01:14 AM
Autosomal results in modern Maghrebis is pointing towards the Levant; for example M183 carriers in Libya hold Ibereomaurisian% at 11%; and are Middle Eastern-shifted, while Tunisians hold ibereomaurisian affinity somewhere around 20% while their Levantine% shifts at around 40%;So its highly possible M183 could have came from the East; because ibereromaurisian% show an East to West Cline; where it peaks in the West and Unpeaks in the East; any form of continuation with ibereomaurisians would have to at least exceed 50% yet many Moroccans/Algerians manage to share only 30% affinity with ibereomaurisian which in my opinion is not enough for a continuum. Taforalts themselves cluster much closer to the horn while modern NA cluster closer to the Middle East. so its very hard to dismiss a Middle Eastern expansion for M183.


comparing ancient and modern populations on a PCA plots is very misleading especially when some of these population have already contributed significantly to the modern one.

also A PCA position does not always imply admixture. For example, Oceanians cluster between the Japanese and a bit towards SSAs while they are not made up of those two groups.

taforalt-like pops have contributed about 12% to West Africans alongside the fact being much basal deep in comparison to bottlenecked (basal)eurasians. So, that explain the psedu-ssa PCA shifts. West Africans are a mixture AWA + AEA + ANA + some archaic Homo.


taforalt has ancestral north african ancestry (ANA) not ssa ,this ancestry is described by ''reich'' as a no-african independent divergent component most closest to OOA population which forms a clade with the new Eurasian lineages (Basal and non-Basal) ,it's basically a basal to basal eurasians.




''we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians). The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt17 is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features22 and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers6, a common link between the Levant and Africa.

Moreover, our model predicts that West Africans (represented by Yoruba) had 12.5▒1.1% ancestry from a Taforalt-related group rather than Taforalt having ancestry from an unknown Sub-Saharan African source11; this may have mediated the limited Neanderthal admixture present in West Africans23. An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-Saharan sources.''

Missouri1455
03-15-2019, 02:14 AM
comparing ancient and modern populations on a PCA plots is very misleading especially when some of these population have already contributed significantly to the modern one.

also A PCA position does not always imply admixture. For example, Oceanians cluster between the Japanese and a bit towards SSAs while they are not made up of those two groups.

taforalt-like pops have contributed about 12% to West Africans alongside the fact being much basal deep in comparison to bottlenecked (basal)eurasians. So, that explain the psedu-ssa PCA shifts. West Africans are a mixture AWA + AEA + ANA + some archaic Homo.


taforalt has ancestral north african ancestry (ANA) not ssa ,this ancestry is described by ''reich'' as a no-african independent divergent component most closest to OOA population which forms a clade with the new Eurasian lineages (Basal and non-Basal) ,it's basically a basal to basal eurasians.

Modern pop. are not the same as ancient ones I agree; but clearly Berbers and Proto-Berbers are not the same population; the continuum % with Ibereomaurisian is still low in Libya/Tunisia; 20% is not enough for a continuum; it has to exceed at least 50% to make a strong case for continuum; but genetically speaking the Maghreb is Middle Eastern influenced; which is clearly not the case with Taforalt.

Missouri1455
03-15-2019, 02:16 AM
Speculative based on the result of YF15567 from Hadramaut who caries a basal J1 clade. The Socotri are of Hadramauti origin. With all these hundreds of Arabians on yfull I highly doubt that the Socotra lineage isn't on there.

Interesting, wouldn't this open another case where we have to study Hadramout and the surrounding regions for hidden/older J1 clades...

Shamayim
03-15-2019, 02:22 AM
The new study on Iberia just came out and just as i predicted the Copper Age North African isn't E-L19 but E-V68. E-V13 is nowhere to be found in the Greco-Roman period, but suddenly explodes in the Moorish period. It seems that E-V13 is one of the major Berber lineage. I wonder how Greeks and Albanians got their E-V13...

Last but not least one of the two E-M183 is 18% Levantine :)

It appears that i was right and that Berber is rather related to E-M78 than E-L19. A Berber origin of E-M183 is definitely dead.

hartaisarlag
03-15-2019, 02:57 AM
I wonder how Greeks and Albanians got their E-V13...

Not from Maghrebis, I'd bet almost anything.

Though I am curious about how and when my Cuban-American father-and-son friends' E-M78 ended up in Spain. (Sadly 23andMe doesn't identify a downstream marker.)

Ruderico
03-15-2019, 03:01 AM
E-V13 is nowhere to be found in the Greco-Roman period, but suddenly explodes in the Moorish period. It seems that E-V13 is one of the major Berber lineage. I wonder how Greeks and Albanians got their E-V13...

Just because they didn't find one in the Roman Era samples it doesn't mean it wasn't there, though. Suggesting E-V13 is Berber is borderline insane




Not from Maghrebis, I'd be almost anything.

Though I am curious about how and when my Cuban-American father-and-son friends' E-M78 ended up in Spain. (Sadly 23andMe doesn't identify a downstream marker.)

Have you tried Morley yet? It correctly predicted me as E-PF4428 and that is a very rare subclade

Govan
03-15-2019, 03:04 AM
Not from Maghrebis, I'd bet almost anything.

Though I am curious about how and when my Cuban-American father-and-son friends' E-M78 ended up in Spain. (Sadly 23andMe doesn't identify a downstream marker.)

What do you mean?

One of the Iberomaurusian sample does carry a lineage ancestral to EV13.

Ultimately the roots of EV13 is in North Africa and the oldest clades associated with is Iberomaurusian's.

hartaisarlag
03-15-2019, 03:12 AM
What do you mean?

One of the Iberomaurusian sample does carry a lineage ancestral to EV13.

Ultimately the roots of EV13 is in North Africa and the oldest clades associated with is Iberomaurusian's.

I'm rejecting the implication that E-V13 reached Albania and Greece by way of Berbers. Paleolithic Maghrebis, maybe. However, the mainland southern Balkans show no particular sign of elevated Northwest African autosomal ancestry.

Ruderico
03-15-2019, 03:16 AM
I'm rejecting the implication that E-V13 reached Albania and Greece by way of Berbers. Paleolithic Maghrebis, maybe. However, the mainland southern Balkans show no particular sign of elevated Northwest African autosomal ancestry.

It was probably the consequence of Levantine individuals who carried distant Iberomaurusian patrilinear lines (E). Mine was probably the same, but it might have arrived in Europe earlier, if our presumed analysis of TMRCA is correct - ~7000 BP, so far with only European individuals

Shamayim
03-15-2019, 03:20 AM
Just because they didn't find one in the Roman Era samples it doesn't mean it wasn't there, obviously. Suggesting E-V13 is Berber is borderline insane

As a quick reminder, E-V13 wasn't found among Minoans (Lazaridis et al. 2017), Mycenaeans (Lazaridis et al. 2017), Greeks (Olalde et al. 2019) and Romans (Amorim et al. 2018; Olalde et al. 2019). We have enough Hellenic and Roman samples to safely claim that E-V13 is unrelated to Greco-Romans, the only subclade of E-M78 found among Romans was E-V22. E-V13 is nowhere to be found in Iberia until Berber invaded it. It would also explain why E-M183 is almost absent from Iberia unlike E-V13.

Suggesting that Basques were Indo-European (paternally) was also considered insane not too long ago. Suggesting that Natufians weren't Sardinian-like was also considered insane.

hartaisarlag
03-15-2019, 03:23 AM
As a quick reminder, E-V13 wasn't found among Minoans (Lazaridis et al. 2017), Mycenaeans (Lazaridis et al. 2017), Greeks (Olalde et al. 2019) and Romans (Amorim et al. 2018; Olalde et al. 2019). We have enough Hellenic and Roman samples to safely claim that E-V13 is unrelated to Greco-Romans, the only subclade of E-M78 found among Romans was E-V22. E-V13 is nowhere to be found in Iberia until Berber invaded it. It would also explain why E-M183 is almost absent from Iberia unlike E-V13.

Suggesting that Basques were Indo-European (paternally) was also considered insane not too long ago. Suggesting that Natufians weren't Sardinian-like was also considered insane.

Wait, wait, wait. So you mean to say that Berbers were dominated by E-V13 during the 8th century AD, and were only later "Canaanized" and swept with E-M183?

Govan
03-15-2019, 03:25 AM
Modern pop. are not the same as ancient ones I agree; but clearly Berbers and Proto-Berbers are not the same population; the continuum % with Ibereomaurisian is still low in Libya/Tunisia; 20% is not enough for a continuum; it has to exceed at least 50% to make a strong case for continuum; but genetically speaking the Maghreb is Middle Eastern influenced; which is clearly not the case with Taforalt.

Sure but I don't know where you're at.

Shamayim
03-15-2019, 03:32 AM
Wait, wait, wait. So you mean to say that Berbers were dominated by E-V13 during the 8th century AD, and were only later "Canaanized" and swept with E-M183?

Berbers were dominated by E-M78(V65 and V13) but later received E-M183 from Amorites. Guanches, as an example, were almost as much as E-M78 than E-M183.

29383

Ruderico
03-15-2019, 03:35 AM
Sure but I don't know where you're at. I have personally no idea what is the origin of EM183. It had a very recent TMRCA, but I have no idea where you guys got the idea that EM183 is closely tied to Proto-Berber. If anything there are about as much chance EM81 were Berberized folk to begin with. I don't know.

Libya/parts of Tunisia has a huge Middle Eastern shift, though it is in part due to Arabian admixture. Once you leave out Arabian admixture, there are definitely about 3 'extreme' sub-groups of Berbers : an Eastern Levantine Neolithic-shifted one (in Libya/Tunisia), a more EEF/steppe-shited one (Guanches, coastal Berber pop as Riffians, Kabyles go) and a more southern one with a huge Iberomaurusian/Taforalt continuity (Southern Moroccans) well over 45%.
Scaled models. Not a huge fan but hey ho:

[1] "distance%=2.5308 / distance=0.025308"

Moroccan:MCA9

Iberomaurusian 40.6
Barcin_N 34.5
Levant_N 10.9
Yamnaya_Samara 9.7
Yoruba 4.3


[1] "distance%=3.0651 / distance=0.030651"

Guanche:guanche11_scaled

Iberomaurusian 37.75
Barcin_N 36.80
Yamnaya_Samara 11.60
Levant_N 10.10
Yoruba 3.75



Berbers were dominated by E-M78(V65 and V13) but later received E-M183 from Amorites. Guanches, as an example, were almost as much as E-M78 than E-M183.

29383
You are being anachronic. E-M78 is some 13300 years old, V13 just 4500

Tz85
03-15-2019, 03:45 AM
This is comical.... :)

Missouri1455
03-15-2019, 03:47 AM
Scaled models. Not a huge fan but hey ho:

[1] "distance%=2.5308 / distance=0.025308"

Moroccan:MCA9

Iberomaurusian 40.6
Barcin_N 34.5
Levant_N 10.9
Yamnaya_Samara 9.7
Yoruba 4.3


[1] "distance%=3.0651 / distance=0.030651"

Guanche:guanche11_scaled

Iberomaurusian 37.75
Barcin_N 36.80
Yamnaya_Samara 11.60
Levant_N 10.10
Yoruba 3.75



You are being anachronic. E-M78 is some 13300 years old, V13 just 4500

40% Ibereomaurisian??? Either the scale was done wrong or that was a Souss/Southern Moroccan; Moroccans an average will share something similar to this:


[1] distance%=2.5772 / distance=0.025772
Algerian
Levant_BA 30.9
Iberomaurusian 24.1
Iberia_EN 17.9
Iberia_BA 14.45
Yoruba 11.85
Ethiopia_4500BP 0.8
Iberia_ChL 0
Iberia_MN 0
Iberia_Southwest_CA 0
Levant_N 0
Natufian 0

[1] distance%=1.7158 / distance=0.017158
Moroccan
Levant_BA 35.3
Iberomaurusian 25.85
Yoruba 14.6
Iberia_EN 13.35
Iberia_BA 10.9
Ethiopia_4500BP 0
Iberia_ChL 0
Iberia_MN 0
Iberia_Southwest_CA 0
Levant_N 0
Natufian 0

[1] distance%=1.6931 / distance=0.016931
Libyan
Levant_BA 56.8
Iberomaurusian 11.75
Iberia_BA 10.05
Yoruba 8.55
Natufian 6.55
Ethiopia_4500BP 3.4
Levant_N 2.9
Iberia_ChL 0
Iberia_EN 0
Iberia_MN 0
Iberia_Southwest_CA 0

G25 calculators used above correlates with Autosomal/Pca clusters; the Barcin N is skewed because it represents a faraway population; on average Maghrebis are Middle Eastern shifted; so you need to metric them with Levantine/Iberian scales to get the most accurate results

Shamayim
03-15-2019, 03:50 AM
I'm using E-M78 as a group but they may have carried old sub-clades like this E-V68* Copper Age North African.

Anyway, the key point is that the Copper Age North African sample was E-V68, not E-L19 nor E-M183. This mean that E-L19/E-M183 do not derive from the Capsians but came much later, the fact that one E-M183 was 18% Levantine points towards post-Copper Age Levant.

Ruderico
03-15-2019, 03:53 AM
What do you get for Guanche11?

Govan
03-15-2019, 03:55 AM
40% Ibereomaurisian??? Either the scale was done wrong or that was a Souss/Southern Moroccan; Moroccans an average will share something similar to this:


[1] distance%=2.5772 / distance=0.025772
Algerian
Levant_BA 30.9
Iberomaurusian 24.1
Iberia_EN 17.9
Iberia_BA 14.45
Yoruba 11.85
Ethiopia_4500BP 0.8
Iberia_ChL 0
Iberia_MN 0
Iberia_Southwest_CA 0
Levant_N 0
Natufian 0

[1] distance%=1.7158 / distance=0.017158
Moroccan
Levant_BA 35.3
Iberomaurusian 25.85
Yoruba 14.6
Iberia_EN 13.35
Iberia_BA 10.9
Ethiopia_4500BP 0
Iberia_ChL 0
Iberia_MN 0
Iberia_Southwest_CA 0
Levant_N 0
Natufian 0

[1] distance%=1.6931 / distance=0.016931
Libyan
Levant_BA 56.8
Iberomaurusian 11.75
Iberia_BA 10.05
Yoruba 8.55
Natufian 6.55
Ethiopia_4500BP 3.4
Levant_N 2.9
Iberia_ChL 0
Iberia_EN 0
Iberia_MN 0
Iberia_Southwest_CA 0

G25 calculators used above correlates with Autosomal/Pca clusters; the Barcin N is skewed because it represents a faraway population; on average Maghrebis are Middle Eastern shifted; so you need to metric them with Levantine/Iberian scales to get the most accurate results
Not necessarily .

Those modeling are in the fringe of inflated. Levant Bronze Age is a population with a large Iranian Neolithic component.

Levant Neolithic makes more sense, but needs an increase of Iberomaurusian %.

Missouri1455
03-15-2019, 03:59 AM
What do you get for Guanche11?

Guanche would score something similar to a modern day NA

29384

In the admixture above you can see they share affinity to Saharawis/Mozabites with slight differences

Missouri1455
03-15-2019, 04:12 AM
That's just because those people who brought additional Levant N, obviously would also have brought a layer of Mesolithic North African ancestry alongside (I am talking about a reasonable road from the east, Libya/Egypt), which increases Iberomaurusians %. That's just question of calculator analysis.

Levant N also make more sense than Levant BA. But if Levant Bronze age has both Iranian Neolithic and a layer of Mesolithic North African via Egypt it can be reasonable.

Libyans/Egyptians are still Middle Eastern-shifted and they are much closer to Middle Eastern groups than Berber groups for example look at the distance they share with Syrians and the distance they share with Chenini-Douriet Berbers. While on "average" Tunisian/Algerian/Moroccan are clearly influenced by the Middle East, because they shift farther away from chenini-douriet and its doubtful this influence only happend in Neolithic times.
29386

Kelmendasi
03-16-2019, 12:55 AM
The new study on Iberia just came out and just as i predicted the Copper Age North African isn't E-L19 but E-V68. E-V13 is nowhere to be found in the Greco-Roman period, but suddenly explodes in the Moorish period. It seems that E-V13 is one of the major Berber lineage. I wonder how Greeks and Albanians got their E-V13...

Last but not least one of the two E-M183 is 18% Levantine :)

It appears that i was right and that Berber is rather related to E-M78 than E-L19. A Berber origin of E-M183 is definitely dead.
E-V13 isn't "one of the major Berber lineage", it's barely found outside of Europe. V13 has no diversity whatsoever in the north Africa region as well as basal clades being almost non-existent, let alone the extremely low frequency and the fact that most clades there are in fact of European origin. V13's origin is clearly in the Balkans or west Asia.

Kelmendasi
03-16-2019, 01:04 AM
As a quick reminder, E-V13 wasn't found among Minoans (Lazaridis et al. 2017), Mycenaeans (Lazaridis et al. 2017), Greeks (Olalde et al. 2019) and Romans (Amorim et al. 2018; Olalde et al. 2019). We have enough Hellenic and Roman samples to safely claim that E-V13 is unrelated to Greco-Romans, the only subclade of E-M78 found among Romans was E-V22. E-V13 is nowhere to be found in Iberia until Berber invaded it. It would also explain why E-M183 is almost absent from Iberia unlike E-V13.

Suggesting that Basques were Indo-European (paternally) was also considered insane not too long ago. Suggesting that Natufians weren't Sardinian-like was also considered insane.
You are completely wrong when it comes to your theory on the spread of V13. We don't have enough Hellenic or Roman results, at least when it comes to Y-DNA results. E-V13 has already been found in Neolithic Europe, such an example is the sample from northern Spain that was part of the Cardium pottery culture. E-V13 was also found in an Iron Age Thracian sample from Svilengrad as well as CTS5856 being found in a Scythian sample from Moldova. You also seem to have forgotten that the E-V13 sample found in the Iberian paper was in fact a Visigoth, though of likely Balkan origin going by autosomal DNA. Nothing Berber

Let alone the fact that the father clade of V13, L618, has been found in various samples from Europe and how V13 reaches it's highest diversity in the Balkans. E-M183 is the main branch of E1b among Berbers. It has clear associations with northern Africa in terms of it's origins, probably linked to Capsian culture. E-L19 was found in Neolithic north African samples from Morocco as well as a likely M183* sample. Basal clades of M183 also seem to popping up in north Africa. In Iberia M183 is the group linked to the Islamic occupation, it peaks in areas where north African admix is strongest as well as the clades showing association to northern Africa.

NetNomad
03-16-2019, 10:39 AM
E-V13 isn't "one of the major Berber lineage", it's barely found outside of Europe. V13 has no diversity whatsoever in the north Africa region as well as basal clades being almost non-existent, let alone the extremely low frequency and the fact that most clades there are in fact of European origin. V13's origin is clearly in the Balkans or west Asia.

Prior to that it came from North Africa. E-V13/E-L618 is related to E-V22 which is definitely Northeast African/North African.

Ruderico
03-16-2019, 10:50 AM
In Iberia M183 is the group linked to the Islamic occupation, it peaks in areas where north African admix is strongest as well as the clades showing association to northern Africa.

Considering the new paper, I'm skeptical of the first sentence. It seems it's mostly (but not only) a consequence of North African migration somewhen during the Roman period, which is why you find it in places that barely had Muslim occupation, such as Galicia, northern Portugal or even Cantabria. But yes, naturally the two go hand-in-hand together


Prior to that it came from North Africa. E-V13/E-L618 is related to E-V22 which is definitely Northeast African/North African.

E-V13 is 4500 years old, E-V22 is 8400 years old. They might be related, but distantly so

Kelmendasi
03-16-2019, 11:27 AM
Prior to that it came from North Africa. E-V13/E-L618 is related to E-V22 which is definitely Northeast African/North African.
Not V13 itself though, based on the current data it is most likely that V13 originated either in the Balkans or west Asia. Sure, it's ancestral clade, Z1919, was of North African origin. Point was that it isn't the "major Berber lineage" as it has no association with them whatsoever.

Johane Derite
03-16-2019, 12:15 PM
You are completely wrong when it comes to your theory on the spread of V13. We don't have enough Hellenic or Roman results, at least when it comes to Y-DNA results. E-V13 has already been found in Neolithic Europe, such an example is the sample from northern Spain that was part of the Cardium pottery culture. E-V13 was also found in an Iron Age Thracian sample from Svilengrad as well as CTS5856 being found in a Scythian sample from Moldova. You also seem to have forgotten that the E-V13 sample found in the Iberian paper was in fact a Visigoth, though of likely Balkan origin going by autosomal DNA. Nothing Berber




Yep, and user Aspurg on eupedia believes he has possibly found clades of EV13 that are good candidate for Illyrian origin in the Dorian Greek.

Quoting him:

"some clades under Z5018 seem to have migrated more to the West pre-second Illyrian wave in LBA/EIA, and they show tendencies of spreading with Illyrian groups. Namely L241 and Y145455. Same might go for some CTS9320 clades, especially under Z16988. You spoke few times of Illyrian-Dorian connection. I believe this connection existed and I have found some clear genetic traces of it, and one of those seems L241. I think there are going to be Ancient Greek L241 clades (already there are L241+ there but without deeper tests) and PH2180 is Illyrian, same as some L241*"

Shamayim
03-16-2019, 12:29 PM
You are completely wrong when it comes to your theory on the spread of V13. We don't have enough Hellenic or Roman results, at least when it comes to Y-DNA results. E-V13 has already been found in Neolithic Europe, such an example is the sample from northern Spain that was part of the Cardium pottery culture. E-V13 was also found in an Iron Age Thracian sample from Svilengrad as well as CTS5856 being found in a Scythian sample from Moldova. You also seem to have forgotten that the E-V13 sample found in the Iberian paper was in fact a Visigoth, though of likely Balkan origin going by autosomal DNA. Nothing Berber

Let alone the fact that the father clade of V13, L618, has been found in various samples from Europe and how V13 reaches it's highest diversity in the Balkans. E-M183 is the main branch of E1b among Berbers. It has clear associations with northern Africa in terms of it's origins, probably linked to Capsian culture. E-L19 was found in Neolithic north African samples from Morocco as well as a likely M183* sample. Basal clades of M183 also seem to popping up in north Africa. In Iberia M183 is the group linked to the Islamic occupation, it peaks in areas where north African admix is strongest as well as the clades showing association to northern Africa.

Taforalt didn't carry E-L19 nor did this Copper Age North African, rather, they carried E-M78/E-V68/E-L618. E-V13 was introduced by Berber colonists as evidenced by its absence among Bronze Age & Iron Age Europeans. As for E-M183, as pointed above one carries Levantine ancestry (18%), a fact which implies a foreign origin. E-M81 peaks in Morocco, a country never colonized by Capsians.

The so called Visigoths were at least 30% North African, they were indeed from the Visigothic period but they certainly weren't Visigoth or European for that matter.

Edit: North African ancestry in Iberia is the strongest in the west and the south yet, E-M81 peaks in the north among Paesiegos (40%). The people who brought North African ancestry into Iberia carried E-M78/E-V68/E-L618/E-V65/E-V13 e.g. I4246 & I3981 individuals. This isn't debatable, this is a fact.

Johane Derite
03-16-2019, 12:33 PM
Taforalt didn't carry E-L19 nor did this Copper Age North African, rather, they carried E-M78/E-V68/E-L618. E-V13 was introduced by Berber colonists as evidenced by its absence among Bronze Age & Iron Age Europeans. As for E-M183, as pointed above one carries Levantine ancestry (18%), a fact which implies a foreign origin. E-M81 peaks in Morocco, a country never colonized by Capsians.

The so called Visigoths were at least 30% North African, they were indeed from the Visigothic period but they certainly weren't Visigoth or European for that matter.

You are so wrong I don't even know how you have come to this theory. You must not know anything about EV13 to even think you can convince someone with his. The most diversity of EV13 is around northern balkans, and it's most definitely originally a central europe/balkan group as evidenced by the distant clades that Germans have.

Shamayim
03-16-2019, 01:13 PM
I don't need to convince anyone, facts speak for themselves, E-V13 is absent among Greeks and Romans who carried R1b and J while their "descendants" carry a Moorish bloodline. Diversity means nothing, Berbers brought various subclades into Europe when they conquered it.

You will not get around the facts that Greeks and Romans were 0% North African and did not carry E, while North African-admixed (30 to 60%) "Iberians" carried E.

29403




I8206 NE_Iberia_Hel (Emp˙ries1) R1b1a1a2a1a2
I8205 NE_Iberia_Hel (Emp˙ries2) J
I8208 NE_Iberia_Hel (Emp˙ries2) J
I8211 NE_Iberia_Greek (Emp˙ries1) R
I8212 NE_Iberia_Greek (Emp˙ries1) R
I8210 NE_Iberia_Greek (Emp˙ries1) R1b1a1a2
I8202 NE_Iberia_RomP (Emp˙ries1) R1b1a1a2a1a
I8209 NE_Iberia_Greek (Emp˙ries1) R1b1a1a2a1a2
I8216 NE_Iberia_RomP (Emp˙ries2) J
I8341 NE_Iberia_Greek (Emp˙ries1)NE_Iberia_Greek (Emp˙ries1) R1b1a1a2a1a2
I8344 NE_Iberia_Greek (Emp˙ries1)NE_Iberia_Greek (Emp˙ries1) R1b1a1a
I6492 NE_Iberia_RomP R1b1a1a2a1a2c
I6491 NE_Iberia_RomP R

Ruderico
03-16-2019, 01:19 PM
This has to be one of the most stupidifying thread in this forum

Pribislav
03-16-2019, 01:25 PM
E-V13 was introduced by Berber colonists as evidenced by its absence among Bronze Age & Iron Age Europeans.

So I presume you have had insight into dozens of Bronze & Iron Age samples from Balkans that are yet to be sequenced and published?


The people who brought North African ancestry into Iberia carried E-M78/E-V68/E-L618/E-V65/E-V13 e.g. I4246 & I3981 individuals. This isn't debatable, this is a fact.

Not a fact, maybe you should google what fact actually means? E-V13 is clearly European clade, most likely originating in Balkans, and dispersing during BA to the rest of Europe. It's parent clade, L618, probably originated in North Africa, but it was thousands of years before Berbers even existed. Both L618 and V13 are found in Cardial Ware Neolithic, in Croatia and Spain, respectively. Again, thousands of years before Berbers existed.

Pribislav
03-16-2019, 03:18 PM
Repeating basic facts is indeed stupidifying but it need to be done since retarded people cannot grasp that E is African and that a lion born in a hen house isn't a chicken. It should be easy to grasp that TRUE Greeks and Romans (from the Bronze Age & Iron Age) lacked E-V13, and that therefore it is a foreign marker.

E is African in origin, E-V13 is not. E-V13 diversity in North Africa is abysmally low compared to the Balkans. There, now keep repeating it so you don't embarrass yourself anymore.

Shamayim
03-16-2019, 03:22 PM
So I presume you have had insight into dozens of Bronze & Iron Age samples from Balkans that are yet to be sequenced and published?
E-L618 was only found in the coastal area of the Balkans and is derived from the Cardium Pottery culture. None of the Bronze and Iron Age Inland Balkan samples from the Great Hungarian Plain are E. Neolithic Inland Balkans was dominated by I2a, Bronze Age Inland Balkans was dominated by J2a, Iron Age Inland Balkans was dominated by N.



KO1 E. Neol. Koros I2a
NE7 L. Neol. Lengyel Culture I2a
BR2 L. Bronze, Kyjatice Culture L. Bronze, Kyjatice Culture J2a1
IR1 Iron Age, Pre-Scythian Mezocsat Culture N



It's parent clade, L618, probably originated in North Africa, but it was thousands of years before Berbers even existed.
While it is true that Europeans are very young, Berbers are far older. This Copper Age Berber is clearly descended from Paleolithic Iberomaurusian Proto-Berbers as shown by his auDNA and Y-DNA.


E is African in origin, E-V13 is not. E-V13 diversity in North Africa is abysmally low compared to the Balkans. There, now keep repeating it so you don't embarrass yourself anymore.

What language did these people speak before adopting IE?


Edit:


Older Neolithic cultures existed already at this time in eastern Greece and Crete, apparently having arrived from the Levant, but they appear distinct from the Cardial or impressed ware culture. The ceramic tradition in the central Balkans also remained distinct from that along the Adriatic coastline in both style and manufacturing techniques for almost 1,000 years from the 6th millennium BC.[8] Early Neolithic impressed pottery is found in the Levant, and certain parts of Anatolia, including Mezraa-Teleilat, and in North Africa at Tunus-Redeyef, Tunisia. So the first Cardial settlers in the Adriatic may have come directly from the Levant. Of course it might equally well have come directly from North Africa, and impressed pottery also appears in Egypt. Along the East Mediterranean coast impressed ware has been found in North Syria, Palestine and Lebanon.[9]

Pribislav
03-16-2019, 04:02 PM
None of the Bronze and Iron Age Inland Balkan samples from the Great Hungarian Plain are E. Neolithic Inland Balkans was dominated by I2a, Bronze Age Inland Balkans was dominated by J2a, Iron Age Inland Balkans was dominated by N.

Great Hungarian Plain is not Balkans, not by a long shot. So, you're claiming Iron Age Balkans was dominated by N based on one N sample from Northern Hungary?


While it is true that Europeans are very young, Berbers are far older. This Copper Age Berber is clearly descended from Paleolithic Iberomaurusian Proto-Berbers as shown by his auDNA and Y-DNA.

Could you provide any source where Copper Age individual(s) in question are called Berbers?


What language did these people speak before adopting IE?

My guess is they (L618 dudes) initially spoke whatever language was spoken by Capsians, later in the Balkans they probably adopted language of the Early European Farmers.

Kelmendasi
03-16-2019, 04:24 PM
Taforalt didn't carry E-L19 nor did this Copper Age North African, rather, they carried E-M78/E-V68/E-L618. E-V13 was introduced by Berber colonists as evidenced by its absence among Bronze Age & Iron Age Europeans. As for E-M183, as pointed above one carries Levantine ancestry (18%), a fact which implies a foreign origin. E-M81 peaks in Morocco, a country never colonized by Capsians.

The so called Visigoths were at least 30% North African, they were indeed from the Visigothic period but they certainly weren't Visigoth or European for that matter.

Edit: North African ancestry in Iberia is the strongest in the west and the south yet, E-M81 peaks in the north among Paesiegos (40%). The people who brought North African ancestry into Iberia carried E-M78/E-V68/E-L618/E-V65/E-V13 e.g. I4246 & I3981 individuals. This isn't debatable, this is a fact.
Taforalt itself was E-M78, not L618. However, the samples from Ifri n'Amr o'Moussa(Early Neolithic Morocco) tested as E-L19 and E-M183* https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=24.023904286257423%2C7.933101699999952&z=4, http://www.open-genomes.org/analysis/E-M35/E-M35_ancient_DNA_on_the_YFull_6.01_tree.html. V13 wasn't spread by Berber colonist, this is an extremely baseless theory that makes no sense whatsoever. V13 was tested among Bronze Age and Iron Age Europeans btw, the Thracian and Scythian are such examples.

The Visigoth samples weren't 30% NA lol. The E-V13 sample was modeled as partly native Balkan and Germanic. You are making very senseless and baseless claims. I hope you realise this.

Kelmendasi
03-16-2019, 04:27 PM
I don't need to convince anyone, facts speak for themselves, E-V13 is absent among Greeks and Romans who carried R1b and J while their "descendants" carry a Moorish bloodline. Diversity means nothing, Berbers brought various subclades into Europe when they conquered it.

You will not get around the facts that Greeks and Romans were 0% North African and did not carry E, while North African-admixed (30 to 60%) "Iberians" carried E.

29403
Yes the facts do speak for themselves and they go against everything you have said so far. E-V13 is virtually non-existent in North Africa in terms of frequency, diversity and ancient samples. The Roman samples you posted are still from Iberia and not the Italian peninsula, you shouldn't be claiming them as the perfect example of Romans. Same goes for the "Greeks".

Kelmendasi
03-16-2019, 04:33 PM
E-L618 was only found in the coastal area of the Balkans and is derived from the Cardium Pottery culture. None of the Bronze and Iron Age Inland Balkan samples from the Great Hungarian Plain are E. Neolithic Inland Balkans was dominated by I2a, Bronze Age Inland Balkans was dominated by J2a, Iron Age Inland Balkans was dominated by N.




While it is true that Europeans are very young, Berbers are far older. This Copper Age Berber is clearly descended from Paleolithic Iberomaurusian Proto-Berbers as shown by his auDNA and Y-DNA.


What language did these people speak before adopting IE?


Edit:
Again baseless and uninformed claims. E-L618 was found in a sample from the Lengyel culture of Hungary as well as E-M78 being found in the Sopot culture of Hungary. Not only that but we also have a E-M78 sample from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. Neolithic Balkans was dominated by G2a, this has been well established. You are basing the J2a Bronze Age part on Mycenaean samples and Minoan samples, but you shouldn't claim the whole area was J2a because of a handful of samples from two nearby areas. R-Z93, J-L283, R-Z2103 etc all have been found in the Bronze Age Balkans. The claim that Iron Age Balkans was N is just senseless.

Shamayim
03-16-2019, 04:49 PM
Great Hungarian Plain is not Balkans, not by a long shot. So, you're claiming Iron Age Balkans was dominated by N based on one N sample from Northern Hungary?
Below are 80+ Balkan samples from Mathieson et al. 2018, note that i removed female samples. Only one sample is E-L618 out of 100+ samples Neolithic Balkan samples and there is no E-V13 among Bronze Age samples. This E-L618 Berber was clearly a dead end, it is only later that Berbers successfuly colonized the Balkans.



I5237 9500-6200 BCE Iron_Gates_HG Serbia R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)
I5235 9221-8548 calBCE (9480▒110 BP, AA-57771, corrected for Freshwater Reservoir Effect) Iron_Gates_HG Serbia R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)
I5240 9140-8570 calBCE (9469▒70 BP, PSUAMS-2377, corrected for Freshwater Reservoir Effect) Iron_Gates_HG Serbia R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)
I5236 8290-7825 calBCE (8943▒77 BP, BM-1146) Iron_Gates_HG Serbia I2a1
I1949 8241-7962 calBCE (8915▒40 BP, PSUAMS-2261) Ganj_Dareh_Iran_Neolithic Iran R
I5773 8240-7940 calBCE Iron_Gates_HG Serbia I
I1945 8000-7700 BCE Ganj_Dareh_Iran_Neolithic Iran R
I4081 7580-7190 calBCE (8369▒73, OxA-31595) Iron_Gates_HG Romania R1b1a
I4607 7340-6640 calBCE (8047▒122 BP, OxA-4380) Iron_Gates_HG Romania I2
I5772 7100-5900 BCE Iron_Gates_HG Serbia R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)
I5401 7076-6699 calBCE (8016▒58 BP, OxA-13613, corrected for Freshwater Reservoir Effect) Iron_Gates_HG Serbia I2a2
I4655 7060-6570 calBCE (7904▒93 BP, OxA-8581) Iron_Gates_HG Romania R
I4870 7045-6535 calBCE (7870▒78 BP, PSUAMS-2295, corrected for Freshwater Reservoir Effect) Iron_Gates_HG Serbia I2
I4916 7035-6590 calBCE (7874▒72 BP, PSUAMS-2369, corrected for Freshwater Reservoir Effect) Iron_Gates_HG Serbia R1b1a(xR1b1a1,xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)
I5411 7000-6300 BCE Iron_Gates_HG Romania R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)
I4881 6570-6255 calBCE (7570▒63 BP, PSUAMS-2385, corrected for Freshwater Reservoir Effect) Iron_Gates_HG Serbia I2a2a1b2
I5771 6500-6250 calBCE Iron_Gates_HG Serbia I
I5402 6361-6050 calBCE (7315▒63 BP, OxA-16942, corrected for Freshwater Reservoir Effect) Iron_Gates_HG Serbia I2a2a1b
I4914 6355-5990 calBCE (7264▒80 BP, OxA-16941, on Burial 20 - skull] Iron_Gates_HG Serbia I2a2a1b2
I4915 6340-5990 calBCE (7260▒76 BP, PSUAMS-2360, corrected for Freshwater Reservoir Effect) Iron_Gates_HG Serbia I2a2
I4666 6222-5912 calBCE (7179▒73 BP, OxA-25211, corrected for Freshwater Reservoir Effect) Lepenski_Vir Serbia R1b1a
I4882 6200-5900 BCE Iron_Gates_HG_brother_of_I4880 Serbia I2a2a1b
I5232 6061-5841 calBCE (7078▒85 BP, AA-57769, corrected for Freshwater Reservoir Effect) Iron_Gates_HG_outlier Serbia R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)
I0706 6022-5887 calBCE (7075▒37 BP, OxA-32777) Balkans_Dzhulyunitsa_Neolithic Bulgaria C
I3948 6005-5814 calBCE (7030▒40 BP, PSUAMS-2224) Croatia_Cardial_Neolithic Croatia E1b1b1a1b1
I0698 6000-5900 BCE Bulgaria_Neolithic Bulgaria G2a2a1a2a
I4880 6000-5725 calBCE (6979▒75 BP, PSUAMS-2384, corrected for Freshwater Reservoir Effect) Iron_Gates_HG Serbia I2a2a1b2
I5408 6000-5000 BCE Iron_Gates_HG Romania R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)
I4878 5995-5710 calBCE (6955▒76 BP, PSUAMS-2383, corrected for Freshwater Reservoir Effect) Iron_Gates_HG Serbia I2a2a
I3947 5986-5786 calBCE (7000▒40 BP, PSUAMS-2223) Croatia_Cardial_Neolithic Croatia C1a2
I3498 5837-5659 calBCE (6850▒40, Poz-90129) Starcevo_EN Croatia C
I0700 5800-5400 calBCE Balkans_MP_Neolithic_1d_rel_I1108 Bulgaria T1a1a
I1108 5800-5400 BCE Balkans_MP_Neolithic Bulgaria T1a1
I1295 5800-5400 BCE Balkans_MP_Neolithic Bulgaria G2a2b2a
I1296 5800-5400 BCE Balkans_MP_Neolithic Bulgaria C
I3879 5800-5400 BCE Balkans_MP_Neolithic Bulgaria G2a2b2a
I1507 5780-5640 calBCE (6835▒34 BP, OxA-23757) Koros_Hungary_EN_HG Hungary I2a1
I2529 5726-5575 calBCE (6750▒40 BP, Poz-81117) Bulgaria_Neolithic Bulgaria I2a2
I2532 5715-5626 calBCE (6755▒30 BP, PSUAMS-1747) Romania_EN Romania G2a2b2b
I0174 5702-5536 calBCE (6695▒40BP, MAMS-11939 ) Starcevo_EN Hungary H2
I5072 5641-5560 calBCE (6685▒20 BP, UCIAMS-174935) Croatia_Impressa_EN Croatia G2a2a1
I2521 5619-5491 calBCE (6615▒30 BP, PSUAMS-1836) Bulgaria_Neolithic Bulgaria G2a2b2b1a
I0633 5604-5376 calBCE (6520▒40 BP, Poz-82186) Balkans_Neolithic Serbia G2a2a1
I1496 5211-4992 calBCE (6135▒33 BP, MAMS-14821) LBK_Hungary_MN Hungary C1a2
I1500 5210-4990 calBCE (6164▒64 BP,OxA-23763) ALPc_MN Hungary C1a2
I5077 5207-4945 calBCE (6110▒25BP, PSUAMS-2691) Sopot_MN Croatia G2a2a1
I4167 4790-4558 calBCE (5830▒40 BP, Poz-90127) Sopot_LN Croatia I
I2431 4725-4605 calBCE (5820▒30 BP, Beta-432807) Bulgaria_Middle_Chalcolithic Bulgaria G2a2b2a1a1c1a
ANI159-ANI181 4711-4530 calBCE (5766▒36 BP, OxA 13848) Bulgaria_Varna_Eneolithic2 Bulgaria G2a2b2b
I0634 4710-4504 calBCE (5760▒40 BP, Poz-82185) Balkans_Neolithic Serbia G2a2a1a
I5078 4692-4546 calBCE (5770▒25BP, PSUAMS-2615) Sopot_MN Croatia J2a1
ANI160 4685-4499 calBCE (5735▒31 BP, OxA-24041) Bulgaria_Varna_Eneolithic2 Bulgaria G2
ANI152 4683-4406 calBCE [4683-4488 calBCE (5720▒29 BP, OxA-13685), 4550-4406 calBCE (5662▒27 BP, MAMS-15095)] Bulgaria_Varna_Eneolithic1 Bulgaria CT
I1131 4605-4460 calBCE (5700▒30 BP, Beta-432798) Balkans_Neolithic Serbia G2a2a1a
ANI153 4551-4374 calBCE (5657▒30 BP, OxA-13692) Bulgaria_Varna_Eneolithic1 Bulgaria R1
I2181 4550-4455 calBCE (5680▒30 BP, Beta-432803) Bulgaria_Late_Chalcolithic1 Bulgaria R
I2430 4545-4450 calBCE (5670▒30 BP, Beta-432806) Bulgaria_Late_Chalcolithic Bulgaria R1b1a
I1495 4491-4357 calBCE (5598▒32 BP, MAMS-14819) Lengyel_LN Hungary I2a1
I2426 4450-4264 calBCE (5500▒40 BP, Poz-83501) Bulgaria_Late_Chalcolithic2 Bulgaria CT
Klei10.SG 4230-3995 calBCE (5559▒22 BP, MAMS-23038) Northern_Greece_Final_Neolithic.SG Greece G2a2a1a2
I4089 3761-3645 calBCE (4915▒25 BP, PSUAMS-1746) Romania_Chalcolithic Romania C1a2a
Bul6 3400-1600 BCE Bulgaria_Beli_Breyag_EBA Bulgaria I2a2
Bul8 3400-1600 BCE Bulgaria_Beli_Breyag_EBA Bulgaria I
I2176 3338-3025 calBCE (4470▒30 BP, Ly-5516) Bulgaria_EBA Bulgaria I2a2a1b
I2520 3336-3028 calBCE (4470▒25 BP, PSUAMS-1814) Bulgaria_BA Bulgaria H2
I2175 3328-3015 calBCE (4445▒35 BP, Ly-5515) Bulgaria_EBA Bulgaria I2a2a1b1
I2165 3020-2895 calBCE (4340▒30 BP, Beta-432797) Bulgaria_EBA Bulgaria I2a2a1b1b
Bul4 3012-2900 calBCE (4333▒20 BP, MAMS-26834) Yamnaya_Bulgaria_outlier Bulgaria I2a2a1b1b
I2510 2906-2710 calBCE (4235▒25 BP, PSUAMS-1815) Bulgaria_BA Bulgaria G2a2a1a2
I3499 2884-2666 calBCE (4176▒28 BP, BRAMS-1304) Croatia_Vucedol Croatia R1b1a1a2a2
Vestonice16 28760-27360 BCE [28634-27458 calBCE (GrN-15277: 25740▒210 BP); 28586-27086 calBCE (25570▒280, GrN-15276); layer date] Vestonice16 Czech C1a2
I2792 2872-2582 calBCE (4130▒35 BP, Poz-90126) Croatia_Vucedol Croatia G2a2a1a2a
I0070 2400-1700 BCE Minoan_Lasithi Greece J2a1d
I0073 2400-1700 BCE Minoan_Lasithi Greece J2a1
I9130 2210-1680 BCE (based on four direct dates of skeletons in the same ossuary) Minoan_Odigitria Greece G2a2b2a
RISE254.SG 2128-1909 calBCE (3631▒29 BP, OxA-29842) Vatya.SG Hungary I
RISE479.SG 2000-1500 BCE Vatya.SG Hungary I2a2a1a2a
RISE374.SG 1866-1619 calBCE (3402▒34 BP, OxA-30989) Maros.SG Hungary G2a2a1a2a
I2163 1750-1625 calBCE (3400▒30 BP, Beta-432796) Bulgaria_MLBA Bulgaria R1a1a1b2
RISE247.SG 1746-1611 calBCE (3372▒29 BP, OxA-29769) Vatya.SG Hungary I2a2a1
I4331 1631-1521 calBCE (3305▒20 BP, PSUAMS-2257) Croatia_EMBA Croatia J2b2a
I1504 Hungary_LBA Hungary J2a1




Could you provide any source where Copper Age individual(s) in question are called Berbers?
They didn't call him Berber but, his auDNA and Y-DNA are very telling.



My guess is they (L618 dudes) initially spoke whatever language was spoken by Capsians, later in the Balkans they probably adopted language of the Early European Farmers.
So Eastern Berber.

Govan
03-16-2019, 04:52 PM
You guys are taking the claims of this Afrocentrist troll very at heart. Or you haven't realized he is trolling.

Shamayim
03-16-2019, 05:12 PM
Again baseless and uninformed claims. E-L618 was found in a sample from the Lengyel culture of Hungary as well as E-M78 being found in the Sopot culture of Hungary. Not only that but we also have a E-M78 sample from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. Neolithic Balkans was dominated by G2a, this has been well established. You are basing the J2a Bronze Age part on Mycenaean samples and Minoan samples, but you shouldn't claim the whole area was J2a because of a handful of samples from two nearby areas. R-Z93, J-L283, R-Z2103 etc all have been found in the Bronze Age Balkans. The claim that Iron Age Balkans was N is just senseless.

My mistake then. These were dead end tho.
29405


Yes the facts do speak for themselves and they go against everything you have said so far. E-V13 is virtually non-existent in North Africa in terms of frequency, diversity and ancient samples. The Roman samples you posted are still from Iberia and not the Italian peninsula, you shouldn't be claiming them as the perfect example of Romans. Same goes for the "Greeks".

These Greeks plot close to Mycenaeans and are 100% J.


Taforalt itself was E-M78, not L618. However, the samples from Ifri n'Amr o'Moussa(Early Neolithic Morocco) tested as E-L19 and E-M183* https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...1699999952&z=4, http://www.open-genomes.org/analysis...6.01_tree.html. V13 wasn't spread by Berber colonist, this is an extremely baseless theory that makes no sense whatsoever. V13 was tested among Bronze Age and Iron Age Europeans btw, the Thracian and Scythian are such examples.

TAF009 carried E-L618. IAM may have carried E-L19 (not E-M183) but it isn't certain. The claim that E-V13 was present among Thracians originated from Genetiker, not from a peer-reviewed study. E-Y31991 was tested among Scythians not E-V13.



Sample ID mtDNA Y-DNA
TAF009 U6a6b E1b1b1a1b1 (E-L618)
TAF010 U6a7b E1b1b1a1 (E-M78)
TAF011 U6a7 E1b1b1a1 (E-M78)
TAF012 U6a7 N/A
TAF013 U6a7b E1b1b1a1 (E-M78)
TAF014 M1b E1b1b1a1 (E-M78)
TAF015 U6a1b E1b1b (E-M215)




Within the E-M35 cluster (branch 593), sample IAM.4 is only derived for branch 558 (Figure S5.6). This branch of the tree comprises E-L19 (542 branch) and E-M183 (557 branch) samples. As we also have some information on derived branches from 558, it seems IAM.4 does not cluster with either 542 or 557. A similar result is observed for IAM.5 (Figure S5.7), but in this case one out of 30 SNP intersected within 557 branch is derived. Although, we do not have enough information to be certain, this result could mean that IAM.5 (and maybe IAM.4) belong to a Y-chromosome lineage that is ancestral to the 557 branch, which comprises the North African E-M81 haplogroup. This scenario is plausible as E-M81, and its main clade E-M183, are younger than IAM samples (2,000 – 3,000 years ago)91,92.

Kelmendasi
03-16-2019, 05:25 PM
My mistake then. These were dead end tho.
29405


These Greeks plot close to Mycenaeans and are 100% J.


TAF009 carried E-L618. IAM may have carried E-L19 (not E-M183) but it isn't certain. The claim that E-V13 was present among Thracians originated from Genetiker, not from a peer-reviewed study. E-Y31991 was tested among Scythians not E-V13.
Look, you are arguing against all the facts(frequency, diversity, basal clades etc), making claims that are just not backed up by anything apart from your personal biases/opinions. It really isn't worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter, to argue something which has already been proven to someone that is just not willing to look at the facts and put aside biases. The Glinoe Scythian was E-V13, CTS5856 in fact https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=42.98658034944763%2C38.07958607499995&z=4.

Shamayim
03-16-2019, 05:29 PM
Look, you are arguing against all the facts(frequency, diversity, basal clades etc), making claims that are just not backed up by anything apart from your personal biases/opinions. It really isn't worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter, to argue something which has already been proven to someone that is just not willing to look at the facts and put aside biases. The Glinoe Scythian was E-V13, CTS5856 in fact https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1R_jpaS0H5UqKinPpJc7b3PWqyCI&ll=42.98658034944763%2C38.07958607499995&z=4.

A Scythian in 2800 BC? Indo-Iranian did not even exist back then, E-CTS1273 wasn't even formed in fact. You Eurocentrists are insane.

Kelmendasi
03-16-2019, 05:33 PM
A Scythian in 2800 BC? Indo-Iranian did not even exist back then, E-CTS1273 wasn't even formed in fact. You Eurocentrists are insane.
It was clearly said that the date is unreliable, the paper itself mentioned this. Weĺre just pulling up the facts, you can carry on making outlandish claims, facts still remain facts.

NetNomad
03-16-2019, 05:59 PM
E-V13 didn't come out the sky, it came from North African men further down the line.

Pribislav
03-16-2019, 06:00 PM
Truely, i should rely on amateur(ish) sources, like you eurocentrists, instead of peer-reviewed studies.

Let's imagine, just for one second, that your delusions are real i.e. E-V13 being "European". E-L618, found among 15,000 year old TAF009, would still be African. It doesn't matter how hard you try, E-V13 would still be downstream of the Berber haplogroup E-L618.

TAF009 wasn't L618, in fact he wasn't even a "proper" M78, as he was ancestral for at least 4 SNPs on M78 level (FGC2113, FGC2126/S14609, CTS4138 and PF2192). Every L618 sample should by definition be derived for all covered SNPs on M78 level.

Shamayim
03-16-2019, 06:04 PM
You're not an amorite. Just wanna point that out.
Ancient historians claim otherwise.


It is inhabited by the barbarian Moors, a Phoenician race. Here too is a city, Cidame by name ; and in it live Moors who have been at peace with the Romans from ancient times.


For which reason our peasants, when asked what they are, [and] replying in Phoenician ‘Chanani’ , with one letter corrupted of course, as is usual in such cases, what else arethey replying but ‘Chananaei’?


The Berbers are the descendants of Barbar, the son of Tamalla, the son of Mazigh, the son of Canaan, the son of Ham, the son of Noah

NetNomad
03-16-2019, 06:10 PM
E-V22 is E-V13's closest major brother clade. What's so wrong about mentioning their relationship on an anthropology forum?

Shamayim
03-16-2019, 06:56 PM
I did not compare E-V22 and E-V13. I stated that "the only subclade of E-M78 found among Romans was E-V22", which is a fact.

Tz85
03-16-2019, 08:48 PM
I did not compare E-V22 and E-V13. I stated that "the only subclade of E-M78 found among Romans was E-V22", which is a fact.

The fact is E-V13 originated Europe. Stating otherwise, you've lost all credibility.

Tz85
03-16-2019, 08:50 PM
E-V13 didn't come out the sky, it came from North African men further down the line.

Firstly, I'm not E-V13, I'm E-V12*, which is almost exclusively Egyptian. Secondly, If I was ashamed of that, I wouldn't have it listed. Not very bright I see.

Tz85
03-16-2019, 08:52 PM
Ancient historians claim otherwise.

This proves nothing, and has nothing to do with you being an Amorite, which you're not.

Kelmendasi
03-16-2019, 09:19 PM
Let's imagine, just for one second, that your delusions are real i.e. E-V13 being "European". E-L618, found among 15,000 year old TAF009, would still be African. It doesn't matter how hard you try, E-V13 would still be downstream of the Berber haplogroup E-L618.
This is the last time I am replying to you. Those "amateur" sources, such as Genetiker, use the same analysis which is used in Yfull and other Y-SNP/Y-STR tests, I guess all of them are inaccurate then going by your logic. Those "amateur" sources corrected false Y-DNA assignments from peer-reviewed studies, such an example is the Scythian paper which was full with incorrect Y-DNA assignments, even the authors of the paper acknowledge it.

E-V13 is called "European" because it's most likely place of origin is in Europe based on all current studies and analysis(here's an example of a paper that claims this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4005757/). It reaches it's highest diversity in the Balkans, a region of Europe which is full of basal groups of E-V13 as well as ancient E samples being found in and around the Balkans since the Neolithic. Though certain studies point to Anatolia based on diversity, Cruciani et al. 2007. The presence of V13 in Europe since the Neolithic was confirmed by the V13 sample from northern Spain. L618 classification of TAF009 is dubious as Pribislav pointed out. Sure the ancestor of V13 came from northern Africa, that isn't a problem. The problem is that you are spreading false information such as V13 being spread in Europe by recent Berber invasions and that it is a "major Berber lineage" when in fact it is virtually non-existent among them.

Govan
03-16-2019, 09:32 PM
Ancient historians claim otherwise.

Yeah Romans didn't really make the difference between Berbers and Phoenicians. They call North Africans indiscriminately Punics, Numidos, Libyans, Africanus etc

Fact 1 : most Western Phoenicians were pretty much North African Berber-derived, as shown in the Iberian paper where the people from Phoenician areas show yDNA J2 (typical of Lebanese, Levantines) but a very Maghreb-shifted genetic profile. Same in Ibiza (Autosomally-wise). Western Phoenicians were also absorbing Sicilians, Greek Sicilians and Iberians along the way. They were mixed.

2- Carthaginians were also Berber-Phoenician mixes, with the Berber side dominant. Some of their descandants further mixed around Tunis called themselves Chanaani without knowing where Canaan even lies on the world map. Other Berbers kept the tradition of pretending their ancestor came from 'Canaan' to the Arabs. Again without knowing what Canaan is. Now Phoenician ancestry, if there is, is pretty much widespread around but small.



Of course talking about White and Black Temehu / Libu. Black people in NW Africa before the arrival of 'Ayrabs' and 'Phoenician' is generally typical of Afrocentrists from some powerful country or I know nothing..:biggrin1:

NetNomad
03-16-2019, 09:36 PM
Firstly, I'm not E-V13, I'm E-V12*, which is almost exclusively Egyptian. Secondly, If I was ashamed of that, I wouldn't have it listed. Not very bright I see.

Again, you are sperging, nowhere did I claim that you are E-V13.

Shamayim
03-16-2019, 09:43 PM
This proves nothing, and has nothing to do with you being an Amorite, which you're not.

This thread (see the first post), until you hijacked it with your insecurities, was about the Canaanite origin of E-M183, my haplogroup.


The fact is E-V13 originated Europe. Stating otherwise, you've lost all credibility.

Concerning E-V22, I mentioned it two times ITT. The first time was when Palamedes mentioned the "4.2 kiloyear event", i argued that it wasn't related to E-M183's MRCA because E-V22 and E-M123 weren't affected by this event. The second time was when i mentioned that E-V13 was absent among Romans, and that the only subclade of E-M78 found among them was E-V22. I never emitted a judgment on E-V22's origin nor did I compare it to E-V13.[/B]

Govan
03-16-2019, 09:47 PM
This is the last time I am replying to you. Those "amateur" sources, such as Genetiker, use the same analysis which is used in Yfull and other Y-SNP/Y-STR tests, I guess all of them are inaccurate then going by your logic. Those "amateur" sources corrected false Y-DNA assignments from peer-reviewed studies, such an example is the Scythian paper which was full with incorrect Y-DNA assignments, even the authors of the paper acknowledge it.

E-V13 is called "European" because it's most likely place of origin is in Europe based on all current studies and analysis(here's an example of a paper that claims this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4005757/). It reaches it's highest diversity in the Balkans, a region of Europe which is full of basal groups of E-V13 as well as ancient E samples being found in and around the Balkans since the Neolithic. Though certain studies point to Anatolia based on diversity, Cruciani et al. 2007. The presence of V13 in Europe since the Neolithic was confirmed by the V13 sample from northern Spain. L618 classification of TAF009 is dubious as Pribislav pointed out. Sure the ancestor of V13 came from northern Africa, that isn't a problem. The problem is that you are spreading false information such as V13 being spread in Europe by recent Berber invasions and that it is a "major Berber lineage" when in fact it is virtually non-existent among them.

He is basing off the Muslim people found in Al Andalus era Iberia.
They were genetically Berber and Berber-Iberian mixes. They carried EV13. The paper did NOT conclude anything on the origin of this EV13. In fact they left a wondering with probably the highest chance of EV13 being inherited via converted Iberian men, themselves even long time descandants of Greek settlers or Neolithic settlers or Romans. EV13 being brought by the Muslim troops is less likely, possible as Ev13 could still be found in North Africa but less likely.

That's all where the argument is about..

Johane Derite
03-16-2019, 09:56 PM
Eupedia user Aspurg knows the clades of Ev13 very well and has mapped out quite a bit of them and they most definitely were among thracians, illyrians and ancient greeks. I dont even understand when this supposed berber invasion was supposed to have happened to install ev13 so deeply into the balkans

Onur Dincer
03-16-2019, 10:01 PM
NO MORE AD HOMINEMS AT THIS THREAD, NEXT ONE WILL RESULT IN AN INFRACTION.

Agamemnon
03-16-2019, 10:28 PM
This has to be one of the most stupidifying thread in this forum

Believe it or not, I've seen worse.

Shamayim
03-16-2019, 10:46 PM
He is basing off the Muslim people found in Al Andalus era Iberia.
They were genetically Berber and Berber-Iberian mixes. They carried EV13. The paper did NOT conclude anything on the origin of this EV13. In fact they left a wondering with probably the highest chance of EV13 being inherited via converted Iberian men, themselves even long time descandants of Greek settlers or Neolithic settlers or Romans. EV13 being brought by the Muslim troops is less likely, possible as Ev13 could still be found in North Africa but less likely.

That's all where the argument is about..
I'm basing my views on Olalde et al. 2019. All E-carrying Iberians, be it from the Roman period or the Muslim period, carry an elevated amount of North African ancestry. Greek and Roman Iberians were J and R1b btw, so they weren't responsible for the spread of E-V13 to Iberia.


Yeah Romans didn't really make the difference between Berbers and Phoenicians. They call North Africans indiscriminately Punics, Numidos, Libyans, Africanus etc
The Greeks, the Romans and the Phoenicians distinguished the Λίβυοι/Lybici(Mazax/Mazices/Massyli)/LBM from the φοίνῑκες/Punici/KN'NM.


Fact 1 : most Western Phoenicians were pretty much North African Berber-derived, as shown in the Iberian paper where the people from Phoenician areas show yDNA J2 (typical of Lebanese, Levantines) but a very Maghreb-shifted genetic profile. Same in Ibiza (Autosomally-wise). Western Phoenicians were also absorbing Sicilians, Greek Sicilians and Iberians along the way.
Most Eastern "Phoenicians" were language shifters. The J2 individual had less Levantine ancestry than the E-M183 individual despite being older.


2- Carthaginians were also Berber-Phoenician mixes, with the Berber side dominant. Some of their descandants further mixed around Tunis called themselves Chanaani without knowing where Canaan even lies on the world map. Other Berbers kept the tradition of pretending their ancestor came from 'Canaan' to the Arabs. Again without knowing what Canaan is. Now Phoenician ancestry, if there is, is pretty much widespread around but small.
Not really. Berbers value their origin (as proven by the frequency of E-M81) so they faitfully recorded their ancestors' tradition. They are clearly conscious that they are made-up of two races: the sons of Mazigh (E-L19), son of Canaan (E-Z827) and the sons of Maghdis (E-V65). The Berber language is the language of the sons of Maghdis, the sons of Mazigh adopted it when they migrated there.


Of course talking about White and Black Temehu / Libu. Black looking people in NW Africa before the arrival of 'Ayrabs' and 'Phoenician' is generally typical of Afrocentrists from a some powerful country or I know nothing..
As a person carrying E-M183, i think that i have some legitimacy to talk about my haplogroup's origin without being labeled Afrocentrist. By "Black" i'm not talking about West African-like, but Somali-like obviously. Imo the original carriers of E-M78 looked like modern Somali, the fact that they plot near Taforalt is a good proof.

Edit:


Two derived allele variants in the SLC24A5 gene associated with predicting light-skin color in individuals with European and South Asian (Indian, Pakistani) ancestry are rs1426654 (derived state A, ancestral state G (94)) and rs16891982 (derived state G, ancestral state C (95)). Individuals with a homozygous derived state for both these SNPs have been found in early Neolithic populations (Anatolia, Europe) (16)). Our results show that these derived alleles are absent in the Taforalt individuals analyzed; all of them have a homozygous ancestral genotype for both SNPs. The derived mutation for rs12913832 in the OCA2 gene is associated with blue eye color. A homozygous derived allele state at this position is the dominant determinant of light eye color in present-day Europeans and occurs at 100% frequency in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (96, 97). Individuals with the ancestral allele A (homozygous or heterozygous) for this SNP show brown eye color 80% of the time (97). For all the Taforalt individuals we find a homozygous ancestral genotype GG, predictive of brown eye color. In addition, all individuals show the ancestral GG genotype for SNP rs12896399 located in the SLC24A4 gene, providing further support for dark eye pigmentation (93).

Lupriac
03-17-2019, 10:57 AM
Ancient historians claim otherwise.

Amorites never had a continuous settlement in North Africa. The Hyksos (who were mixed Levantines) settled in Egypt for some hundred years only to be kicked later by Ahmose. An Egyptian claim would be much more believable due to actual evidence, and perhaps the ancient J1 lineages in Egypt (xFGC12) can be traced to the Hyksos or Arabs crossing the desert during Roman times. Phoenicians have had minimal genetic impact as J2 makes up around 5% on the Tunisian coast, and very scarce in the regions of Morocco and Algeria. E-M81 is clearly Berber, and in fact I have a personal friend of me who was under E-M81 and this traces back to the reconquest of Iberia from the Muslims, and the migration of these Muslims to North Africa (back-migration) or Levant.

Missouri1455
03-17-2019, 02:08 PM
Does anyone have autosomal results or gedmatch kits of Capsian, IAM (Ifri n'Amr o'Moussa)?

E_M81_I3A
03-17-2019, 02:20 PM
IAM 5 : DX6002255

Shamayim
03-17-2019, 02:50 PM
Amorites never had a continuous settlement in North Africa. The Hyksos (who were mixed Levantines) settled in Egypt for some hundred years only to be kicked later by Ahmose. An Egyptian claim would be much more believable due to actual evidence, and perhaps the ancient J1 lineages in Egypt (xFGC12) can be traced to the Hyksos or Arabs crossing the desert during Roman times. Phoenicians have had minimal genetic impact as J2 makes up around 5% on the Tunisian coast, and very scarce in the regions of Morocco and Algeria. E-M81 is clearly Berber, and in fact I have a personal friend of me who was under E-M81 and this traces back to the reconquest of Iberia from the Muslims, and the migration of these Muslims to North Africa (back-migration) or Levant.

J1 peaks in Southern Egypt and Nubia where Amorites never settled, E-M81 on the other hand peaks in Northern Egypt where Amorites settled. J2 in Tunisia derives from Greeks and Romans , Tunisia was the most colonized heavily colonized by Romans. J1 and J2 haplogroup aren't Afroasiatic (E-M215) or Canaanite (E-Z827) markers, J1 and J2 peak among Caucasian speakers.



Northern Egyptians E1b1b1b (M81) 11.4%/J1 9.1%
Southern Egyptians E1b1b1b (M81) 6.9%/J1 20.7%


Amorites heavily settled Morocco where they founded the city of (New) Lachish (unproperly transliterated as Lixus) and many (300 according to Greek sources) other cities. The Romans were simply unable to distinguish between Amorites and Phoenicians. E-M81 is inexistant among prehistoric North Africans and Guanches had the same amount of E-M78 and E-M81. E-M81 is clearly intrusive.



Lachish (Masoretic Text [MT] Lkyš, Septuagint Λαχειs)1 is first mentioned in an Egyptian papyrus of the latter part of the 18th Dynasty (Helck 1971:164). The toponym is spelled uruLa-ki-ša in two el-Amarna letters which were sent from Lachish (Knudtzon 1915:328, 5; 329, 6). uruLa-ki-ši is recorded in another el- Amarna letter which was sent by Abdi-Aštarti, the ruler of an unidentified town somewhere in the southern Shephelah south of Gezer and north of Lachish (see Na’aman 1979:677). L[a-k]i-siki is recorded in an el- Amarna letter from Jerusalem (Knudtzon 1915:288, 43; for the rendering of the sibilants see Rainey 1996: 16-18). Neo-Assyrian La-ki-su (Luckenbill 1924:156, 25, 3) shows the expected <s> for West Semitic /š/.
For discussion and references see Weippert 1980-83. A contemporary onomastic parallel for the name is, on the face of it, the Old Babylonian anthroponym La-ki-su-[u]m from Ur (before 1720 BCE; Figulla 1953:685, 28; on the text see Leemans 1960:170ff.), which is classified as Amorite by Gelb et al. (1980:314, s.v. LKŠ). However, this name is not included in the comprehensive collection of Amorite non-compound names in Old Babylonian sources (Streck 2000).2
...
However, Lachish may have a Northwest Semitic derivation, namely from L-K-Š ‘to burn, to set on fire’. Samaritan Aramaic tlkš (G, qal imperfect 2nd singular masculine) renders biblical Hebrew tlh‹ in Deut. 32:22, and Samaritan Aramaic lkš (a masculine noun) translates biblical Hebrew lhb ‘flame’ in Gen. 3:24. Samaritan Aramaic also has lkwš ‘burning’ (cf. Tal 2000:439f.). Therefore it is possible to regard lākţš ( < *lakīš as a qatīl formation of L-K-Š ‘to burn, to set on fire’, in which case it would be a passive participle (for qatil passive participles in Amorite see Streck 2000:330, 5, 27),3 i.e. ‘the burnt (place)’ or similar. Lachish is linguistically related to the name of the North African Phoenician colony lkš = Latin Lixus (originally a qutl formation).4 The Canaanite derivation of the latter is reasonable. Middle Hebrew lkš (Mishna Sabbath II, 1:10) = Aramaic lwgš<, Talmud Yerushalmi Sabbath 4c (16) lgwš (det. lwgš<), Christian Palestinian Aramaic lwkš< (see Jacob 1901:140f.) denoting ‘pine-needle wool, wick made of pine wool’ (mainly Pinus halapensis; see L÷w 1924:45; A.M. Honeyman in Lachish IV: 37) and used as a burning material, the nominal formation of which is qutl in view of the Aramaic form. The word is also recorded in Phoenicia: ‘lochs’ /loḫs?/, an ancient survival in Lebanese Arabic (recorded near Btaddīn), denotes pine wood which is richest in resin (see L÷w 1924:45f.).

NetNomad
03-17-2019, 02:58 PM
J1 and J2 haplogroup aren't Afroasiatic

As well as R-V88 and T1a. They became Afro-Asiatic through adoption and integration rather than being originally it.

Tz85
03-17-2019, 04:41 PM
Egypt is dominated by E.

Undifferentiated E-V12* lineages (not E-V32 or E-M224, so therefore named "E-V12*") peak in frequency among Southern Egyptians (up to 74.5%).[19]

Beniamino Trombetta (2015). "Phylogeographic refinement and large scale genotyping of human Y chromosome haplogroup E provide new insights into the dispersal of early pastoralists in the African continent"

Lupriac
03-17-2019, 06:16 PM
J1 peaks in Southern Egypt and Nubia where Amorites never settled, E-M81 on the other hand peaks in Northern Egypt where Amorites settled. J2 in Tunisia derives from Greeks and Romans , Tunisia was the most colonized heavily colonized by Romans. J1 and J2 haplogroup aren't Afroasiatic (E-M215) or Canaanite (E-Z827) markers, J1 and J2 peak among Caucasian speakers.
In Northern Egypt lies Siwa Oasis which houses the Berber community of Egypt:

The traditional culture of Siwa shows many features unusual in Egypt, some reflecting its longstanding links with the Maghreb and the fact that the inhabitants are of Berber origin.

E-M183 comes from E-Z827 along E-Z830, they probably emerged around the red sea region.
J1 and J2 were major participants in the spread of Semitic languages and we have samples from the bronze age that prove so. E-Z827 is not a "Canaanite" marker, because Canaanite languages were not yet existent some 20,000 years, and haplogroups are too old to be related to a spread of a language. perhaps one can link E-M34 with the Canaanite ancestry because they somewhat coincide in the same time. Not to forget that proto-Semites were not exclusively E-M34 as they also carried lineages remarkably J1-P58+, J2 (J2a and J2b), T1a and G2a. They might have minor lineages too like L1b, R-V88 and E-V12.

Amorites were of Levantine ancestry, they inhabited Syria (Western modern-Syria and Northern/Eastern Lebanon regions) however they were not canaanite although it might be disputed.

Shamayim
03-21-2019, 06:08 PM
No E-V13 in Bronze Age Greece
No E-V13 in Bronze Age Iberia
No E-V13 in Bronze Age Italy

That's the final nail in the coffin. E-V13 is clearly a recent arrival from North Africa. Its original carriers were Proto-Berbers (True Berbers). Canaan was more densely populated, so these Amorites peacefully outbred the original inhabitants who under strong demographic pressure had no choice but to move out. These Proto-Berbers were themselves quite lucky so they outbred the IEs in the Balkans, and and took over a few parts of Southern Europe.

hartaisarlag
03-21-2019, 06:10 PM
No E-V13 in Bronze Age Greece
No E-V13 in Bronze Age Iberia
No E-V13 in Bronze Age Italy

That's the final nail in the coffin. E-V13 is clearly a recent arrival from North Africa. Its original carriers were Proto-Berbers (True Berbers). Canaan was more densely populated, so these Amorites peacefully outbred the original inhabitants who under strong demographic pressure had no choice but to move out. These Proto-Berbers were themselves quite lucky so they outbred the IEs in the Balkans, and and took over a few part of Southern Europe.

Where is there any speck of evidence for Berbers in the Balkans?

Ruderico
03-21-2019, 06:11 PM
That's the final nail in the coffin. E-V13 is clearly a recent arrival from North Africa. Its original carriers were Proto-Berbers (True Berbers). Canaan was more densely populated, so these Amorites peacefully outbred the original inhabitants who under strong demographic pressure had no choice but to move out. These Proto-Berbers were themselves quite lucky so they outbred the IEs in the Balkans, and and took over a few part of Southern Europe.

Yeah, which is why the Balkans is so full of North African ancestry.

Shamayim
03-21-2019, 06:27 PM
Where is there any speck of evidence for Berbers in the Balkans?

The forefather of the Danaans was said to be a king of Libya.


In Greek mythology, Danaus (/ˈdŠniəs/; Ancient Greek: Δαναός Danaˇs) was the king of Libya. His myth is a foundation legend (or re-foundation legend) of Argos, one of the foremost Mycenaean cities of the Peloponnesus. In Homer's Iliad, "Danaans" ("tribe of Danaus") and "Argives" commonly designate the Greek forces opposed to the Trojans.

Pribislav
03-21-2019, 06:46 PM
No E-V13 in Bronze Age Greece
No E-V13 in Bronze Age Iberia
No E-V13 in Bronze Age Italy

That's the final nail in the coffin. E-V13 is clearly a recent arrival from North Africa. Its original carriers were Proto-Berbers (True Berbers). Canaan was more densely populated, so these Amorites peacefully outbred the original inhabitants who under strong demographic pressure had no choice but to move out. These Proto-Berbers were themselves quite lucky so they outbred the IEs in the Balkans, and and took over a few parts of Southern Europe.

Which E-V13 subclades are present among Berbers?

Johane Derite
03-21-2019, 06:57 PM
No E-V13 in Bronze Age Greece
No E-V13 in Bronze Age Iberia
No E-V13 in Bronze Age Italy

That's the final nail in the coffin. E-V13 is clearly a recent arrival from North Africa. Its original carriers were Proto-Berbers (True Berbers). Canaan was more densely populated, so these Amorites peacefully outbred the original inhabitants who under strong demographic pressure had no choice but to move out. These Proto-Berbers were themselves quite lucky so they outbred the IEs in the Balkans, and and took over a few parts of Southern Europe.

Except it is not, the phylogeny alone is enough to see that it was among thracians, illyrians, and greeks. You keep spamming this with no actual support and only negative evidence.

Also, a glaring problem in your theory is the lack of any north african languages in the balkans lol, there is no substrate even of such things

Megalophias
03-21-2019, 07:07 PM
I checked Trombetta and D'Atanasio, but sadly they didn't bother to sequence the one case of Berber E-V13 (1/442, 0.2%).

Oh sorry I suppose those are Amorites who mysteriously speak Berber.

Pribislav
03-21-2019, 07:21 PM
Which E-V13 subclades are present among Berbers?


None. Modern "Berbers" are Amorites.

Speaking of the final nail in the coffin, but not the coffin you expected...

Kelmendasi
03-21-2019, 07:32 PM
Yeah, which is why the Balkans is so full of North African ancestry.
The guy has set up accounts on other forums where he has put his ethnicity as "Black Hebrew", it's in our best interests to not argue with such a person lol

Shamayim
03-22-2019, 12:55 AM
I am aware of E-V13's phylogeny, it formed during the Neolithic and its MRCA date back to the Bronze Age. Most of the subclades under E-CTS1273 also date back to the Bronze Age, indicating an expansion during this period. The problem is that it wasn't found among Bronze Age Europeans, thus, it must have come from somewhere else. Since an Indo-European origin is unlikely, only North Africa is left. A North African origin is corroborated by the fact that it peaks in the Peloponnese where Libyans settled.

According to Greek sources, Libya was the grandmother of Danaus and Aegyptus. Danaus and his 50 daughters ran way from Aegyptus and his 50 sons, they fled to Argos pursued by Aegptus and his sons. Although most of Aegyptus' sons were killed, Danaus, Aegyptus and one of his sons did settle in Greece. Danaans (sons of Danaus) is one of the names of the Achaeans in the Illiad. I'm not saying that this legend is true but, it attest that there was a powerful migration from Libya. Furthermore, Herodotus also attests that some Greek customs are derived from Libyans.



The rites which the wandering Libyans use in sacrificing are the following. They begin with the ear of the victim, which they cut off and throw over their house: this done, they kill the animal by twisting the neck. They sacrifice to the Sun and Moon, but not to any other god. This worship is common to all the Libyans. The inhabitants of the parts about Lake Tritonis worship in addition Triton, Neptune, and Minerva, the last especially. The dress wherewith Minerva's statues are adorned, and her Aegis, were derived by the Greeks from the women of Libya. For, except that the garments of the Libyan women are of leather, and their fringes made of leathern thongs instead of serpents, in all else the dress of both is exactly alike. The name too itself shows that the mode of dressing the Pallas-statues came from Libya. For the Libyan women wear over their dress stripped of the hair, fringed at their edges, and colored with vermilion; and from these goat-skins the Greeks get their word Aegis (goat-harness). I think for my part that the loud cries uttered in our sacred rites came also from thence; for the Libyan women are greatly given to such cries and utter them very sweetly. Likewise the Greeks learnt from the Libyans to yoke four horses to a chariot.

Moderator
03-22-2019, 01:10 AM
This thread has been cleaned up and re-opened, and will continue to be monitored. This is a general warning to everyone to please remain civil as per the Terms of Service.

Thanks.

Lupriac
03-24-2019, 11:44 AM
Since an Indo-European origin is unlikely

The eastern advance of the Corded Ware culture eventually gave rise to the Sintashta culture in the Ural region, which is the ancestral culture of the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-Europeans. E-V13's presence in this culture would explain why modern Iranians and Kurds possess E-V13, in addition to R1a-Z93 and R1b-Z2103. E-V13 has been found as far away as central Siberia, near the Altai, a region also known to have been settled by Bronze Age Indo-Europeans.


The geographic distribution of the six main branches show that E-V13 quickly spread to all parts of Europe, but was especially common in Central Europe. The only Bronze Age migration that could account for such a fast and far-reaching dispersal is that of the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Not saying it is already determined, but saying it's unlikely is wrong.

Shamayim
04-24-2019, 01:58 PM
Abdeli & Benhassine 2019 once again proved that the simplistic axiom "E-M81 = Berber" is wrong. Shawiya, like the Guanches, have almost as much E-M78 (74/218; 34.86%) as E-M81 (106/218; 48.62%). Some may use the Mozabites and Tuaregs as a counter-argument, but both populations migrated respectively from (Coastal) Algeria and Morocco during the Medieval period so they aren't representative of ancient Saharans, who, according to anthropologists, were black-skinned like Taforalt.

Farroukh
04-26-2019, 01:54 PM
Dear Shamayim,
The age of E-M81/M183 is Paleolithic 14 Kya, pre-ethnic times of mankind. We just can say E-M81 prevails among Berber people, but who knows where walking untested old branch carriers?

E_M81_I3A
10-18-2019, 05:09 PM
A recent paper about origin of the male lines of the Maghreb, including E-M81, by Wim Penninx, Independent Genetic Genealogy Researcher in Netherlands

The male lines of the Maghreb: Phoenicians, Carthage, Muslim conquest and Berbers:

https://www.academia.edu/39673436/The_male_lines_of_the_Maghreb_Phoenicians_Carthage _Muslim_conquest_and_Berbers

Pylsteen
10-18-2019, 05:32 PM
A recent paper about origin of the male lines of the Maghreb, including E-M81, by Wim Penninx (...)

A Phoenician origin is possible considering the age of E-M81; Penninx is wrong though by connecting the Berber languages directly to Phoenician.
I wonder whether Masinissa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masinissa) of the Numidians carried this haplogroup and may have been responsible in spreading it through his many sons.

Megalophias
10-18-2019, 11:36 PM
A recent paper about origin of the male lines of the Maghreb, including E-M81, by Wim Penninx, Independent Genetic Genealogy Researcher in Netherlands

The male lines of the Maghreb: Phoenicians, Carthage, Muslim conquest and Berbers:

https://www.academia.edu/39673436/The_male_lines_of_the_Maghreb_Phoenicians_Carthage _Muslim_conquest_and_Berbers
I'd give fair odds this guy is Shamayim. :P

Squad
11-08-2019, 06:50 AM
Some people really think m81 is phoenician? How ludicrous could it get, i bet the next theory is a chinese origin for m81. Seriously guy, stay on track dont make fools out of yourselves, pre-M81 was found in Morocco, I guess this has nothing to do with the fact that m81 looks maghrebian... please. Oh and v65 is also phoenician then, despite having the same tmrca as m81 and being almost absent from the near east too. Hmm yeah, a phoenician origin for both is very likely LOL

RagingBull
06-28-2020, 07:07 PM
38184
E-M81* has been found among Negev Bedouins.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-M81/

Lupriac
06-30-2020, 07:46 PM
38184
E-M81* has been found among Negev Bedouins.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-M81/

Expansion of E-M81 from the east is not in any way discarded as a theory of course, so there's that. Very interesting. There could be multiple scenarios for this, but granted this particular person is a bedouin it certainly is significant. But to say it's Amorite (as others have suggested) seems far-fetched at the moment.

I should remark as well that many Negev bedouins migrated from Egypt, Sinai especially. I wonder if basal E-M81 is found in Egypt.

RagingBull
07-02-2020, 03:44 AM
Expansion of E-M81 from the east is not in any way discarded as a theory of course, so there's that. Very interesting. There could be multiple scenarios for this, but granted this particular person is a bedouin it certainly is significant. But to say it's Amorite (as others have suggested) seems far-fetched at the moment.

I should remark as well that many Negev bedouins migrated from Egypt, Sinai especially. I wonder if basal E-M81 is found in Egypt.

I do not really believe in an Amorite origin either. The Southern District roughly encompasses the territory of the tribe of Simeon and the E-M81* MRCA is estimated to have lived between 1300 B.C.–200 B.C., it should be a Simeonite lineage rather than Amorite one. The subclades of E-M81 found in Egypt are E-SM001* (E-PF2546*?) and E-Z5009 (Morata et al. 2017), E-M81* hasn't been found in Egypt AFAIK.

Imesmouden
07-07-2020, 12:08 PM
38184
E-M81* has been found among Negev Bedouins.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-M81/

This bedouin has the highest north african admixture among all these bedouins,

btw E-M107 is found in mali and E-M165 in germany , so..

RagingBull
07-08-2020, 08:59 AM
This bedouin has the highest north african admixture among all these bedouins,

btw E-M107 is found in mali and E-M165 in germany , so..

Natufians were 20% North African, there's nothing suprising about him being partially North African.

Lupriac
07-08-2020, 07:01 PM
Semeonite? Israelite derived? This is exactly on par with the Amorite claim. Why are you particularly obsessed with claiming an origin in the Levant for E-M81?

Imesmouden
07-08-2020, 07:03 PM
Semeonite? Israelite derived? This is exactly on par with the Amorite claim. Why are you particularly obsessed with claiming an origin in the Levant for E-M81?

He is surely a middle eastern with e-m81

Imesmouden
07-08-2020, 07:09 PM
Expansion of E-M81 from the east is not in any way discarded as a theory of course, so there's that. Very interesting. There could be multiple scenarios for this, but granted this particular person is a bedouin it certainly is significant. But to say it's Amorite (as others have suggested) seems far-fetched at the moment.

I should remark as well that many Negev bedouins migrated from Egypt, Sinai especially. I wonder if basal E-M81 is found in Egypt.

also the moroccan sultan yaqub al mansur sent before a support to saladin with a huge number of berber troops , and a big amount of them stayed there in the levant (باب المغاربة) , and also the fatimid who controlled the levant for a long time their army was composed from berber soliders of kutama and huwara tribe

Lupriac
07-08-2020, 07:18 PM
He is surely a middle eastern with e-m81
Of course.


also the moroccan sultan yaqub al mansur sent before a support to saladin with a huge number of berber troops , and a big amount of them stayed there in the levant (باب المغاربة) , and also the fatimid who controlled the levant for a long time their army was composed from berber soliders of kutama and huwara tribe
Of course. These are historical facts. And there's also an E-M81 subclade (A5604) that seems to have a pre-Islamic presence in the Levant (specifically Lebanon nowadays), it's 2500 years old and has a TMRCA of 2200 ybp.

RagingBull
07-08-2020, 07:42 PM
you should first know the difference between berber and barbarian , and secondly let me remind you of IFRI N AMMAR it is 100% confirmed that it's belong to E-L19 and probably E-M81 , and this IAM is found in MOROCCO and not the middle east and it is +7000 years old

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcWHO4MWkAAcZsL?format=jpg&name=900x900

so yeah go cry somewhere else and accept the fact that you belong to a berber lineage

let me also remind you of E-M2* , https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-M2/

basing on your fantasies this haplogroup is a saudi one

Ted Kandell analyzed the IAM samples, they are E-M78.

38359
38360

Ancient genealogies are unanymous that Sanhadja and Masmuda are respectively from Himyar and Canaan. The root of the lineage is only foud in Negev. You belong to a Semitic lineage and no amount of colonial propaganda will change that.

38361

Imesmouden
07-08-2020, 08:04 PM
btw the negev sample is still under analysis so don't rush

RagingBull
07-08-2020, 08:26 PM
Double post

RagingBull
07-08-2020, 09:02 PM
No genetic studies support your claim that E-M81 originated in Mali or Germany. Arredi et al. 2004, Morata et al. 2017, Fregel et al. 2018 and Penninx 2019 all argue in favor of a Levantine origin.


https://i.ibb.co/MkXY5qX/Arredi-et-al-2004.png (https://ibb.co/3mJDYtJ)
https://i.ibb.co/cx8cb6L/Sol-Morata-et-al-2017.png (https://ibb.co/mSyCv98)
https://i.ibb.co/XkB9jp0/Fregel-et-al-2018.png (https://ibb.co/rfPgFM8)
https://i.ibb.co/0KkYGYV/Penninx-2019.png (https://ibb.co/ypDgQgB)

RagingBull
07-08-2020, 09:59 PM
E* and E1b1* were both found among Prehistoric Levantines.

38367

Megalophias
07-08-2020, 10:07 PM
E* and E1b1* were both found among Prehistoric Levantines.
What do you think E* means?

RagingBull
07-08-2020, 10:16 PM
What do you think E* means?
E* means that it is negative to the known downstream SNPs of E1, E2 and E3.

Megalophias
07-08-2020, 10:20 PM
E* means that it is negative to the known downstream SNPs of E1, E2 and E3.
So what ancient Levantine sample is E* or E1b1*? There are none on the list you showed.

RagingBull
07-08-2020, 10:30 PM
So what ancient Levantine sample is E* or E1b1*? There are none on the list you showed.
I1069 and I1414.

Are you claiming that Lazaridis is wrong? What are your evidence?

Megalophias
07-08-2020, 10:53 PM
Are you claiming that Lazaridis is wrong? What are your evidence?
Laziridis isn't wrong, I1414 is E*(xE2, E1a, E1b1a1a1c2c3b1, E1b1b1b1a1, E1b1b1b2b). That is not the same thing as E*(xE1, E2, E3). According to Kolgeh's Y SNP calls I1414 is probably E1b1b1b2-Z830.

Imesmouden
07-08-2020, 11:02 PM
They are natufians so it's normally they carry E haplogroup

final thing you get Ted to write a peer reviewed study refuting Fregel, Krahn & Tagankin? we look forward to it, until then IAM.5 is L19.

good luck

RagingBull
07-08-2020, 11:35 PM
I was wrong concerning I1414, but I1069 is negative to Z830 and M2, he cannot be downstream of P2 (E1b1).

Modern E-M81 carriers are descended from a man who lived in the Negev region between 1300 BC and 200 BC. Even if IAM.5 is E-L19, it is a dead end.

EDIT: IAM and E-L19 are Levantine according to Fregel. You're proving my point.

Megalophias
07-09-2020, 05:00 AM
How is I1069 negative for Z830? He is negative for E1b1a1-M2 and E1b1b1b1-L19. Among Kolgeh's calls there are 3 positive M215 levels SNPs and one negative L539 level SNP, so Z830 is the most likely branch for him as well.

Moderator
07-19-2020, 11:59 AM
This is a general warning for everyone here to not get involved in ad-hominem attacks and please be civil with your use of language. Else we will consider more sanctions here. Thanks. .

Granary
09-29-2020, 12:06 PM
I'd like to revive the thread to ask about the implications of the shallow depth of E-M183, if the last common ancestor of a lineage that is so widespread in North Africa dates to the pre-Roman Iron Age, what does it actually entail or how does it fit our understanding of the spread and diversification of Berber languages?

Are we looking at a hidden Genghis Khan event? Or a bottleneck? Or at a population explosion of one North African subgroup?

davit
09-29-2020, 12:40 PM
Also if the earliert North Africans are a mixture of ANA and Common West Eurasian does it mean the latter component is mostly female mediated given the dominance of ydna E in ancients and modern North Africans.

Granary
09-29-2020, 01:06 PM
Also if the earliert North Africans are a mixture of ANA and Common West Eurasian does it mean the latter component is mostly female mediated given the dominance of ydna E in ancients and modern North Africans.

Honestly this is not relevant to the discussion at hand. E M183 diversified after 1000 BCE, while the last Iberomaurusian lived at the latest 4 millennia prior.

RagingBull
09-30-2020, 08:01 PM
I'd like to revive the thread to ask about the implications of the shallow depth of E-M183, if the last common ancestor of a lineage that is so widespread in North Africa dates to the pre-Roman Iron Age, what does it actually entail or how does it fit our understanding of the spread and diversification of Berber languages?

Are we looking at a hidden Genghis Khan event? Or a bottleneck? Or at a population explosion of one North African subgroup?

Ancient North Africans/Berbers are E-M78, not E-M81. The North African sub-clades of E-M81 are very young and concentrated in Tunisia and in the coastal regions of North Africa, the areas most heavily settled by the Phoenicians.

We're looking at a "Conquest of Canaan"-type of scenario where the newcomers wiped out of the men, took the women, and pushed the few surviving Berbers down south to the Sahara.

Granary
09-30-2020, 09:34 PM
Ancient North Africans/Berbers are E-M78, not E-M81. The North African sub-clades of E-M81 are very young and concentrated in Tunisia and in the coastal regions of North Africa, the areas most heavily settled by the Phoenicians.

We're looking at a "Conquest of Canaan"-type of scenario where the newcomers wiped out of the men, took the women, and pushed the few surviving Berbers down south to the Sahara.
But then why did Berber survive so long? And why is E-M81 so common everywhere, far beyond the borders of Carthage? It's common in Saharawis, Mozabites, various Moroccans groups. I can understand the idea that it came from outside but it definitely was not spread by non-Berber speakers, otherwise why would Berber speakers today have so much of E-M81?

And obviously there is something else going on, how could the Carthaginian and Phoenician colonization spread the Y-DNA lineage of a single man that lived during this period? Was there a Phoenician Genghis Khan going around? I'm fairly sure Phoenician society doesn't lend itself to that very well.

Your theory is really to simplistic and doesn't get at the heart of the strangeness of the event, that is that one single man living in the Mediterranean iron age is the direct male ancestor of maybe half of all Berbers in all Berber ethnic groups alive today, this is crazy and it's too little to just say "it was from outside" by using merely the modern distribution of the lineage or even using the fact that it's closest clade is found in Negev Bedouins.

RagingBull
10-01-2020, 01:52 AM
But then why did Berber survive so long?
There's barely any evidence of Berbers (Mazices) in North Africa prior to the Arabs. The few sources that mention them, locate them in the Sahara, other sources mention that the Moors and the Garamantes who dominated most North Africa spoke Phoenician, and that their language was different from the "barbarian" nations of the Sahara.

I'd like to add that when the Arabs invaded North Africa they didn't fight against Berbers. They fought against the Jarawa, Madyuna, the Fazzaz, the Nafzawa, the Barghawata, the Bahlula, and the Ghiata, all of whom were "Judean" (Israelite) tribes according to Arab historians. The Barghawata is the most well known among these tribes and what Al Bakri has to say about them is very telling: they claimed to be descended from the tribe of Simeon, they refused to mix with Muslims i.e. Arabs & Berbers, and they fought genocidal wars against them to the point of wiping out entire towns.

And let's not forget that the Berbers themselves claimed until recently (and some still do today) to be Himyarite Arabs, so if there's a Berber haplogroup then it is J1, not E-M81.


And why is E-M81 so common everywhere, far beyond the borders of Carthage?
There were three hundred Phoenician cities in Mauretania alone according to Strabo. Carthage was merely one of the many Phoenician cities of North Africa.


It's common in Saharawis, Mozabites, various Moroccans groups. I can understand the idea that it came from outside but it definitely was not spread by non-Berber speakers, otherwise why would Berber speakers today have so much of E-M81?
Siwi Berbers and a lot of Tuareg groups don't. The ones who do are Northern Berbers whose languages are heavily influenced by Phoenician according to Maarten Kossmann.


And obviously there is something else going on, how could the Carthaginian and Phoenician colonization spread the Y-DNA lineage of a single man that lived during this period?
The Phoenicians claimed to be "SONS of Tyre", perhaps they experienced a bottleneck in the Levant (Assyrian conquest?) and one clan fled to Africa. Just sayin'.


Your theory is really to simplistic and doesn't get at the heart of the strangeness of the event, that is that one single man living in the Mediterranean iron age is the direct male ancestor of maybe half of all Berbers in all Berber ethnic groups alive today,
E-M81 isn't limited to North Africa. It is found at high frequencies among Spaniards from Malaga and the Pasiego Valley, and it is present among Cypriots, Lebanese, Druzes, Jordanians, Palestinians, Iraqis and Saudis.


by using merely the modern distribution of the lineage or even using the fact that it's closest clade is found in Negev Bedouins.
E-M165 is the most basal subclade of E-M81 and it is FAR older than E-CTS4236. The argument ad populum is weak IMO, there are more R-DF27 carriers in South America than in Iberia yet no one would deny that it originated in Iberia.

RagingBull
10-01-2020, 02:49 AM
And let's not kid ourselves here, there were only two people that spoke the Hebrew language in ancient times: the so-called Samaritans (Israelites) and the so-called Phoenicians. Both people didn't eat pork, practiced circumcision, had a lawgiver named Moses and belonged to haplogroup E like their Afroasiatic Natufian forefathers.

eclipser
10-01-2020, 08:37 AM
And let's not kid ourselves here, there were only two people that spoke the Hebrew language in ancient times: the so-called Samaritans (Israelites) and the so-called Phoenicians. Both people didn't eat pork, practiced circumcision, had a lawgiver named Moses and belonged to haplogroup E like their Afroasiatic Natufian forefathers.

Stop with the arabic nonsense and the pheonician mediocricity... the first civilization that didnt eat pork and practiced circumcisionand spoke afroasiatic language are the anciant egyptians and they were not Samaritans neither phoenicians... the latter their origins is unknown(they probably were mixed people probably from italy and north africa) but carthaginians for sure were just berbers and berbers they were native to egypt , it makes sense if e-m81 find its way to the middle east back then.

RagingBull
10-01-2020, 01:01 PM
Stop with the arabic nonsense and the pheonician mediocricity... the first civilization that didnt eat pork and practiced circumcisionand spoke afroasiatic language are the anciant egyptians and they were not Samaritans neither phoenicians... the latter their origins is unknown(they probably were mixed people probably from italy and north africa) but carthaginians for sure were just berbers and berbers they were native to egypt , it makes sense if e-m81 find its way to the middle east back then.

Ridiculous. The Carthaginians were a fully Levantine people, their alphabet and language is closer to Samaritans than to Berbers. There are 10,000 Phoenician inscriptions in North Africa as opposed to 100 or so Berber inscriptions that were never deciphered, so we don't even known what language they spoke, but judging by their alphabet their language was probably related to Sabean.

RagingBull
10-01-2020, 02:35 PM
The FTDNA Public Haplotree shows that most E-M81 carriers are actually Iberians and Arabized Moroccans, not Berbers. The ones who claim that E-M81 is Berber have an agenda against this Abrahamic lineage.

39945

Granary
10-01-2020, 03:24 PM
There's barely any evidence of Berbers (Mazices) in North Africa prior to the Arabs. The few sources that mention them, locate them in the Sahara, other sources mention that the Moors and the Garamantes who dominated most North Africa spoke Phoenician, and that their language was different from the "barbarian" nations of the Sahara.
What do you make of the Tifinagh inscriptions where we can actually decipher something Berber-like? Also what do you make of the non-Punic names of the North African kings? Are you able to provide a Semitic etymology for ALL of them


I'd like to add that when the Arabs invaded North Africa they didn't fight against Berbers. They fought against the Jarawa, Madyuna, the Fazzaz, the Nafzawa, the Barghawata, the Bahlula, and the Ghiata, all of whom were "Judean" (Israelite) tribes according to Arab historians. The Barghawata is the most well known among these tribes and what Al Bakri has to say about them is very telling: they claimed to be descended from the tribe of Simeon, they refused to mix with Muslims i.e. Arabs & Berbers, and they fought genocidal wars against them to the point of wiping out entire towns.
Ok so how did Berbers end up controlling half of Morocco up to the modern era and have such a strong presence in northern Algeria?


And let's not forget that the Berbers themselves claimed until recently (and some still do today) to be Himyarite Arabs, so if there's a Berber haplogroup then it is J1, not E-M81.[QUOTE]
So? They are myths, they


[QUOTE]There were three hundred Phoenician cities in Mauretania alone according to Strabo. Carthage was merely one of the many Phoenician cities of North Africa.
Do you have evidence those cities went far inland in Morocco or Algeria? Or provide autosomal evidence that there was a massive replacement event? Because autosomally North Africans still retain mostly ancestry from Bronze age populations, by using North African outliers from Copper Age Sardinia or Copper age Spain or also Guanches.



Siwi Berbers and a lot of Tuareg groups don't. The ones who do are Northern Berbers whose languages are heavily influenced by Phoenician according to Maarten Kossmann.
Yeah that's the point, a lot of the Berber languages share Phoenician and Latin loanwords meaning they separated during or after the time those words were borrowed, this doesn't show nor prove that Phoenician replaced or dominated all of North Africa north of the Sahara.



The Phoenicians claimed to be "SONS of Tyre", perhaps they experienced a bottleneck in the Levant (Assyrian conquest?) and one clan fled to Africa. Just sayin'.
One thing is a bottleneck event, the other is one single man during this period leaving so much ancestry.


E-M81 isn't limited to North Africa. It is found at high frequencies among Spaniards from Malaga and the Pasiego Valley, and it is present among Cypriots, Lebanese, Druzes, Jordanians, Palestinians, Iraqis and Saudis.
And? There is so many explanations for it, from the Roman period to internal Islamic migrations(the Muslims that conquered Crete were Maghrebis and Andalusians), I believe we also have North African outliers in medieval Lebanon.


E-M165 is the most basal subclade of E-M81 and it is FAR older than E-CTS4236. The argument ad populum is weak IMO, there are more R-DF27 carriers in South America than in Iberia yet no one would deny that it originated in Iberia.
You used a similar argument about E-M183 being more common in Tunisia...

RagingBull
10-01-2020, 04:21 PM
What do you make of the Tifinagh inscriptions where we can actually decipher something Berber-like?
These inscriptions are all located in the Sahara where the Mazices/Berbers dwelled.


Also what do you make of the non-Punic names of the North African kings? Are you able to provide a Semitic etymology for ALL of them
I will gladly provide a Semitic etymology for ALL of them, but you must first provide a Berber etymology for the several tens of thousands of Phoenician names found in Punic inscriptions, and you must prove that the original red haired white skinned Berbers (see below) actually carried haplogroup E-M81.
39951


Do you have evidence those cities went far inland in Morocco or Algeria? Or provide autosomal evidence that there was a massive replacement event? Because autosomally North Africans still retain mostly ancestry from Bronze age populations, by using North African outliers from Copper Age Sardinia or Copper age Spain or also Guanches.
There's no autosomal evidence, but paternal evidence shows that a Levantine population replaced the previous inhabitants of North Africa.


Yeah that's the point, a lot of the Berber languages share Phoenician and Latin loanwords meaning they separated during or after the time those words were borrowed, this doesn't show nor prove that Phoenician replaced or dominated all of North Africa north of the Sahara.
This shows that the original Berbers were in contact with the Phoenicians and that they were heavily influenced by them.


And? There is so many explanations for it, from the Roman period to internal Islamic migrations(the Muslims that conquered Crete were Maghrebis and Andalusians), I believe we also have North African outliers in medieval Lebanon.
None of these explanations involve the Berbers, they involve migrants from North Africa regardless of their origin.


You used a similar argument about E-M183 being more common in Tunisia...
It's a weak argument if it doesn't take into account the TMRCA of haplogroup E-M81 and the distribution of its subclades.

Please provide an explanation as to why the Levantine subclade of haplogroup E-M81 is older than the North African ones.

RagingBull
10-01-2020, 05:04 PM
Although race is a social construct, we must be clear that the Berbers were light skinned while Phoenicians were dark skinned. It is unlikely that E-M81 carriers were white.



And I have heard this man say that beyond the country [Mauretania] which he ruled there was no habitation of men, but desert land extending to a great distance, and that beyond that there are men, not black-skinned like the Moors, but very white in body and fair-haired. So much, then, for these things.



Here are the boundaries of Tripolis, as it is called. It is inhabited by the barbarian Moors, a Phoenician race. Here too is a city, Cidamŕ by name; and in it live Moors who have been at peace with the Romans from ancient times. All these were won over by the Emperor Justinian and voluntarily adopted the Christian doctrine. These Moors are now called pacati, because they have a permanent treaty with the Romans; for peace they call pacem in the Latin tongue. Tripolis is a twenty-days' journey from the Pentapolis for an unencumbered traveller.


Greatly, indeed, did Phoebus rejoice as the belted warriors of Enyo danced with the yellow-haired Libyan women, when the appointed season of the Karnean feast came round.


This band with Libyan, that with auburn hair
Red so that Caesar on the banks of Rhine
None such had witnessed; some with features scorched
By torrid suns, their locks in twisted coils
Drawn from their foreheads. Eunuchs too were there,

Nabel
10-01-2020, 06:02 PM
Ridiculous. The Carthaginians were a fully Levantine people, their alphabet and language is closer to Samaritans than to Berbers. There are 10,000 Phoenician inscriptions in North Africa as opposed to 100 or so Berber inscriptions that were never deciphered, so we don't even known what language they spoke, but judging by their alphabet their language was probably related to Sabean.
Get over it dude ... phoenician are not levantine people pheonician probably are a coalition of differant kind of sea people they indeed colonized the coastal area of levantine ...also punic language has nothing to do with phoenician maybe the writing but the language itself is completely different.Accept that e-m81 has nothing to do with either levantines nor arabs. Stop man get the arabic religious nonsense out from your brain abrahamic is just a myth stop this madness ,e-m81 is abrahamic not amorite anymore ... to be honest i prefer an easter island origin theory of e-m81.

Granary
10-01-2020, 06:40 PM
What an amazing thread, I am between people that are arguing Phoenician =/= Punic =/= Semitic and people arguing that somehow Berbers did not exist in North North Africa between 800 BCE and 700 CE...

RagingBull
10-01-2020, 06:52 PM
The Punic language is the western dialect of the Phoenician language, this language is the native language of the Levant just like haplogroup E-M81 is one of the native Levantine haplogroups. There's nothing wrong with being a Berber/Himyarite Arab but you should stop culturally appropriating the Phoenician civilization and its haplogroup.

39952
39953
39954
39955
39956

RagingBull
10-01-2020, 06:57 PM
double post

RagingBull
10-01-2020, 07:20 PM
What an amazing thread, I am between people that are arguing Phoenician =/= Punic =/= Semitic and people arguing that somehow Berbers did not exist in North North Africa between 800 BCE and 700 CE...

Please provide an explanation as to why the Levantine subclade of haplogroup E-M81 is older than the North African ones.

thejkhan
10-01-2020, 07:26 PM
(nvm, deleted)

RagingBull
10-01-2020, 07:55 PM
It's incredible that after so many studies, there are still people willing to deny that haplogroup E-M81 is Levantine. Some of you people are so in denial that you even go as far to deny that Punic is a Phoenician language lol.



This expansion must have involved relatively small numbers of Y chromosomes to account for the reduction in gene diversity towards the West that accompanied the frequency increase of Y haplogroup E3b2, but gene flow must have been maintained to explain the observed pattern of isolation-by-distance. Since the estimates of the times to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCAs) of the most common haplogroups are quite recent, we suggest that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic–speaking pastoralists from the Middle East.



Regarding the geographical origin of E-M183, a previous study22 suggested that an expansion from the Near East could explain the observed east-west cline of genetic variation that extends into the Near East. Indeed, our results also showed a reduction in STR heterozygosity towards the West (Supplementary Fig. S3), which may be taken to support the hypothesis of an expansion from the Near East. In addition, previous studies based on genome-wide SNPs15,20 reported that a North African autochthonous component increase towards the West whereas the Near Eastern decreases towards the same direction, which again support an expansion from the Near East.



Consistently, all comparisons produced significant positive values and indicated a higher similarity of IAM with Natufians and Levantine farmers. This suggests that most of IAM ancestry originates from an out-of-Africa source, as IAM shares more alleles with Levantines than with any sub-Saharan Africans, including the 4,500-y-old genome from Ethiopia (14).

drobbah
10-01-2020, 08:00 PM
The FTDNA Public Haplotree shows that most E-M81 carriers are actually Iberians and Arabized Moroccans, not Berbers. The ones who claim that E-M81 is Berber have an agenda against this Abrahamic lineage.

39945
Maybe it's because there is a sampling bias? For example many of the NE African haplogroups are dominated by Gulf Arabians because of socio-economics (they are more likely to afford these tests) but nobody would suggest that these lineages originated from there rather than NE Africa.Perhaps that's the case with the more affluent Spanish and Moroccan Arabs.

Brandon S. Pilcher
10-01-2020, 08:37 PM
Although race is a social construct, we must be clear that the Berbers were light skinned while Phoenicians were dark skinned. It is unlikely that E-M81 carriers were white.
I really doubt the original Amazigh-speakers (by which I mean the first Afrasan/Afroasiatic speakers to settle in Northwest Africa) would have been "white".
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7IAOoNn_rpg/VuX-HwKnpBI/AAAAAAAADrc/J9jHfGPnD7sL2YnmhYPsB48sX6zS_Vnxw/s1600/Afro%2BAsiatic%2BExpansion.jpg
That said, there could have been another, lighter-skinned population of people colonizing the region which would have absorbed these proto-Afrasan migrants and adopted their language to become the so-called "white Libyans". The late Neolithic KEB sample, which appears to have settled in Morocco from Iberia, might be a good candidate for representing this other population.

Regardless, it might be of interest that E-M183 appears to have gone through a bottleneck chronologically coinciding with the destruction of Carthage. IMO, this does suggest that the Punic colonists had some genetic influence on the ancestors of modern Amazigh.

Whole Y-chromosome sequences reveal an extremely recent origin of the most common North African paternal lineage E-M183 (M81)
(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16271-y)

Granary
10-01-2020, 08:44 PM
Regardless, it might be of interest that E-M183 appears to have gone through a bottleneck chronologically coinciding with the destruction of Carthage. IMO, this does suggest that the Punic colonists had some genetic influence on the ancestors of modern Amazigh.

Whole Y-chromosome sequences reveal an extremely recent origin of the most common North African paternal lineage E-M183 (M81)
(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16271-y)
Well yeah that was the starting point of the discussion, in any case the TMRCA dating of E-M183 varies a lot but it's generally during the iron age, so there is likely a multi-causal explanation behind it.

RagingBull
10-02-2020, 03:49 PM
I really doubt the original Amazigh-speakers (by which I mean the first Afrasan/Afroasiatic speakers to settle in Northwest Africa) would have been "white".
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7IAOoNn_rpg/VuX-HwKnpBI/AAAAAAAADrc/J9jHfGPnD7sL2YnmhYPsB48sX6zS_Vnxw/s1600/Afro%2BAsiatic%2BExpansion.jpg
That said, there could have been another, lighter-skinned population of people colonizing the region which would have absorbed these proto-Afrasan migrants and adopted their language to become the so-called "white Libyans". The late Neolithic KEB sample, which appears to have settled in Morocco from Iberia, might be a good candidate for representing this other population.

Regardless, it might be of interest that E-M183 appears to have gone through a bottleneck chronologically coinciding with the destruction of Carthage. IMO, this does suggest that the Punic colonists had some genetic influence on the ancestors of modern Amazigh.

Whole Y-chromosome sequences reveal an extremely recent origin of the most common North African paternal lineage E-M183 (M81)
(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16271-y)
The complexion of Proto-Berber speakers is unknown, but pre-Medieval Berber speakers were uniformely described and portrayed as "white" by Egyptians and Greco-Romans. AFAIK ancient E carriers did not carry SLC24A5 & SLC45A2, they would've looked more like Moors/Phoenicians than Berbers.

Furthermore, the closest relative of Berber within the AA family is the Chadic branch, it's possible that Proto-Berbers carried haplogroup R-V88 rather than E-M81.

Ibericus
10-02-2020, 04:02 PM
Did the phoenicians posses some form of new technology unknown to the people of the region? I think the scale of the event suggests a massive technological advantage, perhaps comparable to the arrival of the Europeans in the Americas.

Ignis90
10-02-2020, 05:23 PM
It's incredible that after so many studies, there are still people willing to deny that haplogroup E-M81 is Levantine. Some of you people are so in denial that you even go as far to deny that Punic is a Phoenician language lol.

Show me ancient DNA samples which support your idea that E-M81 originated in the Levant.
Until then, all what you're writing is bs and pseudoscience, very much akin to what the "geniuses" at Egyptsearch are producing.

The least convoluted explanation is a local origin and subsequent bottlenecks and reexpansions which erased previous diversity. That's clearly what we see in linguistics.
But whether the Paleolithic mutation(s) defining E-M81 originated in the Maghreb, the Sahara, Egypt or the Levant doesn't matter and it's irrelevant to the modern/historical Berber ethnicities (Iron Age onwards) .
Also, the TMRCA of E-M183 is bound to get older the more Maghrebis are getting tested.

No need to make this thread even longer without new academic papers.

Granary
10-02-2020, 06:36 PM
Also, the TMRCA of E-M183 is bound to get older the more Maghrebis are getting tested.

This seems to be to be needlessly obfuscating, the TMRCA of E-M183 is based on an already sizeable amount of people, at most we would find more basal branches but this doesn't change the fact that the TMRCA of the Y-DNA lineages of almost half of various Maghrebi groups traces to the Iron Age, how can you get around that with new data?

RagingBull
10-02-2020, 07:11 PM
Show me ancient DNA samples which support your idea that E-M81 originated in the Levant.
I can't because the Levant is undersampled and geneticists did not test sites (Lachish, Byblos) displaying substantial evidence of continuity from the Neolithic period to the Iron Age.


and it's irrelevant to the modern/historical Berber ethnicities (Iron Age onwards) .
I agree with you. E-M81 is neither Berber nor limited to North Africa.


Also, the TMRCA of E-M183 is bound to get older the more Maghrebis are getting tested.
E-M81 and E-M165 (Levantine) got older and i'm certain that they will continue to get older, but E-CTS4236 (North African/Iberian) is linked to Phoenician expansion so it will remains 2700 year old.

39970

Claudio
10-04-2020, 10:19 AM
I’m open to all possibilities but the Overall Carthaginian/Roman era expansion of E-MI83 Especially Subclades like PF2546 (TMRCA 2200 ybp) coincides much more with the huge Berber expansion of the Berber Numidian empire under King Massinissa both prior to the defeat of Carthage and post as a Roman Client State.
Can’t seem to share the video URL from YouTube on my phone but this video in image below captures the scale of changes made under the Massinissa dynasty in not just Algeria and Tunisia but Morocco in the West to Libya in the East.
:40003
Not mentioned in video but also of note is the fact Massinissa had something like 44 sons and a close relationship with his many Grandson’s who themselves and there offspring where no doubt deployed around the Roman Empire.
:40004
Also if you take the time to look up the various Numidian kings both prior and post Massinissa they all seem to be paternal ancestors sharing the same Y going as far West and late as King Juba2nd of Mauretania who was also the husband of Cleopatra Selene.

Shanck
10-05-2020, 01:46 PM
E-L19* (the ancestor of E-M183) was observed in Ifri N'Ammar individuals who lived c. 5325-4786 BC and who possessed 50% EEF ancestry/50% Taforalt-related ancestry. And E-L19(xM183) is also present in Moroccans, Tunisians and Algerians.
So at this point, claiming E-M183 came with the Phoenicians from the Levant is akin to claiming R-Z2103 spread with the Sumerians because R-Z2103* was observed in an Iraqi, while the ancestral R-L23 and related subclades are over at the Steppes and Bell Beaker.

Imesmouden
10-05-2020, 08:18 PM
The FTDNA Public Haplotree shows that most E-M81 carriers are actually Iberians and Arabized Moroccans, not Berbers. The ones who claim that E-M81 is Berber have an agenda against this Abrahamic lineage.

39945

"Abrahamic lineage" lol , that's enough to tell how your ideas are silly and ideologized

accept the fact that your ancestor came from north africa and was a BERBER

Imesmouden
10-05-2020, 08:26 PM
A study released 4 months ago called "The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant" Y-DNA analysed 39 canaanite remain lived between 3170 - 4520 years before present , 83% of these remains were positive to the paternal lineage "J" and the rest were some other paternal lineages , the number of reamains who were positive to E-M81 or E-L19 is 0 ZERO , there was no ancient near eastern canaanite positive to the north african haplogroup E-M81 even though the number of the analysed remains was so big , these results debunked the silly "theory" of a canaanite origin of E-M81 , the only remains who were positive to E-M81 and E-L19 were found in West North Africa even tho the number of analysed remains in Maghreb region is very few.

https://scontent.frba2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/120498917_2390356887755715_4098090189163870633_o.j pg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_eui2=AeFbJN3r9VSvCDcfKCzFy_w8EOCiucFMhBAQ4KK5w UyEEKKSWOwY6Yom3BJeyqE7cHGvpxmX9u7wp3r-zTzqJj5k&_nc_ohc=7DPBy5ZQYXUAX-U4XCR&_nc_ht=scontent.frba2-2.fna&oh=240fdde4642c874b751b06b3b00fcac5&oe=5FA251BF

Imesmouden
10-05-2020, 08:28 PM
Last post i talked about a study that analysed the Y-DNA of many Canaanite remain and how this study results demolished the silly canaanite origin of E-M81 "Theory"
and in this post i will talk about an another study "A Genetic History of the Near East from an aDNA Time Course Sampling Eight Points in the Past 4,000 Years" , this study analysed the Y-DNA of 19 phoenician remain in Lebanon , the results were expected and similar to the canaanite ones , most of the samples belonged to paternal lineage "J" and some other lineages , and as expected also the number of samples who belong to E-L19 or E-M81 was ZERO 0 , no phoenician belonged to the north african haplogroup E-M81 , These results also debunked the other silly pheonician origin of E-M81 "Theory"
as i stated before and i will always keep reminding that the only remains who were positive to E-M81 and E-L19 were found exclusively in North africa.

https://d3tije9h5o4l4c.cloudfront.net/social-photos/3732645?dpr=2&fit=max&h=440&w=547

Imesmouden
10-05-2020, 08:41 PM
From 618 samples in the arabian peninsula "Saudi arabia , Kuwait , UAE , Yemen , Oman" the presence of the north african haplogroup E-M81 was only 0.16% in these samples so basically it seems that only one sample that belonged to E-M81 from 618 sample , this shows how the presence of E-M81 is very very low and not inherent there and it's just related to migrations from north africa to the middle east.

https://d3tije9h5o4l4c.cloudfront.net/social-photos/3741512?dpr=2&fit=max&h=248&w=590

RagingBull
10-06-2020, 06:24 AM
From 618 samples in the arabian peninsula "Saudi arabia , Kuwait , UAE , Yemen , Oman" the presence of the north african haplogroup E-M81 was only 0.16% in these samples so basically it seems that only one sample that belonged to E-M81 from 618 sample , this shows how the presence of E-M81 is very very low and not inherent there and it's just related to migrations from north africa to the middle east.

https://d3tije9h5o4l4c.cloudfront.net/social-photos/3741512?dpr=2&fit=max&h=248&w=590

E-M81 is found found among Turkish Cypriots (11%), Jordanians (> 3%), Druzes (> 3%), Lebanese (< 2%), and Palestinians (< 2%). These populations are strictly endogamous, it is impossible for Africans to marry their daughters and spread their lineage among them. The most likely explanation is that they are Natufians who survived the Iranian invasion that wiped out most E-M35 carriers. They remained isolated around Tyre and Beersheva until the Assyrians expelled most of them to Africa and Cyprus, where they spread their lineage and dialect of Hebrew (Punic).

I didn't make it up btw. This is what the Talmud says.


The Gemara asks: To where did Sennacherib exile the ten tribes? Mar Zutra says: He exiled them to Afrikei, and Rabbi Ḥanina says: To the Selug Mountains.

Imesmouden
10-06-2020, 11:12 AM
E-M81 is found found among Turkish Cypriots (11%), Jordanians (> 3%), Druzes (> 3%), Lebanese (< 2%), and Palestinians (< 2%). These populations are strictly endogamous, it is impossible for Africans to marry their daughters and spread their lineage among them. The most likely explanation is that they are Natufians who survived the Iranian invasion that wiped out most E-M35 carriers. They remained isolated around Tyre and Beersheva until the Assyrians expelled most of them to Africa and Cyprus, where they spread their lineage and dialect of Hebrew (Punic).

I didn't make it up btw. This is what the Talmud says.

all these populations you mentionned have some haplogroups such as E-M2 , you still think they are endogamous? or you will say that E-M2 originated in the near east also? and still the percentages you showed are low asf and represent a veeeery small minority , even the bedouins have a high north african dna lol

i will say it again , get done with the fact that your ancestor was a north african berber and stop telling us your mythical stories on a science forum

Shanck
10-06-2020, 11:31 AM
E-M81 is found found among Turkish Cypriots (11%), Jordanians (> 3%), Druzes (> 3%), Lebanese (< 2%), and Palestinians (< 2%). These populations are strictly endogamous, it is impossible for Africans to marry their daughters and spread their lineage among them. The most likely explanation is that they are Natufians who survived the Iranian invasion that wiped out most E-M35 carriers. They remained isolated around Tyre and Beersheva until the Assyrians expelled most of them to Africa and Cyprus, where they spread their lineage and dialect of Hebrew (Punic).

I didn't make it up btw. This is what the Talmud says.
These populations are not in any way "strictly endogamous". Many Turkish Cypriots nowadays have marital kinship with mainland Turks, Jordanians as well with their Circassian and Armenian populations. Lebanese and Palestinians also retain some Sub-Saharan ancestry from the medieval era.
When observed among Lebanese E-M183 only shows up so far in Muslims and Druze and in younger subclades (e.g E-A2227 & E-A428). And Druze endogamity is not an ancient one, in fact as off-shoots of Ismailis this only strengthens the point as it is historically attested that many Kutama (an Ismaili Berber tribe) soldiers/mercenaries settled the area in Fatimid era.

RagingBull
10-06-2020, 04:40 PM
these populations you mentionned have some haplogroups such as E-M2
On the contrary, the upstream subclade of haplogroup E-M2 has been found among the Natufians. We know that haplogroup E was dominant before the Iranian invasion, so its frequency doesn't prove anything.


even the bedouins have a high north african dna lol
There's no "North African dna". North Africans are a mixture of SSA, AnatoliaN, Natufian, European and IranN.


i will say it again , get done with the fact that your ancestor was a north african berber and stop telling us your mythical stories on a science forum
Your ancestors were a Nordic-looking people that originated in Himyar. Haplogroup E-M81 does not belong to your fictional people nor is it carried by Nordic-looking people. The geneticists who studied haplogroup E-M81 agree that it originated in the Levant among Semites, and indeed the most basal subclade of haplogroup E-M81 has been found in the Levant.

You should refrain from using ad hominem or the thread might get closed.

piye
10-06-2020, 05:12 PM
On the contrary, the upstream subclade of haplogroup E-M2 has been found among the Natufians. We know that haplogroup E was dominant before the Iranian invasion, so its frequency doesn't prove anything.


There's no "North African dna". North Africans are a mixture of SSA, AnatoliaN, Natufian, European and IranN.


Your ancestors were a Nordic-looking people that originated in Himyar. Haplogroup E-M81 does not belong to your fictional people nor is it carried by Nordic-looking people. The geneticists who studied haplogroup E-M81 agree that it originated in the Levant among Semites, and indeed the most basal subclade of haplogroup E-M81 has been found in the Levant.

You should refrain from using ad hominem or the thread might get closed.

Did you just say "upstream subclade of EM2 found in Natufians"

Care to substantiate?

Adamm
10-06-2020, 05:13 PM
On the contrary, the upstream subclade of haplogroup E-M2 has been found among the Natufians. We know that haplogroup E was dominant before the Iranian invasion, so its frequency doesn't prove anything.


There's no "North African dna". North Africans are a mixture of SSA, AnatoliaN, Natufian, European and IranN.


Your ancestors were a Nordic-looking people that originated in Himyar. Haplogroup E-M81 does not belong to your fictional people nor is it carried by Nordic-looking people. The geneticists who studied haplogroup E-M81 agree that it originated in the Levant among Semites, and indeed the most basal subclade of haplogroup E-M81 has been found in the Levant.

You should refrain from using ad hominem or the thread might get closed.

The most basal? Same clade has been found within a German person, and more basal clades like E-M107 have been found in Mali. Let alone that the oldest E-L19 has been found in Morocco.

drobbah
10-06-2020, 05:54 PM
Your ancestors were a Nordic-looking people that originated in Himyar This is like the European version of Afrocentrists lol

Caius Agrippa
10-06-2020, 06:14 PM
It seems that this type of forum and subject attracts a lot of maniacs obsessed with proving that they are ''pure blooded'' and with extremely toxic racial ideologies. I see this all the time subreptciously in the posts here. It seems they also like to project modern stereotypes and ethnic identities to ancient populations. I remember seeing a guy identifying as ''neolithic farmer'' here once and another one obsessed to prove that E haplogroup isn't African because his European ethnic group is mostly E.

RagingBull
10-06-2020, 06:33 PM
Did you just say "upstream subclade of EM2 found in Natufians"

Care to substantiate?

E* and E1b1* have been among the Natufians. See #146.

Imesmouden
10-06-2020, 07:01 PM
E* and E1b1* have been among the Natufians. See #146.

I1069 is E1b1b1-PF1871(xE1b1b1b1)
I1414 is E1b1b1b2-CTS11781

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1414/
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1069/

:\

Imesmouden
10-06-2020, 07:12 PM
I was wrong concerning I1414, but I1069 is negative to Z830 and M2, he cannot be downstream of P2 (E1b1).

Modern E-M81 carriers are descended from a man who lived in the Negev region between 1300 BC and 200 BC. Even if IAM.5 is E-L19, it is a dead end.

EDIT: IAM and E-L19 are Levantine according to Fregel. You're proving my point.

where did fregel said IAM and E-L19 is levantine?

https://i.imgur.com/2Lh2yO3.png

https://i.imgur.com/Wazjw0B.png

https://i.imgur.com/zOfyWAQ.png

this is what fregel said study about IAM

RagingBull
10-06-2020, 07:12 PM
From the same blog.


In my post on the Chachapoyas from 2014, I cited this 2009 paper, which found that 3 out of 30 Guanche Y-DNA samples belonged to the European haplogroup R1b-M269, and that 2 out of the 30 belonged to the European haplogroup I. One of the 30 samples was identified as P*, which is almost certainly in actuality the European haplogroup R1b-V88. Later, this 2017 paper (whose main results can be seen here for free) found that 7 out of 16 Guanche Y-DNA samples from the island of El Hierro belonged to R1b-M269. The fact that these European haplogroups were found in Guanche DNA samples is not mentioned once in the new paper, and not one of the new paper’s samples belonged to these European haplogroups, which is quite convenient for the recent PC narrative.

Imesmouden
10-06-2020, 07:14 PM
The oldest branch of E-M81 is E-M107 , it was found exclusively in north africa (2 in algeria , 1 in Mali)

Imesmouden
10-06-2020, 07:17 PM
Yseq predicted IAM.5 (the oldest E-L19 remain and it was found in Morocco) as E-M81*

https://i.imgur.com/CnxC8Gt.png

Granary
10-06-2020, 07:20 PM
From the same blog.

Yes it seems some of the Bell Beaker or general Bronze Age Southern European populations spilled over into North Africa, doesn't mean ancient Berbers were likely to have been particularly close to Europeans, not with the massive amounts of lingering Iberomaurusian ancestry that we register in all clearly north African samples, the fact that Phoenicians also spread autosomal North African ancestry around from quite early on shows that there was enough Iberomaurusian ancestry even in mixed Levantine-Berber populations, let alone more homogenously Berber ones.

Imesmouden
10-06-2020, 07:20 PM
Lazaridis about Natufians


https://i.imgur.com/JSj1rRg.png

https://i.imgur.com/jrAVC8a.png

RagingBull
10-06-2020, 07:51 PM
Lazaridis about Natufians


https://i.imgur.com/JSj1rRg.png

https://i.imgur.com/jrAVC8a.png

There's no need to come up with such a convoluted theory, PCA and ADMIXTURE Analysis show that Taforalt is a half Natufian half SSA population. Iberomaurusians are E-V68 and E-M78, they were more closely related to Southern Europeans and East Africans than to Semites.

RagingBull
10-06-2020, 07:58 PM
Yes it seems some of the Bell Beaker or general Bronze Age Southern European populations spilled over into North Africa, doesn't mean ancient Berbers were likely to have been particularly close to Europeans, not with the massive amounts of lingering Iberomaurusian ancestry that we register in all clearly north African samples, the fact that Phoenicians also spread autosomal North African ancestry around from quite early on shows that there was enough Iberomaurusian ancestry even in mixed Levantine-Berber populations, let alone more homogenously Berber ones.
Ancient Berber individuals are predominantly R1b and I. Modern Berberized North Africans are clearly not related to Ancient Berbers.

Shanck
10-06-2020, 08:28 PM
Ancient Berber individuals are predominantly R1b and I. Modern Berberized North Africans are clearly not related to Ancient Berbers.
Neither have been found among ancient North Africans, but E-V68 and E-L19 were. R1b and I are recent migrations in North Africa, representing reminiscent offspring of Romans and Vandals for the European subclades, while other lineages such as R-Z2103 would have been introduced by conquering soldiers of Levantine or Persian extract.

On the contrary R1b-V88 is a Neolithic lineage is likely one of the proxies for the introduction of the EEF ancestry in Ifri N'Ammar individuals in the start of the 6th millennium BC from the Cardium Pottery culture of Iberia. The presence of R1b-V88 in Mesolithic Italy supports this.

Imesmouden
10-06-2020, 08:46 PM
There's no need to come up with such a convoluted theory, PCA and ADMIXTURE Analysis show that Taforalt is a half Natufian half SSA population. Iberomaurusians are E-V68 and E-M78, they were more closely related to Southern Europeans and East Africans than to Semites.

write a peer reviewed study refuting what Lazaridis said , good luck with it

and btw Taforalt is basal eurasian + ancestral north african

drobbah
10-06-2020, 09:15 PM
write a peer reviewed study refuting what Lazaridis said , good luck with it

and btw Taforalt is basal eurasian + ancestral north african
Taforalt has West Eurasian ancestry not just Basal Eurasian ancestry

Imesmouden
10-06-2020, 09:58 PM
Taforalt has West Eurasian ancestry not just Basal Eurasian ancestry

right

davit
10-07-2020, 12:27 AM
write a peer reviewed study refuting what Lazaridis said , good luck with it

and btw Taforalt is basal eurasian + ancestral north african

Do you think Taforalt close to where a half SSA half Natufian population would?

leorcooper19
10-07-2020, 12:38 AM
I have seen some inaccuracies on both the Levantine/Canaanite-origin side as well as the North African/Berber-origin side so I'd like to try to set the record straight as someone with no stake in the fight.

I synthesized the major phylogenic information about E-M81 and made a tree that I will use for reference here. (https://i.ibb.co/F3XtDHs/E-M81.png) I chose not to include E-L19 in the tree as with a TMRCA of 14,000 ybp it could very well not be relevant. Besides, there is enough complexity downstream E-M81 itself. I also choose to not get involved in the linguistic debate as it relates to the ethnogenesis of Berbers, mostly because I feel like claims of a NW Semitic/Punic origin for Berber are vastly unfounded. Furthermore, discussion of phenotypes of ancient peoples is really a non-starter IMO; I think we can safely assume that ancient Berbers largely had similar skin tones to modern inhabitants of the region as the levels of UV-radiation were likely the same.

Proponents of the Levantine/Canaanite-origin argument point to the extremely young Iron Age TMRCA for E-CTS4236, the Negev Bedouin confirmed at E-M165 related around 2000 years before the MRCA of E-CTS4236, and the extremely important history of Phoenician settlement and eventual creation of the Carthaginian Empire which controlled nearly the entire coastal Maghreb in the late Iron Age and early Classical period. Proponents of the North African/Berber-origin argument point to E-L19 xM81's NW African spread, the extreme commonness of E-M81 throughout the Maghreb and nearby regions, and E-M81's strong presence in non-coastal populations that were not directly controlled by Phoenicians/Carthaginians.

As shown in the phylogeny, it is clear that E-M81 is present in North Africa at multiple levels and while it is true that most North African M81+ lines have an upstream Levantine (proxied by a Negev Bedouin), it is not true for every North African M81+ line (specifically, those in E-M107). As the Negev Bedouin is the only M81+ CTS4236- person to be NGS-tested, on YFull it seems like a Levantine origin for E-M81 is likely. However, NGS testing of E-M107 individuals would place them above the Negev Bedouin at E-M165. Given the phylogeny of a mostly Maghrebi clade and with a Levantine splitter in the middle, I believe we can confidently say that the current data favors an ultimately North African origin for E-M81.

That said, a closer inspection of the critical dates makes an origin somewhere very deep in non-coastal North Africa unlikely. The TMRCA of E-CTS4236 is only c. 700 BCE (1200 BCE-200 BCE @ 95% confidence), which is absolutely perfect for Phoenician/Carthaginian settlement and spread. Furthermore, most of E-CTS4236 is actually in the downstream clade E-PF2546, which has extreme star-shaped growth with a TMRCA of only c. 200 BCE (400 BCE - 50 CE @ 95% confidence). The amount of non-Maghrebis, even accounting for the Umayyads and Al-Andalus and particularly the presence in eastern Muslim populations, makes a spread unrelated to Carthaginian history untenable. Still, E-CTS4236's commonness among populations geographically unrelated to Carthaginians means it probably wasn't from a major port city either.

Given all the data, I believe the most likely story is that E-CTS4236 was a major lineage among Carthage's close ally, the Massylii. As Carthage relied mostly on indigenous and foreign (as opposed to Phoenician) labor for both war and trade I think we can assume that many native North Africans found productive economic niches in the Carthaginian system. Furthermore, I agree with Claudio's suggestion that the massive star-shaped growth of E-PF2546 could be directly related to Masinissa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masinissa). I believe that we can assume an ultimately western origin for all eastern Muslim M81+ carriers, although there is a very wide window for when exactly a given line arrived in the east.

While not being able to comment substance on the cultural debate, I do think one should refrain from empirical statements like "the MRCA of E-CTS4236 spoke an early form of a Berber and identified as a Berber." Even if their Y-DNA was of ultimately North African origin, we do not know much else about this individual and what they could or would have identified as/with.

piye
10-07-2020, 11:10 AM
E* and E1b1* have been among the Natufians. See #146.

They are unresolved as at now, does not mean they are ancestral to EM2

Imesmouden
10-07-2020, 11:44 AM
I have seen some inaccuracies on both the Levantine/Canaanite-origin side as well as the North African/Berber-origin side so I'd like to try to set the record straight as someone with no stake in the fight.

I synthesized the major phylogenic information about E-M81 and made a tree that I will use for reference here. (https://i.ibb.co/F3XtDHs/E-M81.png) I chose not to include E-L19 in the tree as with a TMRCA of 14,000 ybp it could very well not be relevant. Besides, there is enough complexity downstream E-M81 itself. I also choose to not get involved in the linguistic debate as it relates to the ethnogenesis of Berbers, mostly because I feel like claims of a NW Semitic/Punic origin for Berber are vastly unfounded. Furthermore, discussion of phenotypes of ancient peoples is really a non-starter IMO; I think we can safely assume that ancient Berbers largely had similar skin tones to modern inhabitants of the region as the levels of UV-radiation were likely the same.

Proponents of the Levantine/Canaanite-origin argument point to the extremely young Iron Age TMRCA for E-CTS4236, the Negev Bedouin confirmed at E-M165 related around 2000 years before the MRCA of E-CTS4236, and the extremely important history of Phoenician settlement and eventual creation of the Carthaginian Empire which controlled nearly the entire coastal Maghreb in the late Iron Age and early Classical period. Proponents of the North African/Berber-origin argument point to E-L19 xM81's NW African spread, the extreme commonness of E-M81 throughout the Maghreb and nearby regions, and E-M81's strong presence in non-coastal populations that were not directly controlled by Phoenicians/Carthaginians.

As shown in the phylogeny, it is clear that E-M81 is present in North Africa at multiple levels and while it is true that most North African M81+ lines have an upstream Levantine (proxied by a Negev Bedouin), it is not true for every North African M81+ line (specifically, those in E-M107). As the Negev Bedouin is the only M81+ CTS4236- person to be NGS-tested, on YFull it seems like a Levantine origin for E-M81 is likely. However, NGS testing of E-M107 individuals would place them above the Negev Bedouin at E-M165. Given the phylogeny of a mostly Maghrebi clade and with a Levantine splitter in the middle, I believe we can confidently say that the current data favors an ultimately North African origin for E-M81.

That said, a closer inspection of the critical dates makes an origin somewhere very deep in non-coastal North Africa unlikely. The TMRCA of E-CTS4236 is only c. 700 BCE (1200 BCE-200 BCE @ 95% confidence), which is absolutely perfect for Phoenician/Carthaginian settlement and spread. Furthermore, most of E-CTS4236 is actually in the downstream clade E-PF2546, which has extreme star-shaped growth with a TMRCA of only c. 200 BCE (400 BCE - 50 CE @ 95% confidence). The amount of non-Maghrebis, even accounting for the Umayyads and Al-Andalus and particularly the presence in eastern Muslim populations, makes a spread unrelated to Carthaginian history untenable. Still, E-CTS4236's commonness among populations geographically unrelated to Carthaginians means it probably wasn't from a major port city either.

Given all the data, I believe the most likely story is that E-CTS4236 was a major lineage among Carthage's close ally, the Massylii. As Carthage relied mostly on indigenous and foreign (as opposed to Phoenician) labor for both war and trade I think we can assume that many native North Africans found productive economic niches in the Carthaginian system. Furthermore, I agree with Claudio's suggestion that the massive star-shaped growth of E-PF2546 could be directly related to Masinissa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masinissa). I believe that we can assume an ultimately western origin for all eastern Muslim M81+ carriers, although there is a very wide window for when exactly a given line arrived in the east.

While not being able to comment substance on the cultural debate, I do think one should refrain from empirical statements like "the MRCA of E-CTS4236 spoke an early form of a Berber and identified as a Berber." Even if their Y-DNA was of ultimately North African origin, we do not know much else about this individual and what they could or would have identified as/with.

Appreciated analysis thank you!

about the time when some lines arrived to the east we can give this branch with some saudi arabian samples as an example , they are all related btw

https://i.imgur.com/sTwF0qY.png

it is known that their ancestor came to saudi arabia from the maghreb in like 1355 AD

RagingBull
10-08-2020, 07:38 PM
Appreciated analysis thank you!

about the time when some lines arrived to the east we can give this branch with some saudi arabian samples as an example , they are all related btw

https://i.imgur.com/sTwF0qY.png

it is known that their ancestor came to saudi arabia from the maghreb in like 1355 AD

Haplogroup E-M81 is found at extremely low frequencies among Western and Eastern Berber speakers (Zenaga & Siwis) who inhabit the Berber Urheimat, but at high frequencies among Northern Berber speakers who inhabit the former Punic speaking area.

https://i.ibb.co/3hJ6R7S/Ejdy3m6-Wk-AAt-5e.jpg (https://ibb.co/C0rCPzV)

The dominant haplogroup among Northern Berber speakers is E-Z5009 whose basal form is only found among Semitic speakers. E-Z5009 formed around the time Carthage was destroyed and it experienced a founder effect around the time Montanism spread into Africa among Punic speakers.

https://i.ibb.co/DgZ1vCj/A.png (https://imgbb.com/)

leorcooper19
10-08-2020, 09:42 PM
Haplogroup E-M81 is found at extremely low frequencies among Western and Eastern Berber speakers (Zenaga & Siwis) who inhabit the Berber Urheimat, but at high frequencies among Northern Berber speakers who inhabit the former Punic speaking area.

https://i.ibb.co/3hJ6R7S/Ejdy3m6-Wk-AAt-5e.jpg (https://ibb.co/C0rCPzV)

The dominant haplogroup among Northern Berber speakers is E-Z5009 whose basal form is only found among Semitic speakers. E-Z5009 formed around the time Carthage was destroyed and it experienced a founder effect around the time Montanism spread into Africa among Punic speakers.

https://i.ibb.co/DgZ1vCj/A.png (https://imgbb.com/)

The linked graph only refers to those in the Siwi Oasis, not Zenaga & Siwis. E-M81's near absense from this far eastern and isolated Berber group does not come close to invalidating E-M81's diversity and dominance throughout the Berber world. The Berbers of of the Siwi Oasis likely are the products of genetic drift brought on by a founder effect, and therefore this one small group cannot be used to justify the origin of any clade. You said before that original Berbers were all R1b-M269 and I, so certainly those should be here if this population is Berber lacking Phoenician elements. The R1b that is present is almost certainly Chadic R1b-V88. Also, I think it's important to note here that E-CTS4236 is not *the* founding Berber clade, but simply a minor one that by chance became extremely successful much after the Berber language formed.

While you are correct that E-Z5009 makes up a majority (56%) of E-M81 samples on YFull, and while it is interesting that E-Z5009 has many Easterners at the basal position, E-Z5009 is simply one step in E-CTS4236's star-shaped growth. It is clear that E-Z5009's massive branching is related to its parent E-PF2546's branching. And a two-SNP level isn't a bottleneck; this could have happened over the course of 3-6 generations even, where it is very possible to have only one extant living line today from that short time period.

Also, are you implying that the Easterners here are not back-migrants but rather E-Z5009 itself came from the Levant as well? That would imply that every branch of E-PF2546 and E-Z5009 that has North Africans made a separate trip west. Do you understand how improbable that is?

Again, E-CTS4236 is not some kind of epic Berber-founding lineage in the sense that it is ancestral to all Berbers. It was only found in one individual c. 700 BCE after all! Perhaps E-CTS4236 could be called a major founding branch for Northern Berbers, if that distinction exists. Either way, anyone can find any geographically or genetically isolated Berber group lacking E-M81 and try to use it as proof that E-M81 isn't native to North Africa, but that argument just doesn't hold water.

Imesmouden
10-09-2020, 09:08 PM
Haplogroup E-M81 is found at extremely low frequencies among Western and Eastern Berber speakers (Zenaga & Siwis) who inhabit the Berber Urheimat, but at high frequencies among Northern Berber speakers who inhabit the former Punic speaking area.

https://i.ibb.co/3hJ6R7S/Ejdy3m6-Wk-AAt-5e.jpg (https://ibb.co/C0rCPzV)

The dominant haplogroup among Northern Berber speakers is E-Z5009 whose basal form is only found among Semitic speakers. E-Z5009 formed around the time Carthage was destroyed and it experienced a founder effect around the time Montanism spread into Africa among Punic speakers.

https://i.ibb.co/DgZ1vCj/A.png (https://imgbb.com/)

Zenaga? zenaga is Sanhaja and Z5009 is dominant between them

and thats not right , Z5009 is dominant in south more than north , most of southern moroccans are Z5009 and the tuaregs also , we analysed many tuareg from different tribes and most of them were Z5009

also you must stop utilization the lack of WGS results in north africa to promote your ideas , all the samples in Z5009* should wait for north africans to do WGS tests and upload to yfull so they form new branches with them , we can give as an example the upload of more than 15 north african sample from a genetic study these days , the north african samples formed more than 11 new branche with some samples who were stuck in the * for so long , so everything is clear

some of the new branches as an example

https://i.imgur.com/Emxy1v4.png

https://i.imgur.com/dkJEnOo.png

https://i.imgur.com/s0AagDc.png

https://i.imgur.com/olZIUET.png

RagingBull
10-12-2020, 05:46 AM
Zenaga? zenaga is Sanhaja and Z5009 is dominant between them

and thats not right , Z5009 is dominant in south more than north , most of southern moroccans are Z5009 and the tuaregs also , we analysed many tuareg from different tribes and most of them were Z5009

also you must stop utilization the lack of WGS results in north africa to promote your ideas , all the samples in Z5009* should wait for north africans to do WGS tests and upload to yfull so they form new branches with them , we can give as an example the upload of more than 15 north african sample from a genetic study these days , the north african samples formed more than 11 new branche with some samples who were stuck in the * for so long , so everything is clear

some of the new branches as an example

https://i.imgur.com/Emxy1v4.png

https://i.imgur.com/dkJEnOo.png

https://i.imgur.com/s0AagDc.png

https://i.imgur.com/olZIUET.png

3 out of 4 are Semitic. Most branches formed by the Mozabite samples are young and downstream E-CTS12227*.

The Moroccan E-Z5009* is found at Settat, in the northern part of the country. Southern Moroccans actually carry young subclades such as E-MZ243 and E-FT160111*.

Imesmouden
10-12-2020, 02:15 PM
3 out of 4 are Semitic. Most branches formed by the Mozabite samples are young and downstream E-CTS12227*.

The Moroccan E-Z5009* is found at Settat, in the northern part of the country. Southern Moroccans actually carry young subclades such as E-MZ243 and E-FT160111*.

first of all no not most of the branches that were formed are young and downstream E-CTS12227*
here is the branches formed outside E-CTS12227

https://i.imgur.com/TgRIjMd.png
https://i.imgur.com/7o6JbJq.png
https://i.imgur.com/DhwXNeh.png
https://i.imgur.com/Dy8yTHQ.png
https://i.imgur.com/ddJDb5X.png
https://i.imgur.com/vVpSmlm.png
https://i.imgur.com/KORrD95.png

secondly , settat is not in the northern part of the country

thirdly , saying southern places carry young subclades and promoting that E-Z5009* is found in northern and eastern places is wrong , for example there was two samples in E-Z5009* from south Morocco , and one from Mauritania and these are all from the south

https://i.imgur.com/MOSgEUZ.png
https://i.imgur.com/7uyanPB.png
https://i.imgur.com/gw9hUfb.png

so there is nothing special in E-Z5009* samples , the problem as i stated before is the lack of WGS tests by north africans

all the E-Z5009* and all the * samples as whole should just wait for more north africans to upload their results on yfull so they exit from the * and form new branches , the studies samples uploaded in the last days are a good example as i said before

Ibericus
10-13-2020, 09:16 AM
For those who are not familiar with this clade, here is the FTDNA project and a tentative version of the tree:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/E-M81/default.aspx?section=yresults

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1die-cBnThrGT3ysMnvEl91B6HqdF4eiuH8YBB3vwaZA/htmlview?pli=1#gid=314601745

Most of the branches under Z5009 seem to be a combination of North Africans + Iberians. But there some interesting exceptions such as:

- BY9671 TMRCA 900ybp: Only two Italians
- FT190481 TMRCA 1800ybp: Moroccan + Britain + Poland/Ukraine
- EZ5013 TMRCA 1900ypp: Contains a Czech, a Ukrainian and a Palestinian. As well as several Moroccans and Spaniards among others.

The presence of the eastern europeans seems to suggest that it was ashkenazi jewish at some point. But are those muslims that converted to judaism in Spain? or where they jewish all along?

Some people also argue that there was an influx of muslims into eastern Europe and that for that reason there are 'numerous villages with the names of Arabika (Zaporozhye area), Arapovka (Lugansk area), Arapovichi', etc.

I started a thread about this a while ago and it got quite interesting: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20237-Berbers-in-Ukraine-Poland

RagingBull
10-13-2020, 02:07 PM
That's a wishful thinking on your part, some of these samples have been there for several months without forming new subbranches. Even if they do form new subbranches they will be younger than E-M165.

Once more basal samples from the Levant are uploaded tho, the age difference between E-M81/E-M165 and E-CTS4236 will continue to increase. There's already a 2000 year gap between Levantine E-M81 and North African E-M81.

Ibericus
10-13-2020, 02:36 PM
That's a wishful thinking on your part, some of these samples have been there for several months without forming new subbranches. Even if they do form new subbranches they will be younger than E-M165.

Once more basal samples from the Levant are uploaded tho, the age difference between E-M81/E-M165 and E-CTS4236 will continue to increase. There's already a 2000 year gap between Levantine E-M81 and North African E-M81. It's been a tough year for berberists and their allies.

Hey, I'm not part of this war. Everything I post is based on my own amateurish research and if I refer to the "berber haplogroup" it's because it seems to be the most widely accepted theory. If I was to map all the samples in my haplogroup it would look a lot like this, can't argue that.

40231

RagingBull
10-13-2020, 02:39 PM
Hey, I'm not part of this war. Everything I post is based on my own amateurish research and if I refer to the "berber haplogroup" it's because it seems to be the most widely accepted theory. If I was to map all the samples in my haplogroup it would look a lot like this, can't argue that.

40231

I was replying to Imesmuden.

capsian
10-13-2020, 06:45 PM
Again baseless and uninformed claims. E-L618 was found in a sample from the Lengyel culture of Hungary as well as E-M78 being found in the Sopot culture of Hungary. Not only that but we also have a E-M78 sample from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. Neolithic Balkans was dominated by G2a, this has been well established. You are basing the J2a Bronze Age part on Mycenaean samples and Minoan samples, but you shouldn't claim the whole area was J2a because of a handful of samples from two nearby areas. R-Z93, J-L283, R-Z2103 etc all have been found in the Bronze Age Balkans. The claim that Iron Age Balkans was N is just senseless.

Hey actually a Cucuteni-Trypillian specimen that turns out to be under the E-Z830 and not the E-M78

Imesmouden
10-13-2020, 11:20 PM
That's a wishful thinking on your part, some of these samples have been there for several months without forming new subbranches. Even if they do form new subbranches they will be younger than E-M165.

Once more basal samples from the Levant are uploaded tho, the age difference between E-M81/E-M165 and E-CTS4236 will continue to increase. There's already a 2000 year gap between Levantine E-M81 and North African E-M81. It's been a tough year for berberists and their allies.

You didn't say anything

as i said before you still using the lack of north africans wgs results to promote your ideas , and forgetting that literally thousands of wgs tests were done in the middle east and there is still no middle eastern sample positive to the older branch E-M107 meanwhile it was found in 3 north african samples from studies , 2 from algeria and one from Mali

there were 0 sample positive to E-M107 in middle east in neither studies or the thousands of dna tests done

dozens of near eastern remains who belong to cannanite and phoenicians analysed this and still 0 E-M81 , it's clear who had a tough year lol

Farroukh
10-14-2020, 03:55 AM
I see the other problem. E-M81 formed more than 10 kya.
Why we still have no samples older than 5 ky?
???

I think the ancestral homeland for earliest E-M81 tribes was Egypt. Later they migrated to Maghreb (and Levant?)

Maghreb probably was inhabited by E-M2 tribes ???

African part of our history still is uncovered well.

Imesmouden
10-14-2020, 08:19 PM
I see the other problem. E-M81 formed more than 10 kya.
Why we still have no samples older than 5 ky?
???

I think the ancestral homeland for earliest E-M81 tribes was Egypt. Later they migrated to Maghreb (and Levant?)

Maghreb probably was inhabited by E-M2 tribes ???

African part of our history still is uncovered well.

IAM is (7000ybp) is confirmed E-L19 and predicted E-M81* by both yseq and yfull

also in north africa (except egypt) there were only just few remains analysed in Morocco , IAM , Taforalt and KEB , there was no remain analysed in neither algeria , tunisia , lybia , mauritania and the big sahara countries like chad , mali

RagingBull
10-15-2020, 12:49 AM
You didn't say anything

as i said before you still using the lack of north africans wgs results to promote your ideas , and forgetting that literally thousands of wgs tests were done in the middle east and there is still no middle eastern sample positive to the older branch E-M107 meanwhile it was found in 3 north african samples from studies , 2 from algeria and one from Mali

there were 0 sample positive to E-M107 in middle east in neither studies or the thousands of dna tests done

dozens of near eastern remains who belong to cannanite and phoenicians analysed this and still 0 E-M81 , it's clear who had a tough year lol

These Malian and Algerian individuals are Semitic Tuaregs. They aknowledge that they are migrants from the Middle East and reject berberist claims.




Touareg reject allegations of the Congress Amazigh World
(Computer translation of the letter)

From: Mr. Mansour Mohamed Ali Ag Hudyata his capacity as Chairman of the Assembly of Mali called "Youth Society North of the Republic of Mali", rejects the allegations of the World Amazigh Congress, that the Tuareg people are Amazigh.

The Assembly of the Republic of Mali Youth North strongly rejects such nonsense and false stories claimed by Congress Amazigh World through the media that the Tuareg of Mali and Niger, are Amazigh, and stresses that this claim is false is not based on a scientific basis.

And that Mr. Belkacem Lyons specializes in chemistry who viewed this trend shameless does not have any historical background to prove this myth, but proven by all history books, trusted that the Tuareg are of Arab descent, and crafts Targi has to do with Arabic calligraphy, this is the asset Targip known since a long time immemorial, and we believe such stories would fall within the Tuareg of the elements of client-related third-party suspicious.

And thus confirm and strongly that we will not allow the Congress of the World Amazigh has nothing to do with us as an intervention in our affairs and talk about our origins, this we, children of the Tuareg in Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu, we are proud Bootanna (Mali and Niger) to which we belong, and our religion, Islam, and declare that our is to achieve security and stability, peace and development in the Sahara for the happiness of our peoples and coexistence with the sons of the tribes of the Sahara, and that this is the position of all the Tuareg, who are struggling to achieve, and to work strenuously for it in every time and place.

Mansour Mohamed Ali Ag Hudyata
President of the General Assembly

RagingBull
10-15-2020, 01:12 AM
IAM is (7000ybp) is confirmed E-L19 and predicted E-M81* by both yseq and yfull

also in north africa (except egypt) there were only just few remains analysed in Morocco , IAM , Taforalt and KEB , there was no remain analysed in neither algeria , tunisia , lybia , mauritania and the big sahara countries like chad , mali
IAM are low quality samples, Fregel admitted himself their paternal haplogroup assignment is unsure. Ted Kandell analyzed the BAM file of IAM.5 and it turned out positive for E-L539 (ancestral to E-M78) rather than E-L19.

The presence of E-Z830 and E-M165 in the Levant and the presence of E-M107 among Levantine-descended Tuaregs indicate that E-Z827 is Levantine.

Imesmouden
10-15-2020, 12:50 PM
IAM are low quality samples, Fregel admitted himself their paternal haplogroup assignment is unsure. Ted Kandell analyzed the BAM file of IAM.5 and it turned out positive for E-L539 (ancestral to E-M78) rather than E-L19.

The presence of E-Z830 and E-M165 in the Levant and the presence of E-M107 among Levantine-descended Tuaregs indicate that E-Z827 is Levantine.

lmao bruuh you are too much i swear
i'm not going to answer you anymore

and let the other members judge

Imesmouden
10-15-2020, 01:30 PM
IAM are low quality samples, Fregel admitted himself their paternal haplogroup assignment is unsure. Ted Kandell analyzed the BAM file of IAM.5 and it turned out positive for E-L539 (ancestral to E-M78) rather than E-L19.

The presence of E-Z830 and E-M165 in the Levant and the presence of E-M107 among Levantine-descended Tuaregs indicate that E-Z827 is Levantine.

or you know what , i'm going to answer

- Fregel confirmed that IAM.5 belong to E-L19

https://i.imgur.com/sQdQ3Kf.png

This is the 558 branch she talked about

https://i.imgur.com/7WnAvvi.png

-Ted kandell? who's that?

Well the BAM file was analysed by Yseq and Yfull and they both said it's E-L19 confirmed and predicted as E-M81*

YFULL

https://scontent.frba3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/121447860_211987646931078_2059942937253235600_n.jp g?_nc_cat=100&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_eui2=AeHltH96Q4VMuONEqUvtv0psgwwHOfPo7mmDDAc58-juaWaEee9X2xmm12IR7JNt9rmJDMQNIE2ZOyCpUMyOpGzh&_nc_ohc=_6i5givI83UAX-Dfmp4&_nc_ht=scontent.frba3-1.fna&oh=f592c775a985cbc7cce4ee80666e06a2&oe=5FAE506C

YSEQ

https://i.imgur.com/zeUXv1l.png

and i also analysed the BAM file by myself and got the same result

Fregel referred to E-M81 as the typical north african haplogroup

https://i.imgur.com/4XxV0Wk.png

The study suggested that IAM was isolated in north africa since the paleolithic

https://i.imgur.com/vax0ltF.png

-Actually there was only two E-M165 sample found , one in israel (regardless the very huge of dna tests and genetic studies done in the middle east) and the other one in germany

okay let's talk about the "levantine" E-M165 carrier

between all the bedouins , the E-M165 carrier "HGDP00620" have the highest Iberomaurisian score

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eg8cPL9XYAI9Wsp?format=jpg&name=900x900


this bedouin cluster outside the levantine cluster and have an affinity toward the north african cluster

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eg8cuGDWkAEgTdt?format=jpg&name=large

he have a close distance with berbers and north african , unlike the other bedouins who have a close distance with saudis and other middle easterners

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eg8cEpzX0AE8hjH?format=png&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eg8cEp6XsAAMmLC?format=png&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eg8cEp9WAAEuR6Y?format=png&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eg8cEp3XsAEKIdE?format=png&name=small

with all this data it's clear that this bedouin have a north african origin

tuaregs don't have a levantine origin , it's known that they are berbers and i have many tuareg friend and they have no relation with levnatines

and finally your origins is from North africa and your ancestors were berbers.

RagingBull
10-17-2020, 06:40 AM
HGDP00620 has a bit of SSA but no IBM ancestry whatsoever, he has in fact more Natufian ancestry than Palestinians, Lebanese, and almost all MENA. Your imaginary Tuareg friends have no legitimacy to contradict Mr. Mansour Mohamed Ali Ag Hudyata. The Tuaregs have always claimed to be migrants from what is now Israel, these traditions are corroborated by genetic and archeological findings unlike the fictional IBM myth. The remants of the Iberomaurusians or Original Berbers carry R-V88 and E-V65.

I'm sorry but you aren't indigenous to Africa.

https://i.ibb.co/qWWFpHc/Bedouin-A-1.png (https://ibb.co/txxPD0v)
https://i.ibb.co/YTZV65L/Bedouin-A-2.png (https://ibb.co/zHJt134)
https://i.ibb.co/W5zw23Q/E-M81-6.png (https://ibb.co/9g4LrvJ)

RagingBull
10-17-2020, 06:50 AM
This person is closer to Greeks than to Berbers and Ancient North Africans.

https://i.ibb.co/QKh1rK8/Bedouin-A-3.png (https://imgbb.com/)

thejkhan
10-17-2020, 07:29 AM
@RagingBull have you considered the possibility that HGDP00620's present autosomal makeup might not have anything to do with whatever ancestry E-M81 is associated with? You're coming up with elaborate theories based on a single sample. Unless a large number of his Bedouin group belong to E-M81, you cannot associate much of their autosome with E-M81.

RagingBull
10-17-2020, 08:10 AM
@RagingBull have you considered the possibility that HGDP00620's present autosomal makeup might not have anything to do with whatever ancestry E-M81 is associated with? You're coming up with elaborate theories based on a single sample. Unless a large number of his Bedouin group belong to E-M81, you cannot associate much of their autosome with E-M81.

Are you aware that the original inhabitants of the Levant carried haplogroup E?

A more parsimonious hypothesis is that E-Z827 originated in the Levant where its earliest carriers were found, furthermore, E-M81 was brought by Phoenician/Hebrew speakers to North Africa as is shown by its TMRCA and its modern distribution.

The least plausible hypothesis is that the Natufians magically disappeared after teaching their language to Iran_N migrants, the same hypothesis also implies that the paternal haplogroup of the Iberomaurusians magically shifted from E-M78 to E-L19. This hypothesis has so many holes that I will just point out its two biggest flaws:
-E carriers didn't disappear after the Neolithic, rather, they became the elites and the kings of the Levant as evidenced by the paternal haplogroup of the king of Megiddo.
-The distibution of E-Z827 among the pre-Arab inhabitants of the Levant (Palestinian Christians and Samaritan priests) shows that haplogroup E was the dominant paternal lineage of the Levant prior to the Arab conquest.

thejkhan
10-17-2020, 08:37 AM
Are you aware that the original inhabitants of the Levant carried haplogroup E?


I understand the Natufians belonged to certain subclades of E-Z827, E-Z83, etc. But E-M81 split from its brother lineages too long ago (13,700 ybp) and there's no proof they took the detour to Levant before heading back into North Africa. Your argument based on 1 modern sample is too weak. Not that what you're saying is impossible but you don't have anything substantial to back it up.

RagingBull
10-17-2020, 09:56 AM
I understand the Natufians belonged to certain subclades of E-Z827, E-Z83, etc. But E-M81 split from its brother lineages too long ago (13,700 ybp) and there's no proof they took the detour to Levant before heading back into North Africa. Your argument based on 1 modern sample is too weak. Not that what you're saying is impossible but you don't have anything substantial to back it up.

My main arguments are based on its TMRCA and its modern carriers, the very same arguments are used in peer-reviewed studies such as SolÚ-Morata et al. 2017. The earliest Natufian site (Shubayqa 1) is 14,500 to 13,500 year old. The formation and TMRCA of E-M81 fit perfectly with the Natufians/Semites.

Your rejection of its Semitic origin is based on emotions rather than rational facts.

Edit: E-M81 is more widespread among Semites than Berbers, calling Arabs "Arabized Berbers" or Phoenicians "Phoenicianized Berbers" doesn't change their ethnic background nor their linguistic affiliation.

https://i.ibb.co/F8wqMdS/1920px-Detailed-Afroasiatic-map-svg.png (https://ibb.co/RQ04mJx)
https://i.ibb.co/T2kSkHT/E-M81.png (https://ibb.co/kBxfxhy)

Hawk
10-17-2020, 10:29 AM
Are you aware that the original inhabitants of the Levant carried haplogroup E?

A more parsimonious hypothesis is that E-Z827 originated in the Levant where its earliest carriers were found, furthermore, E-M81 was brought by Phoenician/Hebrew speakers to North Africa as is shown by its TMRCA and its modern distribution.

The least plausible hypothesis is that the Natufians magically disappeared after teaching their language to Iran_N migrants, the same hypothesis also implies that the paternal haplogroup of the Iberomaurusians magically shifted from E-M78 to E-L19. This hypothesis has so many holes that I will just point out its two biggest flaws:
-E carriers didn't disappear after the Neolithic, rather, they became the elites and the kings of the Levant as evidenced by the paternal haplogroup of the king of Megiddo.
-The distibution of E-Z827 among the pre-Arab inhabitants of the Levant (Palestinian Christians and Samaritan priests) shows that haplogroup E was the dominant paternal lineage of the Levant prior to the Arab conquest.

I rather think the Natufians didn't speak Proto Afro-Asiatic language, rather the E-M78 Mushabians from Egypt were the ones who introduced it.

Imesmouden
10-17-2020, 10:47 AM
HGDP00620 has a bit of SSA but no IBM ancestry whatsoever, he has in fact more Natufian ancestry than Palestinians, Lebanese, and almost all MENA. Your imaginary Tuareg friends have no legitimacy to contradict Mr. Mansour Mohamed Ali Ag Hudyata. The Tuaregs have always claimed to be migrants from what is now Israel, these traditions are corroborated by genetic and archeological findings unlike the fictional IBM myth. The remants of the Iberomaurusians or Original Berbers carry R-V88 and E-V65.

I'm sorry but you aren't indigenous to Africa.

https://i.ibb.co/qWWFpHc/Bedouin-A-1.png (https://ibb.co/txxPD0v)
https://i.ibb.co/YTZV65L/Bedouin-A-2.png (https://ibb.co/zHJt134)
https://i.ibb.co/W5zw23Q/E-M81-6.png (https://ibb.co/9g4LrvJ)

the first model you used is irrelevant , look at the distance 0.06 while the model i used have a low distance 0.01
the second model you used have a good distance and the sample scored 5.2% IBM , so why you saying no IBM ancestry?
also you have no proof to back up your claims saying original Berbers carry R-V88 and E-V65
did you forget IAM.5 who is positive to E-M81*

Imesmouden
10-17-2020, 10:49 AM
This person is closer to Greeks than to Berbers and Ancient North Africans.

https://i.ibb.co/QKh1rK8/Bedouin-A-3.png (https://imgbb.com/)

you are comparing a modern individual with an ancient north african individual lol , even north africans have a high distance with taforalt and thats normal

Imesmouden
10-17-2020, 10:53 AM
My main arguments are based on its TMRCA and its modern carriers, the very same arguments are used in peer-reviewed studies such as SolÚ-Morata et al. 2017. The earliest Natufian site (Shubayqa 1) is 14,500 to 13,500 year old. The formation and TMRCA of E-M81 fit perfectly with the Natufians/Semites.

Your rejection of its Semitic origin is based on emotions rather than rational facts.

Edit: E-M81 is more widespread among Semites than Berbers, calling Arabs "Arabized Berbers" or Phoenicians "Phoenicianized Berbers" doesn't change their ethnic background nor their linguistic affiliation.

https://i.ibb.co/F8wqMdS/1920px-Detailed-Afroasiatic-map-svg.png (https://ibb.co/RQ04mJx)
https://i.ibb.co/T2kSkHT/E-M81.png (https://ibb.co/kBxfxhy)

i will ignore all the nosense you said cause we talked about this for several times ,

you said "E-M81 is more widespread among Semites than Berbers" , proof?

Imesmouden
10-17-2020, 11:02 AM
@RagingBull have you considered the possibility that HGDP00620's present autosomal makeup might not have anything to do with whatever ancestry E-M81 is associated with? You're coming up with elaborate theories based on a single sample. Unless a large number of his Bedouin group belong to E-M81, you cannot associate much of their autosome with E-M81.

this is like using this moroccan sample in J-Y15222* to claim that the whole J-Y15222 is originated in Morocco

https://i.imgur.com/mggIM9r.png

the problem is that this people don't defend their ideas for scientific purpose , they are just trying to defend their oral heritage in all ways , they are claiming that they are descendants of prophet Abraham and that E-M81 is the abrahamic lineage and a lot of non-scientific things

RagingBull
10-17-2020, 11:26 AM
i will ignore all the nosense you said cause we talked about this for several times ,

you said "E-M81 is more widespread among Semites than Berbers" , proof?

You're Moroccan so I will use your country as an example.


According to the last countrywide census (RGPH 2014), 93 percent of Moroccan males speak Arabic and 26.9 percent of Moroccan males speak Berber. I will be biased towards Berbers and consider that Berber speakers are all ethnic Berbers, so, 73.1 percent of Moroccan males are Arab and 26.9 percent of Morrocan males are Berber. According to Semino et al. 2004, 52.3 percent of Moroccan Arabs and 68.7 percent Moroccan Berbers belong to haplogroup E-M81.

There are roughly 37 million Moroccans and roughly 18.5 million Moroccan males, so, there are 13.53 million Moroccan Arab males and 4.97 million Moroccan Berber males. Thus, E-M81 is carried by 7.07 million Moroccan Arab males and 3.41 million Moroccan Berber males.

http://rgphentableaux.hcp.ma/Default1/
https://web.archive.org/web/20110709064219/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf

Imesmouden
10-17-2020, 01:21 PM
You're Moroccan so I will use your country as an example.


According to the last countrywide census (RGPH 2014), 93 percent of Moroccan males speak Arabic and 26.9 percent of Moroccan males speak Berber. I will be biased towards Berbers and consider that Berber speakers are all ethnic Berbers, so, 73.1 percent of Moroccan males are Arab and 26.9 percent of Morrocan males are Berber. According to Semino et al. 2004, 52.3 percent of Moroccan Arabs and 68.7 percent Moroccan Berbers belong to haplogroup E-M81.

There are roughly 37 million Moroccans and roughly 18.5 million Moroccan males, so, there are 13.53 million Moroccan Arab males and 4.97 million Moroccan Berber males. Thus, E-M81 is carried by 7.07 million Moroccan Arab males and 3.41 million Moroccan Berber males.

http://rgphentableaux.hcp.ma/Default1/
https://web.archive.org/web/20110709064219/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf

You just bring things out from imagination , my question was clear

give a source prove that moroccans who speaks darija "aka moroccan arabic" carry E-M81 more than moroccans who speak berber

Imesmouden
10-17-2020, 01:28 PM
https://i.imgur.com/93ls1LX.png

E-M81 reach 98% in some berber speaking regions

RagingBull
10-18-2020, 01:59 AM
you are comparing a modern individual with an ancient north african individual lol , even north africans have a high distance with taforalt and thats normal

Nice selective memory you got there. I also compared him to Ancient Levantines and it turns out he is closer to Mesolithic Levantines than to his Berber contemporaries.

RagingBull
10-18-2020, 02:04 AM
You just bring things out from imagination , my question was clear

give a source prove that moroccans who speaks darija "aka moroccan arabic" carry E-M81 more than moroccans who speak berber

What's the point denying my results when anyone can do the same basic operations?

Imesmouden
10-18-2020, 10:30 AM
Nice selective memory you got there. I also compared him to Ancient Levantines and it turns out he is closer to Mesolithic Levantines than to his Berber contemporaries.

Yes thats normal

and here is what we get when we compare him with egyptians , saudis , lebanese , libyans

he is closer to libyans and egyptians than saudis , unlike the other bedouins

https://i.imgur.com/hFXSQB7.png

Imesmouden
10-18-2020, 10:31 AM
What's the point denying my results when anyone can do the same basic operations?

ugh should i repeat it again?

give a source prove that moroccans who speaks darija "aka moroccan arabic" carry E-M81 more than moroccans who speak berber as you said

Imesmouden
10-18-2020, 10:35 AM
Natufian components when adding Proto natufian simulated

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkiRGYzXEAAJD3S?format=png&name=900x900

Granary
10-19-2020, 06:08 AM
Natufian components when adding Proto natufian simulated

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkiRGYzXEAAJD3S?format=png&name=900x900

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is in this discussion.

leorcooper19
10-19-2020, 10:07 PM
Where can one find G25 coords for the HGDP samples?

Imesmouden
10-20-2020, 03:03 PM
Where can one find G25 coords for the HGDP samples?

G25 Modern Individual Samples scaled
in g25vahaduo

Ibericus
10-20-2020, 04:25 PM
Historical question for you guys: Isaac Ha-Levi (b 1380) son of Abraham Ha-Levi 1320.

I think it's this lineage: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/tamakh-abraham-ben-isaac-ha-levi

He may have come from Barcelona or Provence. Those who claim to descend from him are E-PF2546 -> E-FGC22844 (TMRCA 2100ybp).

If the clade is not of semitic origin when did this lineage become Jewish? Carthage?
40446
40447

Imesmouden
10-20-2020, 09:56 PM
Historical question for you guys: Isaac Ha-Levi (b 1380) son of Abraham Ha-Levi 1320.

I think it's this lineage: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/tamakh-abraham-ben-isaac-ha-levi

He may have come from Barcelona or Provence. Those who claim to descend from him are E-PF2546 -> E-FGC22844 (TMRCA 2100ybp).

If the clade is not of semitic origin when did this lineage become Jewish? Carthage?
40446
40447

We can't be sure if these guys are really descend from this person

and also we can't call this lineage as a jewish one , since there is some moroccans from Lamtuna tribe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamtuna) belong to this clade

and surely there will be more north africans under it but there is a lack of dna tests here

leorcooper19
10-20-2020, 10:49 PM
Okay, I believe Imesmouden is onto something with his original comparison between the available HGDP Bedouin samples. I added them onto the G25 Causasus - Near East PCA as well as North Africans and here is what I found:

https://ibb.co/Xyn2tDD

HGDP00620 seems to plot in between his fellow Negev Bedouins (called Levantine-shifted Bedouins here) and North Africans. Now, I'm well aware that this may have nothing to do with his paternal line, but it seems like too much of a coincidence.


My main arguments are based on its TMRCA and its modern carriers, the very same arguments are used in peer-reviewed studies such as SolÚ-Morata et al. 2017. The earliest Natufian site (Shubayqa 1) is 14,500 to 13,500 year old. The formation and TMRCA of E-M81 fit perfectly with the Natufians/Semites.

Your rejection of its Semitic origin is based on emotions rather than rational facts.

Edit: E-M81 is more widespread among Semites than Berbers, calling Arabs "Arabized Berbers" or Phoenicians "Phoenicianized Berbers" doesn't change their ethnic background nor their linguistic affiliation.

Being in E-Z827 > E-M84 myself, I'm quite familiar with the presence of E deep in the Levant. I'd like to point out that the connection you made here between E-M81 and the E is highly flawed: the E found in Natufians is E-Z827 > Z830* and negative for all downstreams. E-Z827 > L19 > M81 is not in any way a descendant of that Natufian E. In fact, their TMRCA is c. 23,200 years ago (25,400-21,100 ybp at 95%)!

Not only that, but we are missing a critical element here: Egyptian NGS/WGS Y-DNA. Egyptians likely have the most severe case of modern undertesting relative to historical population size. If Egyptians were to show up on YFull en masse, we would see a massive change in the tree, particularly in the story of E-M35.

Ragingbull, I am honestly open to any origin but I feel like if one appreciates the data in full anything other than an ultimately North African origin is hard to believe. If you would, please share what you believe are the few best pieces of evidence available that support the idea that E-M81 is ultimately Levantine in origin. There are significant issues in using E-M165* HGDP00620, using modern Tuareg political discourse, or using Berber communities lacking in E-M81. I also don't get why you bring up Muslims from West Asia who are downstream E-M81 as evidence too; certainly the exact origin of the MRCA of E-CTS4236 was in North Africa. Past that, what do you believe is the most convincing evidence?

Ibericus: there are many Jewish lineages downstream E-M81 but this particular one is likely not one of them; it seems like a case of oral tradition not matching up with historical or genetic evidence. As to how the undoubtedly Jewish lineages in E-M81 became Jewish, ideas range from E-M81 being in the Levant pre-diaspora due to Carthiginian-Phoenician migration to Jews picking up the lineage in North Africa and/or Spain similar to how Ashkenazim acquired some lineages of R1b in Europe.

Imesmouden: In my opinion I would be careful about calling IAM.5 "E-M81." Even if he is positive for just one SNP at that level and thus technically he could be identified as "E-L19 > E-M81*", he is still only one or two hundred years closer to E-M81 than E-M81 is to the rest of E-L19, so not really close enough to be meaningfully in E-M81.

eclipser
10-21-2020, 10:08 AM
Meanwhile in this forum on an different topic ...i hope he will be back again with an other proof/theory or screenshots :). 40452

Shanck
10-21-2020, 01:18 PM
The least plausible hypothesis is that the Natufians magically disappeared after teaching their language to Iran_N migrants, the same hypothesis also implies that the paternal haplogroup of the Iberomaurusians magically shifted from E-M78 to E-L19. This hypothesis has so many holes that I will just point out its two biggest flaws:
-E carriers didn't disappear after the Neolithic, rather, they became the elites and the kings of the Levant as evidenced by the paternal haplogroup of the king of Megiddo.
-The distibution of E-Z827 among the pre-Arab inhabitants of the Levant (Palestinian Christians and Samaritan priests) shows that haplogroup E was the dominant paternal lineage of the Levant prior to the Arab conquest.

Clearly not the case. The samples from Semitic-speaking cities/sites in the early Bronze age (NOT in the "Islamic conquests" as you're purporting) are rich in J1 and, to a lesser extent, in J2b, G-M406, E-M123, T1a1 and H2-P96. Even in the middle bronze age we find 4 samples that belonged to E-M123, less than J1.

Became kings? Sure, the Megiddo brothers were a part of the noble class in the city, but that's not the case for the Hazor and Ebla samples.
It's clear who is being emotional here:


Your rejection of its Semitic origin is based on emotions rather than rational facts.

And for your information, Samaritan priests are E-V22, which is derived from E-M35>E-L539>E-M78, so they're not descended from the Levantine lineage of E-Z830.

Imesmouden
10-21-2020, 04:46 PM
Okay, I believe Imesmouden is onto something with his original comparison between the available HGDP Bedouin samples. I added them onto the G25 Causasus - Near East PCA as well as North Africans and here is what I found:

https://ibb.co/Xyn2tDD

HGDP00620 seems to plot in between his fellow Negev Bedouins (called Levantine-shifted Bedouins here) and North Africans. Now, I'm well aware that this may have nothing to do with his paternal line, but it seems like too much of a coincidence.



Being in E-Z827 > E-M84 myself, I'm quite familiar with the presence of E deep in the Levant. I'd like to point out that the connection you made here between E-M81 and the E is highly flawed: the E found in Natufians is E-Z827 > Z830* and negative for all downstreams. E-Z827 > L19 > M81 is not in any way a descendant of that Natufian E. In fact, their TMRCA is c. 23,200 years ago (25,400-21,100 ybp at 95%)!

Not only that, but we are missing a critical element here: Egyptian NGS/WGS Y-DNA. Egyptians likely have the most severe case of modern undertesting relative to historical population size. If Egyptians were to show up on YFull en masse, we would see a massive change in the tree, particularly in the story of E-M35.

Ragingbull, I am honestly open to any origin but I feel like if one appreciates the data in full anything other than an ultimately North African origin is hard to believe. If you would, please share what you believe are the few best pieces of evidence available that support the idea that E-M81 is ultimately Levantine in origin. There are significant issues in using E-M165* HGDP00620, using modern Tuareg political discourse, or using Berber communities lacking in E-M81. I also don't get why you bring up Muslims from West Asia who are downstream E-M81 as evidence too; certainly the exact origin of the MRCA of E-CTS4236 was in North Africa. Past that, what do you believe is the most convincing evidence?

Ibericus: there are many Jewish lineages downstream E-M81 but this particular one is likely not one of them; it seems like a case of oral tradition not matching up with historical or genetic evidence. As to how the undoubtedly Jewish lineages in E-M81 became Jewish, ideas range from E-M81 being in the Levant pre-diaspora due to Carthiginian-Phoenician migration to Jews picking up the lineage in North Africa and/or Spain similar to how Ashkenazim acquired some lineages of R1b in Europe.

Imesmouden: In my opinion I would be careful about calling IAM.5 "E-M81." Even if he is positive for just one SNP at that level and thus technically he could be identified as "E-L19 > E-M81*", he is still only one or two hundred years closer to E-M81 than E-M81 is to the rest of E-L19, so not really close enough to be meaningfully in E-M81.

Thank you

and yes i agree , it's only safe to say that IAM.5 is E-L19

Imesmouden
10-21-2020, 06:57 PM
i just want to mention that i also have literally no problem about the haplogroup origin , i don't mind if it was originated in north africa , europe , levant or sub sahara etc...
since i have no ideological ideas about the haplogroup and i don't link religions with it , i won't lose anything if the haplogroup was originated outside north africa and i'm just looking for the truth
but i stick with the north african origin cause it's the most scientific and logical hypothesis in my opinion and all the actual scientific evidence point to a north african origin.

RagingBull
10-22-2020, 03:37 AM
Clearly not the case. The samples from Semitic-speaking cities/sites in the early Bronze age (NOT in the "Islamic conquests" as you're purporting) are rich in J1 and, to a lesser extent, in J2b, G-M406, E-M123, T1a1 and H2-P96. Even in the middle bronze age we find 4 samples that belonged to E-M123, less than J1.
Most of the individuals tested in these studies are low status and their language affiliation is unknown. The Bronze Age Levant was as mixed as it is today, it was home to Semites, Hurrians, Indo-Aryans, Hittites, Philistines, and Egyptians.

And you're ignoring the major ethnic cleansing practiced by the Israelite against non-Semites, as I previously mentioned in another thread their primary targets seem to have been non-E carriers.



Level K-4 Late Iron I, large courtyard house destroyed in big fire. The individual (I4517) seems to have perished during the devastation of the city.
I4517---- Megiddo_IA ---- J1a2a1a2d2b2b2c2:S16807/S21060

___________________________________________

Became kings? Sure, the Megiddo brothers were a part of the noble class in the city, but that's not the case for the Hazor and Ebla samples.
The Semitic nobility of the Ancient Near East hails from an eponymous ancestor named Ditanu. The other elite invidivuals will probably belong to the same haplogroup.

___________________________________________

It's clear who is being emotional here:
Yes. Some people are unable to accept facts, they rather believe in foreign colonists than their own ancestral traditions.

___________________________________________

And for your information, Samaritan priests are E-V22, which is derived from E-M35>E-L539>E-M78, so they're not descended from the Levantine lineage of E-Z830.
E-M78 is found among the Natufians. E-V22 itself is present among Levantine-derived SNP individuals. There's absolutely no doubt that E-V22 is Semitic.


From these results, we formulated a four-part hypothesis to explain the origins of the ancestries in the sampled eastern African groups. First, admixture in northeastern Africa, likely associated with the spread of pastoralism, created groups (as yet unsampled with ancient DNA) with approximately equal proportions of ancestry related to (1) present-day Nilotic speakers such as Dinka and Nuer, and (2) sampled ancient and present-day groups from northern Africa and the Levant.
40464

RagingBull
10-22-2020, 04:32 AM
Okay, I believe Imesmouden is onto something with his original comparison between the available HGDP Bedouin samples. I added them onto the G25 Causasus - Near East PCA as well as North Africans and here is what I found:

https://ibb.co/Xyn2tDD
HGDP00620 seems to plot in between his fellow Negev Bedouins (called Levantine-shifted Bedouins here) and North Africans. Now, I'm well aware that this may have nothing to do with his paternal line, but it seems like too much of a coincidence.

Being in E-Z827 > E-M84 myself, I'm quite familiar with the presence of E deep in the Levant. I'd like to point out that the connection you made here between E-M81 and the E is highly flawed: the E found in Natufians is E-Z827 > Z830* and negative for all downstreams. E-Z827 > L19 > M81 is not in any way a descendant of that Natufian E. In fact, their TMRCA is c. 23,200 years ago (25,400-21,100 ybp at 95%)!

Not only that, but we are missing a critical element here: Egyptian NGS/WGS Y-DNA. Egyptians likely have the most severe case of modern undertesting relative to historical population size. If Egyptians were to show up on YFull en masse, we would see a massive change in the tree, particularly in the story of E-M35.

Ragingbull, I am honestly open to any origin but I feel like if one appreciates the data in full anything other than an ultimately North African origin is hard to believe. If you would, please share what you believe are the few best pieces of evidence available that support the idea that E-M81 is ultimately Levantine in origin. There are significant issues in using E-M165* HGDP00620, using modern Tuareg political discourse, or using Berber communities lacking in E-M81. I also don't get why you bring up Muslims from West Asia who are downstream E-M81 as evidence too; certainly the exact origin of the MRCA of E-CTS4236 was in North Africa. Past that, what do you believe is the most convincing evidence?

Natufians and PPN individuals plot inbetween North Africans and Anatolians. Middle Easterners aren't pristine Natufian, using them to disprove the origin of another population is fallacious.

The Natufians carried a wide range of E subclades, the presence of E-M165 among their Bedouin descendants indicate that they also carried E-L19/E-M81.

There's no issue with using this individual because Berbers do not carry this haplogroup. E-M81 is barely present (below 2%) among Eastern Berbers (Siwis) so it makes it even more unlikely that E-M81 was brought to the Levant by them. Concerning the Tuaregs, their self-perception is very important on the contrary, many people like Imesmouden use them to advance their agenda while ignoring what they have to say about their own origin. The Tuaregs (90% E-M81) do not consider themselves Berber but rather Arab or Israelite depending on their castes, they view Berbers (2 to 60% E-M81) as mixed foreigners unlike their Hassani Arab brethren (80% E-M81).