UP Syed Results

[subzero85]

I'm less of a practicing Muslim now, but I've always held that being a Quraysh wasn't a literal group of people with a shared common patrilineal descent. Bani Shaiba being R1a has proven that in my mind and I would like to know more about how their R1a ended up in the Hejaz to begin with.

In addition, Bani Tamim is a humongous Arab tribe and have many clades that are outside of J1. I don't think Arab culture pre-Islam was necessarily opposed to absorbing another family, adoptions, letting freed slaves join, etc. which would make a larger tribal confederation more heterogeneous.

The Shia point-of-view of history has asserted that Umayya (progenitor of the Ummayads) was adopted by Abd Shams and was a "Roman slave boy". If this view is correct then this could mean that he's E, J2, G, or something even more exotic for the Middle East like R1b or I and that there is no consistent Quraysh haplogroup because of further diversity.

When it comes to Bani Hashim there should only be one 'right' Y-DNA'. I still believe that the J-FGC10500+ clades downstream of L859 are the best candidate but I'm admitting that I'm only agreeing with the consensus on FamilyTreeDNA, the convenient age of the mutation, and the fact that there are a large number of claimants to being a Sharif/Syed on that line. I'm willing to update my beliefs if proven wrong.

[royaljoker]

This question can only be fully answered with ancient dna from Arabia of course but i remain sceptical because L657 in Arabia before 600 A.D because L657 is pretty much absent among Christian Arabs, Jews, Kurds, Assyrians and even rare among Persians. It peaks in the Gulf region were a big presence of Indian, Baluch and other Iranic immigrants is documented. From here these lines could diffuse deeper into Arabia in the last 1500 years.

Arabs are extremely "oversampled" at Yfull and FTDNA compared to Baluchs, Afghans, Iranians and Indians, which likely have very similar L657 clades so some old L657 subclades looks at Yfull specific for Arabs, but with better sampling i doubt this will be still the case. For now most of the Indian L657 samples on Yfull are just from few academic studies and few private Indian L657 samples were uploaded at Yfull.

L657 orginates in Fatyanovo-Abashevo and Corded Ware. It arrived via Central Asia/BMAC in South Asia. Some speculate that Mitanni Indo-Aryans in Bronze Age Syria were R1a-L657, because they were Indo-Aryan speaking, but this is for now just speculation and some Indo-Aryan groups like Kalash lack L657 and are dominated by R1a>Z2124>Z2123. Z2123 is also not rare among Indians so there is a good chance Mitanni in the Near East lacked L657 and were rather dominated by Z2123. For me L657 rather looks like a line specific/typical for a subset of Bronze Age Indo-Aryans, which via Arachosia migrated into South Asia. So we still see lot of L657 in Gedrosia/Arachosia and India but less so in Iran, Kafiristan and West Asia, which all have or had an Indo-Aryan presence once. But again only ancient dna can give us an answer here and maybe i am mislead by modern distribution of L657.

Thanks this is great

I would have thought that the absence of R1a among other Middle Easterners would have helped the case of R1a, after all in my personal view the fact the Qahtanites are J2 weekens the case that J2 could also be it for Adnan. I've found some R-L657 Arab Jews (belonging to Bani Khazraj an old Jewish tribe from Medina. equally I don't know how statistically big it is among jews as a whole), but the fact that there aren't kurds, Assyrians and etc who have R-L657 strengthens it, because as I read on Wikipedia (not the best source) the case that was presented from Y-Aaron had the problem that it was also occasionally found in non-aaronite DNA (other tribes and etc). If RL657 represents Adnan then it really shouldn't be among Kurds and Assyrians who are entirely different races.

It's not that I'm very pro R-L657, after all, as I said earlier, the Ba-alawis are G, and I've traditionally believed they were sayyids. I just have a particular problem with Hashemites being J2 because it doesn't delineate them enough from the local middle eastern DNA. It would make more sense to me if it were G or E.

Arab history gives every Indication of Adnan's foreignness. Ishmael built the Ka,ba in makkah, but it was ruled over by a Qahtanite all the way up to Qusay. Showing that the Adnanites may not have had the man power to rule their own settlement until quite late. By the time Hagar comes to Arabia there's already fully matured tribes like Banu Jhurham. It was the same with the Jews who had to kick out all of Canaan by the time of moses, that's generations and generations after Abraham - it took time for them to become a nation of size against an already well developed native population that was distinct from them.

[Alain]

https://www.britannica.com/biography...nt-scholarship
"The saga of Abraham unfolds between two landmarks, the exodus from “Ur of the Chaldeans” (Ur Kasdim) of the family, or clan, of Terah and “the purchase of” (or “the burials in”) the cave of Machpelah. Tradition seems particularly firm on this point. The Hebrew text, in fact, locates the departure specifically at Ur Kasdim, the Kasdim being none other than the Kaldu of the cuneiform texts at Mari. It is manifestly a migration of which one tribe is the centre. The leader of the movement is designated by name: Terah, who “takes them out” from Ur, Abram his son, Lot the son of Haran, another son of Terah, and their wives, the best known being Sarai, the wife of Abram. The existence of another son of Terah, Nahor, who appears later, is noted.
Most scholars agree that Ur Kasdim was the Sumerian city of Ur, today Tall al-Muqayyar (or Mughair), about 200 miles (300 km) southeast of Baghdad in lower Mesopotamia, which was excavated from 1922 to 1934. It is certain that the cradle of the ancestors was the seat of a vigorous polytheism whose memory had not been lost and whose uncontested master in Ur was Nanna (or Sin), the Sumero-Akkadian moon god. “They served other gods,” Joshua, Moses’ successor, recalled, speaking to their descendants at Shechem.

After the migration from Ur (c. 2000 BCE), the reasons for which are unknown, the first important stopping place was Harran, where the caravan remained for some time. The city has been definitely located in upper Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, in the Balikh valley and can be found on the site of the modern Harran in Turkey. It has been shown that Harran was a pilgrimage city, for it was a centre of the Sin cult and consequently closely related to the moon-god cult of Ur. The Mari tablets have shed new light on the patriarchal period, specifically in terms of the city of Harran.

There have been many surprising items in the thousands of tablets found in the palace at Mari. Not only are the Ḫapiru (“Hebrews”) mentioned but so also remarkably are the Banu Yamina (“Benjaminites”). It is not that the latter are identical with the family of Benjamin, a son of Jacob, but rather that a name with such a biblical ring appears in these extrabiblical sources in the 18th century BCE. What seems beyond doubt is that these Benjaminites (or Yaminites, meaning “Sons of the Right,” or “Sons of the South,” according to their habits of orientation) are always indicated as being north of Mari and in Harran, in the Temple of Sin."


Interestingly this south and right equivalency I had mentioned on another post about Deccan.
"Ultimately from the word for right, which facing east, becomes south."
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post721075

I think the Shasu also played an important role in the development of the Israelites and the religion of early Judaism, the Shasu from the Sinai Peninsula have already practiced the idea of ​​believing in one God to some extent and this idea certainly comes from Egypt „Amun-Re /King of the Gods" and Akhenaten led the Aton cult during his tenure and from the initial monolatry, it later led to monotheistic principles and the Shasu adapted this idea and in their barren desert landscape the universal invisible god "YHWH" developed and when you immigrated to the land of Kaanan, influences from the east came from the immigrant Hebrews (Abraham / ancestor) from Mesopotamia and from this amalgamation the Monothist religion and the Israeli people slowly developed

[royaljoker]

I've heard people say that R-L657 could be from Mawalis but in my mind it makes more sense for J to be from Mawalis as that was the local population, and most Mawalis were from the broad Middle East. There's almost no contact with India until the reign of Walid in Umayyad times. And if the Shaibites have it then they R-L657 origin would be before the introduction of the Mawali system.

[subzero85]

Thanks this is great

I would have thought that the absence of R1a among other Middle Easterners would have helped the case of R1a, after all in my personal view the fact the Qahtanites are J2 weekens the case that J2 could also be it for Adnan. I've found some R-L657 Arab Jews (belonging to Bani Khazraj an old Jewish tribe from Medina. equally I don't know how statistically big it is among jews as a whole), but the fact that there aren't kurds, Assyrians and etc who have R-L657 strengthens it, because as I read on Wikipedia (not the best source) the case that was presented from Y-Aaron had the problem that it was also occasionally found in non-aaronite DNA (other tribes and etc). If RL657 represents Adnan then it really shouldn't be among Kurds and Assyrians who are entirely different races.

It's not that I'm very pro R-L657, after all, as I said earlier, the Ba-alawis are G, and I've traditionally believed they were sayyids. I just have a particular problem with Hashemites being J2 because it doesn't delineate them enough from the local middle eastern DNA. It would make more sense to me if it were G or E.

Arab history gives every Indication of Adnan's foreignness. Ishmael built the Ka,ba in makkah, but it was ruled over by a Qahtanite all the way up to Qusay. Showing that the Adnanites may not have had the man power to rule their own settlement until quite late. By the time Hagar comes to Arabia there's already fully matured tribes like Banu Jhurham. It was the same with the Jews who had to kick out all of Canaan by the time of moses, that's generations and generations after Abraham - it took time for them to become a nation of size against an already well developed native population that was distinct from them.

I thought the Adnanite vs Qahtanite divide was an origin myth? Or at least additional narrative added to existing tribal rivalries.

[Biharguy]

I thought that too. Do the Southern Yemeni people differ genetically from the Arabians?

[royaljoker]

I'm less of a practicing Muslim now, but I've always held that being a Quraysh wasn't a literal group of people with a shared common patrilineal descent. Bani Shaiba being R1a has proven that in my mind and I would like to know more about how their R1a ended up in the Hejaz to begin with.

In addition, Bani Tamim is a humongous Arab tribe and have many clades that are outside of J1. I don't think Arab culture pre-Islam was necessarily opposed to absorbing another family, adoptions, letting freed slaves join, etc. which would make a larger tribal confederation more heterogeneous.

The Shia point-of-view of history has asserted that Umayya (progenitor of the Ummayads) was adopted by Abd Shams and was a "Roman slave boy". If this view is correct then this could mean that he's E, J2, G, or something even more exotic for the Middle East like R1b or I and that there is no consistent Quraysh haplogroup because of further diversity.

When it comes to Bani Hashim there should only be one 'right' Y-DNA'. I still believe that the J-FGC10500+ clades downstream of L859 are the best candidate but I'm admitting that I'm only agreeing with the consensus on FamilyTreeDNA, the convenient age of the mutation, and the fact that there are a large number of claimants to being a Sharif/Syed on that line. I'm willing to update my beliefs if proven wrong.

I think that's heavy Shia Bias. Shia's are after all are particular about linages and discredit everyone who claimed power and wasn't a twelver Shia Alid, including their disregard of Umar and Abu Bakr as being Quraysh (for them Quraysh begins with Qusay), Umayyads, Ismaili/ Fatimids and at time even Abbasids.

I don't think there is solid historical evidence of Quraysh being a confederacy of lineages, since anyone reading Islamic and Pre-Islamic history very quickly realises that Lineages meant everything to the arab who would hold feuds over generations and would very strongly maintain ties of kinship. They did practice adoption but I think people have a skewed view of the whole thing, I don't think the Arabs are too different from the Rajputs. Both cultures are very tribal and war like (perhaps and influence of the desert), and both used to practice adoption (see the recent Maharaja of Jaipur for example). But if one sampled the Rajputs you wouldn't find so much variation to label them a conglomerate of lineages. They are by and large R1a (although they haven't been as well tested I do suspect that all the major Rajput houses would really be R1a from Sissodia to Rahtor), you could say that this is because they were very particular about their adoptions. Well the same is true with the Arabs who looked down on everyone else. Yes the prophet (saw) adopted a son called Zayd but he too was just from another Arab tribe, we dont have any example of an adoption from a non-arab tribe except shia allegations -which are inherently biased.

If we look at the historical evidence, really there shouldn't be as more variance than the rajputs. Haplogroups may have come during the islamic era but just look at what some ummayad sources actually say about Mawalis. The following is from wikipedia:

The Umayyad state is remembered as an Arab-centric state, being run by and for the benefit of those who were ethnically Arab though Muslim in creed.[13][32] The non-Arab Muslims resented their marginal social position and were easily drawn into Abbasid opposition to Umayyad rule.[15][16][28] Arabs dominated the bureaucracy and military, and were housed in fortresses separate from the local population outside of Arabia.[7] Even after converting to Islam, non-Arabs or Mawali could not live in these garrison cities. The non-Arabs were not allowed to work for the government nor could they hold officer positions in the Umayyad military and they still had to pay the jizya tax for non-Muslims.[32][33][34][35] Non-Muslims under Umayyad rule were subject to these same injunctions.[36] Racial intermarriage between Arabs and non Arabs was rare.[8] When it did occur, it was only allowed between an Arab man and a non-Arab woman while non-Arab men were generally not free to marry Arab women.[9]

Conversion to Islam occurred gradually. If a non-Arab wished to convert to Islam, they not only had to give up their own names but also had to remain a second-class citizen.[14][34] The non-Arab would be "adopted" by an Arab tribe,[35] though they would not actually adopt the tribe's name as that would risk pollution of perceived Arab racial purity. Rather, the non-Arab would take the last name of "freedman of al-(tribe's name)", even if they were not a slave prior to conversion. This essentially meant they were subservient to the tribe who sponsored their conversion.[14][37]

I thought the Adnanite vs Qahtanite divide was an origin myth? Or at least additional narrative added to existing tribal rivalries.

I think there's quite some evidence for it, in both Islamic and Pre-Islamic world -espeically in more recent times with archaeology. Even if you read the Bible, Qeyder and his descendants are acknowledged as Ishmaelite's and Ishmael's descendants who live in the Valley of Becca (old name for Makkah) distinguishing them from the natives. Adnan is said to have been a real figure, a vassal of Nebucahdnezzer II, some new archaeology was discovered regarding him. And he's remembered fondly by the Arabs in old poetry. And if anyone accepts the prophet as being of descent from Abraham they must also accept that there are Arabised Arabs represented by the Ishamelites and pre-Abrahamic arab represented by Qahtan. Since it's pretty much accepted that natives inhabited the region before Abraham by everyone. If if you decide not to call it adnan and qahtan there should nonetheless be Arabised and pure arabs.

One can paint adnanites and the tribes as non literal entities but if you look at even the biographies of the prophet which are generally quite thoroughly done, the prophet as a young boy grew up witnessing war. The Sacriligous (Harb al Fujar) wars are really good proof of how the tribal network is, because all these tribe that were related to one another got pulled into war. And then if you say that these weren't actually one solid tribe and had different lineages, its sounds like the strangest thing ever, because then there is non incentive of getting involved in someone else's war -so at the very least adoptions were an occasional thing and not rampant -since its also fact that Arabs would prefer their brother over step-brother they would definitely prefer brothers over those adopted. Even in the missionary activities of Islam, Missionaries are sent to tribes so this is well before the Ummayyads. I think the problem is that a lot of the geneticist dealing with the Arab world don't actually have an orientalists background.

Almost every war of the Prophets time and subsequent history like the Rida wars, and the succession conflicts. All involve alliances based on proximity of Kinship between Ilyas, Qais and Rabiah. Equally the Qahtanites have their confederacies based on proximity of kinship right up to the modern day with the colonial founding of the UAE (and equally Saudi/Gulf states). They're all based on proximity of kinship between a certain sect of Qahtanites.

Btw Banu Tamim was huge even in the prophets time, they occupied a vast area.

I think there should be a visible Haplogroup difference that a person sees between the descendants of Abraham and the natives. Equivalent to the scenario in India, where the Indo Arynas are overwhelmingly R1a and native dravidians are H. Especially as the Indo-aryan invasion (or migration or etc) seems to have happened around after Abraham. Perhaps the E/G/R actually represent Adnan. And J are adopted Qahtanites. Since its established that Arab adopted among each other but it hasn't been established if they adopted outsiders (personally I think the latter is more unlikely than the former)

[The Saite]

I actually find the existence of general R1a Subclades in the Gulf interesting.
Although it might not be entirely related to the Shaibites, haplogroup R1a is 9% in Oman (Abu Amero 2009), 6% in Kuwaite (Triki Fendari 2016), 8% in Behrain (Al Sanan 2019), and it holds presence in Saudi Arabia even if it's deacresed. In some cases it's more than J2a branches (so less possibility of being medieval Persian?). Nevertheless point is, I think we have a chance of R1a-rich population to have had impacted East Arabia. Either that was before or during the Islamic era I don't know. But surely they were Blended into the current Arabian clans 'Randomly'.

[davit]

I actually find the existence of general R1a Subclades in the Gulf interesting. Although it might be not entirety related to the Shaibites, haplogroup R1a is 9% in Oman (Abu Amero 2009), 6% in Kuwaite (Triki Fendari 2016), 8% in Behrain (Al Sanan 2019), and it holds presence in Saudi Arabia even if it's smaller. In some cases it's more than J2a branches (so less chances to be medieval Persian?). Nevertheless point is I think we have a chance of a R1a-rich population to have had impacted East Arabia. Either that was before or during the Islamic era I don't know. But surely they were Blended into current Arabian clans 'Randomly'

Isn't it possible, if not likely, Khorosani Persians had more R1a than J2a?

[subzero85]

Thanks this is great

I would have thought that the absence of R1a among other Middle Easterners would have helped the case of R1a, after all in my personal view the fact the Qahtanites are J2 weekens the case that J2 could also be it for Adnan. I've found some R-L657 Arab Jews (belonging to Bani Khazraj an old Jewish tribe from Medina. equally I don't know how statistically big it is among jews as a whole), but the fact that there aren't kurds, Assyrians and etc who have R-L657 strengthens it, because as I read on Wikipedia (not the best source) the case that was presented from Y-Aaron had the problem that it was also occasionally found in non-aaronite DNA (other tribes and etc). If RL657 represents Adnan then it really shouldn't be among Kurds and Assyrians who are entirely different races.

It's not that I'm very pro R-L657, after all, as I said earlier, the Ba-alawis are G, and I've traditionally believed they were sayyids. I just have a particular problem with Hashemites being J2 because it doesn't delineate them enough from the local middle eastern DNA. It would make more sense to me if it were G or E.

Arab history gives every Indication of Adnan's foreignness. Ishmael built the Ka,ba in makkah, but it was ruled over by a Qahtanite all the way up to Qusay. Showing that the Adnanites may not have had the man power to rule their own settlement until quite late. By the time Hagar comes to Arabia there's already fully matured tribes like Banu Jhurham. It was the same with the Jews who had to kick out all of Canaan by the time of moses, that's generations and generations after Abraham - it took time for them to become a nation of size against an already well developed native population that was distinct from them.

I thought J2 systematically increases as you go northwards in the Middle East and occurs less so in the south? Peaking in the Middle East far above the Arabian peninsula?

J2 also had branches that migrated to Europe and India ~10k+ years ago.