January 21, 2009

North African male legacy in southern Europe quantified

This seems like an improvement over previous attempts at quantification of the genetic effects of the historical occupation of parts of southern Europe. The researchers looked at haplotypes within three haplogroups that are likely to share common ancestry with North Africans within the relevant time frame:
Haplogroups E1b1b1b(M81 derived), E1b1b1a-β (M78 derived chromosomes showing the rare DYS439 allele 10) and a subset of J1 (M267 derived) were identified in the literature as being NWAfrica specific, together accounting for between 58 and 90% of males in populations from this area, but never above 13% in Europe.

...

Therefore, following this, European Y chromosomes within the three haplogroups identical to, or with one mutational difference from, NW African STR haplotypes were considered compatible with an MNA ancestry. In Iberia and peninsular Italy, they account for 90, 78 and 42% of the E1b1b1b, E1b1b1a-b and J1 chromosomes respectively.

It seems that E-M81 in Europe is indeed largely of recent North African origin, E-M78β is largely so, but J1 only partly so; perhaps the rest of it is due to other (pre)-historic movements of people from West Asia directly into Europe.

Estimates of the NW African types ranged from 0 to 18.6% (in Cantabria). For Sicily, the estimate was 7.5%, similar to the 6% reported recently. NW Apulia is second in Italy at 6.5% and E Campania third at 4.8%. The remaining Italian regions have lower than 2%, except Lucera (3.3%) and Central Tuscany (2.4%). W Calabria comes in at 0% as do some other Italian regions.

In Portugal, the total contribution is 7.1% and in Spain 7.7%. Higher than average is the aforementioned Cantabria and Galicia (6.8%).

It is noteworthy that in all the regions, E-M81 seems to be the main component of the NW African element, but the situation in Sicily is reversed: Sicily is highest in J1 and second-highest in E-M78β and not particularly high in E-M81.

European Journal of Human Genetics doi:10.1038/ejhg.2008.258

Moors and Saracens in Europe: estimating the medieval North African male legacy in southern Europe

Cristian Capelli et al.

Abstract

To investigate the male genetic legacy of the Arab rule in southern Europe during medieval times, we focused on specific Northwest African haplogroups and identified evolutionary close STR-defined haplotypes in Iberia, Sicily and the Italian peninsula. Our results point to a higher recent Northwest African contribution in Iberia and Sicily in agreement with historical data. southern Italian regions known to have experienced long-term Arab presence also show an enrichment of Northwest African types. The forensic and genomic implications of these findings are discussed.

Link

39 comments:

Gioiello said...

What did happen? The same Capelli, who in previous papers said that that there weren't a Berber or Greek legacy in Italy, is now a follower of the Semitic Lobby? We must deepen.

Gioiello said...

What does mean that Tuscany has a 2,4% of these three haplogroups? Tuscany never had a North-West African presence on its territory and Tuscany is one of the founders of European ancestry. I think this does mean that these haplogroups has an ancient presence in Italy and perhaps North-West Africans, who had 5 centuries of Roman Empire, derive, for founder effect and genetic drift, from Italy. Their low variance demonstrates this. In Italy we have a high variance and recently I found on SMGF a J1 from Mazzara del Vallo (certainly a Berber would think someone!) who is very different and from a most ancient ancestor than North-West Africans. See Ysearch Q2HCW.

Maju said...

Nothing new. I was expecting an autosomal data analysis of some sort following the impressive title but it seems that such comparison at overall genetics will have to wait (none of the extant studies on European nuclear genetics has taken North African samples).

The problem with theories claiming that North African haplogroups in Iberia are recent is that they actual distribution does not match well with any phase of the historical Al Andalus. E1b1b shows a Western distribution, even in areas that were never really controlled by Muslims (Asturias) or were only very briefly (all the NW), instead the Eastern half, that was solidly controlled by Muslims for many centuries (with very limited Pyrenean exceptions) shows very low index of E1b1b. Much of the same can be said of the last Muslim stronghold in Spain: Granada.

This North African clade does not follow at all the patterns one would expect from Muslim domination in Spain. It doesn't either seem to make sense with Phoenician or Roman control, also focused in the south and the east, not in the rather barbaric west.

So again one has to wonder about Neolithic and Chalcolithic (and maybe even Bronze Age) influences. While it seems that the alleged early and mysterious Andalusian Neolithic (and its strong influence in Portugal) has been disproven recently by Zilhao as being epicardial of later date than Cardium Pottery, the connection between Western Iberia (and other parts of Megalithic Europe) with North Africa was certainly strong in the Chalcolithic period. I don't know for sure but I wonder if these connections did not extend into the Bronze Age, before Celtic conquest (that inaugurates the Iron Age c.700 BCE).

Crimson Guard said...

Probably unlikely as other LARGE scale tests for within the 5000 year period of possible North African admixture using E-M81 and E-M78 amounts to only 1.5% in Northern Italians, 2.2% in Central Italians, 0% in Southern Italians, 1.4% in Sardinians and 1.4% in Sicilians.



Also J1 has been used for the Anatolian Origin marker of the Etruscan's which you blogged about even not so long ago as well. So they cant make up their minds.

Great said...

Dienekes, what is this paper about exactly? I have seen a chart from it, but it makes absolutely no sense to me.

terryt said...

"So again one has to wonder about Neolithic and Chalcolithic (and maybe even Bronze Age) influences".

Quite. It's a good bet that once effective boating had entered the Mediterranean it would spread widely. Many different groups would adopt it. Genes would have moved north, south, east and west around the Mediterranean.

Voyager said...

Good regional figures and more accurate than Crimson Guard's old survey on Italy.

lyndon said...

I have a few questions...perhaps I’m way behind and my questions have already been answered/covered, but anyway.

They say...

"It seems that E-M81 in “Europe” is indeed largely of recent North African origin, E-M78β is largely so, but J1 only partly so; perhaps the rest of it is due to other (pre)-historic movements of people from West Asia directly into Europe."

I'm a bit confused about this, especially since apparently E-M81 & E-M78 are at their highest frequencies in the Balkans...which didn't have any historical or recent connection with North Africa (as far as migrations are concerned...that we know of).

I'm not discounting that the haplotypes associated with E-M81 & E-M78 in Southern Europe may be slightly more varied than the Balkans...but, why would they say these haplotypes “in Europe” are of recent North African inspiration? Doesn't E3b (I don't know about E-M81 & E-M78) exist in Germany, Scandinavia etc. at sizable levels?

Britain has been found to have E-M81 & E-M78 at more or less comparable levels to that of Italy (Argyll 5.3% E-M78, South England 4.3% E-M78, East Anglia 0.8% E-M81). Here’s the link, http://www.jogg.info/32/bird.pdf; it includes studies by Capelli, Weale, Sykes etc.

So what does that say for the Balkans and other parts of Europe? Do “all of them” have recent North African admixture within 5000 years then? That just wouldn't make sense from a historical point of view.

I’m not an expert, but none of this seems to add up.

lyndon said...

I was just wondering if what I've said makes sense? Or if I've missed something that I should know about?

Still...there seems to be some lack of certainty regarding the timelines of the haplotypes associated with the E-M81 & E-M78 haplogroups in specific parts of Europe.

Again, I don't know enough about genetics for me to critique the experts in this field but I still think something doesn't seem right, for much the same reason Maju said North African haplogroups in Iberia don't correlate with historical movements.

frenchy said...

to lyndon

E-M81 is not found in the Balkans only E-M78 (mostly its main subclade E-V13).

Concerning E-M78, the authors are talking only about one M78 subclade which is E-M78β (E-V65).

They could have added also E-V22 and E-V32 as these M78 subclades are considered as North African by Cruciani et al. 2007

Maju said...

Lyndon: I think the quote you mention refers primarily to Western European E-M78, where North African-specific clades are most common, specially in the western half of the Iberian penisula (and not in the south/SE half as would be expected from a recent Muslim influx).

Most E-M78 in the Balcans and Central Europe is E-V13, which is rare in Africa in fact and must have expanded in the Neolithic from a southern Balcanic core, after a founder effect (most agree with this, though Dienekes has his own theory on that).

Britain has been found to have E-M81 & E-M78 at more or less comparable levels to that of Italy (Argyll 5.3% E-M78, South England 4.3% E-M78, East Anglia 0.8% E-M81).

This would confirm my idea that Atlantic E-M78 is of North African origin and was distributed probably in the Neolithic/Chalcolithic period in connection with Megalithism.

The apportions in (once Megalithic) Western Britain are not that different from those found in NW Iberia (c. 6-7%) and even SW Iberia (c. 10%).

lyndon said...

To - Frenchy & Maju

Thanks for the info; I think things are a lot clearer now.

I agree with Frenchy with regard to E-V22 & E-V32.

Can a "total" percentage of recent admixture be ascertained just by looking at a few subclades? I've been wondering about this because the frequencies in individuals vary in a single population.

Also, what % of admixture is defined as being significant, especially if for example only the Y-chromosome is being analyzed?

I suppose my questions would be answered if an Autosomal study is done...I don't know.

Maju said...

Can a "total" percentage of recent admixture be ascertained just by looking at a few subclades?

AFAIK no. First of all these are Y-DNA lineages, normally the more mobile of all, but also the ones more susceptible to random concentration/vanishment (drift). We would have to look very carefully at the whole picture (Y-DNA, mtDNA, autsomal DNA, X-DNA) to be able to make a more precise estimation. And it would be anyhow just an estimate.

Also I don't see that age estimates are so far very accurate. Maybe they are more refined in the mtDNA side (at least they usually make better sense) but it's all very conjectural.

My best system is to try to gather as much data as possible, study it all with due care, find any possible patterns, compare with history/prehistory (specially prehistory) and reach to a most reasonable conclusion. This requires a good knowledge or prehistory, something that is not always available (hence so many people on first thought tend to find their answers in history, even if it fits poorly).

Also, what % of admixture is defined as being significant, especially if for example only the Y-chromosome is being analyzed?

I don't understand that question.

Anyhow, I would not use the term admixture, specially as decontextualized as you do. Admixture of what with what? Every single person is product of some sort of admixture: sex is admixture, only clones can be "pure".

lyndon said...

To Maju

"Anyhow, I would not use the term admixture, specially as decontextualized as you do. Admixture of what with what?"

What I mean is...in the context of analyzing recent gene flow from an external source, what qualifies as "significant admixture" and what qualifies as being a legacy?

I ask this because they say a recent North African male "legacy" has been "quantified" in Southern Europe, but only the Y-DNA was tested, and as you say it is more susceptible to drift.

I agree that both pre-history and history need to be considered, but the North Africans were also removed/deported from the "exact" areas they studied, which might explain in the 2004 study that E-M81 & E-M78b was discovered at 0% in Southern Italy while in Northern Italy it was 1.5%

Even as far back as the Roman Empire the Romans destroyed Carthaginian settlements in western Sicily. I don't know if they took into account the Reconquista in Iberia as well.

Perhaps some sort of drift, bottleneck or founder effect has taken place because of the varied and tumultuous history associated with these areas.

Maju said...

I see what you mean now. Even if the terms used are kind of ambiguous at times I think I understand your explanation now.

Not sure why would you expect strong North African legacy in Sicily. Carthaginians were after all Phoenicians, that is West Asians primarily. Even Tunis would be today more "West Asian" than "North African" if we were to follow the sometimes misleading Y-DNA trail.

The North Italian E-M78 traces can well be of Balcano-Danubian origin (what would fit well with Neolithic archaeology). I'd check the subclades before rushing to any conclusions in this regard. Anyhow, as the approtions seem to ammount to mere traces, I would be wary of sample accidents.

As for Iberia, the "recent" Muslim presence was intense for some 800 centuries (even if the Reconquista was virtually over by 1200, the expulsion, or reluctant conversion, of Muslims and Jews did not took place until the beginning of Modern Age). It is clear that whatever demic input was North African (Arabs were just a small, albeit powerful, minority) but it also seems concentrated in the South and, if anywhere else, the East, the areas that were most important economically for Muslims. Yet you find highest concentration of North African clades in the NW (I said SW before but I was largely wrong), where Muslim presence was virtually null. Unless it represents an undocumented massive exodus of North African Christians, not just there but also to western Britain, it makes no sense to connect it with Muslim presence at all.

As for the South and East, these were also the areas most reluctant to force the expulsion of Muslims in 1492, because they made up most of the much needed agricultural workforce. This peasant status of Andalusi Muslims, btw, suggests that most were actually native Iberians, who had converted upon the arrival of Islam. This also connects well with the fact that most Taifa monarchs belonged to native dynasties (none Arabic and just a few were Berber or "Slavic"). The strongest presence of Berbers, as documented historically, was in the mountainous area of Andalusia that later became the Kingdom of Granada, specially in the coasts.

I gather that if we were to find a significative Berber legacy from that period, we should find it in Eastern Andalusia specially (and in Andalusia, Valencia and Aragon in general), yet it's not the case at all. Instead the highest concentration of North African E (and also of Balcanic E, as well) is in NW Iberia. Why?

My logic is that, excepting Asturias (which may have drifted in later times under enighbour pressure), NW Iberia had a very late colonization time. There was almost no AMH presence there before late Neolithic, arriving virtually in connection with Megalithism. Therefore I gather that the late Neolithic/Chalcolithic colonists arrived already with that founder effect. If they came directly from North Africa (some of them) or rather from SW Iberia, I'm not sure, but I'd think the latter as most likely (specially because Dolmenic Megalithism seems to be original from there and there was an important civilzation near modern Lisbon as well). It can also correlate with the early/middle Bronze Age, when this region became economically relevant beause it was one of the main sources of tin (coincidentally with SW Britain, also relatively high in E-M78).

So I see the Neolithic-Bronze Age window as the most likely source of this North African (and other Mediterranean) genetic legacy. At least for the largest part.

Ponto said...

It would help if the link worked. I found a supplement which listed some haplotypes with a small number of STRs which I found uninformative. From my knowledge J1 in Muslim Arab speakers in the Middle East, Arabian Peninsula and North Africa have DYS388 greater or equal to 17 and another DYS marker of 11 as distinct from those of Jews and Europeans in general who are DYS388=16 and the other marker is 10. The supplement had no DYS388 showing. There were very few haplotypes shown for the European localities.
I look forward to seeing the full report as what I have seen is not very informative or conclusive of anything.

lyndon said...

To Ponto:

If you type it in search it should be there in pdf. I know there isn't anything conclusive about it at all, but this was before I was informed by Frenchy & Maju that those subclades are not the same as in this study.

To Maju:

“The strongest presence of Berbers, as documented historically, was in the mountainous area of Andalusia that later became the Kingdom of Granada, specially in the coasts. I gather that if we were to find a significative Berber legacy from that period, we should find it in Eastern Andalusia specially (and in Andalusia, Valencia and Aragon in general), yet it's not the case at all. Instead the highest concentration of North African E (and also of Balcanic E, as well) is in NW Iberia. Why?"

Well I don't know if history is really their forte, but they would have to see the discrepancies and wonder what it’s all about and maybe do some reevaluating.

"Not sure why would you expect strong North African legacy in Sicily. Carthaginians were after all Phoenicians, that is West Asians primarily."

I wasn't aware that there was any connection with Carthaginians and Phoenicians - I thought the Carthaginians were more like "original Berbers" if there ever was such a thing, but AFAIK there weren’t any migrations directly via West Asia into Sicily during the middle ages. I don’t know what to expect with Sicilians to be honest, because of the turbulent history there…ditto with Iberia and Southern Italy.

My guess is that Sicily has acquired both NW African & West Asian components from the North Africans, I think it has been confirmed that Italians as a whole are split between these two groups. Don’t the Greeks posses J1 at the highest frequency in Europe and isn’t its presence there overwhelmingly or even completely of pre-historic origin? As Ponto said, the DYS388 16 marker seems to be prevalent in Europe, as for the presence or absence of DYS388 16 in Sicily, I don’t know.

At present though, the frequencies, timelines and distributions of these two components in Europe seem to be disputed.

Maju said...

I wasn't aware that there was any connection with Carthaginians and Phoenicians - I thought the Carthaginians were more like "original Berbers"

Not at all: Numidians and Mauri (Moors) were the main Berber nations mentioned in Roman era history/geography texts. But Carthaginians are nothing else that colonial Phoenicians, who, after Phoencia itself lost its independence, reorganized with Carthage as capital (Carthage and Cádiz were the oldest Phoenician colonies in the Western Mediterranean). The term "Punic Wars" also refers to Phoenicians (called Punii by Romans).

Now it would be difficult to determine the actual genetic pool of colonial Phoenicians (i.e. Carthaginians). But I can guess that patriarchal lineages were the rule and what most of the time separated a true Phoenician (Carthaginian) citizen from a colonial subject was being descendant paternally from some guy from Lebanon. In other words: Y-DNA should in most cases be of Lebanese type rather than North African or Iberian.

...but AFAIK there weren’t any migrations directly via West Asia into Sicily during the middle ages.

Maybe not. But Greek/Anatolian genetics, specially Y-DNA, are closest to West Asian ones, and Sicily and Southern Italy had a continuous influence from the Aegean (and Adriatic) since Neolithic, while influence from North Africa, excepted the Phoenician and the very brief Muslim Epysode, are not documented AFAIK.

lyndon said...

If the 7.5% recent NA admixture in Sicily is solely due to adding J1 in the mix (J1 was detected at its highest in Sicily at 10.7% in Ragusa which I checked in Wikipedia), then why should the 7.5% (was it also taken from Ragusa?) be extrapolated to the whole island, especially since J1 is more common in Sicily than the other Italian regions sampled?

It has to be considered that the city of Ragusa has a population of 70,000 & the province has 300,000. This is a small population even in comparison to the population of Sicily (5,000,000). Since J1 does not seem to be evenly distributed, how is it any bearing to the entire population of the island? Especially if they didn’t consider J1 in the previous study which found 1.4% E-M81 & E-M78b and J1 is composed of 42% recent NA.

The other Regions they sampled for J1 have similarly small populations in comparison to the entire Italian population. The samples they took from NW Apulia for J1 (17.2%) are from Gargano in the province of Foggia…. but Gargano is literally a mountain within a national park, not a town or anything, which means its population must be exceedingly sparse. Although one small town/village near the national park is Lesina (population 6,000), but why have they sampled such a sparsely populated place for J1? Is this where they got the E-M81 & E-M78b from as well?

Also Lucera has 34,000 people. Why are they sampling such sparsely populated areas in order to come to the conclusion that there’s a recent NA legacy in Southern Europe?

lyndon said...

They are indeed the correct regions to sample when taking history into account… but they only seem to be concentrating on small parts of those regions. Either that or they couldn’t find anything relevant in the more populated areas of those regions. I don’t know.

Maju said...

I don't think that Gargano refers only to the national park but to the whole penisula, comprising about 1/4 of the province of Foggia and "rich in beaches and touristic facilities".

J1 is not in principle North African in any case. It's a West Asian marker, even if it's also found at high frequencies in North Africa, and is the marker most narrowly associated with Semitic peoples (though is also high in the Caucasus and is found among many other peoples as well).

J1 in Italy does not need to evidence any North African influence. It can perfectly be Neolithic, Chalcolithic and very possibly even Greek (if I don't recall badly Epirus is relatively high in J1 too).

Ponto said...

Greece is not high in J1. Italian regions are higher and some Spanish regions oddly away from North Africa and the parts of Iberia colonised by Moorish Africans.

J1 is high in the Middle East but that is mostly due to inbreeding, the Yemenis are particularly inbred and have the highest J1 rates among the Arabic speakers. Bedouins have high rates, and are similarly inbred. It has been established that Arabian J1 dates from the Neolithic and has a northern origin. North African J1 is like Levantine J1 which is the same as Yemeni J1 all having the Galilee modal haplotype. European J1 is similar to that found in European Jews and contain the Cohen modal haplotype, but Jewish J1 is mostly in the Cohen caste and has other differences from European J1 ie DYS385a/b=13/15 and DYS458=17. I can tell Jewish J1 from North African/Arabian J1 and European J1.

Maju said...

Greece is not high in J1. Italian regions are higher and some Spanish regions oddly away from North Africa and the parts of Iberia colonised by Moorish Africans.

J1 is not rare in Greece and especially in Epirus. J1 is very rare in Iberia and is concentrated in the SE.

J1 is high in the Middle East but that is mostly due to inbreeding...

LOL

So the oldest place in the world to experience the Neolithic Revolution (with the subsequent demographic explosion) is "inbreeding". Makes abosultely no sense.

the Yemenis are particularly inbred and have the highest J1 rates among the Arabic speakers

Depends on the source. Do not follow Wikipedia blindly (sometimes it's a little too much like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - i.e. full of errors). Semino 2004 gives the highest J1 apportions to Palestinians and Bedouins (more than 60%, even higher among Negev Bedouins).

North African J1 is like Levantine J1 which is the same as Yemeni J1 all having the Galilee modal haplotype. European J1 is similar to that found in European Jews and contain the Cohen modal haplotype, but Jewish J1 is mostly in the Cohen caste and has other differences from European J1 ie DYS385a/b=13/15 and DYS458=17. I can tell Jewish J1 from North African/Arabian J1 and European J1.

Europe is big and variegated. The different modal haplotypes are closely related (and hence all them probably spread from the smae core area, surely in or near Palestine). The Cohen modal haplotype is certainly not exclusive of Jews (logically as even if it would be Jewish by origin, what is probably not the case, many Jews assimilated into other ethnicities along the ages).

Dienekes said...

J1 is not rare in Greece and especially in Epirus. J1 is very rare in Iberia and is concentrated in the SE.

There are no huge differences between Iberia and Greece in J1. In both places it's a minor lineage.

Ponto said...

Wikipedia? What is that rubbish?

Yemenis are inbred. Any group with greater than 70% of one haplogroup with a low rate of variety are inbred. There was a study of Arabian Peninsula haplogroups that expressed the lower rates of haplotype variation among South Arabian groups specifically Yemenis. Bedouins are another Arabic speaking group which are inbred. Cousin cousin marriages are common among Arabian groups. In Europe the Basques are also noted for their high cousin cousin marriages and sometimes Uncle niece couplings. Basques are outliers in European genetic; not surprising. J1, M267 in the Arabian Peninsula is of Neolithic origin and originates in the North of the Middle East.

I suggest you read that study and forget wikipedia.

Maju said...

Yemenis are inbred. Any group with greater than 70% of one haplogroup with a low rate of variety are inbred.

We respectufully call that "founder effect". In fact Y-DNA diversity says nothing on overall genetic diversity. A few "founding fathers" can perfectly coexist with a huge pool of "founding mothers".

...

There are no huge differences between Iberia and Greece in J1. In both places it's a minor lineage.

Correct. I just meant to emphasize one unduly de-emphasized and de-emphasize the one that was exaggerated.

Still, J1 is higher among Greeks of the Ionian Sea regions, those that are closest to Italy. Among Iberians it's most common in the SE, the area most exposed maybe to transediterranean exchanges.

Maju said...

In Europe the Basques are also noted for their high cousin cousin marriages and sometimes Uncle niece couplings. Basques are outliers in European genetic...

Neo-myth. Read Humboldt chronicles on Basque love and marriage practices in the early 19th century. More freedom than in Holywood movies (and certainly more sex too).

Basques are not outliers in Europe. We are just less influenced by post-Neolithic flows.

Basques are not less diverse either. Even for R1b, Basques hold more subclades than any of our neighbours (and that's diversity). Some studies have erroneously detected lower diversity but that's only because they demanded locally "inbred" individuals to be sampled, as Alonso humbly acknowledged of his own data.

I have a map stored in this PC that shows highest R1b diversity in Atlantic Europe (Basques, Gascons and Celts), yet I have not been able to search for the original paper. Maybe someone knows which is it.

Gioiello said...

“I can tell Jewish J1 from North African/Arabian J1 and European J1”.
“J1, M267 in the Arabian Peninsula is of Neolithic origin and originates in the North of the Middle East”.

I agree completely with you, Ponto. For this we are banned frequently.

sardiniankid said...

im sardinian and some people mistook me for algerian and moroccan so i woudnt count out any north african genes in italy yet! and theres also mid eastern genes from the levant(syria lebanon and anatolia) also present! theres also germanic and basque genes in italians as well! no wonder italians came up the most diverse

Ponto said...

Sorry Maju, the Basques are inbred. They are outliers in Europe. They are always on the outer away from other Europeans just like the Finns. The Finns suffer from coming from a very small genepool. The Basques have maintained a high rate of endogamy which has skewed their genetics.
sardiniankid, I suggest you check your parentage. Southern Europeans are often hard to distinguish on sight from Levantines. Some Berbers are blond haired and blue eyed, not many Sardinians are, a legacy of the Phoenicians perhaps.
I just noticed an error to the Supplementary data to the "Moors" paper on J1. DYS381ii is not listed correctly, they actually list DYS381b. Not very good for a scholarly paper.
A difference of 1 marker in a 9 DYS marker haplotype equates to about 1400 years assuming a mutation rate of 0.002 mutation/generation, a 25 year generation. That would bring one mutation difference to the early 600 C.E. Muhammad was born in 642 C.E The dates don't square up with the Islamic invasion of North Africa, assuming J1 in North Africa is all from the Middle East.

Maju said...

Sorry Maju, the Basques are inbred. They are outliers in Europe.

Neither one nor the other. Basques are clearly represetatives (along with other isolated Atlantic peoples) of the Western European basic genetic fingerprint (I don't care if you take Y-DNA, mtDNA, autosomal DNA at certain depths, or Rh- blood type: they all say the same).

They are always on the outer away from other Europeans just like the Finns.

Very different situations: Finland has been colonized only "recently" (after the Paleolithic), it has a very extreme latitude that has favored founder effects and extreme drift and has a small but clear Siberian component. Vasconia instead has been inhabited since "always", shows rather high population densities all the way and, in any case, show no outlier signature at all: just much lower levels of admixture with external inputs from the East (or the South too) than most other Western populations.

The dates don't square up with the Islamic invasion of North Africa, assuming J1 in North Africa is all from the Middle East.


Phoencian influence in North Africa (especially Tunisia) was at least as important as that of Arabs. And you can't exclude Neolithic influences as well.

1400 years ago is anyhow not too far from the actual dates of Islamic invasion of the region (not that I believe in MCH but you really claim for it a precission that is absurd, even for those who take it seriously).

Ponto said...

I am interested in Southern Europeans and their connection with other, normal, Mediterraneans. In other words Basques are not normal representatives of any European group.

The stuff written and said about the Basques is mostly wishful thinking and unprovable. They are not the descendants of Paleolithic people resident in Europe, they are different from the people who lived in the same places in the past. The Basques just represent what inbreeding can do to isolated populations. You doubt that certain Arab groups are inbred. Well that is the finding of a study of Arabian haplogroups, especially in Yemenis. The female side of Yemenis has African admixture but the male side is very homogeneous, lacking in diversity, over 70% J1. Some Bedouin groups have similar high J1. North Caucasians known for their endogamy and marrying within Auls have similar high J1 percentages. North Caucasian J1 is considered to be pre Neolithic, pre agricultural. The Avars who are not endogamous have a more normal range of J1. Basques and Yemenis are not representative of either Paleolithic people or Neolithic people. The Basque R1b is 4,000 years old. How can Basques be Paleolithic when R1, the parent of R1b and R1a, is Central Asian and less than 18,000 years old? At least Arabian J1, that have the 6 haplotype CMH is 9,000 years old and northern in origin. Arabians are also haplogroup G, C, J2, E and R1a1. The Basque ancestors would have been lucky to be in SW Europe in the refuge after the Mesolithic thawing out of the LGM. Get real and stop dreaming.
Cristian Capelli is a good geneticist but his conclusions on J1, its origin points is flawed. European J1 is similar to that found among Jews, but European J1 is more diverse and Jewish J1 lacks European J1's diversity. To understand J1s origins you have to study all the centres of J1, over 30% J1 which are in North Africa, Ethiopia, the Levant, Arabia proper, and the North Caucasus compared with European and Anatolian J1. Concentrating on European J1 compared to North African J1 is pointless. Capelli's use of language is slipshod, using the common, colloquial Arab when he should have used Berber or North African. Most of the "Arabs" that invaded Europe were Berbers, native North Africans.

Maju said...

I am interested in Southern Europeans and their connection with other, normal, Mediterraneans. In other words Basques are not normal representatives of any European group.

Normal no. Normality in Europe nowadays is to have more diverse origins. What Basques and other Atlantic peoples represent to a large extent is how probably was a much larger part of Europe before these flows from the outside happened in Neolithic and post-Neolithic moments. In fact all Western Europeans are similar to Basques and the other isolated Atlantic peoples in what they are dissimilar to Eastern Europeans and Transmediterranean peoples.

I make no sense of your opening sentence anyhow: Southern Europeans are a very diverse array of peoples that appear as clearly distinct of each other in virtually every genetic study. Spaniards and Greeks are different (always within the homogeneity of Europe and West Eurasia), except for the minority Eastern Mediterranean component in Spaniards, which is obviously a post-Neolithic arrival. Spaniards and Basques are also different from each other, even if they present some overlap (admixture).

Check Bauchet 2007 if you need a reference.

The stuff written and said about the Basques is mostly wishful thinking and unprovable. They are not the descendants of Paleolithic people resident in Europe...

Just an example:

" Using ancient DNA to examine genetic continuity at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Portugal". H. Chandler, B. Sykes and J. Zilhao, 2005

You can see in figure 4 (image from Matilda's Anthropology Blog) that Epipaleolithic Portuguese mtDNA structure is nearly identical not just to Neolithic mtDNA but also to modern Basque mtDNA. The main difference is some unidentified N* clade in Epipaleolithic Portuguese and the well known high density of U6 among non-Basque Iberians, already there in the Epipaleolithic. the rest is the same: mostly H, some V (arrived to Portugal only in Neolithic it seems) and some U5. K, J, T, I, W and X all seem post-Neolithic arrivals (and all them are very low among Basques).

So you are wrong.

The Basques just represent what inbreeding can do to isolated populations.

That is a false claim. Alonso-2005 for instance found low diversity in his own hyper-restrictive samples, which demanded every sampled Basque to have all grandparents not from the Basque Country but from their own town or village (I'm even surprised he could find any samples at all). Contrasting with more normal Basque samples, taken from other studies, he acknowledged that he had been too demanding and that only his samples appeared to have low diversity, while the others were perfectly normal.

Additionally Basques have several (three spotted so far) R1b1b2a1 subclades, something that no other West European population has, AFAIK. Two of them are almost exclusively Basque-Gascon, while the third is more like a Pyrenean clade, more common among Gascons and Catalans.

You are wrong again.

You doubt that certain Arab groups are inbred. Well that is the finding of a study of Arabian haplogroups, especially in Yemenis.

I do not doubt that Yemeni Y-DNA had a marked founder effect sometime in the past. The origin of J1 seems to be in Palestine.

The Basque R1b is 4,000 years old.

Because you say so. C'mon! Don't make claims that you can't back and that are more than just "unlikely".

When we have Y-DNA from the ancient remains of the Paleolithic we will know for sure. By the moment mtDNA H, which was considered by many to be much more recent, has been found among the earliest Gravettian remains in Italy. MtDNA H is therefore Gravettian (or older) and you can take your capricious choice of TRMCA hunches by where you know.

How can Basques be Paleolithic when R1, the parent of R1b and R1a, is Central Asian and less than 18,000 years old?

That is a most ridiculous claim. According to my own very conservative (and yet unrefined) estimates R1 is 40-30 thousand years old. There are several problems going on with these estimates and one is to consider that the OoA epysode happened after Toba, when we do have evidence of human presence in Asia long before it, and of continuity in India before and after Toba (Jawalpuram culture). IMO the post-Toba expansion is not represented by CF (aka CT) divergence but by F, IJK, K and NPO secuence of divergences (along with which the C divergence may have happened too). CF(xE) was in Asia since maybe 110,000 years ago.

Another problem is estimating the human-chimpanzee divergence on the fossil record that can only give us the latest possible point of divergence, not the real one.

And finally there is a big problem of puting mere elucubrations into nice-looking equations without really having any solid base for all that.

The Basque ancestors would have been lucky to be in SW Europe in the refuge after the Mesolithic thawing out of the LGM.

Why would they have been "lucky" if there was almost nobody living in that "refuge" and instead people thrived in the Franco-Cantabrian region? Get real: there was no meaningful SE European refuge: the Balcans, per the fossil record, were nearly deserted then. In fact all late UP populations there seem either linked to the, much more real, Italian and Ukranian refuges.

Don't divagate. If you're going to discuss Prehistory, please first learn a bit of it. That there is some hypothetical "Balcanic refuge" drawn in some Wikipedia map (wrongly drawn, I can tell you) doesn't mean anything. UP Europe had three main provinces: Western of Franco-Cantabrian, Central or Danub-Rhin and Eastern or Ukranian or Dniepr-Don. Additionally, there were two secondary Mediterranean provinces: non-Cantabrian Iberia and Italy-Dalmatia. Of those provinces the one that shows continuously greater apparent population (by far) is the FC region. See Bocquet-Appel's study for reference.

To understand J1s origins you have to study all the centres of J1...

I'm sure your considerations re. J1 are very much interesting. so far Palestinians (not Jews, who seem more Anatolian than Palestinian by origin) seem to be at the origin of this clade, as far as I know. But I may be wrong. In any case I'm absolutely sure that J1 is not the "original Paleolithic European clade". No way!

M said...

J1 came from Arabia to North Africa & Europe, but not necessarily after Islam many were Phoenicians, Jews & even possibly Roman troops stationed in Italy.

This study says Siciliy has the highest J1 (FALSE!) Sicily overall has 2% J1

Mainland Italy has much more J1 remember the last Muslims were expelled to Lucera in the Mainland. So Sicily had minimal J1 they had the same fate the Semitic type J1s had in Sicily before them

Take a look at Di Giacomo study it shows 17.5% J1 in North Garagano & 15% in Pescara thats South & central Italy near Lucera, thats where they were all rounded up

Ask any Italian (real Italian) he will tell you many Pescara Italians look more like true Arabs. Siclians don't look anything like Arabs DNA tests proved it but the -SEMITIC- Hollywood stereotype is still forced upon us

Maju said...

J1 came from Arabia to North Africa & Europe, but not necessarily after Islam many were Phoenicians, Jews & even possibly Roman troops stationed in Italy.Some people think that J1 in North Africa can also be Neolithic to some extent (as there the influence was more directly from Palestine and not from Anatolia, as in Europe).

Gioiello said...

“Mainland Italy has much more J1 remember the last Muslims were expelled to Lucera in the Mainland. So Sicily had minimal J1 they had the same fate the Semitic type J1s had in Sicily before them

Take a look at Di Giacomo study it shows 17.5% J1 in North Garagano & 15% in Pescara thats South & central Italy near Lucera, thats where they were all rounded up”

M. fails to say that historians say that those Arabs were annihilated after a revolt. Now the paper of Tofanelli et alii says that the presence of J1 (and more of J2) in Italy is more ancient than Arabs and Jews have invented their names.

Ponto said...

M what you say is not really correct. The overall percentage of J-M267 in Sicily is low as it is in most of Mediterranean Europe but, and this is a big but, like those of Italian women, Sicilian towns have much higher percentages of J-M267. Outside of certain towns J-M267 is practically zero but in those towns and urban zones in Sicily, the percentage is around 6%. Western Sicily has both higher rates of J-M267, and higher rates of more accepted European haplogroups belonging to R. Eastern Sicily is more Eastern Mediterranean similar to Greeks. And you know how Greeks are often considered to be Middle Eastern in phenotype. The western part of Sicily had a longer contact with Levantines, North Africans and the fabled Normans hence its more "European" haplogroup rates and higher J-M267. That is not my theory but those of genetic studies and archaeological studies.

I will take issue with your Arabian bull. Arabia is a cul-de-sac genetically. It received human movements but contributed nothing much to any other populations save a little in North Africa and possibly in Somalia/Ethiopia. All haplogroups found in Arabia e.g Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain etc are derivative of Northern Middle East haplogroups. Arabians are just derivatives not originators. Not the real thing but knock offs. Arabians like Jews and those fairly mythic Phoenicians have been given undue credit for the genetic situation in North Africa and Europe. Who knows why? I guess it might have a lot to do with religions, the cradle of civilisation in Mesopotamia and the invention of agriculture. It is most probable that the Paleolithic inhabitants of Arabia clinging to the coasts and obtaining mostly fish and shellfish as food got swamped by immigrants from the Northern Middle East bringing domestic animals and food plants with them in the Neolithic age. A similar pattern to what happened in Europe except for the later immigration of the R group peoples with their wagons, horses and cows in the Bronze Age to Europe which changed the genetic and linguistic landscape in Europe totally, making the R groups predominate in Europe and the Asian Indo-European languages the European norm. The I groups are the most indigenous European haplogroup.

As to the appearance of certain mainland Italians compared with other Europeans or Sicilian Italians you are taking a very insular view. To most non Mediterranean Europeans, all Southern Italians look like Arabians and sometimes South Asians i.e Italians look foreign non European Caucasoids no different from Lebanese or Jordanians and hard to distinguish from Ashkenazim Jews.

Maju said...

Arabia is a cul-de-sac genetically. It received human movements but contributed nothing much to any other populations save a little in North Africa and possibly in Somalia/Ethiopia. All haplogroups found in Arabia e.g Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain etc are derivative of Northern Middle East haplogroups.

Right. At least in reagrds to Y-DNA (and most mtDNA probably - but not all).

GrIQ said...

It's impossible that Spain has so much North African (8%) , when history tells us that north african presence in Iberia was about 4% , and much of it was in the South. That's a clear contradiction with history.

Now, the J1 in Iberia is almost non-existent.
And overall, the J level is very low. And most of it came from Romans and Greeks.

Also, one has to wonder where all this E haplogroup comes from. Most of it comes from Neolithic times, or from Romans, Greeks, etc. colonization.

ALso, the E1b1b haplogroups in Spain is only of 6%, which is below-average in Europe.