January 02, 2010

R-V88 and migration of Chadic speakers across the Sahara

The presence of R1b chromosomes in Africa is one of a few Y-chromosome phylogeographic anomalies I noted long ago. This new paper offers an insight into the migration of these chromosomes along with the Chadic branch of Afroasiatic from Asia to Europe. More on this after I read the paper.

UPDATE (8/1/10):

The paper, to its credit acknowledges that the "effective mutation rate" depends on population growth history as I have argued a year and a half ago. The authors write:
Owing to the uncertainties associated with the estimate of the evolutionary effective microsatellite mutationrates, depending on the haplogroup demographic history,37 we considered two different population models: (1) a constant size population and (2) a single rate of m=0.01 for exponential population growth. After calibration for the specificmicrosatellites used in this study,13 we found evolutionary effective mutationrates of 7.9x10-4 and 1.3x10-3, respectively.
and:
As an upper limit, we used the coalescence time of the R-M343/P25 haplogroup (12.9 ky, 95% CI=11.6–14.3 ky, under a conservative scenario of constant population size), which, on the basis of the accumulated nucleotide and microsatellite diversity (Table 1; Figure 2), most likely originated outside Africa. The coalescence time of the seemingly African-specific haplogroup R-V69 (6.0 ky, 95% CI=4.2–8.2 ky, under the hypothesis of an expanding population) was used as a lower limit.
As I noted in haplogroup sizes and observation selection effects haplogroup sizes provide a sanity check to assumptions about population growth history:

Haplogroups do not reach commonly-observed present-day sizes under the assumption of constant population size. Inferences of age based on such an assumption are a very conservative upper limit. However, the assumption of m=0.01 also does not result in "large" present day haplogroups (see previous link).

Thus, I suppose that the age of R-V88 is younger than 4.2–8.2 ky, and could be as young as ~3-4ky in a rapidly expanding population. To determine how fast R-V88 actually grew, we must take into account its present-day demographic size (how many people in the world now possess it). The final estimate must be consistent with both the demographic size and the current Y-STR variance.

I don't have data on R-V88 prevalence today, but it really doesn't take a very large haplogroup in order to infer a very fast growth rate, and a Y-STR variance accumulation rate (effective rate) close to the germline one. Therefore, I am guessing that R-V88 is also one of a growing palette of haplogroups that expanded during the Bronze Age.

European Journal of Human Genetics doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.231

Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages

Fulvio Cruciani et al.

Abstract

Although human Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup R1b are quite rare in Africa, being found mainly in Asia and Europe, a group of chromosomes within the paragroup R-P25* are found concentrated in the central-western part of the African continent, where they can be detected at frequencies as high as 95%. Phylogenetic evidence and coalescence time estimates suggest that R-P25* chromosomes (or their phylogenetic ancestor) may have been carried to Africa by an Asia-to-Africa back migration in prehistoric times. Here, we describe six new mutations that define the relationships among the African R-P25* Y chromosomes and between these African chromosomes and earlier reported R-P25 Eurasian sub-lineages. The incorporation of these new mutations into a phylogeny of the R1b haplogroup led to the identification of a new clade (R1b1a or R-V88) encompassing all the African R-P25* and about half of the few European/west Asian R-P25* chromosomes. A worldwide phylogeographic analysis of the R1b haplogroup provided strong support to the Asia-to-Africa back-migration hypothesis. The analysis of the distribution of the R-V88 haplogroup in >1800 males from 69 African populations revealed a striking genetic contiguity between the Chadic-speaking peoples from the central Sahel and several other Afroasiatic-speaking groups from North Africa. The R-V88 coalescence time was estimated at 9200–5600 kya, in the early mid Holocene. We suggest that R-V88 is a paternal genetic record of the proposed mid-Holocene migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers through the Central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin, and geomorphological evidence is consistent with this view.

Link

62 comments:

Gioiello said...

Great Cruciani! These R1b1* (or R1b1ba-V88) aren't the ancestors of R1b1b etc, we must search among the other R1b1* Asian-European ones. We are still waiting for the Rozen's SNPs.

Gioiello said...

9200-5600 kya are 9,200,000 - 5,600,000: a little bit too much.
Anyway 9200-5600ya are the minimum time: then R1b1* is much older. And probably this is a second wave, if didn't affect the other without these mutation. It will be very interesting to read the paper.

eurologist said...

V88 and (specific, Euro-only) downstream mutations were also found in Italy, Corsica (you'll like that), the Balkans, and West Asia. And the just-upstream P25* was also found in Italy and Western Asia.

So, if these people entered the (then wet) central Sahara by 8-10kya, and if the downstream mutations in Italy etc. are local, V88 seems to me older than that - likely contemporaneous to or predating the post-glacial expansion. Which of course makes R1b* likely pre-glacial maximum, as I have always argued.

eurologist said...

The other interesting thing is that R1b via this V88 is associated with the Afro-Asiatic language group (Chadic), but pretty much well- isolated from J and semitic (vs. central African) E.

So, did the languages (as often) follow the mothers, instead?

Aaron said...

From what I remember the study found trace amounts of U5 and U6 in North Cameroon, and the rest the female lines were L1, L2..etc Linguistics is a whole other can of worms, but the data supports northern origins of this ethnic group.

Gioiello said...

Aaron says: "From what I remember the study found trace amounts of U5 and U6 in North Cameroon, and the rest the female lines were L1, L2..etc Linguistics is a whole other can of worms, but the data supports northern origins of this ethnic group".

If you go North to North you find Italy.

I disagree completely with the Dienekes' words. I think this is another definite proof of the Italian refugium during the Younger Dryas.

Vincent said...

As regards the dating question, I agree with many of Dienekes' updated points re: the estimates made in the paper. The published coalescence times (which are not, by the way, actually MRCA estimates) are probably too old as Dienekes says.

On the other hand, the the R1b1* project at FTDNA contains samples which I expect to be V88+ that more diverse than the ones typed for STRs in the paper. Using Nordvedt's interclade method, I expect the TMRCA for R-V88 will be closer to 10 ky than to 4 ky.

Gioiello said...

It is very important what you are saying. Then I send to you all a message of a few minutes ago for my few friends:

"Sam, this paper demonstrates that: 1) only in Italy has been found 3 R1b1*, the ancestors of all subclades (your R1b1 will become either R1b1a* (V88) or R1b1a3* (V35) or R1b1a3a (V7). It will be unlikable you'll be R1b1a2 (V8) or R1b1a4 (V69), found only among Africans, except you derive from some North African converted to Judaism)). Italy has 1 V35 and 1 V7, then it has probably some V88. Italy has (in Corsica, who are Italians, and in Sardinia) R1b1a1 (M18). Italy has M73, even though they are more diffused in Asia, but they could be emigrated there from Europe with Tocharians. Italy has R/L23-, R/L23+/L150- (the only one in the world so far), R/L23+/L150+ (me, for instance) and all subclades, except the most recent ones, like R-153, R-M167, and a very few (one: Argiedude) R-L21. Do you need other proofs?
I don't mind of Arabs".

waggg said...

I doubt it's a coincidence if the region with the highest percentage of these African R1b, _AFRO-ASIATIC_ speakers, is close to the starting point to the Bantu expansion that spead agriculture in big parts of Africa.
Many of these R1b were found in Bantu agriculturalist populations, not long ago (up to 22% of some of these populations, IIRC).

The Bantu expansion is supposed to have started around 3,000 BC, in the region around Nigeria and Cameroon, I believe.

pconroy said...

Wagg,

Agreed.

Read more here, on Matilda's Blog, about the spread of R1b into Africa, expansion of agriculture into Africa and Expansion of the Afro-Asiastic speakers in Africa:

Y chromosomes are against an African origin for Afro Asiatic

Migration of Chadic speaking pastoralists within Africa based on population structure of Chad Basin and phylogeography of mitochondrial L3f haplogroup

Whole genome sequence-based dates show that the ancestral haplogroup L3f must have emerged soon after the Out-of-Africa migration (around 57,100 ± 9,400 YBP), but the “Chadic” L3f3 clade has much less internal variation, suggesting an expansion during the Holocene period about 8,000 ± 2,500 YBP

Interesting indeed!!!

terryt said...

"the region with the highest percentage of these African R1b, _AFRO-ASIATIC_ speakers, is close to the starting point to the Bantu expansion that spead agriculture in big parts of Africa".

But the Bantu are not Afro-Asiatic speakers. Niger-Kordofanian, I think. Of course haplogroup and language are not necessarily closely correlated, especially not Y-haps. Languages can be adopted, or lost, although as Eurologist said 'the languages (as often) follow the mothers'.

waggg said...

@ Pconroy : Yes, thank you. I already had read the article though.

@ Terryt : I can't see why the language difference implies no "technological" transmission. Especially since, as said, there were many tracks of these R1b1* in several Bantu populations.

Alice C. Linsley said...

I'd be interested in your response to Mathilda's take on this here:

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/gainst-an-african-origin-for-afro-asiatic/

terryt said...

"I can't see why the language difference implies no 'technological' transmission".

I didn't mean to imply no technological transmission. In fact I'd assumed it was pretty obvious there had been, to another language group. Both technology and culture can be surprisingly independent of genes.

Alice. Mathilda's take and Dienekes' post here both suggest an Asian origin for Afro-Asiatic. Especially the presence of Y-hap R.

Gioiello said...

I have always supported the origin of Afro-Asiatic from Middle East and also of hg. E. I think it isn't said that hg. R was linked with afroasiatic: it can be arrived from North (from Italy via sea or from Spain via Gibraltar) and to be linked with other language or languages. The time of its expansion are beacoming very old as regards what many thought till a few days ago, that we can think not to languages but to ancient groups like Nostratic, Basque-Caucasian-Sino Tibetan-Na dené, etc. I have always linked the presence of hg. R in Italy with Rhaetian-Etruscan as linked with what will become Indo-European.

eurologist said...

Gioiello,

I agree - these people entered the Chad region many millennia before Semitic languages. They probably picked up the language and the women 5,000 or so years ago, perhaps just before the bronze age and the wider spread of agriculture in Africa.

OT, as to Indo-European, there is certainly something circum-alpine about it...

eurologist said...

I guess there is also a slight possibility that these V88 carriers picked up the Semitic language on their way, if they went via Greece, Turkey, and the Levant - but before the early agriculturists there (presumably mostly J and E, with some I) had much multiplied and completely dominated the region except for the Caucasus and surroundings. Given the period of intense cooling just after the first warming phase, there could have been such two waves. At any rate, if not full-fledged agriculture, it is reasonable to assume that these people were well aware of seed gathering, given that the entire region's asset during that wet period was its grass lands.

Alice C. Linsley said...

Cruciani's African counterparts were phylogenetically more basal than his non-African samples. In fact, his African samples were the ONLY ones which tested positive for the most basal R markers indicating that they represent the earliest clade to branch in a larger clade. This seems to work against Cruciani's notion of a back-migration of the Chadic strain from Asia.

Notice that the migration took place at a time of decreasing seasonal insolation (solar radiation) in the Northern Hemisphere because of changes in the Earth’s orbit [Berger, 1978] which meant increasing seasonal insolation in the Southern Hemisphere. The Earth's seasons are controlled by changes in the duration and intensity of solar radiation. Both of these factors are governed by the annual change in the position of the Earth's axis which completes a sidereal cycle every 25,000 years.

A transition from arid to warm moist conditions in Africa has been documented in the mid-Holocene period [Hodell et al., 1991; deMenocal et al., 2000]. Migration across the Sahara and Lake Chad Basin would have been necessary due to rising waters. This is the probable period and locale of Noah's flood.

Gioiello said...

Cruciani et alii have answered your lucubrations preventively. Science is made by proofs and not by myths.

“According to the phylogeography of macro-haplogroup K-M9
(which contains haplogroup R1b), an ancient Asia-to-Africa back
migration has been hypothesized to explain the puzzling presence of
R-P25* in sub-Saharan Africa. This hypothesis is strongly supported
by the present data. In the revised Y chromosome phylogeny, there are
119 lineages in the macro-haplogroup K-M9 (which includes haplogroups
K1-K4 and L to T). Of these lineages, only two have been
observed in sub-Saharan Africa at appreciable frequencies:
T-M70 and R-V88 (this study). Both haplogroups have also
been observed in Europe and western Asia.
If the presence of R1b chromosomes in Africa was not because of a
back migration, we would have to assume that all the mutations that
connect M9 with V88 in the MSY phylogeny (˃50 mutations)
originated in Africa. Under this scenario, we should assume that all
the K-M9 lineages that are now found outside sub-Saharan Africa
have survived extinction, whereas those which should have accumulated
in Africa are now extinct (with the exception of T-M70 and
R-V88) and this is an unlikely scenario” (page 5).

Alice C. Linsley said...

This is not a completely satisfactory explanation. We know that there were many migrations in and out of Africa, beginning 80,000years ago and earlier. The fact that we speak of "Afro-Asiatics" is evidence of the interactions of African and Asian populations over time. The question concerns the unique nature of this R-V88 group.

Dismissing origin narratives (oral traditions) is foolish as these are an aid to the study of populations.

eurologist said...

"this is an unlikely scenario"

Understatement of the millennium...

eurologist said...

"The fact that we speak of "Afro-Asiatics" is evidence of the interactions of African and Asian populations over time"

No. Not at all.

Vincent said...

Cruciani's African counterparts were phylogenetically more basal than his non-African samples.

This is exactly backwards.

Within Africa, all the samples were derived for either V88 or P297. There were no samples found who were ancestral for both SNPs.

On the other hand, within Eurasia there WERE samples who were P25+ P297- V88-. In Eurasia we also see P297+ as well as V88+ samples.

At its face, this indicates that R1b1 was extant in Eurasia BEFORE it (or, more pointedly, part of the R-V88 subclade, spread INTO Africa.

Alice C. Linsley said...

I've looked at the Y-DNA SNP Index for 2010 and I do not find a V88 SNP listed. Clearly there is still a good deal of research to be done.

Gioiello said...

Vince, finally something which we agree on. If I was you, being the Italian samples from Italian-Americans (see the low R1b percentage: about 26%: Italy has about 40% and Center-North probably 60%), I’d begin to think that those samples are mostly from Sicily, then from South Italy. We don’t know if there are R1b1* in Central or North Italy (I think so, thinking to that R1b1 found in a paper on the Marche I signaled to you many years ago), but we lack of certainty. I asked Scozzari to test some samples from the more conservative Italian regions (Rhaetia, Marche, Tuscan Apennine), but she hasn’t yet replied. I have had letters from Christian Capelli (only one indeed), from Palanichamy, from a Chinese and from Rozen, the best of everybody. Italian scholars have probably with me “la puzza sotto il naso”. Pace all’anima loro.

Vincent said...

I've looked at the Y-DNA SNP Index for 2010 and I do not find a V88 SNP listed. Clearly there is still a good deal of research to be done.
If you are referring to the ISOGG page, we should get that update done soon - perhaps this week.

VV

Alice C. Linsley said...

Thanks, Vincent. Yes the ISOGG page. Okay, I'll look for it later this week.

Earlier you wrote: "Within Africa, all the samples were derived for either V88 or P297. There were no samples found who were ancestral for both SNPs." Does this mean that none exist?

I'm not trained in genetics, so forgive me for asking so many questions. My specialty is Biblical Anthropology and the Afro-Asiatic Dominion. My research indicates a rather constant flow of peoples in and out of Africa beginning around 12,000 years ago. These were skilled individuals (priests, metalworkers, craftsmen, sidereal astronomers, etc.) in the service of rulers. The group that most interests me isn't tracked, since their blood line was figured through the mothers, not through father-son. Among some Afro-Asiatic populations social status, office, occupation and line of descent was inherited or traced through the father, while bloodline was traced through the mother.

To trace the mothers, I need data on the mitochondrial samples. Where do I find that?

Vincent said...

Earlier you wrote: "Within Africa, all the samples were derived for either V88 or P297. There were no samples found who were ancestral for both SNPs." Does this mean that none exist?

Not definitively, but with 1800 R1b men from Africa tested finding zero P25+ V88- P297- is pretty revealing.

VV

Gioiello said...

I was always surprised in my first studies on the monogenesis of the language from Hausa "gida" = house and its possible link with "European": Latin "casa" from *katja and all Indo-European words with the root *kot-.
Also the name of the "lizard": Hausa "kadangare", Turk "kertenkele", Latin "lacerta", Sardinian (prae- Latin) (sa)thilighelta.
I don't know if these links are due to the language of the R1b1* or to other contacts within the Mediterranean Sea, but probably it would be interesting to investigate it.

Alice C. Linsley said...

"Gida" may be related to the semitic "jida." As in the Hausa Baya-Jidda.

The Hebrew "rison adam" = ancestral man is "adamu orisa" = ancestral Adam in Hahm/Hausa languages of Nigeria. The Hausa word for human being is "dan adam." The Sanscrit word for male human is "manu" which resembles the African word "adamu" more closely than the Hebrew word.

The Hebrew "adamah" = red clay/ground and the related Semitic words "dam" = blood and "adom" = red, are related to the Hahm/Hausa word "odum" = reddish brown.

The Hebrew "bara" = to begin, is related to the Yoruba/Hahm word "bere" = to begin. There is an apparent relationship between the verb "to begin" and the word Creator which in Hebrew is "bore" and in the African Twi dialect is "Borebore" = Creator.

The Hebrew "hay" = “living being”, is related to the Hausa/Hahm word "aye" = life, created world. Likewise, the Hebrew "iya" = mother, corresponds to the Dravidian "ka ayi" = mother, and the Hausa/Hahm "eyi" = gave birth.

The Hebrew "abba" = father, corresponds to the Hausa/Hahm "baba" = father, to the Dravidian “appa” = father, and to the Mundari "apu".

The Hebrew "ha’nock" = the chief, corresponds to the Hahm word "nok" = “first ancestral chief”

The Semitic word "wadi" = river, corresponds to the Sanskrit "nadi" = river.

The Semitic root “mgn” = to give, is the same as the Sanscrit “mgn” = to give.

The Sanscrit “svah” = sky or heaven, corresponds to the Semitic “svam” or “Sam-yim” = sky or heaven. The Semitic resembles the Proto-Dravidian word "van" = heaven.

The Sanscrit “Sakti” = harvest moon celebration, is clearly the linguistic equivalent of the Falasha word “Sarki” = harvest moon festival.

The Hebrew "yasuah" = salvation, corresponds to the Sanscrit words “asvah”, “asuah” or “yasuah” = salvation. The Priests of Egypt, which included Korah and Aaron, prayed for "Thy salvation among all .... (Exodus 2:3). Writing on the tomb of Herkhuf claims that he “gave bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, and ferried him who had no boat.” It expresses hope of salvation in these words: “that it might be well with me in the Great God's presence.”

The Hebrew root "thr" = to be pure, corresponds to the Hausa/Hahm "toro" = clean, and to the Tamil "tiru" = holy. All are related to the proto-Dravidian "tor" = blood. means "shaved head" and according to Numbers 16:17-18, the priest carried the censor to offer incense to the deity. This suggests that "kor" and "tor" are cognates.

The Hebrew "echad" or "ehat" = one, corresponds to the Syrian "eka" and to the Sanscrit "eca" = one. It is a cognate to "ikka" = one, in the Gonga languages of south east Ethiopia.

The number six in Proto-Dravidian is "caru". This correlates to "koro" in South Africa; to "karkia" in some Chadic Languages; and to "korci" in Meidob (eastern Sudan). The most striking similarity is between the Kanembu (Sudan) "araku" and the Tamil "aarru."

The hypothetical Elamite-Dravidian connection is rather well confirmed. Elamite and archaic Tamil correspond closely in virtually every linguistic aspect. As the Afro-Asiatic worldview diffused through migration, commerce and the intermarriage of nobles, so did the words used for key concepts of this worldview. This is why the Elamite of the Archaemenid Period is such a valuable reference. This was the language of government, the verbage of rulers.

Read David McAlpin's research here: http://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/ELAM/elamitedravidian.pdf

Gioiello said...

Dear Alice,
I remember “Alice’s Restaurant” and you are clever to cook sausages by words. Linguistics is a serious think and one who has your ideas probably isn’t apt to investigate genetics or glottology. If you know Hebrew you can read “Matai ve-ech humza ha-‘am ha-yehudy?” or the English translation “The Invention of the Jewish People” by Shlomo Sand (you can find a review of mine here or on Amazon.com).
That Hebrew “yeshuah”, from which the name of Jesus, is linked with Sanskrit “asvah” at a first sight is a little bit credible, being sscr. “asvah” from IE. *ekwos, the name of the “horse”, Latin “equus”. Anyway none serious linguist would compare a reconstructed IE. *ekwos with Semitic “yšĥ”.

Alice C. Linsley said...

Dear Gioiello,

I look forward to reading your book.

Have you read about the horse breeding done by the people of Sheba and that of ancient Nubian kings? These "African" horses were apparently exported widely across the Afro-Asiatic world. Vedic practices involving horses and royal wives may not have originated among the Aryans.

Gioiello said...

Beside this book I think you should read “Les mots et le choses” by M. Foucault. Your reasoning is that of Middle Age, before the Scientific Revolution. Your rhetoric figure is analogy. Paraphrasing a book you reviewed I could say: “Bible and theology are not the enemy of the biological evolution; they are superfluous”.

Maju said...

I missed this one.

1. I don't understand why the authors decided to call the lineage R1b1a, when this name is already in use for R1b-M18. Maybe they have also solved the phylogenetic place of M18 and placed it within R1b1b2? If so, does this mean that R1b has two basal subclades: one this one in Africa and then R1b1b in Eurasia?

2. MC age estimates are a total mess, whatever the case using the "pedigree rate" for before 5000 BP just doesn't work. In this sense, I favor more and more the idea that Y-DNA P is the western branch of MNOPS, which probably back-migrated from SE Asia along with some mtDNA N (incl. pre-R) some 50,000 years ago, more or less at the beginning of the colonization of West Eurasia (or not much later). However the coalescence into R, R1 and R1b could have take some more time.

3. Mathilda's conjectures on Afroasiatic being Asian are totally baseless (and probably have only racist foundations). I have discussed on her blog, so no point on insisting here. But just look at linguistic diversity and the dominance of African lineage E1b.

4. At the craddle of Afroasiatic (or Northern Afroasiatic), Capsian culture, stone circles and possibly E1b1b and R1b-V88, the Upper Egypt/Nubia area, we find striking cultural parallels with the SW Europe and southern Turkey. The exact spread of these cultural elements is so far a mystery. Both "missing links" are NW Africa and West Asia south of Turkey, where no such elements of vividly realistic rock art are known to exist. Whatever the case, it seems that the Nile area got West Eurasian influences in the Paleolithic, which explain the presence of R1b and possibly other haplogroups.

Vincent said...

1. I don't understand why the authors decided to call the lineage R1b1a, when this name is already in use for R1b-M18. Maybe they have also solved the phylogenetic place of M18 and placed it within R1b1b2? If so, does this mean that R1b has two basal subclades: one this one in Africa and then R1b1b in Eurasia?

I guess you didn't see the paper yet.

M18 is a subclade of V88, so V88 replaces M18 as the "defining" mutation for R1b1a.

V88 and P297 are parallel clades in R1b1 (along with a third clade which, so far, has no SNP to mark it so is still called R1b1*). All three clades (V88, P297, and the unamed one) are found in Eurasia.



2. MC age estimates are a total mess, whatever the case using the "pedigree rate" for before 5000 BP just doesn't work.

There are some issues with the dates in the paper, it certainly isn't because the authors used pedigree rates: they didn't.

VV

Maju said...

I don't have access to EJHG, Vincent, so your info is very much welcome. Did they describe any structure in Africa (or elsewhere) under V88? What happened to private lineage R1b1c-M335 (AFAIK Lebanese).

There are some issues with the dates in the paper, it certainly isn't because the authors used pedigree rates: they didn't.

I meant in regard to the criticisms by Dienekes and you. Anyhow, I think the dates look too recent because the only archaeological events I can think for R1b arrival to Africa are early human colonization of West Eurasia in general or, maybe more likely, the arrival of some sort of cultural influence clearly related to Europe/Anatolia evident in the rock art of Edfu, which is dated to c. 16,000 BP (double or triple the date given in the paper for V88).

Vincent said...

I don't have access to EJHG, Vincent, so your info is very much welcome. Did they describe any structure in Africa (or elsewhere) under V88? What happened to private lineage R1b1c-M335 (AFAIK Lebanese)

If you email me to dna@vizachero.com I'll see if I can get you a copy of the paper.

M335 was indeed private, and the dna from that one sample as exhausted by the lab who discovered it. So it can no longer be tested for new SNPs. But I am pretty sure it would be in R-V88.

VV

aargiedude said...

Gioiello, I've posted a lot of observations about this study in dna-forums. By the way, what are the Rozen SNP's? What's that all about?

Gioiello said...

Argiedude, as you know I haven't access to "dna-forums" because I was banned, but I'd read willingly your contributions. If you could send them to me, I'd be very grateful to you. About these "Rozen's SNPs" I have written much on "worldfamilies", where you have access, under the thread “Let’s reconsider the Cantabrian Refugium” (R1b1b2).
I haven’t the paper, which isn’t free, but we can download the supplements and I wrote to Prof. Rozen and he was so kind to answer me.
If you go on “worldfamilies, read also “Cruciani 2010 paper on R1b in Africa” (Y haplogroup).

aargiedude said...

Can you sign up to dna-forums under some other name? I'll go look at worldfamilies, now. If you really can't see the dna-forums stuff, then I'll post it all on worldfamilies.

Alice C. Linsley said...

I can't imagine why you would be banned, Gioiello.

Gioiello said...

Argiedude, I have said to you in the past that I have one name, mine, and don’t accept to change it to subscribe to a forum from where I was banned by one, Jules Van Laar, I thought and think a greenhorn, I who have behind me many tens of years of studies in many fields. Of course behind Van Laar there were many people who were disturbed from my ideas: Jews, because I have always said that they have nothing (or a little bit) to do with Abraham (now all these ideas are written in a great historic work like that of Shlomo Sand I reviewed on Amazon.com). There was Vizachero, who probably was the responsible of my banishment: you know he has always supported positions very different from mine about the origin and diffusion of R1b1b2 and you can see this also in these last postings here and on Worldfamilies.
The path of all this is traced in the thousands of posts I wrote on these forums and before on “Genealogy-dna”, from where I was banned by Bullock, Bullock Bullock, with the stupid pretext I had written a letter in Italian to an Italian friend!
To Alice I can say that I have ideas opposite to hers and I have used with her my Tuscan irony I used with others. If she disproves my banishments it goes to her honor and probably she is better than her positions would make me think.

Alice C. Linsley said...

Gioiello, I have no wish to disparage your life-long labors. No doubt they are valuable. I can't judge since I have not read them.

I'm interested in what you wrote: "Jews, because I have always said that they have nothing (or a little bit) to do with Abraham." Here we might agree. Abraham and his people weren't Jews. They were likely Horites, a group portrayed badly by Judaism. I find it ironic that the Jews claim Abraham yet reject Abraham's experience of God in 3 Persons (Gen. 19).

Gioiello said...

Dear Alice, if you interpret the tremendous 19th chapter of Genesis like a “figura” (symbol: but read the great works of Erich Auerbach) of the Trinity probably it is because you use allegory: God and the two Angels. It is a rather forced interpretation. But allegory was born from Alexandrian philologists and extended to the Bible by Philo, then it is something born in the history and used largely during the Middle Age and today without value at all. Nothing to do with the thinking created by Ancient Greeks and took to the modern science by Galileo. You all have the right to spend your life as you prefer.
We atheists, we rationalists, know that life was born by chance and we are forms that we’ll be destroyed for generate other forms. In the meanwhile we are trying to understand what has happened to little things: R1b1b2 did come from Western Asia or from Italy? There are proofs that will be able to demonstrate which hypothesis is right and which is wrong? When the scholars will do a test on ancient DNA of Oetzi or of an European skull of 15,000 years ago, which Y-haplogroup will they find?

Alice C. Linsley said...

Dear Gioiello, I find atheism boring as it necessarily excludes most of the interesting parts of history, philosophy, ethics, science, literature, anthropology, etc.

The ancient Greeks were aware of and enamoured with ancient Egyptian religion. One of the reason Jacques Derrida was so interested in Plato was that he, as an Arabic-speaking Jew from North Africa, recognized the validity of so-called "platonism." Do you actually believe that Plato invented the concept of Forms?

As for ancient DNA, I refer you to Lycotte's study of the ancient Nubians. There has been virtually no immigration into the lower Nubia area from Asia according to the Y chromosome study done by Lucotte.

Then there is the evidence of cave art. The red ochre plaque of the Blombos Cave predates all other cave art by about 35,000 years.

Please don't misunderstand my point. I do not see evidence for monogenesis. That surprises people, since I'm a Biblical Anthropologist. Many assume that I must believe that all evolved from Adam and Eve (mythological first parents). Genesis makes it clear that there were other origins besides Africa. This is evident in a study of the "nations" (Gen. 10). All listed there are Afroasiatics.

terryt said...

"I find atheism boring as it necessarily excludes most of the interesting parts of history, philosophy, ethics, science, literature, anthropology, etc".

What interesting parts? The religious attitudes that unscrupulous rulers used to justify their attempted extermination of conquered people?

"The ancient Greeks were aware of and enamoured with ancient Egyptian religion".

And Judaism (and so Christianity) owes a great deal to the contemporary Egyptian religion. Along with lashings of Mesopotamian religions. That's what I find interesting about 'history, philosophy, ethics, science, literature, anthropology, etc'.

"All listed there are Afroasiatics".

Is that because most of the ones they were aware of were Afro-Asiatics? But what about Hittites? And the Persians. Are they not listed?

eurologist said...

I find atheism boring as it necessarily excludes most of the interesting parts of history, philosophy, ethics, science, literature, anthropology, etc.

A bit OT - but that sounds to me like a complete misunderstanding of what science is about. I only need to understand why people believe in something to study it - I don't have to believe in it myself; that would be utterly impractical and ridiculous.

And in the "hard" sciences, do I need to believe in the ether to study early 20th century physics? Or in environmentally acquired inheritance to study Russian horticulture? In fact, I readily admit it may be advantageous to have strong convictions or a good intuition in science - but I would never call that "belief" - except in non-serious jargon, as in "I believe the so-called Celts in Southern Germany spoke a proto-Germanic language."

Alice C. Linsley said...

Terry, You're well versed in atheism's lingo. We might do well to unpack what you mean by "religious attitudes" and "unscrupulous rulers" used to justify "extermination". Many unexamined assuptions here.

What interesting parts? The human impulse toward that which is greater than ourselves, reflected in artifacts, philosophy, literature, etc.

Judaism and Christianity are indeed owing to ancient Egytpian religious belief and practice and to that of ancient Sudan. They observed that the Sun is the source of light whereas moon's light is refulgent. Basic science there. That's the basis of the Bible's criticism of Mesopotamian's moon worship and why Abraham's father (Terah) was regarded an an idol-worhsiper since he maintained households in Ur and Haran, cities dedicated to the moon god Sin.

They are not listed because Genesis 1-12 is a record of Abraham's ancestors who were African. Abraham's mother was a Horite from Canaan. The Horites were devotees of Horus, who was called "Son of God." Their totem was the falcon so the oldest altars were built in the shape of the falcon. These have been found wherever the Sudra (Sudanese) established themselves.

For all your concern with science, I'd expect you to provide me with facts, research and authoritative sources. All I'm reading here is bias and emotion.

terryt said...

"what you mean by 'religious attitudes'".

The attitudes that are providing the justification for random bombings through much of the Middle east (and other egions) at present. They believe they are doing 'God's work'. And the Bible itself records genocides on a scale very seldom approached today. All in the name of 'God'.

"unscrupulous rulers"

Even the so-called sophisticated USA fell for George Bush's appeal to religious difference when he set about promoting his invasion of Iraq. That's pretty unscrupulous.

"extermination"

Many Sunni Muslims would be very happy if the Shiites were exterminated. And it seems many Jews would love to 'dissappear' the Palestinians. All in the name of religion. And I haven't even begun to consider Hindus.

"cities dedicated to the moon god Sin".

It's very interesting that some religions regard the sun as male and others the moon as male. I suspect the moon as male is the older belief, and associated with bull worship. This has an ancient and widespread history through Anatolia, the Middle East and into the Aegean. I also suspect there is a connection between the bull's horns and the crescent moon.

"The human impulse toward that which is greater than ourselves, reflected in artifacts, philosophy, literature, etc".

I play and teach music for a living, and I used to draw and paint. I don't need to believe in a god to do that.

mathilda said...

The R-V88 coalescence time was estimated at 9200–5600 kya

Would allow for teh R1B to come into Africa with the Neolithic from Asia.


"Mathilda's conjectures on Afroasiatic being Asian are totally baseless"

There are about a dozen phds who share this opinion, mainly due to the fact that proto Afro Asiatic reconstructs to show neolithic Asian agriculture and animals, and that Ehrets dates are impossibly old.

I find the 'racist' bit particlulary offensive Maju, as I actually accepted the Ehret/Keita impossibly ancient claims for an African origin of AA languages based on the m78 Y chr distribution until I did some reading up on AA languages, and this entry can still be found on my blog.

I'm siding with an Asian origin as the genetics and archaeology don't support any movement that could be related to AA languages doing anything but moving into Africa from Asia at the relevant time, and proto Semitic has been shown to be a very close neighbour (in a new publication) to Indo European and Sumerian. So you'd need some movement OOA from 10k to 6k ago to make an African origin possible, and the only known cultural traffic in that 4k time span was into Africa.

Pretty offended now.

Mathilda.

mathilda said...

BTW, anyone reading Alice's posts should look her up..

http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/03/afro-asiatic-dominion.html

And know not to take her seriously.

She's insisting the Olmecs were Negroid... a hint as to why she's so insistent the R1b is African in origin.

To quote...

"The Olmecs were racially negroid, but they likely inter-married with non-negroid peoples. They have a rather unusual system of writing that suggests mixed influences. It isn't uniquely African."

Pretty offensive to native Americans. Also claiming African artifacts in China ;)

Alice C. Linsley said...

Mathilda, It is so good to hear from you! I hope you are doing better.

I'm curious about how we are to explain the presence of Sudanese in Southern India where they are called the "Sudra". Any thoughts on this?

Maju said...

"Mathilda's conjectures on Afroasiatic being Asian are totally baseless"

(...)

Pretty offended now.


I'm sorry if you're offended. But it's quite clear that there is no chance that AA is of Asian origin (where's the diversity?)

I find the 'racist' bit particlulary offensive Maju...

That's healthy, I guess. The case is that the only reason to think that AA has Asian origins and not African ones can be of such racist nature. For the racist white mentality accepting that peoples from Sudan (or somewhere nearby, probably quite black) spread into "white lands" is disturbing.

Not sure about you but there is a lot of people in this planet with hidden racist ideas that manifest when you expect less. It's a burden of our recent history.

As for the genetic side of the issue, it's clear to me that J1 means a pre-AA scatter, probably from the times of the colonization of West Eurasia and that what really indicates the spread of AA is the penetration of E1b1b1 into West Asia (and also Europe).

We have already discussed on your site about the genesis of Semitic and it's clear to me that the language is related to PPNA (in particular the pastoralist peoples of Negev and Sinai, clearly influenced by Egypt) and the circum-Arabic pastoralist complex (CAPC) that remained after the PPNB flow.

There's no way that Semitic genesis, much less all the Afroasiatic one, can be placed in Anatolia as you claim. There's a lot of confusion caused by the fact that whichever languages were primary in Neolithic (surely all dead by now) influenced other peripheral language families such as AA and Indoeuropean. These loanwords from extinct languages are now re-interpreted by lazy linguists as loanwords from AA to IE or viceversa, what is a total nonsense.

In any case they are just a handful of specialized loanwords, nothing else. It'd be like relating all existing human languages to ancient Greek based on words like "telephone"!

Alice C. Linsley said...

Good points, Maju.

You wrote that "whichever languages were primary in Neolithic" must surely all be dead by now. That is correct, however using comparative linguistics, key cognates can be traced across the ancient Afro-Asiatic world, which extended from west central Africa to Nepal.

Sarki, is an example. It means ruler among the people of Kano (biblical Kain). Sarki reside in west central Africa which is where Noah and his ancestors lived according to the Genesis genealogical data. Sarki are also a people group living in the Orissa Province of India. This connection between India and Nigeria has to do with the ruler-priests, called Harwa, who spread the Afro-Asiatic worldview. They even went to Nepal as evidenced by the existnece of Sarki who live as ‘Haruwa’ in the Tarai region of Nepal. The word Haruwa is equivalent to the ancient Egyptian word ‘Harwa”, meaning priest.

Maju said...

"... key cognates can be traced across the ancient Afro-Asiatic world, which extended from west central Africa to Nepal".

I'm not aware that any AA language was ever spoken east of Iraq, except for the Arabic pockets in Iran, which are all modern.

"Kano (biblical Kain)"

Ok, I've read enough nonsense. Goodbye.

Alice C. Linsley said...

The word "biblical" gets you every time! : )

pconroy said...

Alice,

In term of your Olmecs = Sub-Saharan African theory (SSA)

Let me add a few comments. The successor civilization/culture to the Olmecs were the Maya, and I've been in the Maya lowlands and seen the Olmec and Maya statues and anthropomorphic art, and I saw nothing that looked clearly SSA. I even saw first hand some of the ones I had read about in books as looking SSA, and they didn't. They did have fuller lips than Europeans, but then so do most NA's. Most lips are depicted downturned, which is not a SSA feature at all, but found in the Americas, and East and South East Asia.

I also saw the Olmec heads with their distinctive helmets - that some have compared to Carthaginians. They wore them to protect their heads when playing their ballgame - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_ballgame

Now having said all that the question of whether Olmec/Maya have any external input, apart from NA, still remains. But here's the thing, when I compare myself (Irish) on DeCodeMe's global similarity map, I am of course closer to other Europeans first, then Middle East/West Asia, then Yakuts, and Northern Asian groups, then MAYA, then most other Asian groups, then Native Americans, Papuans, SSA's.

So this is interesting, as it suggests a European/West Asian input to the Maya!

pconroy said...

Oh, and another clue would be that the Olmec number system was base 60, like the Babylonians/Sumerians

Alice C. Linsley said...

Interesting!

Mathilda and I had a conversation about this also. I concede that the African connection is tenuous. That theory was not well considered on my part and rather peripheral to my point.

Looking at number systems to make links between peoples is helpful, but has limits since all of these peoples were watchers of the heavens with its seven visible planets, Sun, Moon, etc. I think an argument can be made for some universal patterns because of this.

mathilda said...

Maju, one expansive dialect can totally wipe out all the accumulated diversity of any language family, and Arabic is the poster boy for that. One agressive culture wiped out Afro Asiatic dialiects from Syria to the Sahara, and we have a written records of it doing so. The only reason there's more diversity in Africa is that Sub Sharan African AA speakers didn't get overwhelmed by Muslim invaders. If they had, there'd be no diversity there either. And Omotic is NOT widely regarded as an ancient AA language. A mix of NS and later AA nouns mixed in, or an offshoot of East African AA. Definijtely NOT a pre Agricultural AA langauge to root PAA in Africa.

Chadic shows its male ancestry directly traces back to neolithic Asian pastoralists; you can even trace its arrival down the Nile and across Wadi Howar with the ceramics and domesticated animal bones tying Chadic neatly to the arrival of the R1b and Asian culture.

Plenty of linguists support an Asian neolithic origin for PAA. Don't make out I'm some kind of lone 'racist' voice claiming this. PAA recons with neolithic Asian animals and crops. PS has loan words into PIE which places PS in Eurasia about 9/6 k bp. PAA also matches the neolithic expansion into Asia. All points make numerous times by multiple qualified linguists and archaeologists.


"There's no way that Semitic genesis, much less all the Afroasiatic one, can be placed in Anatolia as you claim."

An African origin for PAA would require a LUDICROUSLY old time frame for PAA (older than is possible). And there's a lack of loans from PAA into PNS, which was probably the language of the Holocene Sahara before Afro Asiatic arrived in the Neolithic.
I put proto Semitic as a Syrian area language. I just said it needed to be NEAR the neolithic precursor to PIE in Anatolia in order to loan words to it.

We can be pretty sure PIE and PS were neighbours. This really puts the onus on anyone claiming an African origin for PAA to explain just what expansion came out of Africa 10k ago carrying it, when all the expansions in the Holocene to neolithic go into Africa from Asia.

Also, alter Ehret's dates to match his later work and his max age for PAA works out to be about 10k too. He recently slashed the age for PS to about 6k, which as much as admitted the vast time depth he was claiming before was just wrong. His dates were about 35/40% over estimated before (he's removed the old pdfs with the super old dates now).

Alice C. Linsley said...

Ehret's assessment of Nilotic henotheistic archetype is correct also.

http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2011/07/nilotic-kushitic-celestial-archetypes.html

Maju said...

Mathilda: glad to know you are still alive and kicking. :)

However I can hardly agree with your hypothesis for Afroasiatic expansion. I am quite convinced that Afroasiatic has an origin in the Nile Basin, that its expansion is related to that of E1b1b1a1-M78 (and J1 in at least certain areas).

You have a complex theory that claims an origin in Anatolia, related to Pre-Pottery Neolithic B but that does not match with the genetic track, nor the linguistic diversity clues.

The origin is in the Nile and, for Semitic (proto-Semitic if you wish) in the Circum-Arabic Pastoralist complex, which is related to PPNB but not the same (has origins in Harifian-PPNA).

"Chadic shows its male ancestry directly traces back to neolithic Asian pastoralists"...

You cannot affirm that. R1b1a in Africa surely has roots in Sudan (not yet demonstrated but likely) or at most Upper Egypt. It is indeed ultimately related to R1b1a in Italy, etc. but that is deep Upper Paleolithic stuff, not the Chadic founder effect.

"Plenty of linguists support an Asian neolithic origin for PAA".

Only because of racist prejudice, which is sadly too common. There's absolutely nothing to support such claim other than racist stubbornness: neither linguistic, nor genetic, nor archaeological.

And you know that.

"An African origin for PAA would require a LUDICROUSLY old time frame"...

Which is consistent with the ages estimated for AA of at last 10 Ka (maybe more). It is the oldest dated linguistic family I am aware of - the differences between AA subfamilies are so brutal that some people even question the whole assumption of a single AA family. AA is borderline the age for recognition of linguistic affinity, which is probably slightly above 10 Ka (Starostin dixit).

"We can be pretty sure PIE and PS were neighbours".

We can be pretty sure that they were not. They have absorbed some common wanderworts from the Neolithic cradle languages (What did PPNB people spoke? Hurro-Urartean?, Hattic?, Tyrsenian? IDK but not Semitic and not IE).