American Journal of Physical Anthropology DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21522
Population history of the Red Sea—genetic exchanges between the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa signaled in the mitochondrial DNA HV1 haplogroup
Eliška Musilová et al.
Archaeological studies have revealed cultural connections between the two sides of the Red Sea dating to prehistory. The issue has still not been properly addressed, however, by archaeogenetics. We focus our attention here on the mitochondrial haplogroup HV1 that is present in both the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa. The internal variation of 38 complete mitochondrial DNA sequences (20 of them presented here for the first time) affiliated into this haplogroup testify to its emergence during the late glacial maximum, most probably in the Near East, with subsequent dispersion via population expansions when climatic conditions improved. Detailed phylogeography of HV1 sequences shows that more recent demographic upheavals likely contributed to their spread from West Arabia to East Africa, a finding concordant with archaeological records suggesting intensive maritime trade in the Red Sea from the sixth millennium BC onwards. Closer genetic exchanges are apparent between the Horn of Africa and Yemen, while Egyptian HV1 haplotypes seem to be more similar to the Near Eastern ones.
Link
10 comments:
Nice study. The age (22,350) of HV1 seems of course again a bit recent, if we assume the presence of H in the Franco-Cantabrian and Italian refugia. The upper end of the interval (30k) probably is a bit closer to reality, perhaps still short by 5k to 10k years.
"a finding concordant with archaeological records suggesting intensive maritime trade in the Red Sea from the sixth millennium BC onwards".
Makes it difficult to accept that more than 50,000 years ago people in the region possessed boats capable of crossing the Bab al Mandab.
This issue will have to discuss on government level to focus what we have got to miss for several years.
College Papers
"a finding concordant with archaeological records suggesting "intensive maritime trade in the Red Sea from the sixth millennium BC onwards".
Makes it difficult to accept that more than 50,000 years ago people in the region possessed boats capable of crossing the Bab al Mandab."
I don't follow. What does the presence of vessels capable of maritime trade in one period have to do with the kind of small veseels it takes to get across that narrow stretch in another time?
I can see how the nearly total lack of wood in the Horn of Africa or Yememn might be a hindrance, but I don't know what the situation was 50,000 years ago. But surely the claim isn't that boats of any kind didn't exist before the sixth millenium BC.
"What does the presence of vessels capable of maritime trade in one period have to do with the kind of small veseels it takes to get across that narrow stretch in another time?"
If maritime trade does not appear in the region until quite recently it argues against the presence of any maritime voyaging until that time. Trade of various sorts is ancient in human interaction, so if vessels were capable of maritime voyaging before that time it is virtually certain that such trade would have been established earlier. Any 'the kind of small veseels it takes to get across that narrow stretch' would certainly be much more capable of voyaging along either coast.
" But surely the claim isn't that boats of any kind didn't exist before the sixth millenium BC".
Boats of some sort enabled humans to reach Australia more than 50,000 years ago but it seems unlikely that such vessels existed outside that region until much later. Even in the Mediterranean, with its many islands, we don't find effective inter-island travel until the early Holocene.
Thanks, terryt. Got it.
What stopped me was equating trade with mogration. Trade takes bigger vessels to be worthwhile than simple migration would.
I understand what you're saying but I'm still not convinced. there isn't much archeological evidence of boat travel on the Pacific coast unitl recent times, but there linguistic evidence of it - pockets of Penutian speech, pockets of Salishan speech outside the core area, and that just the solid stuff. I rememebr there being some unique genetic link between the Chumash groups and the soem Wakashan-speaking gropups, with no retrievable linguistic similarity.
None of that proves that there was baot travel on Red Sea at the Horn of Africa. Though I suppose all the evidence could be underwater by now.
"Trade takes bigger vessels to be worthwhile than simple migration would".
True, but we have evidence of reasonably long-distance gift exchange going way back into the Paleolithic. So if people were capable of sea travel they would surely have indulged in such gift exchange.
"there isn't much archeological evidence of boat travel on the Pacific coast unitl recent times"
There's plenty of evidence for it in Melanesia though, going way back about 30,000 years. Obsidian of know origin was transported around various islands.
"None of that proves that there was baot travel on Red Sea at the Horn of Africa. Though I suppose all the evidence could be underwater by now".
I think too many people use that as an excuse to support theories that don't otherwise add up. The presence of 'foreign' objects across the REd Sea would be enough to indicate ancient crossings. But as far as I'm aware no such evidence exists.
"I think too many people use that as an excuse to support theories that don't otherwise add up."
Well yeah. Absence of evidence is not really evidence. It's just that the alternative explanation seems to be that people just walked across.
"There's plenty of evidence for it in Melanesia though, going way back about 30,000 years. Obsidian of know origin was transported around various islands. "
That's a good example of how differenet objects show up differently in the archeological record. Old boats that somehow get covered over in sand and get preserved for 10,000 years end up under water when the seas rise; obsidian items, expensive and valuable item, are stored inland in safe places.
On the West Coast the obsidian is inland and would not be available to those initial settlers, so they'd only have the same old clam shells that are nearly impossible to identigfy as tools even if they're only 300 years old.
"It's just that the alternative explanation seems to be that people just walked across".
It's possible that people walked across at a time of very low sea level, but it's just as possible that they never crossed at all until the early Holocene.
A paper on the spread of obsidian in Paleolithic Melanesia:
http://ejournal.anu.edu.au/index.php/bippa/article/viewFile/701/663
In the Ian Logan spreadsheet there are 3 HV1:
20. AY738943(Italy) Achilli HV1 13-APR-2007 A263G 309.1C 315.1C A1438G A2706G A4769G C7028T A7569G A8014T T8376C A8860G G9755A A13535G A15218G A15326G C16067T T16519C
21. EF660936(Italy) Gasparre HV1 04-JUL-2007 A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G A2706G T3906C A4769G T5483C T6956C C7028T A8014T A8860G T9018C G15140A A15218G A15326G A15805G C16067T G16129A C16242T
22. JF320654(Armenian) FTDNA HV1 05-MAR-2011 A263G 315.1C 523.1C 523.2A A750G A1438G A2706G A4766G A4769G C7028T A8014T A8860G G9548A A15326G C16067T
but JF320654 hasn’t the mutation A15218G and Phylotree classifies it like HV1 and the others like HV1a’b’c. There is another Italian haplotype which belongs to this subclades:
Ancestress: Domenica Baldassarre, b. ca. 1730, Molise, Molise, Italy
MtDNA Haplogroup: HV1 (HVR1: 16067T, 16519C; HVR2: 207A, 263G, 309.1C, 315.1C; FGS: 1438G, 2706G, 4769G, 7028T, 7569G, 8014T, 8860G, 9755A, 13535G, 15218G, 15326G); Kit Nr.: E13058
and we can reconstruct for this and also for AY738943 also the back mutation in 750 from G to A.
It is clear at this point that this subclade is Italian and so far only Italian and all the subclades derive from that. I think that the Armenian HV1 isn’t the ancestor of the Italian subclades and I expect to find it also in Italy.
This is in line with the expansion of other mt-haplogroups from Italy and, why not, of other Y-haplogroups.
Post a Comment