tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post3284249302781825510..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Two major groups of living Jews (Atzmon et al. 2010)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-18664235843077894232015-07-27T02:15:15.568+03:002015-07-27T02:15:15.568+03:00www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperI...www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19567pjl_u2https://www.blogger.com/profile/13400085795295743434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55139862416122594922010-09-03T09:09:16.512+03:002010-09-03T09:09:16.512+03:00Ethiopian and Ashkenazim are both true jews in my ...Ethiopian and Ashkenazim are both true jews in my hypothesis, the "L2" mtDNA marker is present in the two populations also the derived and sibling mtDNA Hg "M" and "N", as well as the Y markers Hg E3b and 4s too, all of this from East Africa and so. They belong respectively at one of the three nucleous or center jewish ancient populations, that evolving the called "Syrian-European nucleous"(helenistic and Roman times).<br />The oldest center -Ethiopians belong these- were that developed in Napata and Elephantine (Kush) and whose nucleous or center was after Alexandria, and I called "Coptic Nucleous" derived in two bias, and split forwards the North via Europe -intermixed with the Syrian Europe nucleous- or the South, via Nile and the Horn Of Africa.<br />The "Babilonian and Persian nucleous" is other of the above three mentioned centers and included Bukara, Iranian and Iraki mainly. <br />All of this Nucleous take Judaea and Israel like a axis and pendulo.<br />Another fourth Nucleous or center I call "East Europe" -not mainly conected with ME-, is not ancient like the three others and was the Jewish Khazar Empire stiring into Askenazy current population and others. All of this events were naturaly intrajewish asimilations in all jews current populations. <br />The Ashkenazim hyperhaploydia is explained by the superposition and overlay of diverse fount or source population , that are all of this of Jewish origin (that consider converted into intraJewish assimilations) , one coming from the “Syrian European nucleous” – that Sephardic as well as preAshenazim bring inside -. The other convergence were the “Coptic Jewish nucleous”, coming from Alexandria, the main and largest Judaic center in ancient times – the buried and graves in Jewish graveyards and catacombs of Tuscan, and Alsace as too Rhineland cities take a lot of Egyptian ornaments and display figures from these, as well as Y and mtDNA markers - . The great Jews migration from Egypt beginning after the Muslim invaders from Arabia in the VII AE century. The “Babylonian and Persian nucleous” take place and contacts newly with and when the “preAshenazim second fase” were migrating to the East Europe. A remarkable contact was with the fourth “East Europe Jews nucleous”-not related or little related with ME-, with the descendant of the Jews Khazarians ones, spreading every where and carrying a lot of East Europe and Eurasian markers. That happen between the XI and XII century AE. <br />The Tuscan host populations come from Anatolia like infers mtDNA markers, and others, yet present today – a thread Etruscan link - and are so common in South East Basin like Albanian, Grecian, Tunisian and Anatolian , as well as the entirely Italy and some South France spots, practical absent in central or North Europa or East Asia. If we compare Ashkenazy jews with this South European Tuscan population will see a more European genes pool coming from Europe than if we compare with Central and North European population. <br /><br /><br />Dr Hector H. Otero C.<br />Argentina.<br /><br />See too:<br />http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100603/full/news.2010.277.html<br />See, Comment 11149 and 12952 with table 1 -partial-, remember that the sibling Hg "M" and "N" -from "L3"- too correspond to East African origin, and are not included at all-see complete table 1, in reference-.horaciohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08177107320272273468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14174666142177239072010-07-27T13:15:24.966+03:002010-07-27T13:15:24.966+03:00Are you Jewish, Mr Dienekes?Are you Jewish, Mr Dienekes?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09467133453547665336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14960847357239958852010-06-15T15:28:08.868+03:002010-06-15T15:28:08.868+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70845461199561999182010-06-15T11:00:36.953+03:002010-06-15T11:00:36.953+03:00"because they have the guns and the will to k..."because they have the guns and the will to keep it, just as the Arabs had the guns and the will to keep it in the past". <br /><br />And using that as a justification surely denies the Israelis the right to adopt the high ground when Palestinians fight back using suicide bombers. It's just that they don't have sufficient guns.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58409150672644525372010-06-15T01:12:20.713+03:002010-06-15T01:12:20.713+03:00maju:
Disengage away, however I'll continue t...maju:<br /><br />Disengage away, however I'll continue to respond to what's addressed to me.<br /><br />"If some individuals or groups also settled here or there, that's the exception, not the rule. "<br /><br />Given the entire point of the discussion is the impact of such settlement, not just during the first caliphate but during the whole of the Islamic period, your attempted exception is exceptionally disingenuous <br /><br />"They are also not known to have caused any democide"<br /><br />No such claim was made. However I notice you tend to avoid the issue by attempting to limit the period of discussion to a handful of years.<br /><br />The claim that was made was that the impact of Muslim immigration and bedouin sedentarization over 13 centuries has been substantial enough such that the PA population cannot constitute a genetic control group, that there has been a meaningful genetic alteration of the Palestinian landscape. Actually I was caught off guard that you were unaware of the Arab clade--I naively assumed you were familiar with the breadth of the genetic literature on the matter. In any event, the 29% (actually higher in the previous study) Arab clade is sufficient to put the matter to rest, and the rest of the genetic evidence previously discussed only adds to the substantiality of the impact.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09101925113309089131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62117060159407357322010-06-14T23:59:58.151+03:002010-06-14T23:59:58.151+03:00Kidproquo: I'm trying to disengage from the di...Kidproquo: I'm trying to disengage from the discussion, because it's already long enough and some parts of it have not been very nice. But as you insist...<br /><br />"Let me quote you: "Arabs expanded as aristocratic conquerors and religious missionaries, not as settlers." A missionary non-settler doesn't settle. This is a claim that can't be qualified, only retracted".<br /><br />It can perfectly be qualified. That's the essence of Arab-Muslim expansion in the times of the first Caliphate. I'm retracting nothing of this.<br /><br />If some individuals or groups also settled here or there, that's the exception, not the rule. <br /><br />Furthermore Arabia peninsula did not have the demographics to colonize, even if they wanted to, in meaningful numbers in the vastness of their conquests. Not as to significantly alter the local demography. <br /><br />They are also not known to have caused any democide, which could help in such demographic alteration you claim. It was essentially a military, political and religious conquest. <br /><br />However, in the course of ulterior history, these areas, now rather unified culturally (and sometimes also politically), were in mutual relation of certain cosmopolitanism, so it's possible that in the period after the Arab-Muslim conquest till present day, some localized colonizations may have happened too. <br /><br />This is my qualification. And I don't care if you accept it or not. Too tired of this discussion. <br /><br />"I'm very proud of you"...<br /><br />Thanks daddy. O_O :?<br /><br />"The next step is"...<br /><br />That you acknowledge that the situation upon the Great Jewish Revolt was much more susceptible of demic change, than any moment since the Muslim conquest till 1945. <br /><br />By that, I don't mean that there was replacement. I don't think so. Just that the opportunity for such a radical demic change as the one you propose is much more clearly available than at any other historical moment before the arrival of the Zionist settler-conquerors. <br /><br />"Now let's rewind to quote you again"...<br /><br />Rewind to your mamma. :(Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31096870927436408202010-06-14T22:51:28.979+03:002010-06-14T22:51:28.979+03:00onur:
Insultation? haha that's worse than imp...onur:<br /><br />Insultation? haha that's worse than impudent :P<br /><br />"History is essentially nothing but a discipline of interpretation of historical sources and artifacts as realistically as possible, and like in many things open to interpretation there are many different and often conflicting interpretations in history."<br /><br />None of this contradicts what I have said. That you would think so suggests you've perhaps contorted the meaning of what I've said far outside the intended meaning due to the rigidity and crudeness of your way of thinking ;)<br /><br />"For instance, the existence of the Roman Empire is one of those many undeniable truths"<br /><br />So you agree that there is a core confluence of historical opinion built up over space and time. Next step is to investigate how large that core is, including its very large perimeter consisting of reasonably conflicting debated interpretations. Then we look at the surrounding penumbra of intelligent historical revisionism, and after that we can see the linings of unintelligent revisionism.<br /><br />"We also know from primary historical sources and artifacts that some Arabians migrated to Palestine"<br /><br />Maju didn't seem to know this. I'm glad I'm not the only one telling him now. He specifically denied any Arabian settlement in Palestine, although in his last posting he apparently has tacitly retracted the claim. <br /><br />"Arabian-originated Muslim migrations might have made a major impact on the genetic landscape of Palestine, but historical sources aren't and cannot be helpful for us in learning the proportions of this impact"<br /><br />Well they can, they just can't be definitive. However it is unhelpful if they're dismissed on grounds of personal political preference rather than the use of countering historical sources (which is what maju has been doing).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09101925113309089131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-9345376069187292342010-06-14T22:34:19.526+03:002010-06-14T22:34:19.526+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25402031204870432622010-06-14T22:31:46.421+03:002010-06-14T22:31:46.421+03:00maju:
"You have totally misunderstood what I...maju:<br /><br />"You have totally misunderstood what I said. <br /><br />I can't but agree that some Arabian Muslims (and surely Arabized Muslims from elsewhere, like Syria, Egypt or Iraq) settled in Palestine. What I say is that there are no grounds and seems most unlikely that there was a massive settlement, much less a displacement of the original population in the Muslim period. "<br /><br />Let me quote you: "Arabs expanded as aristocratic conquerors and religious missionaries, not as settlers." A missionary non-settler doesn't settle. This is a claim that can't be qualified, only retracted. <br /><br />"As you insist that I mention my sources, F. Josephus, the main (only?) original source on this matter, talks of 1.1 million killed in Jerusalem alone. However it's very likely that the countryside was largely spared."<br /><br />I'm very proud of you for acknowledging the importance of historical substantiation. The next step is to take in a balanced approach to the historical material regarding Jewish presence in Palestine in other areas--the Galilee, Tiberias, Hebron--and in subsequent years (notably, at the time of the Islamic expansion)<br /><br />"I'll take a look to Thomas 2000 (if open access) but, from your quote, it seems to me that he's not talking of the bulk of their haplotype diversity but to a fraction of it (29%) which may indeed represent some historical expansion (not necessarily the Arab-Muslim one) with some founder effects. An Y-DNA expansion/founder effect affecting 29% of the Y-DNA pool may well mean just some 10% or even less of the whole gene pool, considering the peculiarities of gender-bias in demographic processes."<br /><br />Now let's rewind to quote you again: "Arabs (a bunch of nomads from the desert originally) could not alter the genetic landscape in any meaningful manner." A 29% Arab clade constitutes a meaningful genetic alteration. It directly contradicts your claim of no alteration. And the authors believe this clade derives from the original Islamic expansion, so we're bracketing the question of 13 centuries of subsequent low level clan immigration and bedouin sedentarization. My original assertion was that the PA population cannot be treated as a control sample for "Palestinness" and this is sufficient to show I'm right. The genetics of PA samples is one evidence amongst many factors to be weighed against each other--in light of the historical data--but definitely not to be treated as a control sample. I even somewhat satirically stated, "Your treatment of the modern Palestinian Arab population as a millennia-old Palestinian genetic constant seems to be an assumption or axiom on your part"--and your response was to completely agree to this characterization! I'm sorry, but "clownish" comes to mind.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09101925113309089131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88797269460735768482010-06-14T21:52:14.938+03:002010-06-14T21:52:14.938+03:00onur:
The following sentences of the same paragra...onur:<br /><br />The following sentences of the same paragraph say similar things:<br /><br />"The genetic closeness, in classical protein markers, of Bedouin to Yemenis and Saudis (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994) supports an Arabian origin of the Bedouin. The alternative explanation for the distribution of the Arab-specific haplotypes (i.e., random genetic drift) is unlikely. It is difficult to imagine that the different populations in the Yemen and the southern Levant, in which Arab-specific chromosomes have been detected at moderate-to-high frequencies, would have drifted in the same direction." [emphases mine]<br /><br />I'm not sure what you're point is. In the earlier paper that discovered the Arab clade, they asserted genetic drift as a possible explanation. In this paper they saying genetic drift is an unlikely explanation. So...?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09101925113309089131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6985760222230240202010-06-14T20:37:40.729+03:002010-06-14T20:37:40.729+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65889000170970912452010-06-14T19:46:22.617+03:002010-06-14T19:46:22.617+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68743529075444927742010-06-14T16:57:39.383+03:002010-06-14T16:57:39.383+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67682277135753320362010-06-14T15:59:50.432+03:002010-06-14T15:59:50.432+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-10553049732540804522010-06-14T15:45:38.288+03:002010-06-14T15:45:38.288+03:00onur, if you don't find a solution to your &qu...onur, if you don't find a solution to your "multiple postings of the same comment" problem, I will start deleting all your comments. I'm done cleaning up after you.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-17225613966760152092010-06-14T15:19:09.816+03:002010-06-14T15:19:09.816+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21604699885220768442010-06-14T15:15:05.548+03:002010-06-14T15:15:05.548+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61672215463553497682010-06-14T14:38:43.113+03:002010-06-14T14:38:43.113+03:00Palestine is a distinct archaeological region unti...<i>Palestine is a distinct archaeological region until at least PPNB and so far, in West Eurasia, such clusters tend to be coincident with pre-Neolithic archaeological provinces. The same happens in Europe (Bauchet 2007) where Irish and Poles cluster together, as one would expect from peoples originating essentially in the Rhine-Danube region but Basques cluster differently (Franco-Cantabrian region) and so do Valencians (Iberian region).<br /><br />That's my most parsimonious interpretation. However, if you don't like it, you may need to look for another period of differential isolation such as the Jewish states of the Iron Age. <br /></i><br /><br />Ok, so your "most parsimonious explanation" involves formation of Palestinian genetic distinctiveness in PPNB and then its maintenance over ten thousand years despite the fact that Palestine is embedded in a much larger geographical region, and had no noticeable cultural differences from the wider region for most of those ten thousand years.<br /><br />It's the genetic equivalent of building a sand castle, going back after a month and expecting it to still be there.<br /><br /><i>It surprised me too. I guess, I strongly suspect, I'm quite sure, that if the the Admixture run would have been allowed to continue to k=16 or whatever, we'd witness the appearance of other such clusters in other populations (some already identified in other studies, some maybe not). </i><br /><br />I'm not interested in your speculations. You should just say: "I have no explanation why the only samples that pop up as distinct throughout Eurasia are those of consanguineous Muslims, but I'll pretend that it has something to do with Paleolithic Palestinians".Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63160077541066207742010-06-14T14:27:53.523+03:002010-06-14T14:27:53.523+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-17086324817129616762010-06-14T14:06:05.280+03:002010-06-14T14:06:05.280+03:00According to your wording, Dienekes, there could n...According to your wording, Dienekes, there could never be any sort of differential population clusters because in all cases there is "unimpeded flow" of some sort or dimensions. I bet even Druzes have got unimpeded flow at some minimal levels. <br /><br />The question is how many actual people immigrates in proportion to natives, normally, even if immigration is "unimpeded", this proportion is low because the country is already settled for the most part. <br /><br />There may be moments when there is accelerated immigration and even native decline in population (genocide, huge epidemics) but these mostly we seem able to identify only when highly developed industrial or proto-industrial societies have clashed with people with huntergatherer or semi-neolithic lifestyles. Even in a case like Mexico, we still find that people is still some 50% or more of native blood and this native component can be identified by cluster analysis. <br /><br />"My explanation is that Palestinians like these other populations (Mozabites, Druze, Bedouins) are consanguineous Muslims".<br /><br />There's no comparison: all your examples refer to small isolated populations (and in the case of Mozabites their specific component seems to be part of a wider North African or Berber component). We see nothing of that in other normal Muslim populations such as Jordanians, Lebanese, peninsular Arabs, Moroccans, Egyptians. Palestinians are just like these. <br /><br />"What's YOUR explanation for Palestinian specificity".<br /><br />Palestine is a distinct archaeological region until at least PPNB and so far, in West Eurasia, such clusters tend to be coincident with pre-Neolithic archaeological provinces. The same happens in Europe (Bauchet 2007) where Irish and Poles cluster together, as one would expect from peoples originating essentially in the Rhine-Danube region but Basques cluster differently (Franco-Cantabrian region) and so do Valencians (Iberian region).<br /><br />That's my most parsimonious interpretation. However, if you don't like it, you may need to look for another period of differential isolation such as the Jewish states of the Iron Age. <br /><br />"... what makes Palestinians special that they should have their own cluster while all these other West Eurasian populations do not".<br /><br />It surprised me too. I guess, I strongly suspect, I'm quite sure, that if the the Admixture run would have been allowed to continue to k=16 or whatever, we'd witness the appearance of other such clusters in other populations (some already identified in other studies, some maybe not). <br /><br />I think that the rather large Palestinian sample, along with some clear old distinctiveness, explains why they popped up as different at such shallow levels. <br /><br />"Britons got the land from Ottomans, who got it from Arabs, who got it from Romans, who got it from Greeks, who got it from Persians, who got it from Assyrians, who ..."<br /><br />Right of conquest then? I'm for a more democratic approach: human rights and right of self-determination, sincerely. Violence only brings more violence.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-50150831993972641832010-06-14T13:51:37.807+03:002010-06-14T13:51:37.807+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35147834014099607322010-06-14T12:22:33.902+03:002010-06-14T12:22:33.902+03:00Belonging to the Hellenistic states, the Roman Emp...<i>Belonging to the Hellenistic states, the Roman Empire and then Islam makes this period pretty much cosmopolitan quite obviously. This is probably not a particularlirity of Palestine but also applies to that country. </i><br /><br />Palestine belonged to "cosmopolitan" empires before the arrival of the Greeks (the Persian one most recently). Thus, your contention that it has been unusually cosmopolitan in the last two thousand years is wrong.<br /><br />Indeed, with the exception of the periods of Hebrew national autonomy and the period in which Philistines arrived at the coast, it would be quite difficult to find any period of the history of Palestine where the place had a distinctive population element in it. <br /><br /><br /><i>How much gene flow? If they were distinct prior to that gene flow, then the cluster should survive, though detecting it will depend on depth of the cluster analysis, sample size and populations compared. </i><br /><br />Clusters form in periods of relative isolation and low gene flow and are dissolved in periods of unimpeded gene flow.<br /><br />I leave it to the reader to figure out if Palestine spent any of its time since the Neolithic (with the exceptions I note) in a situation of of impeded gene flow.<br /><br /><i>But even if the divergence of West Eurasians is only from Neolithic times, as seems to be your hypothesis, then we are still looking at one of the main distinctive components of that "Neolithic" scatter. If we exclude Druze and Bedouins (small populations with wacko specificities) it is one of 5 major clusters, all the others being super-regional (widely spread). </i><br /><br />Right, Palestinians are cosmopolitan, they don't have "wacko specificities" and yet they form their own cluster. <br /><br />I repeat: why do Palestinians form their own cluster if they're like everybody else. You have to come up with an explanation for why there exists a Palestinian cluster. Appeals to Palestinian uniqueness don't count.<br /><br />My explanation is that Palestinians like these other populations (Mozabites, Druze, Bedouins) are consanguineous Muslims. <br /><br />What's YOUR explanation for Palestinian specificity. Don't give me any of that "it can't be recent so it must be old BS", tell me exactly when a Palestinian-centered cluster developed and what makes Palestinians special that they should have their own cluster while all these other West Eurasian populations do not.<br /><br /><i>My position in favor of native national rights of Palestinians is unaffected by their ethnic or genetic origins. Even if modern Jews would be pure descendants of the Jews of old, which doesn't seem to be the case at all, I would still deny them their alleged right to rob the country of others after 2000 years of exile. </i><br /><br />Britons got the land from Ottomans, who got it from Arabs, who got it from Romans, who got it from Greeks, who got it from Persians, who got it from Assyrians, who ...<br /><br />I see no reason to give priority of ownership to Arabs or to anyone else. The Jews don't have possession of Israel because they lived there 2,000 years ago, but because they have the guns and the will to keep it, just as the Arabs had the guns and the will to keep it in the past.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-838938339380366752010-06-14T09:27:48.546+03:002010-06-14T09:27:48.546+03:00Look Dienekes, I'm pretty much tired of "...Look Dienekes, I'm pretty much tired of "discussing" with you in this matter because you are not discussing nor debating but mostly being nasty. <br /><br />Still:<br /><br />"... your contention that the last two millennia have been "unusually cosmopolitan" is unfounded".<br /><br />Belonging to the Hellenistic states, the Roman Empire and then Islam makes this period pretty much cosmopolitan quite obviously. This is probably not a particularlirity of Palestine but also applies to that country. <br /><br />"... you have still failed to explain how a "distinctive cluster" would survive two thousand years (or even worse ten thousand) of gene flow".<br /><br />How much gene flow? If they were distinct prior to that gene flow, then the cluster should survive, though detecting it will depend on depth of the cluster analysis, sample size and populations compared. <br /><br />This would not be the case if there would have been a demic replacement (very distinct from normal gene flow or even occasional minority immigration of some size) but there are no clear grounds to support that demic replacement and in that case, certainly, the cluster would not have survived in any case. <br /><br />"First of all, your contention that West Eurasians have been diverging for 50 thousand years is (a) irrelevant, (b) unfounded, and (c) probably wrong"...<br /><br />This is one of our main points of contention and we have discussed on it many different times. It'd be impossible and pointless to start all over. <br /><br />But even if the divergence of West Eurasians is only from Neolithic times, as seems to be your hypothesis, then we are still looking at one of the main distinctive components of that "Neolithic" scatter. If we exclude Druze and Bedouins (small populations with wacko specificities) it is one of 5 major clusters, all the others being super-regional (widely spread). <br /><br />And I know of other cases where very small strongly isolated populations show up as distinct even if they could be not so distinct after all. This happened with the Mlabri (an Austroasiatic forager population shown elsewhere as related with other neighbor Austroasiatic) in the HUGO consortium paper on Asian genetics, for instance. So the distinctiveness of the Druze looks a case of that type (not totally sure about Bedouins, it's possible that their distinctive component has a Harifian origin). <br /><br />"Yep, anyone can understand that your "reasoning" is filled with hand-waiving, special pleading, and that it is motivated by your politics".<br /><br />What about your politics, Dienekes? Ahem!<br /><br />My position in favor of native national rights of Palestinians is unaffected by their ethnic or genetic origins. Even if modern Jews would be pure descendants of the Jews of old, which doesn't seem to be the case at all, I would still deny them their alleged right to rob the country of others after 2000 years of exile. <br /><br />It'd be like claiming half of European Russia for the Turks or the right of Armenians to conquer NE Anatolia (or Cherokee to Appalachian lands) in the year 4000 (now they may still have some claim, as barely a century has passed since the respective genocides). <br /><br />Whatever the case, I see a clear outstanding Palestinian genetic uniqueness that speaks volumes. Yo prefer to stay deaf? Your problem.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56755419298550976702010-06-14T09:01:18.549+03:002010-06-14T09:01:18.549+03:00Kidproquo:
"... a number of startling propos...Kidproquo:<br /><br />"... a number of startling propositions:<br /><br />1. That literally no Arabian Muslim has settled in Palestine.<br />2. That there has been a genocide of the entirety of Palestinian, not just Jerusalemite, Jewry by the Romans (except for, as you put it, "Jewish Christians")".<br /><br />You have totally misunderstood what I said. <br /><br />I can't but agree that <b>some</b> Arabian Muslims (and surely Arabized Muslims from elsewhere, like Syria, Egypt or Iraq) settled in Palestine. What I say is that there are no grounds and seems most unlikely that there was a massive settlement, much less a displacement of the original population in the Muslim period. <br /><br />As for the Roman genocide, I haven't said that all Palestinian natives were exterminated. In fact now I'm pretty sure they were not. The only thing I said is that it was a much more clear opportunity, considering the dimensions reported by Roman age historians for this genocide (which of course can be exaggerated and distorted) for a demic replacement, <b>if there ever was one</b>. <br /><br />As you insist that I mention my sources, <a href="http://reluctant-messenger.com/josephusW03.htm" rel="nofollow">F. Josephus</a>, the main (only?) original source on this matter, talks of 1.1 million killed in Jerusalem alone. However it's very likely that the countryside was largely spared. This seems even more certain considering the new genetic evidence from Behar 2010 on modern Palestinians. <br /><br />It would be interesting to study genetically Palestinian Jews (i.e. the descendants of those living in Palestine before the advent of Zionist immigration, which were some 10% of the population in the 1930s). Admittedly some of them may have arrived at different times in pilgrimages and such but they could still preserve some of the ancient Jewish/Palestinian genetics in them. I don't know if they keep some ethnic specificity in modern Israel but what I know is that no geneticist has paid them any attention so far. <br /><br />I'll take a look to Thomas 2000 (if open access) but, from your quote, it seems to me that he's not talking of the bulk of their haplotype diversity but to a fraction of it (29%) which may indeed represent some historical expansion (not necessarily the Arab-Muslim one) with some founder effects. An Y-DNA expansion/founder effect affecting 29% of the Y-DNA pool may well mean just some 10% or even less of the whole gene pool, considering the peculiarities of gender-bias in demographic processes.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com