Genetics T-M184 Discussion

You’re driven by emotions and pseudo ethno-nationalism.

Wether Y45591 is South Arabian in origin or not doesn’t refute the fact that it was introduced to the Somali gene pool quite recently, approximately 2000 years ago.

What you’ve presented is your own theories and unlike Esteban you don’t have any credentials when it comes to genetics.

Just look at this sentence:

“This is the only guy so far that has anything to do with a Eurasian Y16897 ancestor.”

Truly a bizarre chain of thought!
All we can base our evidence is on present day samples. That is all we have. There is no ancient dna.

With present day samples, in order to pinpoint an origin, we have to see the distribution both

1) ethnically

and

2) geographically

When a ydna originates in area, you see a succession of lineages splitting toward it. So E-V68->E-M78->E-V12->E-V32 etc., it has no regard for ethncity since it invariable seeps into the local ethnicities at some point.

T-Y16897 is probably not African, but Y45591 so far is best represented in Somalis. It is essentially non-existent in Arabs. The paucity of Arab Y45591 despite Arabians having every ydna you can think of - and especially every African subclade. There are Saudis that may even belong to the super rare D0 recently found in Nigeria - forget Y45591. They have received every possible African ydna.

If Y45591 were of Semitic origin - it is statistically most likely we would have seen at least a few Jewish Y45591 by now. But we dont. We would have seen Arab conquest Y45591, but we don't. Other Arabian T-M70 is found everywhere - even in central Africa. But why not Y45591? The South Arabian migrations impact the Levant, but there is no significant Y145591 there, why? How can you explain this? This is completely against the possibility of an origin there.

Just look at this sentence:

“This is the only guy so far that has anything to do with a Eurasian Y16897 ancestor.”

Truly a bizarre chain of thought!
Did you miss something?

The Somalia Z19971 is under an Arab cluster. The fact that it has a Jewish specific cluster and a broad regional spread makes it very unlikely Z19971 is African in origin. So what exactly are you arguing? He clearly has an Arabian ancestor - so whatever angle you're coming from makes no sense. If you can't get that then I have nothing to tell you. I'm not going to even begin to explain that to someone so hell bent on being ignorant.

It is clear to anyone with any understanding that the evidence supports my position - you only stand on the claim of a few Arabians, which is not much better than me claiming Somali E-V32 is Arabian because of the Arab Hubaysh and Bani Tamim under the Somali cluster, and the upstream major Qatari E-Z813 cluster.

If Y145591 is Eurasian, it has no Semitic origin, but from elsewhere, becaus it is most likely alien to the Semitic genepool, not just Saba and Himyar.

If present in the Sabeans and South Arabians, there would likely be Habash samples - they have all variety of Semitic related E-M34, J2, J1, and T-M70. I dont see Habash Y145591. They are not even Y16897 for the most part. The same for other Arabians and West Asians.

The only foreign-introduced major Somali ydna is J1-Meheri and J1-Khawlan.

You rule out all untested Southeast African T-M70 but despite its extreme unlikelihood see Y145591 as Arabian or Semitic? If not even Southeast African TM70, I explained before, T-M70 and E-V32 are also closely associated in the Sahel belt of Cameroon. It is not a Somali only phenomenon. Those Cameroonians V32 are only 5,000 years removed from Somali Z813. I expect similar for T-M70.

My expectation is:

1) the untested Datog, Rendille, Garre, Gabra, Masai, Hadza-Ogeik, Karamoja Nilote, Borana, Burji, Burunge, Iraqw, and Bantu T-M70 to be Y145591

2) for an older pan-Samaal Y145591 cluster around 3,000 years or older.

3) A deeper division of Samaal Y145591 and South Cushitic Y145591

Unlike Esteban - I'm not aged racist crackpot who gets proven wrong over and over. Let's not act like he is anyone who is taken seriously.

I was right on E-V32 and will be right on this one.

Esteban was wrong yesterday and will be tomorrow.

I have given points to support my position - you haven't given anything to go against that other than stating it being introduced 2000 years ago.

In case you didnt know, Mrca =/= introduced. J1-Khawlan is likely introduced because it clearly has no sibling clades predating 1000 years in Somalis - it is all in Arabs. That Z19971 Somalia sample is most likely introduced - on the current basis of evidence disregarding probabilities based on its distribution, you can argue Y145591 is Somali or Arabian.

I also showed you the parallel this situation has with Chadic V88 - it is the same exact situation. Except no one was seriously going to argue that it was Arabian in origin.

Instead of empty posturing - bring your counter points like I did.

As I see all this however - guys who think they can simply accept all admix signals from G25, place a premium on Arabian ftdna samples, or see Omotic as west Cushitic are probably not worth arguing with.

I believe Y145591 has its origin in Neolithic West Asian migrants. We have mtdna like Hv1b in Cushites which is likely Neolithic related input. Their West Asian ydna associate was probably Y145591. It and R1b-V88 were probably important in the Neolithization of Africa.

The fact that you guys dont even want to entertain any possibility of Y145591 outside of Somalis in Africans is just downright unexplainable and purely anti-logic. It clearly has something driving it.
 
How do you explain the complete absence of T-Y16897 in Africans, except Somalis then? While I agree with you that we should be skeptical until further information comes out, aren't you making the same mistake by assuming that if we test the Rendille and Southern Cushites that they test positive for T-Y44591?

If T-Y16897 has a TMRCA of 6900 bp (4000-5000BCE), then that would still mean some Eurasian HGs or pastoralists came fairly recently into the Somali Genepool.
How many Africans outside of a few Semitic admixed Habeshas, Arsi Oromo, Sahos, Toubou and Bejas do we have?

T-M70 is

1) rare in the all groups tested (except the Toubou)

2) they all have much larger Semitic admixture and ydna (J2, J1, E-M34) than Somalis.

3) outside the Sahos and Somalis, they are lone samples for the most part from very few groups with significant Semitic autosomal + ydna admixture.

The Arsi Oromo and Toubou belong to Semitic clades. The Saho cluster is the most promising - but even they face the same exact dilemma and have much more Arabians they share with than Y145591 (more diversity of Arabian tribes and samples).
 
Arguing Y145591 is Arabian is like arguing British Z19971 cluster is European Neolithic.

If you think more about it, that probably has more of a chance kkkkk.
 
All we can base our evidence is on present day samples. That is all we have. There is no ancient dna.

With present day samples, in order to pinpoint an origin, we have to see the distribution both

1) ethnically

and

2) geographically

When a ydna originates in area, you see a succession of lineages splitting toward it. So E-V68->E-M78->E-V12->E-V32 etc., it has no regard for ethncity since it invariable seeps into the local ethnicities at some point.

T-Y16897 is probably not African, but Y45591 so far is best represented in Somalis. It is essentially non-existent in Arabs. The paucity of Arab Y45591 despite Arabians having every ydna you can think of - and especially every African subclade. There are Saudis that may even belong to the super rare D0 recently found in Nigeria - forget Y45591. They have received every possible African ydna.

If Y45591 were of Semitic origin - it is statistically most likely we would have seen at least a few Jewish Y45591 by now. But we dont. We would have seen Arab conquest Y45591, but we don't. Other Arabian T-M70 is found everywhere - even in central Africa. But why not Y45591? The South Arabian migrations impact the Levant, but there is no significant Y145591 there, why? How can you explain this? This is completely against the possibility of an origin there.



Did you miss something?

The Somalia Z19971 is under an Arab cluster. The fact that it has a Jewish specific cluster and a broad regional spread makes it very unlikely Z19971 is African in origin. So what exactly are you arguing? He clearly has an Arabian ancestor - so whatever angle you're coming from makes no sense. If you can't get that then I have nothing to tell you. I'm not going to even begin to explain that to someone so hell bent on being ignorant.

It is clear to anyone with any understanding that the evidence supports my position - you only stand on the claim of a few Arabians, which is not much better than me claiming Somali E-V32 is Arabian because of the Arab Hubaysh and Bani Tamim under the Somali cluster, and the upstream major Qatari E-Z813 cluster.

If Y145591 is Eurasian, it has no Semitic origin, but from elsewhere, becaus it is most likely alien to the Semitic genepool, not just Saba and Himyar.

If present in the Sabeans and South Arabians, there would likely be Habash samples - they have all variety of Semitic related E-M34, J2, J1, and T-M70. I dont see Habash Y145591. They are not even Y16897 for the most part. The same for other Arabians and West Asians.

The only foreign-introduced major Somali ydna is J1-Meheri and J1-Khawlan.

You rule out all untested Southeast African T-M70 but despite its extreme unlikelihood see Y145591 as Arabian or Semitic? If not even Southeast African TM70, I explained before, T-M70 and E-V32 are also closely associated in the Sahel belt of Cameroon. It is not a Somali only phenomenon. Those Cameroonians V32 are only 5,000 years removed from Somali Z813. I expect similar for T-M70.

My expectation is:

1) the untested Datog, Rendille, Garre, Gabra, Masai, Hadza-Ogeik, Karamoja Nilote, Borana, Burji, Burunge, Iraqw, and Bantu T-M70 to be Y145591

2) for an older pan-Samaal Y145591 cluster around 3,000 years or older.

3) A deeper division of Samaal Y145591 and South Cushitic Y145591

Unlike Esteban - I'm not aged racist crackpot who gets proven wrong over and over. Let's not act like he is anyone who is taken seriously.

I was right on E-V32 and will be right on this one.

Esteban was wrong yesterday and will be tomorrow.

I have given points to support my position - you haven't given anything to go against that other than stating it being introduced 2000 years ago.

In case you didnt know, Mrca =/= introduced. J1-Khawlan is likely introduced because it clearly has no sibling clades predating 1000 years in Somalis - it is all in Arabs. That Z19971 Somalia sample is most likely introduced - on the current basis of evidence disregarding probabilities based on its distribution, you can argue Y145591 is Somali or Arabian.

I also showed you the parallel this situation has with Chadic V88 - it is the same exact situation. Except no one was seriously going to argue that it was Arabian in origin.

Instead of empty posturing - bring your counter points like I did.

As I see all this however - guys who think they can simply accept all admix signals from G25, place a premium on Arabian ftdna samples, or see Omotic as west Cushitic are probably not worth arguing with.

I believe Y145591 has its origin in Neolithic West Asian migrants. We have mtdna like Hv1b in Cushites which is likely Neolithic related input. Their West Asian ydna associate was probably Y145591. It and R1b-V88 were probably important in the Neolithization of Africa.

The fact that you guys dont even want to entertain any possibility of Y145591 outside of Somalis in Africans is just downright unexplainable and purely anti-logic. It clearly has something driving it.
Again you’re presenting your own theories as facts and unlike Esteban you don’t have any credentials.

According to the Spaniard, the Dir Y111 sample is closer to the Kuwaiti Al Faraj sample than the Saudi one. If Somali-Saudi Y45591 TMRCA is 3000 ybp than the TMRCA with the Kuwaiti Al Faraj must be younger than that which refutes your Neolithic back migration theory and instead points towards the Arabian peninsula or the Persian Gulf.

We’re still waiting for Rendille and South Cushitic samples but it’s highly unlikely that they will test positive for Y45591 or even Y16897.
 
Again you’re presenting your own theories as facts and unlike Esteban you don’t have any credentials.

According to the Spaniard, the Dir Y111 sample is closer to the Kuwaiti Al Faraj sample than the Saudi one. If Somali-Saudi Y45591 TMRCA is 3000 ybp than the TMRCA with the Kuwaiti Al Faraj must be younger than that which refutes your Neolithic back migration theory and instead points towards the Arabian peninsula or the Persian Gulf.

We’re still waiting for Rendille and South Cushitic samples but it’s highly unlikely that they will test positive for Y45591 or even Y16897.
So you keep talking about credentials as if Esteban is some published scientist - when we all know strs and genetic phylogeny is something anyone can learn in a matter of a few months?

Warya - I gave evidence. Stop dickriding his credentials if he has any. Me not having published scientific papers means nothing when I have given valid points - stop ignoring it and give me evidence instead of saying meaningless takes on who I am.

The Saudi and Kuwaiti have been taken into account. Again - we have the same exact situation with African V88 and Somali Z813, Arabians who are upstream at every branch and even within the Somali subclade.

It's like you dont know or care to read anything I wrote.

If you are resorting to ignoring most of my valid points - then you really have nothing to say. Saying things you know nothing of - dude, I was involved deeply in this stuff since 2012, and have actually sequenced dna myself- this shit isnt hard, and if you know Eurogenes or Awale - with only a scientific mind, they disproved the sophisticated theories of Harvard labs.

Population genetics amataurs with no degrees get stalked and grab the attention of big name scientists and researchers for a reason. If we listened to researchers and the labs, we would say that Somalis are a quarter Iranian neolithic.

If you have an have an aota of knowledge on the state of population genetics, you would know researchers and labs are not useful for their models as they are for the data we can download and analyze. This field is one of really dominated by amateurs, and has long been.

Just look at these absolute diamonds from recent 2017 Skoglund:

Western-Eurasian-related ancestry is pervasive in eastern Africa today (Pagani et al., 2012, Tishkoff et al., 2009), and the timing of this admixture has been estimated to be ∼3,000 BP on average (Pickrell et al., 2014)
And

While these findings show that a Levant-Neolithic-related population made a critical contribution to the ancestry of present-day eastern Africans (Lazaridis et al., 2016), present-day Cushitic speakers such as the Somali cannot be fit simply as having Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP ancestry. The best fitting model for the Somali includes Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP ancestry, Dinka-related ancestry, and 16% ± 3% Iranian-Neolithic-related ancestry (p = 0.015)
Or how Max Plack researchers are still pushing a Iranian Neolithic origin for IE in 2020.

Forget Esteban who is not only an unpublished researcher and amateur like the rest - but a crackpot one.

Your man thinks Toubou's Arabian T-Y31497 is connected to West Africa and Tanzania T-M70 kkkkk
 
How many Africans outside of a few Semitic admixed Habeshas, Arsi Oromo, Sahos, Toubou and Bejas do we have?

T-M70 is

1) rare in the all groups tested (except the Toubou)

2) they all have much larger Semitic admixture and ydna (J2, J1, E-M34) than Somalis.

3) outside the Sahos and Somalis, they are lone samples for the most part from very few groups with significant Semitic autosomal + ydna admixture.

The Arsi Oromo and Toubou belong to Semitic clades. The Saho cluster is the most promising - but even they face the same exact dilemma and have much more Arabians they share with than Y145591 (more diversity of Arabian tribes and samples).

Are you saying that nobody sampled any East Africans T-M70 carriers?

Also, why can't both you and @Cuneo be right? Why can't the T-Y44591 be recent, but not Arabian?

I'm not going to make any certain claims, but I think a migration from North Mesopotamia/Caucasian mountains to the HOA 3000-7000 ybp is the only thing that makes sense so far.
 
So you keep talking about credentials as if Esteban is some published scientist - when we all know strs and genetic phylogeny is something anyone can learn in a matter of a few months?

Warya - I gave evidence. Stop dickriding his credentials if he has any. Me not having published scientific papers means nothing when I have given valid points - stop ignoring it and give me evidence instead of saying meaningless takes on who I am.

The Saudi and Kuwaiti have been taken into account. Again - we have the same exact situation with African V88 and Somali Z813, Arabians who are upstream at every branch and even within the Somali subclade.

It's like you dont know or care to read anything I wrote.

If you are resorting to ignoring most of my valid points - then you really have nothing to say. Saying things you know nothing of - dude, I was involved deeply in this stuff since 2012, and have actually sequenced dna myself- this shit isnt hard, and if you know Eurogenes or Awale - with only a scientific mind, they disproved the sophisticated theories of Harvard labs.

Population genetics amataurs with no degrees get stalked and grab the attention of big name scientists and researchers for a reason. If we listened to researchers and the labs, we would say that Somalis are a quarter Iranian neolithic.

If you have an have an aota of knowledge on the state of population genetics, you would know researchers and labs are not useful for their models as they are for the data we can download and analyze. This field is one of really dominated by amateurs, and has long been.

Just look at these absolute diamonds from recent 2017 Skoglund:



And



Or how Max Plack researchers are still pushing a Iranian Neolithic origin for IE in 2020.

Forget Esteban who is not only an unpublished researcher and amateur like the rest - but a crackpot one.

Your man thinks Toubou's Arabian T-Y31497 is connected to West Africa and Tanzania T-M70 kkkkk
Your argument was based on your presumption that Y45591 is non existent among Arabs and best represented by Somalis because of over representation.

However when flaws in your theory were highlighted such as Arabs testing positive for the oldest branch of Y45591 and the TMRCA (2200ybp) for Dir/Kuwaiti samples you flip the script by comparing V88 to Y45591 which is crazy given the time difference.

Until there’s sufficient samples there’s no point to entertain your ideas at all.
 
Your argument was based on your presumption that Y45591 is non existent among Arabs and best represented by Somalis because of over representation.

However when flaws in your theory were highlighted such as Arabs testing positive for the oldest branch of Y45591 and the TMRCA (2200ybp) for Dir/Kuwaiti samples you flip the script by comparing V88 to Y45591 which is crazy given the time difference.

Until there’s sufficient samples there’s no point to entertain your ideas at all.
Exactly. Most scientific approach is to just use the evidence we have now and not make too many assumptions. All we know now is;

1) Somali T-Y44591 has a TMRCA of 1900 ybp

2) Somali T-carriers do not share any ancestry with other groups until maximum 2200 ybp. The only other groups we're related to is a few samples from Arabia.

Until further Yfull testing is done on other East African T-haplogroup carriers, the circumstancial evidence leads to a migration of the T-Y44591 ancestor from Arabia/somewhere else into the Somali peninsula roughly 2000 ybp.
 
Your argument was based on your presumption that Y45591 is non existent among Arabs and best represented by Somalis because of over representation.

However when flaws in your theory were highlighted such as Arabs testing positive for the oldest branch of Y45591 and the TMRCA (2200ybp) for Dir/Kuwaiti samples you flip the script by comparing V88 to Y45591 which is crazy given the time difference.

Until there’s sufficient samples there’s no point to entertain your ideas at all.
What in gods name

However when flaws in your theory were highlighted such as Arabs testing positive for the oldest branch of Y45591 and the TMRCA (2200ybp) for Dir/Kuwaiti samples you flip the script by comparing V88 to Y45591 which is crazy given the time difference.

Until there’s sufficient samples there’s no point to entertain your ideas at all.
Before I go into the V88 part - you are acting like I never knew of Arab carriers of possible Somali or Cushitic subclades of Y16897 before I came. This was in fact my 3rd post here, before I ever engaged you in conversation:

Unlikely. T1 is rare in Yemen, and most Arabian T1 are T-CTS11451, like the Chalcolithic Peq'in cave samples. There are some T-16897, but they are scattered throughout Arabia. But it looks like they are also concentrated in areas were tribal Arabs have E-V32.

The closest Yemeni T1 I ever saw was a low-caste non-Arab African-admixed Hadhraami who belonged to a group called the Hijri (they are similar to the Akhdam), who was T-Y18956, and was also T-16897 like Somalis. But Somalis are T-Y45591, not T-Z19971 like this slave descended low-caste non-Arab Yemeni.
My explanation for some Arabs with Y16897 was connecting it to E-V32's prescience in certian tribal areas like the Gulf and eastern Arabia. I had already expected some belonged to an African subclades and said it for that reason. Z19971 was not the subclade in question either.

I was already insintuiating an African origin for some Arab Y16897 before this conversation even began.

Which is why this was my first engagement with you:

I don't know what to make of Arab and Jewish T-Y16897, but some Arab T-Y16897 is definitely Cushitic or Ethiosemitic in origin. Why do you jump to a Arab connection when we know that T1 is present in Cushitic and Cushitic admixed populations, and we only have Somali T1 resolved.
There was no flipped script - this was the script since the beginning.

Also if you are not blind - I explicitly compared a subclade of R1b-V88, which I stated here:

It so far has a demographic expansion exactly like R-Y8452 - a African branch (R-Y7771) and a Semitic branch, with respective Jewish specific (R-FGC20980) and Arab subclades

R-Y8452 and T-Y16897 have similar ages - and both birfurcate into a Semitic clade, and a non-Semitic African Cushitic/Chadic subclade - with additional Arab samples (especially from the Gulf) in the non-Semitic African subclades.

R-Y8452 and T-Y16897 2 subclades diverge very close to the mrca - both around 7,000 years - with an older mrca in the non-African branch and a younger age in the non-African branch. The non-African mrca is almost identical to the two way split from root of Y8452 and Y16897, which the African branches are a few thousand years younger.

Until the R-Y7771 clade had a massive jump in African samples from the Green Sahara, its origins were more dubious. But it is now a consensus it is a Chadic and African clade.

The same thing will happen with T-Y144491.

R-Y7771 and T-Y45591 are the critical comparison I made. Not V88 and T-Y45591.

Your argument was based on your presumption that Y45591 is non existent among Arabs and best represented by Somalis because of over representation
Yeah sure, sure. Like as if stating the truth is anything but stating the truth kkkkk

I wonder what you saw here, but I'll give you a chance to makeup for your intentional negligence:

T-Y16897 is probably not African, but Y45591 so far is best represented in Somalis. It is essentially non-existent in Arabs. The paucity of Arab Y45591 despite Arabians having every ydna you can think of - and especially every African subclade. There are Saudis that may even belong to the super rare D0 recently found in Nigeria - forget Y45591. They have received every possible African ydna.

If Y45591 were of Semitic origin - it is statistically most likely we would have seen at least a few Jewish Y45591 by now. But we dont. We would have seen Arab conquest Y45591, but we don't. Other Arabian T-M70 is found everywhere - even in central Africa. But why not Y45591? The South Arabian migrations impact the Levant, but there is no significant Y145591 there, why? How can you explain this? This is completely against the possibility of an origin there
Which I explained further here:

It is very useless to use Arab matches as evidence of a non-Cushitic origin - every Somali subclade will have Arabs, like the Hawiye V32 guys are sharing with an Arab tribe from Yemen (Hubaysh). Clearly however the subclade is Somali.

If the ydna is

1) too localized

2) lacks a wide ethnic distribution and regional character

It can be ruled out as having a Eurasian origin.


If it is indeed Semitic, with its age we would expected for the largest demographic testers on ftdna (Jews and peninsular Arabs) to have shown up. Arabs are enriched for all ydna in Africa, even super rare African ydna like E-V16 and some unknown Central African HG ydna. If it is truly not from Africa - you need a wide ethnic distribution otherwise. And Y44591 does not have that - Z19971 does.
If verified Somali subclades already have gulf Arabs - what does Dir/Kuwaiti vs Saudi positioning mean?

Arabians are positioned upstream and downstream of Somali clusters - and that means very little. Which is why I brought up the major Qatari Z813 guys upstream from the Somali Z813 cluster, and the Gulf clusters under the likely Hawiye Somali cluster in the first place - or did you miss that too?

It's like almost everything you bring up I have already discussed at length.

Your entire point is that if I am confronted with the evidence that I don't ignore it? No - unlike you, I accept it, just like I did with the Asaworta-Beja and current Somali mrca.

Like I said beforeand again - if a clear diversity of non-Arab Eurasians Y145591 start to show up - I will accept a recent Eurasian origin.

But I instead I find myself overjoyed at the likely prospect of your engaging theories being throughly untenable in the near future.
 
According to the report, Dravidian languages evolved in East Africa and co-expanded
with the cultivation of finger millet to India. Winters (2010) cites similarities in terminology
among “Africans and Dravidians” for crops. He also supports his position by claiming that
the T-M70 mutation is found in the people of East Africa and Dravidian speakers of India.
Ram Nag is the Dravidian merchant Jeegan forefather. The mystery of the unknown paternity for beesha Y45591 has now been finally solved kkk
 

Alexis

Haplogroup T activist.
R-V88 = formed 15000 ybp, TMRCA 11800 ybp
E-V32 = formed 10000 ybp, TMRCA 7200 ybp

"It is very useless to use Arab matches as evidence of a non-Cushitic origin - every Somali subclade will have Arabs, like the Hawiye V32 guys are sharing with an Arab tribe from Yemen (Hubaysh). Clearly however the subclade is Somali.
"
Sorry but you can't make bold comparisons like this lool. makes no sense to talk about arabs that are 2K y upstream of any other African clade. It's the gap between the samples that makes us suggest an Arabian origin of T-Y16897 in somalis.

I don't know what to make of Arab and Jewish T-Y16897, but some Arab T-Y16897 is definitely Cushitic or Ethiosemitic in origin. Why do you jump to a Arab connection when we know that T1 is present in Cushitic and Cushitic admixed populations, and we only have Somali T1 resolved.
There was no flipped script - this was the script since the beginning.

Also if you are not blind - I explicitly compared a subclade of R1b-V88, which I stated here:

It so far has a demographic expansion exactly like R-Y8452 - a African branch (R-Y7771) and a Semitic branch, with respective Jewish specific (R-FGC20980) and Arab subclades
Literally all the time gaps don't match to the T-Y16897 situation. "but some Arab T-Y16897 is definitely Cushitic or Ethiosemitic in origin" WTH is this ?


All i see here is air tbh...
 

Apollo

Staff Member
Moderator
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

R-V88 came from either Iberia or Italy, most likely (Ancient) Italy as this Mesolithic hunter-gatherer was found there with a proto-V88 subclade. Even though it is now more associated with the Chadic branch of Afro-Asiatic, originally it was not Afro-Asiatic, not even Chadic at all, and it is unlikely to have co-traveled with T1a into Africa. (Most) T1a (especially in East Africa) likely came via the Sinai or Arabia into Africa. So two different directions.

Also, if I recall correctly, the T1a found in those Moroccan Late Neolithic samples (the ones who were like Iberian farmers) had a different T1a version (not T-Y16897) from the ones of Somalis. It is quite likely that those Wodaabe Fulanis got their T1a from those Iberian influenced Maghrebis. The ones in the Toubou could be related, but I don't think the Fulani one will be.
 

Trending

Latest posts

Top