IMDb: Another Eurocentric Safe Haven Masquerading as a Resourceful platform

Introduction:

Perhaps the basic evolutionary trajectory of human lifestyle is variably understood in the following manner: a so-called "stone-age", and in some cases, "nomadic" or "hunter-gatherer" sustenance, gives way to "sedentary", "agriculture" and/or "animal husbandry", and then to "community-building" or "urbanization", thereby possibly paving way for "social stratification" and "nation-building", which in turn may well have served as a basic ingredient for the flourishing of "cottage industry" and "trade", to be succeeded by "industrialization" and "commerce" (larger-scale trade). In that vein, it is commonly understood that "industrialization" has been followed by the "information/technology age", as another stage in human development. As it concerns this "information age", particularly with the coming of age of the internet, many "social" platforms of various stripes and self-professed functions have popped over the years.

As the "information age" matures, so does the plethora of "social media" grow in number. This, like any other undertaking by humans, comes with the good and the bad.

Genetic Profile: Maghrebi populations are Not "Satellite-Europeans" in Africa

Introduction: 

Many observers will note that at some point in time or another, they witnessed (if not perpetrators themselves) internet inquiries around the origins of Maghrebi populations, whom as indigenous Africans (let's face it; they are not endemic to any other region outside of Africa), are notable not only for having elements among them who are relative "outliers" in terms of epidermal pigmentation, but also for their own original distinctive language family, properly called Tamazight—otherwise inconsiderately known in English lingo as "Berber". These populations have wittingly or unwittingly been subjects of racism, in the sense that their "African-ness" have been questioned primarily because of appearance of those populations among them with "light skin", "depigmented skin" or "white skin'—the terms change depending on who's speaking. If for example, they were unanimously dark-skinned like the remainder of African populations, it is highly doubtful that "western" researchers would even consider tacitly passing them off as some sort of lost-Europeans (or extensions of Europeans) in Africa, notwithstanding any genetic similarity to the patterns seen today of Maghrebi populations.

How are the Media and Schools catching up with Scientific Progress? Pt.5

Introduction:

We proceed on from the last segment, wherein we looked at how nationalism and like ideology continues to plague science. No science has infamously suffered from this more than the discipline of human palaeontology. In the "west", the venture into this field started with getting to know remains of the European Neanderthal, and the sparking thereof, the belief that Europe was the hub of human origins.

How are the Media and Schools catching up with Scientific Progress? Pt.4

Introduction:

In the previous segment, a good deal of space was dedicated to a straightforward preliminary look at the portrayal of non-European peoples, especially Africans, in "western" media not merely as a loosely connected hodgepodge of unconscious and conscious underlying motives, ranging from economic considerations to racism, but rather, as a conscious undertaking of "western" imperialism, of which the 'western' establishments are quite mindful.

How are the Media and Schools catching up with Scientific Progress? Pt.3

Introduction:

In the previous segments of the this blog entry, much attention was paid to History channel documentary reenactments of the ancients of Africa, particularly the Ancient Egyptians. Ancient Egypt has been the most popular subject of 'western' fascination and romanticism, but this sort of thing has not been limited to just Egypt. It has been extended to other African complexes, from Timbuktu, the Great Zimbabwe, to ancient Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia). A good example of this can be seen in the portrayal of an Ancient Abyssinian kingdom in the now 9 year old comedy flick of the title "The Hot Chick".

How are the Media and Schools catching up with Scientific Progress?-Pt2

Carried on from the first entry.

Introduction recap:

The taking up of African historiography by Europeans has long been mired with disinformation, as scholars of European descent sought to accommodate imperialist designs of their governments around the African continent. This matter had been particularly brushed on briefly in an earlier entry discussing the significance of additional Timbuktu chronicles that were brought to light in recent times and the corresponding rush to preserve those relics, whereby we come across the systematic construction of the "Ghana Conquest Theory", at a time when European polities had their eye set on colonizing African territories and fuel their growth with African resources. The historiography of Ancient Ghana, and Western Sudan (otherwise now recognized as "West Africa") in general, was but just one element of this disinformation campaign; the policy had extended to other elements of African historiography, Ancient Egypt being the most popular and enduring example of this. Complexes from Kush, Abyssinia or Aksum to the Great Zimbabwe had all become casualties of European disinformation.

How are the Media and Schools catching up with Scientific Progress?

Introduction:

The taking up of African historiography by Europeans has long been mired with disinformation, as scholars of European descent sought to accommodate imperialist designs of their governments around the African continent. This matter had been particularly brushed on briefly in an earlier entry discussing the significance of additional Timbuktu chronicles that were brought to light in recent times and the corresponding rush to preserve those relics, whereby we come across the systematic construction of the "Ghana Conquest Theory", at a time when European polities had their eye set on colonizing African territories and fuel their growth with African resources. The historiography of Ancient Ghana, and Western Sudan (otherwise now recognized as "West Africa") in general, was but just one element of this disinformation campaign; the policy had extended to other elements of African historiography, Ancient Egypt being the most popular and enduring example of this. Complexes from Kush, Abyssinia or Aksum to the Great Zimbabwe had all become casualties of European disinformation.

Review: Saudi Arabian Y-Chromosome diversity...relationship with nearby regions

It has become fashionable within elements of 'western' academia, to shift traditionally African-ascribed markers unit by unit to overseas origins, while very few are open to the possibilities that markers long taken for granted as "Eurasian" could actually be of direct African origin. The drivers for such moves can be a matter of trying to shift the Out Of Africa conception of human origins overseas, on a piece by piece and gradual basis, especially given preexisting scant substantiation to the contrary, or else a matter of not coming to terms with the prospect of recent African ancestry in "non-African" territories, which is determined to tarnish "racial purity" by racist cliques, and/or implicates Africans—particularly "black Africans"—as agents of certain "important" sociocultural turning points or "technological breakthroughs" in human history. In this respect, as a common example among many, haplogroup E—the predominant contemporary Y-DNA phylogeny on the African continent which has not only gained reputation for spilling over the boundaries of Africa in a substantial way, but also tied to "turning points" in human history, like say, the turn to a farming economy during the Neolithic era—has gained elevated interest over the years. This interest has accompanied the effort to shift the origins of the haplogroup from Africa to "Eurasia" via a "Middle Eastern origin" theory by certain parties. An earlier example of this, by Chandrasekar & co. (2007), had been discussed on this site; the example this time around comes from Abu-Amero et al. (2009), which will be the subject of review of this blog entry.

Who were the Ancient Israelites? A Multidisciplinary search for Answers

Image Caption: "Parting of the Red Sea", during the alleged emigration of ancestors of Jewish people, made famous by the biblical legend. Click on the image for enlargement

Introduction: 

 

Over the years, this has become an age-old question: Who were the ancient Israelites, really? In what capacity did they actually exist, or what not, and do biblical stories around their eponymous ancestors and rulers reflect actual events?

This is actually a topic that came to attention quite a few years back, and to this day, the topic is controversial as ever. Part of the reason it is controversial, is the religious loyalties of elements both within and outside academia, that said persons want to defend. The other, which like the just-mentioned, probably goes without saying, is apparently longstanding identity/racial politics which certain camps are intent on passionately defending.

On the academic front, say for example—Egyptology, those who do not wish to shake up long held traditional narratives—usually highly romantic portrayals that have become cemented in many minds, with the aid of the likes of Hollywood—of what went down in ancient Egypt (Kmtnwt), and are perhaps in part inspired by biblical narratives, are also very reluctant to look at the subject at different, perhaps refreshing and more sober, angles. Whatever the camp, these ideologues generally share in common, resistance to re-examining their prevailing perceptions/preconceptions in the face of ongoing inflow of strongly substantive material, which challenge said viewpoints.

Working hypothesis around haplogroups IJK, I, J, K, P, R, and Q

The newly uncovered Y-DNA clade, given the moniker of 'IJK' at the moment, is defined by UEPs designated as S137 (L15) and S138 (L16) at rs9786139 and rs9786714 respectively.

* The isogg.org site recently provided additional locus information, in the form of L69.1/S163.1:

L69.1/S163.1 is shown as L69(=G) in IJK. L69/S163 appears in multiple locations. - isogg.org

And adds that:

The DE haplogroup appeared approximately 50,000 years bp in North East Africa and subsequently split into haplogroup E that spread to Europe and Africa and haplogroup D that rapidly spread along the coastline of India and Asia to North Asia. The IJ haplogroup characterizes part of the second wave of emigration from Africa that occurred via the Middle East 45,000 years bp and defines two branches I and J that emigrated northwards and eastwards into Europe. The J branch subsequently split again and contributed to the current North African population... - Courtesy of isogg.org

For its part, the International Society of Genetic Genealogy doesn't inform us on its website of either by whom or what circumstances were involved in the study responsible for the finding; rather, said finding was supposedly brought to attention by way of private communication [see: isogg.org]

Does this clade say anything about haplogroup K (M9), and add anything to either of the two probable scenarios provided earlier here about clade R1*-M173 origins [which recalling, was either African or "Southwest Asian"]?

Unfortunately, everything that is publicly known about this clade at the moment has been outlined above.

Notwithstanding this, what the mere announcement of clade IJK indicates, is the strong possibility of Hg K being part of the male gene pool involved in the earliest peopling events of Europe and "south western Asia" by anatomically modern humans, before either clade I or R came about and thereafter become noticeable and/or dominant in the region. This would have been anywhere between ca. 40,000 and 35,000 years ago, and would likely have been the case, regardless of where clade IJK originated.

Wherever clade IJK emerged, be it in the vicinity of southern Asia or the Great African Rift Valley areas, it appears that the expansion of the lineage occurred in the latter general region, on either side of the Red Sea. The downstream markers of this lineage, R1* in particular, show a general geographical structuring wherein clade R1b is heavily scattered on western Europe, while the clade R1a sibling is more widely dispersed as one moves eastward.

As a unique case, clade R1*-M173 is thus far more widely distributed on the African continent, with the remainder being found in isolated cases in the so-called "Near East" [Jordan Dead Sea area and Oman in particular]. Clade I is more widely dispersed in western Europe, while clade J in the so-called "Near East", followed by Northern Africa. The K clade seems to be relatively more concentrated on the Great Rift Valley geographical confines, with highest frequencies showing up in certain eastern African areas, particularly in the African Horn, followed by certain areas in the so-called "Near Eastern" half of the Great Rift Valley.

The overall picture here is one where it seems that clade IJK reached its expansion peak in the Great Rift Valley region, regardless of where the lineage ultimately emerged, with portions of it spilling over to nearby areas. It is highly likely in this region, the Great Rift Valley, that clades I, J, and K split.

It's plausible that clades I (M170, M258, P212, P38, P19, U179) and J (12f2.1, M304, S35, S34, S6) diverged in the northern areas of the Levant, with clade I, shortly after, spreading westward into western Europe, while clade J largely remaining largely localized then and expanding in situ. From several works, it appears that the J2 (M172) clade emerged first, and then later, J1 (M267) [See Ekins et al., An Updated Worldwide Characterization of the Cohen Modal Haplotype; and Nebel et al. 2001, The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East]; the former likely emerged in the confines of the more northerly area of the Levant, while the latter, likely in a more southwardly region of the Levant [see Nebel et al. 2001].

According to Ekins et al., the bearing of the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) STRs locus in the divergent clades of J2 and J1 implies that perhaps a derived haplotype cluster fundamental to CMH emerged some time before the divergence of either J2 and J1 from a shared ancestral lineage...

It is possible that the originally defined CMH represents a slight permutation of a more general Middle Eastern type that was established early on in the population prior to the divergence of haplogroup J. Under such conditions, parallel convergence in divergent clades to the same STR haplotype would be possible. - Ekins et al.

Could such a candidate clade have been a "IJ" (M429, S2, P129, P127, P126, P125, P124, P123) clade, or a derivative of "IJ" that has largely drifted out since? Worth pondering. Recently a possible east African origin, as one of the two possible scenarios, for haplogroup J1-M267 DYS458.2 allelic variant had been explored [See "Could Y-DNA J-M267 possibly have an African Origin? Taking a look at the DYS458.2 Locus"]. It is yet another indication of the richness of IJK subclades in the Great Rift Valley neighborhood.

Clade K on the other hand, could have diverged in the northeastern Africa vestiges [including Sinai, for example] or the nearby areas in the Levant, but it need not necessarily have diverged in the same area as clade I or J. However, some clade K carriers who were situated in the so-called "Near Eastern" areas may well have at some point early on, as noted above, i.e ~ 40 ky ago or so, dispersed into Europe, representing one of the earliest male Y-DNA lineages in that region, around the said time frame. These though, were likely modest in numbers, relative to clade K bearers in say, the so-called "Near East" or Eastern Africa on the African Rift.

Given the distribution patterns noted, it seems plausible that somewhere along expansion events of clade K bearers, the few that made their way to central Asia, somewhere around where the modern nation of Afghanistan [or neighboring regions to its north thereof] lies, the clade P (M45) emerged or else simply reached its peak expansion [albeit limited] in that area, in what could possibly be characterized in a founder effect scenario. This though as just noted, does not negate the emergence of clade P in the Great Rift Valley, whether it's on the northeastern African vestiges or the Levantine areas.

It appears that the clade P-bearing populations were likely dispersed in modest effective population sizes in many of the places they were situated. If clade P emerged in central Asia, as noted in one scenario above, then in its westward flow into the Great Rift Valley [actually a piece of Africa] must have spurred clade R1*-M173 somewhere in the latter region. On the other hand, clade P's emergence in the Rift Valley regions would simply mean that amongst those clade P-carriers who remained localized, clade R1*-M173 emerged, wherein it would quickly start spreading deeper into Africa and areas nearby Africa, likely amongst a nomadic-life style oriented group.

In either scenario, those clade P-carriers who made it to central Asia, would become the basis for the downstream clade Q (M242). The newly emergent clade Q carriers would disperse, with sections notably taking the Siberian corridor route. These latter group would become ancestors of some of early American settlers, likely the wave that followed the relatively early "tropical" elements that arrived in America in the late Upper Paleolithic.

Then comes the LGM [Last Glacial Maximum]. By then of course, it's highly likely that some clade R1*-M173 carriers from the Great Rift valley region made their way westward into western Europe by way of the Asian Minor corridor. Like their clade K fore-bearers, these initial migrant would have likely represented fairly modest effective population sizes in Upper Paleolithic Europe, but this would change with the receding of the LGM.

During the LGM, several populations in the northern latitudes, namely in Europe, sought refuge in certain refuge centers. It appear there was one in southwestern Europe [Iberian peninsula region in particular] and the others in the Asian Minor region [see: Cinnioglu et al. for example] and eastern Europe [vicinity of Russia].

The subclade R1b itself seems to have emerged before the LGM, but was initially modestly distributed in Europe. Some of these clade R1b bearers seem to have found their way to these refuge centers, from where many would disperse across Europe upon the recession of the LGM, with the clade reaching its expansion peak in western Europe. Others of course, dispersed to regions nearby the refuge centers. [See: "R1*-M173 bearing chromosomes in Cameroon" for further reading]

The clade R1a (M17) seems to have largely come to the scene as another possible after-effect of the LGM dispersal events, involving mutation amongst remnant R1*-M173 bearers who did not bear the R1b signature markers, including namely M343. From the distribution pattern of this R1 subclade, it appears that the center of [even if not actual point of origin, which is not ruled out either] that dispersal was somewhere likely where the modern state of Iran now lies [perhaps via the northwestern region of Iran, if for example, either the "Ukranian LGM refugium" or the "Asian Minor LGM refugium" model is considered, but also, and more importantly, predicated on the idea that ancestral R1*-M173 arrived from westward, the Great Rift Valley region in particular via its associated so-called "Fertile Crescent" and/or Levantine areas. The alternative would be, as others have suggested, surrounding regions — vis-a-vis Iran — like northern areas of Pakistan, India or thereof].

From there, clade R1a bearers would flow further east, but also moving further southward, into southern Asia, if R1a is presumed to have a western Asian provenance. On the other hand, again, it would flow from the Iranian region into Europe via the Asian minor and its eastern surrounding areas thereof. Perhaps some visual aids are in order, to provide clarity; let's take a look at distribution maps located in easily accessible so-called "encyclopedic" websites and elsewhere on the net...

The Red highlights in the circles reflect R1b, while the purple highlights reflect R1a. The substantive basis of this distribution map (click for hi res) isn't clear, but it seems to be corroborated to some extent by the one below (click for hi res) ...

Note that the top distribution map shows exclusive presence of R1a clade in southern Asia, which would tend to lend some support to the introduction of R1a clade bearers into Iran from nearby regions in say, Pakistan or India, from R1*-M173 clade carriers who arrived from the so-called "Near East". Under such a scenario, it's plausible that the marker spread northward via central Asia and then onto eastern Europe, from where it would spread further west, or could have involved a bi-directional-pronged movement, one via 'southwestern" corridor, and one via the central Asian one.

The question then becomes, what could have sparked such major demographic processes. It is less likely to have involved a LGM in southern Asia (for which we have information on the "Near Eastern" and "European" counterparts), unless information is brought to the fore about such a situation. Then again, as noted, it could be said that shortly after arrival from or emergence in "southwestern Asia" [likely via the Iranian region], R1a clade bearers quickly situated in southern Asia, where they would expand. This would mean that the ancestral R1a* clade bearers started out nomadic [perhaps indicated by mtDNA distribution pattern; according to Richards et al. 2000, Europeans shared few clades with populations rich in R1a clade within south Asia — like India, and eastward, like Siberia. See below, Ref *], with a portion, if not much of it, of the ancestral R1a* clade bearers quickly situating themselves in southern Asia.

This would have entailed what is dubbed as a "founder effect" scenario, which would explain virtual absence of R1b markers, which if were present in the midst of the R1a* clade bearing group, must have largely drifted out. From the said map, R1b clade frequency is relatively low even in the Iranian region, and it visibly starts to fade away as one moves eastward. With the so-called "Near East" closer to Europe, it is not surprising to see some dispersal of R1b markers therein, which could have involved independent demographic expansions [in association with a "Near Eastern" LGM refugia — as that implicated in Anatolia for example; again see: "R1*-M173 bearing chromosomes in Cameroon" for further reading] from that of R1a* clade carriers.

Another caveat: If R1a* emergence occurred somewhere along the dispersal path, somewhere in the neighborhood of Iran or surrounding territories, i.e. from a migratory origin point in the more westward "Near Eastern" refugia locations, which as noted, could have involved parts of the Asian Minor, then it is conceivable that a few R1a* clade bearers moved northwestward via the "Asian Minor" corridor and some possibly through the Caucasus, while others dispersed south and a little eastward, from where they'll further disperse northward into central Asia and beyond thereof.

Ref * [for clarity for the above, as noted]: From Richards et al. 2000, Tracing European Founder Lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA Pool...

Table 1 shows frequencies and age estimates of the main mtDNA haplogroups that occur in the Near East and Europe. These clusters are restricted primarily to Europe and the Near East (western Eurasia). Western-Eurasian lineages are found at moderate frequencies as far east as central Asia (Comas et al. 1998) and are found at low frequencies in both India (Kivisild et al. 1999a) and Siberia (Torroni et al. 1998), but, in these cases, only restricted subsets of the western-Eurasian haplogroups have been found, suggesting that they are most probably the result of secondary expansions from the core Near Eastern/European zone...

There are even fewer eastern-Eurasian lineages represented, amounting to ∼2% in total: 3 individuals with haplogroup A, 4 with B, 7 with C (or pre-C), 2 with F, 1 from N*, 1 with Y, and 10 additional potential members of the eastern-Eurasian haplogroup M, some of which may be D (Torroni et al. 1993b). As in the case of Africa, these are probably attributable to fairly recent gene flow. Most of them would imply incursions from central/eastern Asia, and their occurrence in Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and the Caucasus, as well as in both the Saami and northeastern Europe, implies that they may be the result of historically attested migrations into these areas.

As always, this narrative is subject to ongoing modification as updates in research modify the status quo, and as additional material come to attention.

_____________________________________________________________

Discussion points: Questions & Answers that come up about this subject...

The following is a recounting of questions that came up about a possible African origin of R1*-M173 in a DNA forum run by some Eurocentic-cultist by the name of Andrew Lancaster; he censors the board to ensure dissenting voices [to his subjective opinions] are not heard, and so, this section is being devoted to address such matters, wherein responses are not stifled or edited, as done by such self-professed "discussion boards":

Exchange #1

A poster going by a pseudonym "Jafety R1b-U152" writes, having compared a possible African origin to the same sort of logic that places Hg E as an Asian originated marker:

I wanted to say that the view to originate R from Africa seems to be like originating E from outside Africa. There is much more "political" intention than scientific, I guess. Of course your blog do not say Hg E originated outside Africa, and I do not claim it does.

My response:

Whereas R1*-M173 markers were reported across Africa, E* has never been reported in the so-called Middle East, to even begin to compare it an 'inverse' version of Hg E originating in Asia. I make specific points in the blog; if you feel something therein is not right, feel free to point it out *specifically*, and I'll be glad to discuss the point with you.

"Jafety R1b-U152" writes:

R1b has no percentage in the India study because it was not found. Of course, they could not test for downstream SNPs as every sample was M343-

My response:

I know that, as I said so myself.

"Jafety R1b-U152" writes, having been informed about the Fulani sample in Hassan et al.'s (2008) by myself:

I also found the interesting R1* among Fulani in the Sudan study. Vineviz told us in the Sub-Saharan R1b1 thread that P25 is not a stable mutation, and he thinks (I hope I understood correctly) that they probably lost P25, but had it before. I am not an expert, so I can not comment if this is possible.

My response:

Well, Vineviz will have to show evidence of a unique event SNP being lost, if he/she has it. But in terms of the Fulani situation, it is interesting to me, because the Cameroonian Fulani were one of the groups that Cruciani and other research teams had detected undifferentiated R1* chromosomes, with considerably high frequency. Hassan et al.'s study, who did also a test for P25, seems to reaffirm this. Here to, the Sudanese Fulani sport considerably high frequencies. I hear about Bantus in Cameroon have tested positive for P25 markers that were found in those samples, but it is necessary to note that the R1* markers that earlier studies noted in northern Cameroon, happen to be mainly in non-Bantu speaking groups, like the Fulani.

[Note: Emphasis is made here on "non-Bantu", because a recent study by Berniell-Lee et al. claims to have made additional discoveries into where northern Cameroonian R1*-M173 markers may actually fall, where the phylogenetic order of R1 is concerned, presumably by studying Cameroonian Bantu-speaking groups and central African pygmies. However, the R1*-M173 chromosomes located in Cameroonian samples in previous studies, were mainly found in the non-Bantu speaking groups of northern Cameroon in rather considerable frequencies, and virtually rare to absent in Cameroon's Bantu-speaking groups. The said authors conclude that the previous R1*-M173 are likely to be R1b1* chromosomes, since that is what they found in their sample. It's something worth pointing out, as it seems to not touch the radar of many folks out there. Furthermore, as noted above, the Sudanese Fulani sample of Hassan et al. (2008), obviously tested negative for the P25 marker on their R1*-M173 markers, which again appear in considerable frequencies (54%). This is important, because it contradicts Berniell-Lee et al.'s findings of R1b1*, which does have the P25 marker. Given the similar patterns of R1*-M173 frequency in Hassan et al.'s Sudanese Fulani sample and those of a number other research teams in the past, it is not hard to imagine that these are the same markers that the northern Cameroonian Fulanis have too. ]

"Jafety R1b-U152" writes:

On Fulani, it is important to see that they are not a monolithic group, for example Senegali Fulani have Hg T while Camerooni not.

My response:

Of course they are not a monolithic group, which is why I said a section of west African Fulani, in my earlier post to you. Please re-examine it. Fulani, save for the isolated cases of these R1* carriers, are largely E-M2 carriers, consistent with other areas of western Africa.

[Note: The above is alluding to genetic composition, of course, but culturally, Fulani is undoubtedly monolithic; in fact, genetically too, for the most part, save for outliers like the R1*-M173, Fulani can be described as largely 'monolithic', in that their gene pool is consistent across the Fulani communities, and with those of the general west African area]

"Jafety R1b-U152" writes:

its African origin is very unlikely.

My response:

Why, when R1*-M173 markers were found there; [what argument is there], besides the argument that Hg R is not as diverse there, which doesn't negate an African origin as I note in the blog?

"Jafety R1b-U152" writes:

A North Indian or Pakistani origin is much more likely if you look at Q, R*, R2, R1a* (xM17), and they have R1* as well. However, R1b (M343) seems to have originated elsewhere, as it is nearly absent from India.

My response:

Like I said in the last post, this rationale is not as unequivocal as you think. R1b is generally rare to absent in Indian populations, and yet, it is generally considered the older branch of the two. If Indian groups are the ancestral groups, one might expect to see a good degree of R1b distribution amongst them alongside R1a, but that's not the case; as you now acknowledge yourself, R1 is essentially rare to absent in Indian populations. This means that R1* carriers were still around when R1a mrca emerged, because that is the only way R1a marker could have branched out into its own lineage, independent of R1b. So, the presence of paraphyletic R* markers amongst them can only mean three things: 1) that R1* spread from a western region, where R1b, the older branch, are heavily clustered, to the more eastern areas, in the path of which, R1a would eventual emerge. 2) R* and R1* are relics of this sort of expansion, or 3) R* and R1* in Indian groups are yet more rare R markers whose phylogenetic status is yet to be resolved, because even though they may not match the basic defining markers for established R sub-clades, they could be other newly independent downstream branches that have yet to be identified.

[It should be of note, that the presence of R* and R1* amongst a predominantly R1a carrying groups, can be seen as a sign of its R1a's relatively younger age and expansion than R1b, which again, is mainly seen in western areas. It may well imply that R1b had more time to expand and overshadow ancestral R1* or R*, which would have largely experienced negative drift.]

-- Exchange ends --

Exchange #2

A poster by the pseudonym of something along the lines of "DMX", writes:

The possible migration routes that article raised seem to suspiciously focus on Africa's prominence.

My response:

While an African origin for R1* therein has not been ruled out, as R1* markers have been found in Africa itself, it does leave R1* origin also open to a possible "Middle Eastern" origin; therefore your suspicion is unfounded, unless of course, you can specifically point out the specifics in question.

"DMX" writes:

Perhaps you can cite something other than (what I'm going to assume is) your blog for these over-complicated population movements?

My response:

The scenarios put forward were not done so in a vacuum, which is why illustrations from studies had been posted. I based the summary off what I've read about the distribution patterns of the lineages in question. If there's anything you find questionable therein, please point it out, and I'll be more than willing to discuss it with you, provided that censorship here allows it.

"DMX" writes:

The views expressed on that blog are just that; views, and not a scientifically credible (or even logical) explanation for Haplogroup dispersal.

My response:

Like which specific points. Please point it out.

"DMX" writes:

Further, they do not explain why almost every variant of the R Haplogroup can be found in Eurasia (let alone Central Asia) and not Africa.

My response:

It does account for such; you must have missed the sections of the post where links to related topics were provided, to expound on the theme at hand, as was done for example, with this link: R1*-M173 bearing chromosomes in Cameroon

In fact, if you like, I can invite you to another board where we can freely debate this issue mano a mano, as it is very impossible here, with all the defensive censorship going on in here.

---Exchange ends---

Renaming Afro-Asiatic and its Semitic offshoot

It has recently been proposed by several scholars/linguists that Semitic may have originated in East Africa and/or in the north eastern part of Egypt near Sinai, by proto-Afrasan or "pre-proto-Semitic" pre-agricultural migrants in the region...

“A careful reading of Diakonff shows his continuing adherence to his long-held position of an exclusively Africa origin for the family. He explicitly describes proto-Afroasiatic vocabulary as consistent with non-food-producing vocabulary and links it to pre--Neolithic cultures in the Levant and in Africa south of Egypt, noting the latter to be older. Diakonff does revise his location for the Common Semitic homeland, moving it from entirely within northeast Africa to areas straddling the Nile Delta and Sinai, but continues to place the origins of the five other branches of the family wholly in Africa. One interpretation of the archaeological data supports a pre-food-producing population movement from Africa into the Levant, consistent with the linguistic arguments for apre-Neolithic migration of pre-proto-Semitic speakers out of Africa via Sinai.” - Ehret et al.

More excerpts on the matter:

Brandt, Steven. University of Florida and Juris Zarins, Southwest Missouri State University.

An African Origin for Semitic-Speaking Peoples? Archeological, Genetic and Linguistic Perspectives.

The origins of Semitic - speaking peoples have traditionally been linked to Near Eastern cultures that first occupied the lower Mesopotamian alluvium prior to 4000 BC. Drawing upon recent archeological, linguistic and genetic data, this paper develops an alternative model which suggests that Neolithic Afro-Asiatic speaking nomadic pastoralists from North-eastern Africa were the first to introduce “proto-Semitic” languages and an African form of nomadic pastoralism to Arabia, perhaps from multiple dispersal points along the Red Sea and Sinai.Implications of this model for clarifying long-standing issues related to the later prehistory and history of Northeastern Africa and Arabia are discussed.

From the excerpt above,...

multiple dispersal points along the Red Sea and Sinai.

...would explain the abundance, or the bulk of Semitic languages being located in the African Horn. Perhaps a relatively more recent affair, but maybe intuitive:

Semiticized Agaw peoples are thought to have migrated from south-eastern Eritrea possibly as early as 2000BC, bringing their `proto-Ethiopic' language, ancestor of Ge`ez and the other Ethiopian Semitic languages, with them; and these and other groups had **already developed specific cultural and linguistic identities by the time any Sabaean influences arrived.** " - Stuart Munro-Hay

Personal deductions: The Agaw adopted the Semitic languages from indigenous Semitic speaking Ethiopians, [and as stated above] not from southern Arabians. To support this fact, the author makes it quite blatant in the following, what language speakers the Agaw were prior to their adoption of the said Ethio-Semitic languages:

Whatever was the cause of the end of the former Aksumite kingdom, a new centre eventually appeared in the province of Lasta to the south under a dynasty, apparently of Cushitic (Agaw) origin, later regarded as usurpers, called the Zagwé (Taddesse Tamrat 1972: 53ff; Dictionary of Ethiopian Biography 1975: 200ff). The existence of a long and a short chronology for this dynasty indicates that the Ge`ez chroniclers were in some confusion as to the precise events occurring at the end of the `Aksumite' period until the advent of the Zagwé. - courtesy of S. Munro-Hay.

Taken from: Nile Valley Forum

Ge'ez itself has been characterized as a now-defunct but well differentiated autochthonous Ethiopian "Semitic" language at the time of its use. This would make Ge'ez's ancestor [not Ge'ez itself] the "proto-Ethio-Semitic" language. Apparently, 'proto-Semitic' is the reconstructed hypothetical common ancestor of all so-called Semitic languages.

As part of a discussion, at least one perspective on the matter was this:

I'm curious to know why Semitic is even still considered to be a linguistic branch while Hamitic was abandoned (done at the insistence of Joseph Greenberg that the concept of Hamitic languages were invalid).

It is my understanding that the language family Hamito-Semitic was abandoned in favor of Afro-Asiatic because the concept of Hamite implied a Mesopatamian/Near Eastern origin of various branches of that language family that were dispersed into Africa, as the Bibilical theory of the Table of Nations (from which the words Hamite and Semite are derived from) suggests.

Of course archeological and linguistic evidence shows that it was the other was around, these languages in Africa once regarded as Hamitic originated in Africa and dispersed elsewhere.

So why is it that certain languages in Africa are considered to be part of the Semitic branch (and even proto-Semitic itself has been suggested to have originated in Africa) when the term itself still implies a West Asian origin?

Indeed, the issue of the rationality of sustaining the term "Semitic" in the science of language/linguistics, given its biblical origins, what that implied and its subsequent inspirational impact on the 19th & 20th century Eurocentric racialist ideological schema, is something that crops up time and again. Whatever happened to the idea of separating religion from science?

The way the present author sees it, if someone were to say that the 'Semitic' descriptive should not be an issue, then that same someone should not have any issues with "Hamito-Semitic", the earlier descriptive given to the language family in question. Of course, the 'Hamito' end of it, implicates the Hamitic hypothesis. Hamites too, like Semites, is rooted in biblical jargon, but Eurocentrist scholars from the 19th and 20th century ran off with the term and applied it in bio-anthropological discourse; in some cases, we've seen the disastrous consequences of the Hamitic myth in European imperialism. Here, whereas Hamites were supposedly hybridized "Negroes", Semites were considered to be "non-African" groups from across the Red Sea. The earlier rational of "Hamito-Semitic", is the presumed notion that while these folks were distinct, that is to say—Hamites and Semites, their language were somehow related; Why not?...after all, the rationale was that Hamites partly descended from "non-African" groups from across the Red Sea. The Semitic end of the language family was initially believed to be of "non-African" origin, amongst these "non-African" Semites. If "Hamites" can be dropped, why should "Semites" not be dropped as well? However, if the rationale is that "Afro-Asiatic", as used today, is a linguistic construct, and that Semitic too is the same, well hey, "Hamito-Semitic" too was a linguistic construct in its day; why have issue with it?

It brings a good point to the table, as to the question of why "Hamito-Semitic" hasn't been dropped "altogether". Perhaps, the answer lies in the now outdated notion that, the "Hamitic" branch of languages were supposedly realized to have been of African origin before the same was realized for the supposed "Semitic" branch—something which Steven Brandt and Juris Zarins, for example, point out about the latter [Semitic] in the excerpt above.

Ehret thought even the term "Afro-Asiatic" was still reminiscent of the idea of African origin and an Asian offshoot, which according to his conclusions about exclusive African origins [for both proto-Afrasan AND its proto-Semitic descendant], did no justice to that conclusion. Thus, Ehret thought the term "Afrasan" would do it more justice, and get that "Asiatic" bit out of the way. But yes, Semitic too, as a term, may well need revision, with preponderance for African origins, especially in light of genetics, in combination with recent archeological findings—genetics wasn't exactly given much consideration back in the old "Hamito-Semitic" days, since very little was known about the science then.

For some, another reasoning for clinging onto that construct [i.e. Semitic] could be that, even though the "proto-Semitic" languages have African origins, their independent further development in the various respective regions where they are now spoken, would not be so apparent, so its linguist advocates reckon, if they did not use the term "Semitic". But again, from a personal opinion, considering the history of that term, perhaps its further usage needs to be revised—how?...a question linguists will have to think about! And here, several reasonable ideas will be proposed, as to how to go about renaming the Afro-Asiatic super phylum appropriately.

Another opinion on the matter:

A part of it had to do with the bias implied in the elevation of the Semitic languages, among the most recently derived - why semitic, and not Chadic for instance?

Then the concept of Hamites as - black skinned whites - was acknowledged to be and essentially ideological ruse.

For starters, let's consider the name Afro-Northern Rift [Valley]/Afro-North Rift (with the latter being an allusion to the Great Rift Valley) Super language, an entry for candidacy in replacing the "Afro-Asiatic" moniker.

It should be noted that the "Semitic" term issue aside, the "Asiatic" in "Afro-Asiatic" has the effect of over-emphasizing Asia's role in the language complex, given that Asia is apparently a gigantic landmass, with the Afrisan derivatives being limited to just the Great Rift region. Thus originating in Africa, this language phylum spreads its wings to only as far as part of the Great Rift Valley on the other side of the Red Sea. Though generally counted as part of Asia in "Western" discourse, the Great Rift areas across the Red sea really more closely lean towards Africa geologically, culturally and even politically. The case can also be made that populations in this area are generally more genetically closer to Africans than those further away.

The "Rift Valley" or "Great Rift Valley" moniker addresses not only the geographical issue, but also the "Semitic" nick end of it.

Then, how about considering a variant of the Afro-Northern Rift super-phylum: "Saharo-North Rift [Valley]" (Saharo-Northern Rift Valley) super language phylum, as a replacement of "Afro-Asiatic".

Why any consideration for the 'Sahara' at all? Technically, Afrisan languages are spoken both on the Sahara and in areas below the Sahara, in east and west Africa. But its spread westward on the continent, would have likely come about via the former wet-Saharan belt corridor.

Here is one opinion on the idea:

I take it you're proposing Saharo-Northern Rift replace Afrisan.
This is good because Asia doesn't have a damn thing to do with
the super-phylum at all in the least and Afrisan retains the 's'
of Asia.

Seeing that the speakers of this superphylum are all indigenous
to the northern Great Rift Valley and the Sahara — including its
periphery to Lake Tschad, the Nile, the Mediterranean, and the
Atlantic — it's the perfect geographic complement to Niger-Congo
although it conflicts somewhat with Nilo-Saharan — but 'Saharan'
in that instance does not include the periphery. And yes the island
of Malta is overlooked in the Saharo-Northern Rift label but that's
just a tiny forgiveable oversight.

Well yes, the present author is proposing Saharo-Northern Rift as another possible candidate; the present author realizes that Saharo in the "Saharo-Northern Rift" doesn't immediately speak to every single geographical 'periphery' where the Afrisan language may well be spoken, but it is proposed for the reasons stated above: that is to say, the major corridors for its historical or rather, pre-historic expansions. The Sahara would have proven to be a major corridor for its westward expansion on the continent; whereas East Africa is where the language phylum likely first emerged—in the Northern Rift Valley region, and spread thereof across the Red Sea.

The "Afro-Northern Rift" speaks more to the general geographical reach of the Afrisan phylum than the former above, in that "Afro" compensates for any other areas where the language phylum mainly exists outside of the Northern Great Rift areas.

Some have proposed a descriptive to the effect of: Saharo-Erythrean!

However, as for 'Saharo-Erythrean' or any variant of it thereof, this is the present author's opinion on it: Why the invocation of "Erythrean"? The Great Rift Valley already includes the areas across the Red Sea from Africa.

It may well boil down to matter of taste, if not preference of the proposed reasoning behind either variant terms respectively over the other, but the question now is: Between say, "Afro-North Rift" (Afro-Northern Rift Valley) and "Saharo-North Rift" (Saharo-Northern Rift Valley) which is a better candidate?

Whatever the choice between the two may be, there is little to suggest otherwise, that either term is an improvement over the current moniker of "Afro-Asiatic", and by extension, the "Semitic" moniker of its Semitic offshoot; it is like killing two birds with one stone!

Anti-Semitism: The logic behind the Word — Is it sound?

"Anti-Semitism" as a term, seems to have become a word too loosely used in the mass media and possibly everyday language, especially in the so-called "West", wherein not much thought is given to the literal lingual basis of the word.

A little bit of historical perspective on this term:

Wilhelm Marr coined the term “anti-Semitism” in 1879 in his The Victory of the Jews over the Germans, which appeared in 12 editions in one year. His publication blamed the Jews for threatening to dominate the German economy and destroy the greatness of Germany

Source: 19th Century Antisemitism

This fellow, Wilhelm Marr, at least seems to be contextualizing the term—that is, "anti-Semitism"—in a relatively less questionable linguistic framework, whereby he takes what he basically treats as a social identifier (namely Jews) for just a section of the overall German society, and places it into the context of Jews vs. Germans, with the latter apparently being non-Semitic speakers. Thus here, on the basis of relativity, the anti-Jewish sentiment that was prevalent amongst sections of Germans, can to some extent be safely branded as "anti-Semitism". But today, it has become something of a tradition in "western" media to casually accuse anyone who so much as levies any criticism—rightfully or otherwise against even just a section of "Jews"—of being "anti-Semitic", while some of those very same media accusers are the most vociferous purveyors of anti-"Middle Easterner" and/or anti-"Arab" [many of whom by virtue of language are Semitic-speakers] sentiments in the "West"; yet, none of these personalities will ever charge themselves with "anti-Semitism".

Not too long ago, Hollywood personality Mel Gibson was blasted in the mass media for babbling on about Jews being "responsible for all the wars in the world" while ostensibly under the influence of alcohol. He was widely accused of “anti-Semitism” in major U.S. "news" networks!

Don't know, but the last time yours truly checked, Arabic language speakers and various ethnic groups in the African Horn were also considered "Semitic" language speakers.

Obviously not all Jews are Hebrew speakers, at least as far as their primary tongue is concerned, nor are all Muslims “Arabic” speakers. With that said, especially in "Western" mass media, right-wing extremist elements (often referred to as "Islamic terrorists") which profess allegiance to the Muslim faith and ordinary Muslims alike—two separate matters which "western" media often make little-to-no distinction between—have become the focus of rabid sensationalism, saturated with negative coverage, with both media pundits and public figures going so far as to outright call for the systematic racial profiling of "Middle Eastern"-looking and/or "Arabic" speaking individuals, supposedly on the grounds of "national security". Given that these so-targeted persons are for the most part ‘Semitic’ speakers, should such hostility towards them too not be deemed "anti-Semitism"?—Is doing otherwise, not a blatant hypocrisy?

On this last note, the present author recently came across an article where someone accused Rev. Wright—the subject of much U.S. media attention throughout the progress of the Democratic party nomination process, particularly so at the beginning of May—of "anti-Semitism", and this is how it went:

“Reverend Wright’s views are an eclectic mixture of black nationalism, radical criticism of US foreign policy and conspiracy theories, with a dollop of anti-Semitism—or at least tolerance for the anti-Semitism of figures like Farrakhan—thrown in.”

Whatever the political leaning of Rev. Wright, good or bad, the little that the present author has come to learn about the man warrants that this charge of "antisemitism" be given a second look, so as to examine the premise of such a charge—at the very least, raise questions about the basis for it. So, in pursuit of an answer, the present author decided to correspond with the author of the citation above as follows:

I would like to first point out that I don't know a whole lot about Rev. Wright as a person, never met him, nor listened to much of his sermons—save for the few from which the now familiar controversial “sound bytes” were extracted and replayed ad nauseam in various news outlets, not to leave out that I'm neither his defender nor his opponent.

That said, much of what I just cited you on [above] doesn't appear to be an unreasonable observation of Rev. Wright, at least based on the little that I know of him. However, I do have a question about “...the dollop of anti-Semitism—or at least tolerance for the anti-Semitism of figures like Farrakhan—thrown in.” part of your assessment; what is this charge of “anti-Semitism” based on?

Rev. Wright for his part, as he appeared “live” on the various News network channels, clarified that he doesn't necessarily agree with Farrakhan on everything, notwithstanding his friendship with the latter—relating that to the audience by noting that no two people in a single room will share the same view on everything, and said this:

“Louis said 20 years ago that **Zionism, not Judaism**, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. **And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago.**

He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him.... Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color.” — by Rev. Wright, Courtesy CNN

Note: ** is for emphasis.

Rev. Wright goes onto to say something to the effect of the need for people to work together, despite religious [and presumably ethnic] differences. “Zionism” is certainly not “Semitism", nor “Judaism” is “Semitism” the last time I checked...or am I wrong about that?

“Semitic” in modern terms, is generally a reference to a language phylum that is said to be an offshoot of language super-phylum which has its origins in eastern Africa. Hebrew is generally considered to be a “Semitic” language, which would make its speakers—“Semitic speakers”, but so does the same apply to other languages that belong to this phylum; namely, Arabic, and various Ethio-Semitic languages like Amharic, Tigrinya, and so forth; therefore, speakers of any of these languages are by language definition, “Semitic-speakers”. Should it then follow, that criticism of any member of these people amounts to “anti-Semitism”? If not, why not? Also, while Zionists tend to be Jewish [whether as a socio-ethnic construct and/or religious construct], does that mean that all Jews are Zionists? Likewise, are all Jews necessarily “Semitic speakers”?

Perhaps I have gotten a little carried away with the line of questioning, but I hope the point is obvious. Therefore, please clarify the “anti-Semitic” aspect(s) of Rev. Wrights views.

 

To piggyback on the citation above, Zionism is obviously not Judaism, nor are all Jews "Zionists".

Now, unless yours truly is missing something here, the subsequent failure of the above-mentioned author to fulfill that request raises some serious questions about the validity of this charge of "anti-Semitism" and the level of care with which it was levied!