K12b North-African admixture in Europe (Dienekes K12b, 2012)

[Drac II]

I am an expert it's just that I don't have a PhD. I have a Masters in History but know as much as any professor out there about Spanish History. Just because you have a piece of paper that says "doctor or professor" does not mean I cannot put my own analysis. I read all the books and articles on Medieval Spanish History up to the late 1990's. So I don't make up nothing. Everything I know comes directly form what I researched. You just follow slave-like what professors say without doing your own original research.

Your "original research" seems to consist mostly in making bold assertions that you often can't back up with the work of those experts, who are actually more qualified to make assertions, and that you seem to very casually dismiss when they happen to not agree with your claims.

 

[MOESAN]

Of course in the occupied territories it was 20%. In the whole North the Berbers were insignificant but in the areas where they settled they had an impact and added to the NW DNA of Iberia, not by much, but by some points. The Berbers and their families who converted to Christianity in the lowlands of Galicia and Leon did not stop reproducing children. They eventually increased and mixed with the Germano-Celtic population and added to the DNA and that is why the percentages are higher in the W than in the E. If we take the 500,000 Berbers and divide them by 5,000,000 you get 10% not 5%. But in my opinion it was higher, something like 12.5 % because I believe there were only 4 million inhabitants during the Early Middle Ages. And this figure reflects the DNA studies found in modern times.

Well it depends on what kind of population figure you are using. Are you still using 7 million Iberians from the 5th century to the 11th century? How did you calculate this figure of 2.43 or 3.22%???

The Berbers and their families who converted to Christianity in the lowlands of Galicia and Leon did not stop reproducing children. They eventually increased and mixed with the Germano-Celtic population and added to the DNA and that is why the percentages are higher in the W than in the E.

What are you meaning by 'they add' when they mix with more non-Berber populations? The celtic and germanic imput could only reduce the percentage of DNA of the Berbers, for I think, no? Or I missed something?
That said, Galicia would be among the less concerned by Berbers and Arabs, but it is true Galicians show more Y-E1b, some of which is not M81, and more Y-J1 of "semitic" (Sinaï origin?) than other Spanyards, even more than some Andalusia districts, according to old surveys (not the famous "Jewish" theory, of course). That is still to explain...
for I think, the Y-E-M81 of Iberia is, for a part, more ancient than the Arabo-Berber occupation, maybe before plain Neolithic there. Concerning aDNA, it seems that Mediterranea mt-DNA is very more level than the Y-DNA, showing some high exchanges in Mediterranea concerning females (maybe newer surveys could contradict it, I don't know?). More DNA surveys about ancient Near-East Anatolia will give us more keys.

 

[MOESAN]

We don't know what the Yemeni Arabs or Arabs in general looked like in ancient times. However, many Yemeni Arabs look like mulattoes. OK? I saw them in USA. The original Arabs were dark-skinned, with woolly hair, and looked nothing like Europeans. Later they mixed with blacks. That does not mean they are pure black. A lot of Yemeni Arabs could pass for black but also others look like Semites. Yemen is very close to Africa, so it's no wonder some look like blacks. Besides I did not include many other pictures that showed the black-looking Arabs. However, by the 7th century the Arabs had already mixed with blacks, just as Jews did as well. It's clear on how the phenotype shows distinctive black features on some Arabs.

I've no proof concerning ancient Arabs (Antiquity), but the 1950 Bedawins of everykind were 95% to 100% 'europoid' of some 'mediterranean'-'near-eastern' kind, NOT mulattos as you say: if you could have seen their bottom skin, you could have stated they were very lighter skinned tha believed!: today southern Yemenites ARE NOT the former Arabs but their crossings with 'melanoafricans'/'subsaharian' people and 'eastafrican' people mediated through females forthe most changed the question. SO I agree here with Drac II

I don't speak here of Syrian "Arabs" or Lebanese "Arabs" among whom an heavy Caucasus+ Balkanlike + sligh Northern Euro components can be seen as well for pigmentation or for bones and corpulence and even facial details like mouth, nose, eyelids... (I think in Late Bronze Age here). it seems Arab means NOT WHITE NOT CAUCASIAN in the US common sense, or...? the Arab world is large: and even looking at Koweitians - a small lcountry, nevertheless - you see they are divided in more than a population, with DNA and physical differences .
Sure the african part will rise up in future in South, but it is recent enough. By the way, it is rising up in North too!!!
Just the point of a man who was young in the 70's.

 

[Angela]

I've no proof concerning ancient Arabs (Antiquity), but the 1950 Bedawins of everykind were 95% to 100% 'europoid' of some 'mediterranean'-'near-eastern' kind, NOT mulattos as you say: if you could have seen their bottom skin, you could have stated they were very lighter skinned tha believed!: today southern Yemenites ARE NOT the former Arabs but their crossings with 'melanoafricans'/'subsaharian' people and 'eastafrican' people mediated through females forthe most changed the question. SO I agree here with Drac II

I don't speak here of Syrian "Arabs" or Lebanese "Arabs" among whom an heavy Caucasus+ Balkanlike + sligh Northern Euro components can be seen as well for pigmentation or for bones and corpulence and even facial details like mouth, nose, eyelids... (I think in Late Bronze Age here). it seems Arab means NOT WHITE NOT CAUCASIAN in the US common sense, or...? the Arab world is large: and even looking at Koweitians - a small lcountry, nevertheless - you see they are divided in more than a population, with DNA and physical differences .
Sure the african part will rise up in future in South, but it is recent enough. By the way, it is rising up in North too!!!
Just the point of a man who was young in the 70's.

I agree with all of that except that I think that in southwestern Yemen there might have been some East African admixture or let's say gene flow back and forth between Yemen and Ethiopia/Eritrea from very ancient times as well as in the modern era. Without ancient dna I don't know how it could be quantified.

See: Kingdom of Aksum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum

Still it seems that the majority of the admixture may indeed have taken place post the slave trade.

There are also "ethnic" distinctions within Yemen. There is a separate "untouchable" caste of uncertain origin, and there are indeed "mulatto" looking people with relatively recent admixture who are subject to their own kind of discrimination. I doubt that the Yemenis who were involved in the Islamic conquests would have looked like either of these groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Akhdam

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...ladeen-struggle-equal--20144415253333236.html

These are some plates of "Yemeni highlanders" I was quickly able to access. I'm sure that Moesan would know of more. I would think perhaps they would have looked more like this? The skin color is deceiving; everyone looks darker on these plates, and this is exposed skin. They don't look at all SSA.

They are also different from the "Arabs" further north or even Arabs like the members of the Saud family. Both the Yemeni type and the more perhaps "Caucasus" type would have been involved in the conquests.

 

[Johannes]

Your "original research" seems to consist mostly in making bold assertions that you often can't back up with the work of those experts, who are actually more qualified to make assertions, and that you seem to very casually dismiss when they happen to not agree with your claims.

What are you talking about? I always back up all of my assertions. I never make up things. I cannot show you books or articles now because I don't live in the USA like you do. Most of my examples of what historians wrote I am getting from my brain. I read ALL the books and journals on this topic up into the 1990's. True, I have not done recent research, but I doubt any "new" research will add anything new to what I have already found. I just agree that the Goths did a lot of good for Spain and Portugal and you just simply disagree. You are just stubborn and you are the one who never changes. You stick to the same old theory over and over again. You just back it up with unimportant books that have been recently published. Anyway, I don't care what you think.

 

[Johannes]

The Berbers and their families who converted to Christianity in the lowlands of Galicia and Leon did not stop reproducing children. They eventually increased and mixed with the Germano-Celtic population and added to the DNA and that is why the percentages are higher in the W than in the E.

What are you meaning by 'they add' when they mix with more non-Berber populations? The celtic and germanic imput could only reduce the percentage of DNA of the Berbers, for I think, no? Or I missed something?
That said, Galicia would be among the less concerned by Berbers and Arabs, but it is true Galicians show more Y-E1b, some of which is not M81, and more Y-J1 of "semitic" (Sinaï origin?) than other Spanyards, even more than some Andalusia districts, according to old surveys (not the famous "Jewish" theory, of course). That is still to explain...
for I think, the Y-E-M81 of Iberia is, for a part, more ancient than the Arabo-Berber occupation, maybe before plain Neolithic there. Concerning aDNA, it seems that Mediterranea mt-DNA is very more level than the Y-DNA, showing some high exchanges in Mediterranea concerning females (maybe newer surveys could contradict it, I don't know?). More DNA surveys about ancient Near-East Anatolia will give us more keys.

It's simple: When the Berbers settled in their towns and villages in Leon and Galicia they reproduced more males with E1b1 than before and thus it added to the percentages of E1b1. This does not mean they increased the amount of Berbers. When the Berbers mixed with the natives they eventually disappeared as a phenotype but still caused a slight increase in the percentages of the males carrying E1b1. Thus it reflects the studies done on the regions.

Yes i am not doubting that most or maybe half of the E1b1 was from neolithic times but all I am saying is that the Berbers added a little more. This is why there is more E1b1 in the west than in the east. This reflects the historical record.

 

[Johannes]

I've no proof concerning ancient Arabs (Antiquity), but the 1950 Bedawins of everykind were 95% to 100% 'europoid' of some 'mediterranean'-'near-eastern' kind, NOT mulattos as you say: if you could have seen their bottom skin, you could have stated they were very lighter skinned tha believed!: today southern Yemenites ARE NOT the former Arabs but their crossings with 'melanoafricans'/'subsaharian' people and 'eastafrican' people mediated through females forthe most changed the question. SO I agree here with Drac II

I don't speak here of Syrian "Arabs" or Lebanese "Arabs" among whom an heavy Caucasus+ Balkanlike + sligh Northern Euro components can be seen as well for pigmentation or for bones and corpulence and even facial details like mouth, nose, eyelids... (I think in Late Bronze Age here). it seems Arab means NOT WHITE NOT CAUCASIAN in the US common sense, or...? the Arab world is large: and even looking at Koweitians - a small lcountry, nevertheless - you see they are divided in more than a population, with DNA and physical differences .
Sure the african part will rise up in future in South, but it is recent enough. By the way, it is rising up in North too!!!
Just the point of a man who was young in the 70's.

I didn't say ALL Yemenis are mulattoes. I said some looked like that. Yemenis have changed very little in the last 2000 years. They show about 80% J1 and the females 85% N and R (The bulk of individuals (86%) belonged to the Eurasian macrohaplogroup N and its main R branch (75%), while the Sub-Saharan Africa macrohaplogroup L (7%) and the Asian macrohaplogroup M (7%) accounted for a smaller proportion of haplotypes.) www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/32. This is a homogeneous population. Therefore if some looked like blacks it was because of ancient times not recent. It must have been the mixing with Ethiopians. Anyway the Yemenis I saw looked very similar to American mulattoes. For males see: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml. For females see: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/32 and Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

As for Syrians: yes, they looked very much like southern Europeans. This is because they had mixed with Greeks and Romans. Syria was the most important province in the Middle East and thousands of Europeans settled there and became "Arabs." But the Yemenis certainly did not look European.

 

[Johannes]

Yes Angela, the evidence points to Ethiopia as the key: Please see Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

 

[Angela]

I didn't say ALL Yemenis are mulattoes. I said some looked like that. Yemenis have changed very little in the last 2000 years. They show about 80% J1 and the females 85% U5. This is a homogeneous population. Therefore if some looked like blacks it was because of ancient times not recent. It must have been the mixing with Ethiopians. Anyway the Yemenis I saw looked very similar to American mulattoes. For males see: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml. For females see: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/32and Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

As for Syrians: yes, they looked very much like southern Europeans. This is because they had mixed with Greeks and Romans. Syria was the most important province in the Middle East and thousands of Europeans settled there and became "Arabs." But the Yemenis certainly did not look European.

Gene flow both ways there definitely was for the Yemenis, but if you read the article in the link many of the "Mulatto" looking ones are the product of intermarriage with Ethiopians and Eritreans within the last 100 years. The Yemeni highlanders who would most likely be the closest population to the tribesmen who formed part of the Islamic forces do not look like mulattoes. They are "Mediterranean" in phenotype.

This overlap does not exist because Levantines mixed with Greeks or Romans or Crusaders, or at least that's a small part of the reason. The major reason is that all Europeans (although the percentages are different) and all Near Easterners have ancestry from the early neolithic farmers of the Near East (EEF). Both Europe and the Near East also have ancestry from the ancient ANE population. Europe differs in also being descended from WHG foragers. However, it seems that there was some WHG even in the northern Near East. In addition, there has been additional gene flow from SSA into the Near East with the Arab slave trade, and we're now discovering there could have been some degree of influence from India. In far northeastern Europe we have some Mongolian influence as well.

If you haven't read them yet, you should read Lazaridis et al and Haak et al.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433

Scholarship didn't end in the 1990s.

 

[Johannes]

Gene flow both ways there definitely was for the Yemenis, but if you read the article in the link many of the "Mulatto" looking ones are the product of intermarriage with Ethiopians and Eritreans within the last 100 years. The Yemeni highlanders who would most likely be the closest population to the tribesmen who formed part of the Islamic forces do not look like mulattoes. They are "Mediterranean" in phenotype.

This overlap does not exist because Levantines mixed with Greeks or Romans or Crusaders, or at least that's a small part of the reason. The major reason is that all Europeans (although the percentages are different) and all Near Easterners have ancestry from the early neolithic farmers of the Near East (EEF). Both Europe and the Near East also have ancestry from the ancient ANE population. Europe differs in also being descended from WHG foragers. However, it seems that there was some WHG even in the northern Near East. In addition, there has been additional gene flow from SSA into the Near East with the Arab slave trade, and we're now discovering there could have been some degree of influence from India. In far northeastern Europe we have some Mongolian influence as well.

If you haven't read them yet, you should read Lazaridis et al and Haak et al.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433

Scholarship didn't end in the 1990s.

Yes I know scholarship did not end in the 90's. This is why I joined this forum in order to catch up on genetics only. It seems that Arabs from Yemen are different from Arabs of the north: The Arabs from the north of Yemen have more J2, while the Yemenis have super high J1. The difference is: "It is significantly different from Yemen mainly due to a comparative reduction of sub-Saharan Africa E1-M123 and Levantine J1-M267 male lineages." See this article: [h=1]Saudi Arabian Y-Chromosome diversity and its relationship with nearby regions[/h] http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/59. It seems that Yemenis had mixed with Africans way back in time (Ethiopians and Eritreans.)

 

[Drac II]

What are you talking about? I always back up all of my assertions. I never make up things. I cannot show you books or articles now because I don't live in the USA like you do. Most of my examples of what historians wrote I am getting from my brain. I read ALL the books and journals on this topic up into the 1990's. True, I have not done recent research, but I doubt any "new" research will add anything new to what I have already found. I just agree that the Goths did a lot of good for Spain and Portugal and you just simply disagree. You are just stubborn and you are the one who never changes. You stick to the same old theory over and over again. You just back it up with unimportant books that have been recently published. Anyway, I don't care what you think.

The one clinging to obsolete and romanticized notions is you, not me. You seem quite uninterested in modern historical scholarship and casually dismiss it simply because it does not agree with many of your strange claims.

 

[Drac II]

It's simple: When the Berbers settled in their towns and villages in Leon and Galicia they reproduced more males with E1b1 than before and thus it added to the percentages of E1b1. This does not mean they increased the amount of Berbers. When the Berbers mixed with the natives they eventually disappeared as a phenotype but still caused a slight increase in the percentages of the males carrying E1b1. Thus it reflects the studies done on the regions.

Yes i am not doubting that most or maybe half of the E1b1 was from neolithic times but all I am saying is that the Berbers added a little more. This is why there is more E1b1 in the west than in the east. This reflects the historical record.

Once again, this is not in agreement with the historical record. By this logic the amount of this DNA should be somewhat higher in the south than anywhere else in Iberia, since it had a larger and longer presence of these foreigners. Yet it is not so.

 

[Drac II]

I didn't say ALL Yemenis are mulattoes. I said some looked like that. Yemenis have changed very little in the last 2000 years. They show about 80% J1 and the females 85% N and R (The bulk of individuals (86%) belonged to the Eurasian macrohaplogroup N and its main R branch (75%), while the Sub-Saharan Africa macrohaplogroup L (7%) and the Asian macrohaplogroup M (7%) accounted for a smaller proportion of haplotypes.) www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/32. This is a homogeneous population. Therefore if some looked like blacks it was because of ancient times not recent. It must have been the mixing with Ethiopians. Anyway the Yemenis I saw looked very similar to American mulattoes. For males see: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml. For females see: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/32 and Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

As for Syrians: yes, they looked very much like southern Europeans. This is because they had mixed with Greeks and Romans. Syria was the most important province in the Middle East and thousands of Europeans settled there and became "Arabs." But the Yemenis certainly did not look European.

As another user suggested, you should read your own links. None of those papers denies the obvious role of the later Islamic slave trade between the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa. The historical evidence about this is very strong for any serious researcher to try to casually dismiss it. Slavery still goes on today in many parts of the Muslim world.

The ancient artwork of the Yemenis themselves shows quite well that they were Caucasian peoples. In fact, I have yet to see even one example of a piece of ancient Yemeni artwork showing a human face with Negroid traits. In later Islamic times we have artwork like this which is very pertinent to the subject. Portrayal of a slave market in 13th century AD Yemen:

I'll let you guess who are the black African slaves being sold and the Arabs selling them and buying them. Really, it is not so hard to tell them apart.

 

[Johannes]

Once again, this is not in agreement with the historical record. By this logic the amount of this DNA should be somewhat higher in the south than anywhere else in Iberia, since it had a larger and longer presence of these foreigners. Yet it is not so.

You are wrong: History shows quite clearly that the reason why non-European DNA is less in the south compared to the north is because the Berbers and Spanish Muslims in the SW and SE were ethnically cleansed during the 13-17th centuries (especially during the 13th). Most of the DNA of Andalusians came from the north of Spain. The majority of the Berbers lived in the SW. Also many Berbers converted to Christianity and this added a further amount in the South West or West of the Iberian peninsula. The Berber DNA in the North and West only added and not lessened the overall DNA of the Iberians.

 

[Johannes]

The one clinging to obsolete and romanticized notions is you, not me. You seem quite uninterested in modern historical scholarship and casually dismiss it simply because it does not agree with many of your strange claims.

The only thing that is obsolete is your mind. All you do is follow slave-like one way of interpreting the facts. I told you many times that I researched everything about this topic. I am not adding anything new here. Almost everything has been figured out about the Berbers or Muslims in Spain. You just think that a new book sheds light on the subject. But the real truth is that all they do is rehash what has been told in the past with something subjective added to it (in order for historians to get tenured). Do you think historians in the past just sat around farting and not doing serious research? So all the research in the past is just rubbish? The simple truth is that you are a stubborn and biased person and will fight tooth and nail to support your interpretations and not accept anything different from your views.

 

[Johannes]

As another user suggested, you should read your own links. None of those papers denies the obvious role of the later Islamic slave trade between the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa. The historical evidence about this is very strong for any serious researcher to try to casually dismiss it. Slavery still goes on today in many parts of the Muslim world.

The ancient artwork of the Yemenis themselves shows quite well that they were Caucasian peoples. In fact, I have yet to see even one example of a piece of ancient Yemeni artwork showing a human face with Negroid traits. In later Islamic times we have artwork like this which is very pertinent to the subject. Portrayal of a slave market in 13th century AD Yemen:

I'll let you guess who are the black African slaves being sold and the Arabs selling them and buying them. Really, it is not so hard to tell them apart.

Have you ever heard of "idealistic" portraits in paintings and sculpture???? If you do then you will know that the figures in most paintings and sculptures do not represent "real" reality. They are idealized. Get it? Just because you see a painting does not mean it represents actual reality. The Arabs could have been painted yellow or red and so does that mean they were yellow or red? Or what? do you think Arabs were white?

 

[Drac II]

You are wrong: History shows quite clearly that the reason why non-European DNA is less in the south compared to the north is because the Berbers and Spanish Muslims in the SW and SE were ethnically cleansed during the 13-17th centuries (especially during the 13th). Most of the DNA of Andalusians came from the north of Spain. The majority of the Berbers lived in the SW. Also many Berbers converted to Christianity and this added a further amount in the South West or West of the Iberian peninsula. The Berber DNA in the North and West only added and not lessened the overall DNA of the Iberians.

Expulsions of Muslims (who, once again, were predominantly just native converts to Islam, not foreigners) took place all over where they were found, not just the south. So your "explanations" don't work. The fact that the western parts of Iberia have more of this DNA than other parts can't be attributed to any historical events, since this same evidence would show that the southern parts are the ones that should have more of it (Carthaginian presence + longer Islamic presence) Yet it is otherwise. The logical conclusion is that these foreign minorities from historical times could only be responsible for a small part of this DNA in Iberia, and then again mostly in the south, not the west.

 

[Drac II]

The only thing that is obsolete is your mind. All you do is follow slave-like one way of interpreting the facts. I told you many times that I researched everything about this topic. I am not adding anything new here. Almost everything has been figured out about the Berbers or Muslims in Spain. You just think that a new book sheds light on the subject. But the real truth is that all they do is rehash what has been told in the past with something subjective added to it (in order for historians to get tenured). Do you think historians in the past just sat around farting and not doing serious research? So all the research in the past is just rubbish? The simple truth is that you are a stubborn and biased person and will fight tooth and nail to support your interpretations and not accept anything different from your views.

Once again, it is I who usually quotes from and backs up his statements with the work of actual modern scholars specializing on the subject, whose books have been published in the last 100+ years, not you. Most of what you say is just you inventing stuff. You obviously have very little idea on how to debate and support your claims.

 

[Drac II]

Have you ever heard of "idealistic" portraits in paintings and sculpture???? If you do then you will know that the figures in most paintings and sculptures do not represent "real" reality. They are idealized. Get it? Just because you see a painting does not mean it represents actual reality. The Arabs could have been painted yellow or red and so does that mean they were yellow or red? Or what? do you think Arabs were white?

Have you heard that this silly excuse does not wash? You already tried it with your earlier claims (which you now seem to reject after you were shown pertinent evidence to the contrary) about North Africans supposedly also being "blacks". People even today have a tendency of portraying humans according to those of their own origin, in other words, what is familiar to them. Just look at modern European or American art up to the early 20th century. Do you see many Australoid or Mongoloid faces in it? No. And this despite modern visual communications like movies and TV developing in the previous two centuries, and artists still have this tendency of portraying the human physiognomies they are most acquainted with. Needless to say, it was even more so in ancient art, when people did not have such modern forms of communication and would have had a much more limited world view. People represented humans as they saw them, as themselves and the people who surrounded them. That's why you can easily tell Yemeni artistic representations of humans apart from those of sub-Saharan Africans. Now, if your absurd claim that Yemenis were pretty much Negroid people or heavily mixed with them was true, we should expect to see this reflected in their own art, which is hardly the case.

Arabs are Caucasians, and some of them are certainly depigmented enough to qualify as "white". "White" is a more restrictive term because it only includes people of a certain degree of skin depigmentation, usually found among Europeans more than any other Caucasians. This is why most anthropologists have avoided words like "white" or "black" when talking about races and instead use words like Cacuasian/Caucasoid or Negroid, since these terms refer to craniofacial traits, not skin pigmentation, which has never been considered a reliable indicator of race.

 

[MOESAN]

I was speaking about the general affiliation of former Arabs.
I agree too with what you wrote. In southwestern Yemen, it is very possible that since ancient times, a population close to East-African was there; the Arabs got down from North towards South, what explains their 'europoid' principal element, to answer to Johannes. The nomadic Bedawins in yemen seemed very endogame so they showed almost no SSA african element, 70 years ago. In other populations, sedentized, there was already a mix, not only with SSA or EA for someones but also with higher %s of brachycephalic 'europoid' maybe from North Near-East. I've not the needed knowledge about Arabia history to go into details. I red even the Mongols could have had a light imput in some parts of the great so called arab territories, before Turcs. The Saudis seem a bit more crossed than the Yemeni Bedawins with maybe some drifts from endogamy among their higher classes.
&; my feeling is that the true nod of first nomadic Arabs was not too far from the Sinai (could be confirmed by Y-E1b and Y-J1 subclades history?)