New distribution map of Y-haplogroup E-M81

That dot in North Spain, is that 30-40 or 40-50?
And whats the study or story behind that;

the troops of the ancient garrisons of the Roman soldiers which kept the door of Pyrenees which forced later wisigoths and basques.
 
the troops of the ancient garrisons of the Roman soldiers which kept the door of Pyrenees which forced later wisigoths and basques.

As Maciamo already answered me (post#8 / 24-09-13) the dot with the high E-M81 are the Pasiegos from Cantabria;
 
I'm sorry, but your time frame does not correspond with the published scientific papers which discuss african admixture. African admixture in Southern Europe is dated 29 generations to 400AD, and assuming E-M81 arrived 15,000 years ago, it would have nothing to do with autosomal african admixture. 15,000 years ago is far to distant admixture to contribute any significant DNA in modern humans, aside from Y-DNA, which does not recombine.

If E-M81 populations did contribute to the majority of the African component of autosomal European DNA then it occurred about 1500 years ago or 200-600AD.

Here are the findings of Moorjani et al.

It's interesting how Moorjani et al's own calculations contradict some of their own claims. Even assuming that their calculations and the value they assigned for a "generation" (which is usually accepted as 30 or 35 years, not 29) are correct, that "African" ancestry in Europe still predates the existence of Islam itself, let alone any Islamic "invasions". Their dating, however, does indeed coincide with the late Roman period, another of their claims regarding how this ancestry entered Europe.
 
Yes, so HOW or/and WHEN did the "almost none" haplogroups from Africa got to the N.E. of Europe? Maybe "the North" of Europe (?) does not count.
 
And if males Y-lines did enter in Europe all across, which female Mt-haplogroups did accompany it with, L or M or U or those in Iberia already? My mother matrilineal ancestry says V hg was originally coming to the north from Iberian Mesolithics, but E-M81 is originally from Egypt or Libya?! Did Canary islanders did the Thor Heyerdal Polynesian thing to the north?
 
Maciamo, did you leave out this studies (just in case you didn't) :

For Gascony :

Gascony n=0/24 0.0% Adams et al.
Béarn, Gascony n=1/56 1.78% Martínez-Cruz et al. 2012,
Bigorre, Gacony n=1/44 2.72% Martínez-Cruz et al. 2012,

Croatia :
Croats n = 1/89 1.1% Battaglia et al. 2008

Northern Italy :
North-Italians n=1/67 1.5% Cruciani 2004.
Lombard n=1/18 5.6% Scozzari 2001.
Venetian n=20 0.0% Scozzari 2001.
Ligurian n=17 0.0% Scozzari 2001.
 
It's interesting how Moorjani et al's own calculations contradict some of their own claims. Even assuming that their calculations and the value they assigned for a "generation" (which is usually accepted as 30 or 35 years, not 29) are correct, that "African" ancestry in Europe still predates the existence of Islam itself, let alone any Islamic "invasions". Their dating, however, does indeed coincide with the late Roman period, another of their claims regarding how this ancestry entered Europe.

I would be wary of giving very much credence to any of the Moorjani et al conclusions. All of the figures for West African admixture are inflated. The Reich lab which produced it corrected the assumptions upon which their calculations were based in their subsequent papers, including, of course, Lipson et al. I think I already posted this somewhere. If you want to see the detail of the problems with Moorjani et al just search on Dienekes site. He pointed them out as soon as the paper came out, and the subsequent Reich Lab papers took exactly the same approach as he had advocated in his blog.

Also, in some cases, although not in all, the program used to date the admixture seems to have problems differentiating between the general time of the most recent admixture and the cumulative effect of all the prior admixture. In other words, let's assume that in a certain area, there has been admixture for two thousand years. The program might, depending on the population history of the particular area, pick up the last date of admixture as the only one which occurred.

An example of how the program might give erroneous conclusions is in the case of the Egyptians. If I remember correctly, the admixture with SSA was held to have occurred in the late classical era. That defies logic, in my opinion. While I'm sure that the Arab slave trade of the slightly later Arab/Muslim expansion greatly impacted Egypt, it seems pretty obvious to me from archaeology and the art of prior periods that there was SSA admixture before then.
 
As Maciamo already answered me (post#8 / 24-09-13) the dot with the high E-M81 are the Pasiegos from Cantabria;


yes! but it is not the motive of their presence, and it is that I give information to you because your question seemed. But it is not theory accept by all but the most likely historically.
 
I would be wary of giving very much credence to any of the Moorjani et al conclusions. All of the figures for West African admixture are inflated. The Reich lab which produced it corrected the assumptions upon which their calculations were based in their subsequent papers, including, of course, Lipson et al. I think I already posted this somewhere. If you want to see the detail of the problems with Moorjani et al just search on Dienekes site. He pointed them out as soon as the paper came out, and the subsequent Reich Lab papers took exactly the same approach as he had advocated in his blog.

Also, in some cases, although not in all, the program used to date the admixture seems to have problems differentiating between the general time of the most recent admixture and the cumulative effect of all the prior admixture. In other words, let's assume that in a certain area, there has been admixture for two thousand years. The program might, depending on the population history of the particular area, pick up the last date of admixture as the only one which occurred.

An example of how the program might give erroneous conclusions is in the case of the Egyptians. If I remember correctly, the admixture with SSA was held to have occurred in the late classical era. That defies logic, in my opinion. While I'm sure that the Arab slave trade of the slightly later Arab/Muslim expansion greatly impacted Egypt, it seems pretty obvious to me from archaeology and the art of prior periods that there was SSA admixture before then.

I also wonder if they in fact did not also include some North African DNA as "sub-Saharan", possibly to "inflate" things a bit for southern Europe. Besides whatever problems their study may have, it is clear that they had a very transparent agenda to make it look as if northern Europe does not have sub-Saharan input. Contrary to their claims that other studies have not found it among northern Europeans, there's actually several studies that have, and I'm pretty sure that they were aware of it but claimed the contrary nonetheless.
 
I also wonder if they in fact did not also include some North African DNA as "sub-Saharan", possibly to "inflate" things a bit for southern Europe. Besides whatever problems their study may have, it is clear that they had a very transparent agenda to make it look as if northern Europe does not have sub-Saharan input. Contrary to their claims that other studies have not found it among northern Europeans, there's actually several studies that have, and I'm pretty sure that they were aware of it but claimed the contrary nonetheless.

http://thegeneticatlas.com/World_Y-DNA.htm
E1b.pngY_Hap_EM-81.PNG

http://thegeneticatlas.com/E1b_Y-DNA.htm


you must be able to explain me why there is as much in Italy as in Spain E1b1b1 on these cards.
E1b1b.jpg

Of other one by the period of the reconquista by Navarre was a bloody period from which policy was the destroying of the Muslim believers; rape and murder was the answer of violence to violence and it is not justice to reproach Spanishes for what was fact of of the vasco-navarre, they also left a lot M167 in regions purified by Spain, it shows that writings are far from having gone too far this period (according to genetics the reconquista was g?nocidaire). The Andalusia is the most convincing example on masculine descendants compared with the female descendants.

http://thegeneticatlas.com/population.htm


 
@martiko

I think the data you placed on Page 30 is too "up to date", its only 5 years old, maybe we need to go back 20 years for more accuracy!
 
given data are and I believe what I see, and you see you only what you want to believe
I point out to you that in these data there is polarity if you read them attentively.
 
I spoke with a local Basque, neighbors to the Pasiegos, and he explained to me what they know from those 20-40% dot people. The singular and heavy presence of Pasiegos in the northern mountains of Iberia, and their spread among Cantabrians and some Basque territory, is attested since the XII century or earlier. Their origin seem to be owed to Royal grants on their valleys (and those of other peasant local folks) to have free range on all the communal pastures of others, and to be free of any taxation for it from the nearby nobility or Abbots, what made them hated and subject to all sort of mistrust from sedentary farmers, and to isolate themselves to shield their rights and cast abuses off. They couldn't tell me or didn't know, where the Pasiegos came from before that, or the reasons for their grants of such privileges. No later Gypsies or others foreigners were ever known to have such freedoms or territory rights, given among and above Christians, except those with similar royal grants around those centuries, given to the so called "Francos" to settle along the Compostela road valleys, fords or towns. But those were known from where they arrived, with their foreign family names and own languages, been called to do so all the way from Aquitaine, Champagne and Lower Saxony. Did Kings trade settlers with the Emperors of Central Europe, the Poles or Baltic Lithuanians in those "population booming" days before The Plague? Could Iberian families have ended up too in the other far away Christian new marches of Prussia, called along the French by the Knights of those places to settle "new territory"? How much medieval colonization was done over as vast distances as the Crusaders did?
 
English settlers in Germany and Hungary too!
 
I spoke with a local Basque, neighbors to the Pasiegos, and he explained to me what they know from those 20-40% dot people. The singular and heavy presence of Pasiegos in the northern mountains of Iberia, and their spread among Cantabrians and some Basque territory, is attested since the XII century or earlier. Their origin seem to be owed to Royal grants on their valleys (and those of other peasant local folks) to have free range on all the communal pastures of others, and to be free of any taxation for it from the nearby nobility or Abbots, what made them hated and subject to all sort of mistrust from sedentary farmers, and to isolate themselves to shield their rights and cast abuses off. They couldn't tell me or didn't know, where the Pasiegos came from before that, or the reasons for their grants of such privileges. No later Gypsies or others foreigners were ever known to have such freedoms or territory rights, given among and above Christians, except those with similar royal grants around those centuries, given to the so called "Francos" to settle along the Compostela road valleys, fords or towns. But those were known from where they arrived, with their foreign family names and own languages, been called to do so all the way from Aquitaine, Champagne and Lower Saxony. Did Kings trade settlers with the Emperors of Central Europe, the Poles or Baltic Lithuanians in those "population booming" days before The Plague? Could Iberian families have ended up too in the other far away Christian new marches of Prussia, called along the French by the Knights of those places to settle "new territory"? How much medieval colonization was done over as vast distances as the Crusaders did?
the pasiegos which are a very located population, seem to be the descendants of ancient Roman troops or Carthaginian, parked strategically on the barrier of the Pyrenees, they are pushed back by the plagues of wisigoths then vasgondes later. They distinguish themselves only by them Y DNA from other Spanishes, but anything distinctive in Mt DNA.
 
the pasiegos which are a very located population, seem to be the descendants of ancient Roman troops or Carthaginian, parked strategically on the barrier of the Pyrenees, they are pushed back by the plagues of wisigoths then vasgondes later. They distinguish themselves only by them Y DNA from other Spanishes, but anything distinctive in Mt DNA.
That is interesting. There is sources for that? But data seems not right. The Pasiegos are not really anywhere near the Pyrenees but in deep valleys within the Cantabrian coast mountains. The closest to the Pyrenees mountain passes (Pass-egos?) is 200 km away from the Pasiegos, either by the Romans road that connected the Asturica Legio main garrison city to the one in Pompaelo (modern Pamplona), from nearby Uxama or the one (longer) by the coast from nearby Flaviobriga. And if they were Roman North Africans stationed in the Pyrenees, why would they be pushed by the Basques, if these were always allied to the Romans who built their first urban market centers? They would have been already "locals" since Hannibal days. And if pushed by the hostile Visigoths, how comes these seem to have "merged" with the Pasiegos? The haplo R1a, probably carried by the Goths all the way from East Prussia, is among the Pasiegos the highest in all the Iberian peninsula
 
That is interesting. There is sources for that? But data seems not right. The Pasiegos are not really anywhere near the Pyrenees but in deep valleys within the Cantabrian coast mountains. The closest to the Pyrenees mountain passes (Pass-egos?) is 200 km away from the Pasiegos, either by the Romans road that connected the Asturica Legio main garrison city to the one in Pompaelo (modern Pamplona), from nearby Uxama or the one (longer) by the coast from nearby Flaviobriga. And if they were Roman North Africans stationed in the Pyrenees, why would they be pushed by the Basques, if these were always allied to the Romans who built their first urban market centers? They would have been already "locals" since Hannibal days. And if pushed by the hostile Visigoths, how comes these seem to have "merged" with the Pasiegos? The haplo R1a, probably carried by the Goths all the way from East Prussia, is among the Pasiegos the highest in all the Iberian peninsula
All these theories are crap, it's more probable that the E-M81 ended up there in pre-historic times, like neolithic .
 
OR... was hg E-M81 already brought by the Visigoths migration train along hg R1a from somewhere else? The Baltic or Black sea? From their Vandals or Ostrogoth allies in the Mediterranean? There were truly some of these barbarians who went back to Scandinavia with new "brothers in arms" as tribe members?
 
All these theories are crap, it's more probable that the E-M81 ended up there in pre-historic times, like neolithic .
I also agree, the hg 81 seems too widespread, although in thin thread declining minority, to have appeared by queer chance from a few, or many, military outposts in a very conspicuous row of them, where the % must have been higher to get the surviving results. And if so.... HOW so much less E-M81 % presence, along the same Roman or Carthaginian or Arab much more important military stations in the opposite coast, the Mediterranean coastline roads or ports, where there was an accounted record in all Classic sources of these Numidians legions, or later Moorish cavalries, easier to exchange and to transport but much harder to avoid? The % in the European western Mediterranean should be much higher than in the Atlantic mountain valleys, even if just by Mediterranean seaports demographic surplus "overboard accidents", century after century, and millennia/s.
 
I also agree, the hg 81 seems too widespread, although in thin thread declining minority, to have appeared by queer chance from a few, or many, military outposts in a very conspicuous row of them, where the % must have been higher to get the surviving results. And if so.... HOW so much less E-M81 % presence, along the same Roman or Carthaginian or Arab much more important military stations in the opposite coast, the Mediterranean coastline roads or ports, where there was an accounted record in all Classic sources of these Numidians legions, or later Moorish cavalries, easier to exchange and to transport but much harder to avoid? The % in the European western Mediterranean should be much higher than in the Atlantic mountain valleys, even if just by Mediterranean seaports demographic surplus "overboard accidents", century after century, and millennia/s.

we can tell if numidian E is iberian E as numidian where brought to southern italy in great numbers after the demise of the Carthaginians ........if this E in the same as iberian E, then Iberian E is north-african.

The proposed ( by you ) E brought by vandals/visi/ostrogoths ( picked up along the way would be in majority E-v13
 

This thread has been viewed 89168 times.

Back
Top