E-m81

As to Berbers getting the poorest lands, our glorious school books told us they liked it :LOL: the Arabs were so generous and benevolent with everyone, the land itself rejoiced :grin:

E-M81 is the lineage that carried Berber languages, the language family itself is very young according to linguists and must have formed in the Iron Age.

This is just the Berber language group that survived until our present times. Berber is way too divergent from other Afro-Asiatic families and was certainly distant from Semitic or Cushitic languages for at least a feww thousands of years to become so unique. I'd say that modern Berber languages are the Romance languages of the Italic family, or the Arabic "dialects" of their Central Semitic family, that is, the result of a "linguistic bottleneck" with one language superseding all (or almost all) the other related languages.
 
the part of Galicia is wrong, Lugo was recovered in viii c. santiago was in 800, by the 9th c. almost all gallaecia was under christian rule. theres no arqueological evidence for a strong muslim presence in that area. something fails between dna studies and history records
 
the part of Galicia is wrong, Lugo was recovered in viii c. santiago was in 800, by the 9th c. almost all gallaecia was under christian rule. theres no arqueological evidence for a strong muslim presence in that area. something fails between dna studies and history records
For Galicia it could be two things. The migration from north Africa to Spain before the celts came in. Or the Moriscos went to Galicia and stayed there. I'm just guessing to be honest
 
It can't be before the Celts. E-M81 is only 3000 years old, ie. 1000 BC. The latest the Celts could have arrived is around 1200 BC, I think.

It's definitely a puzzle.

Are there precise records of the re-settlements after the Muslim era? I know northerners were sent to Andalucia. Were people from the south relocated to the north?
 
Last edited:
E-M81 hotsports in north Spain could be a case of slave rescue? Khalifas liked more Galician women by their sweetness than Frankish women even if the later were considered more beautiful. Just an idea difficult to check.
 
Hi,
Well, 2200 years doesn't make any sense.
For instance, historically and regarding Galicia because I'm galician:

1) There is no a single place, name, neither historical record of settlement. Indeed, the invasion was possible because a civil war between Witiza and Rodrigo during the last period of the Visigoth kingdom. The NW part was excluded from the beginning in the conquest because the Witiza supporters were mostly there and, at the same time fighting against Rodrigo.

2) Regarding the "moriscos" absolutely impossible to believe, due to the lack of records in the historical archive of a highly centralized kingdom, neither in any religious record of baptisms etc. We know exactly how many couples with how many children lived in really small populations in the XVII century. We know number of oak trees, fences, houses and indeed networks to fish lamprey. How a huge movement of people crossing the country from Granada to Galicia (1000 km), with a different language (in Galicia was not Spanish at that time) didn't leave any record...
Something really odd of E-M81. How is possible to explain the different average M81 South and North Minho, until the Portucale kingdom appearing in the XII C there wasn't any political division between both sides, indeed nowadays the population is still homogeneous between northern Portugal and the southern part of Galicia. Being family relationships so abundant in both sides of the border it is impossible to understand such differences without a sampling artifact.

About the paper, I remember always my professor saying: "Follow the variability". The only place with individuals of all the sub-haplogroups is the Iberian peninsula, and with the highest proportion of E-M183* (??? my gosh odd, very odd). Btw why they included only catalans in the Iberian populations? Why not pasiegos, galicians, andalusian samples? I'm sure they have access to those samples and populations, c'mon they are from Barcelona. In my opinion, a classical genetic drift and bottleneck in the bereber population and somehow a misleading interpretation of the data, but of course only my opinion.
 
^^I'm sure the scientists, including Iberians, who have dated E-M81 will be all agog to hear from you where they went wrong.
 
I'm a geneticist and I think I'm qualified to be skeptical. Callafell team is quite famous for TMRCA infra-estimations and my concerns regarding sub haplogroups distribution are obvious. I still have to go deeper into paper maths but probably and with conservative premises should be closer to 3000 no 2000. I agree with you that the most probable E-M183 iberian origin were the punic wars and the Iberian peninsula barca invasions but also you have to be aware that it doesn't explain the higher E-M183* proportion in iberia and polymorphism rate. A Berber pre-bottelneck E-M183 iberian invasion could fit, but that implies a really short time between mutations appearing, genetic drift and polymorphism fixation in iberian populations. Maybe a population catastrophe after the punic wars...
The punic war theory is also my favorite but on the other hand doesn't explain Pasiegos neither Galicians-Leonese-Asturians. With Pasiegos I don't know. We don't have any idea how such and isolated northern population got such numbers; it is like a lost world population. Regarding Galicians-Leonese-Asturians could be only an infra-estimation of post-industrial modern admixture. After mine basin coal mining industrialization in Asturias and Leon huge waves of andalucians migrated to the north. Taking in account that a big part of the population is not indigenous preindustrial interpretations of the data should be cautious. In Galicia the fish industry was developed by catalans, andalusians and italians. They settled in the cities and small villages and also took all liberal jobs (lawyers, physicians, police...), low jobs were occupied by galicians always in the country side. Nowadays galician cities are full of non-galician surnames (Juncal, Alcaide, Mosquera, Norat, De Centi, Molk, my own surname is Catalan...) and the opposite in the countryside (my hillbilly pals: Ares, Gerpe, Cambre, Gesto...). Which samples should be used in a historical genetic approach, I have a clear answer but I agree sometimes is difficult to be accurate.
Best
 
I'm a geneticist and I think I'm qualified to be skeptical. Callafell team is quite famous for TMRCA infra-estimations and my concerns regarding sub haplogroups distribution are obvious. I still have to go deeper into paper maths but probably and with conservative premises should be closer to 3000 no 2000. I agree with you that the most probable E-M183 iberian origin were the punic wars and the Iberian peninsula barca invasions but also you have to be aware that it doesn't explain the higher E-M183* proportion in iberia and polymorphism rate. A Berber pre-bottelneck E-M183 iberian invasion could fit, but that implies a really short time between mutations appearing, genetic drift and polymorphism fixation in iberian populations. Maybe a population catastrophe after the punic wars...
The punic war theory is also my favorite but on the other hand doesn't explain Pasiegos neither Galicians-Leonese-Asturians. With Pasiegos I don't know. We don't have any idea how such and isolated northern population got such numbers; it is like a lost world population. Regarding Galicians-Leonese-Asturians could be only an infra-estimation of post-industrial modern admixture. After mine basin coal mining industrialization in Asturias and Leon huge waves of andalucians migrated to the north. Taking in account that a big part of the population is not indigenous preindustrial interpretations of the data should be cautious. In Galicia the fish industry was developed by catalans, andalusians and italians. They settled in the cities and small villages and also took all liberal jobs (lawyers, physicians, police...), low jobs were occupied by galicians always in the country side. Nowadays galician cities are full of non-galician surnames (Juncal, Alcaide, Mosquera, Norat, De Centi, Molk, my own surname is Catalan...) and the opposite in the countryside (my hillbilly pals: Ares, Gerpe, Cambre, Gesto...). Which samples should be used in a historical genetic approach, I have a clear answer but I agree sometimes is difficult to be accurate.
Best

Well, since you're a geneticist, the authors should probably be willing to discuss their methodology with you and either alleviate your concerns or acknowledge their errors. Well, I guess it could be a stand-off too. :) At any rate, I'd be very interested indeed in hearing what comes of any such discussions or your thoughts after you delve into the math more deeply.

I would point out, however, that I was working with a figure of 3000 BC. So, yes, that would allow for the Carthaginians to have brought it initially to Iberia. However, that doesn't stop the Moors from having brought it as well. It could be additive.

In either case, tracing it to the Carthaginians, as you admit, doesn't solve the problem as to why it plots the way it does, since to my knowledge the Carthaginians never made it to the northwest either. I think looking at it from that perspective, some derivation from Moors makes more sense. At least they were in the north, even if not for a very long time.

As to the amount of admixture that might have occurred, I don't think records from the 1600s will tell the whole story. Invasions are not clean and civilized. We don't know how many boys were born of that initital encounter or the other conflicts throughout the years, times when records were not kept. (Did the parish record keeping in Spain not begin with the Council of Trent?) Even after the expulsions began, people hid, and they hid in more isolated, rural areas. Look at the Belmonte Jews. How many other groups could have done the same, but lost their memory of their heritage? We're not trying to explain R1b type of percentages here. The Pasiegos are, I think, easier to explain. In an isolated mountain community a certain y Dna lineage can easily drift to very high levels. Look at the Caucasus. My father's own Apennine valleys are another example. It doesn't change the autosomes, though.

As to that central issue, is there a text, something like the Chiarelli one about the Moors in Sicily, which specifically details the Moorish settlements, land grants, etc.? There must be one, or papers, but I haven't been able to find anything.

Also, can you give me a link to any source which details the population movements after the fall of Granada, i.e. population re-locations, not just those of people from the north to parts of Andalucia, but any out of Andalucia? It would make sense to try to scatter them or at least get them out of Andalucia to guard against revolts. Frederick II did something similar in Sicily. It doesn't matter if they're not in English. My Spanish reading skills are still adequate.

I'm totally with you about the problem with sampling. Amateur analysis is a mess and impossible to verify because you don't know the source of the samples*, or even if they just made it all up, but sometimes I wonder if the academics get it right all of the time as well. Four grandparents from one area are no longer sufficient, unless the person you're testing is ninety years old.

Ed. *Just as one example, an amateur PCA shows that a sample from the Canary Islands plots next to Swiss Germans. Yeah, right.

.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting, the older sister branch of M81 (PF2431) also has a presence in the Iberian Peninsula and especially in Galicia, it was hypothesized that it was due to Ibero-Maurusians.

For Galicia it could be two things. The migration from north Africa to Spain before the celts came in. Or the Moriscos went to Galicia and stayed there. I'm just guessing to be honest
 
Hi again, I had spare time to check the paper. First I have to clarify that I’m a functional geneticist and I’m always skeptical about such strong statements in this kind of papers, it’s a professional deformation. I don't have any interest in discussions with Calafell and friends, it is not my cup of tea. There is nothing new in the paper about the E-M183 TMRCA, E-M81 was already described as young as 2.2 ky and a formation dating of 13.900 years ago (for instance, TMRCA of E-M81 in full Y tree). The explanations about E-M81 are becoming odd trying to fix the incongruencies. Regueiro et al. (2015) stated that since the age STR variation within M183 in the Spanish populations is 3.26 ± 1.20 kya, comparable to that of the Northwest African populations of Tunisia (3.98 ± 1.18 kya) and Morocco (2.65 ± 0.81 kya), the only explanation is that Iberia received migrants from Northwest Africa from different source populations at different times prior to the expansion of Islam. BTW why they don’t cite a paper that perfectly fits with their conclusions, two years in advance. The current paper increases the problem since the genetic variability inside the haplogroup is higher in the recipient population (Iberia) than in the source population (NW Africa). If we consider a constant mutation rate in an effective population as they do, both should be similar or inferior in recipient population. Anyhow, regarding some scientifically complex issues, TMRCA is a genetic concept not related with anything else and we have to assume many pre assumptions in order to calculate it:

  1. The mutation rate should be constant and reliable and that is only possible when we have access to empirically proven mutations traced along history (pedigrees). Not this case.
  2. We have to exclude any chance of recurrent mutations. Neither this case. E-M81 is excluded in forensic analysis for this reason (please check yhrd.org/pages/resources/bad_ysnps)
  3. The eternal problem of translation between generation and years. We assume that 30 years per generation is a good estimation but this could be inaccurate in historical terms and probably when cultural differences along time exist. In polygamous and monogamous societies, the generation timing is different; there is also a tendency to consider 30 years as a generation time only for females but 35 for males.
  4. We have to assume that all mutations are neutral and exclude those under selection. Any neutrality test is imperfect and the problem is that any positive result for selection could be explained in terms of demography. In short, we have no idea how much of the genome has experienced selection full stop…
I have to stress that TMRCA calculations are mostly speculative, without a proper historical pedigree regarding mutations rate and archeological evidence of isolation of the population or migration is only and nothing more than indicative number with a huge error interval.
They used two different methods in the calculation. One is Bayesian based on Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm to model the posterior distribution of the TMRCA parameter, in my experience difficult to scale up with pseudo genome sequences. They have used a trick to avoid expensive calculations, a kind of normalization between substitution rate, variable sites and callable sequence, I’m not sure about how reliable could be. The coalescent tree priors in BEAST, the program they used, is based on Trombetta et al. (2015) from the team of Cruciani. They used a rather flat priors with their own mutations rates. I think the expansion model for the population and assumption of a strict molecular clock from a different paper with different demographic prerogatives is not a good idea. Trombetta has really strong indications of demic spread of pastoralism to use flat prior with an expansion demographic model in combination with strict clock. In this case I guess is fine because the exponential demographic phase without rate shift is expected but in north Africa I’m not sure. In my opinion a relaxed clock model will lead to a different TMRCA.
The second method is based on rho statistic and is quite intuitive. It represents the average number of nucleotide changes between the root haplotype and every individual in the sample. Rho is not reliable determining TMRCA on real data because of mutation randomness and the variation in population size over time that determines the fixation rate of neutral alleles. In this case a strict clock works well in old events because the randomness of mutation and demographic variability is averaged out over time. In short time scales there is no possibility of compensation for both parameters and TMRCA is always distorted.
Frankly, I’m amaze how coincident both methods are in the paper, I would expect bigger differences. I’m reluctant to believe that the TMRCA is correct because mostly the bayesian method with a strict clock and exponential prior emulates rho in short time frames. Please don’t misinterpret me, I like a lot the Idea of a Punic Anabasis, Hannibal soldier’s great-grandsons fighting against roman legions in the Cantabric Wars, a good argument for a Valerio Massimo Manfredi novel but reality is not like that. Indeed, in my opinion, they misquoted Rosa Fregel’s and Carlos Bustamante’s paper about the Neolithic origins of Maghreb population. Their model is of an Iberian intrusion into the Maghreb around 3,000 BCE and not the opposite. I know that is polemic but it fits with the TMRCA of M81 being older in Iberia than in Morocco, higher degree of E variability in Iberia and the late Neolithic genetic continuity between Europe’s mainland, Iberia and NW Africa. Sorry for the long post.
 
Very interesting, the older sister branch of M81 (PF2431) also has a presence in the Iberian Peninsula and especially in Galicia, it was hypothesized that it was due to Ibero-Maurusians.

Iberomaurusian is not a bad explanation but however E-M81 is not too old for a sub haplogroup so that can't really explain why Galicia has over 3% of it in Europe
 
I know that is polemic but it fits with the TMRCA of M81 being older in Iberia than in Morocco, higher degree of E variability in Iberia and the late Neolithic genetic continuity between Europe’s mainland, Iberia and NW Africa. Sorry for the long post.
Hmm it's still a odd mystery about E-M81 back home. possibility many people went to Galicia to seek refuge from the many wars. Since it was so rural at the time many people kind of lived there and mixed a little bit with the natives. Also im going to be informally honest it's a great hiding place from the inquisition which possibility explains why there no records on the Moriscos
 
Hmm it's still a odd mystery about E-M81 back home. possibility many people went to Galicia to seek refuge from the many wars. Since it was so rural at the time many people kind of lived there and mixed a little bit with the natives. Also im going to be informally honest it's a great hiding place from the inquisition which possibility explains why there no records on the Moriscos

Not such a good place. The population in the XVII century in Galicia was huge, almost one million and the isolation was with the "meseta", with the plateau but the harbors, the inquisition, the navy and the Spanish soldiers were always there (A Coruña, Ferrol, Vigo) defending a strategic position against your pals ;) like S F Drake. All the inland forest was almost a naval military property because of the strategic importance of the oaks in vessel construction.
On top of that it is only common sense, to displace above 5% in the E-M81 ratio a population of one million you need more moriscos (pure E-M81 that for sure was not the case) than probably ever existed, simple maths. I have the impression that some data are purely modern and because of sampling bias, if not somebody has to explain me the annoying variability between different studies of E-M81 in Galicia (between 3.5% to 10%).
 
if it helps e-L19
the ancestor of e-m81 was found in 5000 bc in north moroco not far from iberia
this area of mororoco could be the key to the iberian e-m81 and e-m183 :)

Regarding the paternal lineages, IAM individuals carry Y81 chromosomes distantly related to the typically North African E-M81 haplogroup, while82 the Y chromosome from KEB belongs to the T-M184 haplogroup; though scarce and83 broadly distributed today, this haplogroup has also been observed in European Neolithicindividuals16 84 (Supplementary Note 5).

SOURCE :https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/09/21/191569.full.pdf
 
I believe the key is the expansion of Numidian/Maure to Spain/Hispana was during the Roman Republic/Empire. It goes back to the 100 to 50BC timeframes. I also believe the Roman Empire is directly related to the presence of E-M183 and E-V13 in Northern England and Southern Scotland Borders. They were stationed on Hadrians Wall as auxiliaries across its expanse. Multiple forts right up to pull.out in 450AD. I am a Laing descendant from Scotland and we are E-M183 along with others who are Elliot, Cockburn, Scott, Menzies, Gordon's, Howard's, Carlisles, Douglas etc. Also heavy E-V13 is Colquhoun/Calhoun, Douglas, Halliday, etc. I am writing a book and have alot of research.
Also the Roman Empire was filled with Numidian/Maure Auxiliaries, Legionaries, Consuls, Tribunes, Governors in Britain (3 to be exact) and Spain, as well as an Emporer Septimius Severus and his son Caracalla and Geta. They were stationed for 3 years in Eboricum(York) while invading Scotland and administered the Empire from there. Alot of Numidian/Maure there especially in the North and Hadroans Wall. The archeological and written records show it.
 

This thread has been viewed 25639 times.

Back
Top