DNA study shows Greeks clustering with Africans.

real expert

Regular member
Messages
797
Reaction score
462
Points
63
Afrocentrists are now using this study to validate their claims that the original Greeks were black.🥱


HLA alleles and haplotypes in Sudanese population and their relationship with Mediterraneans
- Fabio Suarez‑Trujillo...Antonio Arnaiz‑Villena
September 2023



Below from the article,
some results on the Sudanese as compared Nubian Sudanese in particular (also in the cluster chart, Figure 3, the blue oval shows non-Nubian Sudanese of the study showing close proximity to Jews and Siwa) compare to yellow oval:

Abstract
The contribution of migrated people from once green Sahara (about 10,000–6000 years BC) towards Mediterranean area had probably a double effect: both genetic and cultural connections have been described between Western Europe and North Africa. Sudanese populations from different ethnicities have been studied for HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 antigens by a standard microlymphotoxicity method.

Results found show that Nubians are genetically related with African Sub-Saharan populations and distant from other Sudanese tribes, who are closer to Mediterranean populations than to Sub-Saharan ones. This is concordant with other authors and meta-analysis data. Our present work is, to our knowledge, the first and only one HLA research that studies Sudanese people according to different Sudan ethnic groups: samples were collected before Sudan partition between North and South. A prehistoric genetic and peoples exchange between Africa and the Mediterranean basin may be observed and is supported with the results obtained in this Sudanese HLA study. However, demic diffusion model of agriculture and other anthropological traits from Middle East to West Europe/Maghreb do not exist: a more detailed Sahel and North African countries ancient and recent admixture studies are also being carried out which may clearer explain pastoralists/agriculture innovations origins in Eurafrican Mediterranean and Atlantic façade.




FIGURE 2

41598_2023_40173_Fig2_HTML.png

HLA-DRB1 dendrogram performed with Neighbour-Joining method showing genetic relatedness between Sudanese, Nubians, and other Mediterranean and Sub-Saharan populations. Genetic distances between populations were calculated with GNKDST software using low-resolution HLA-DRB1 frequencies. Bootstrap test showed values of 100 in all nodes after 1000 replicates.
Note that Greek HLA relatedness with Sahel populations was detected by two independent different groups4,5,16, 28 and it is also supported by other autosomal genetic markers for African and Greeks specifically (3120 + 1 G → A cystic fibrosis marker)29,30. HLA-DRB1 allele frequencies is used because of the best discrimination between populations among HLA loci (more or less relatedness) and the fact that almost all the populations in data bases are HLA-DRB1 typed


Figure 2 depicts a low-resolution class II (DRB1) neighbour-joining (NJ) tree constructed form genetic distances between populations (DA, Table 3). Its topology shows how compared populations cluster in two main branches: in general, western (both North African and Europeans) and other Mediterraneans group together respectively and tend to converge in the same node; in the other branch Greeks and Sub-Saharans tend to cluster together with Nubians, Fulani, Rimaibe and Mossi (as described before in5,1628 and with other genetic markers29,30. Our Sudanese studied group is placed especially close to most western Mediterraneans: North African (Algerians and Moroccans) and Iberians (Table 3). Genetic distance values (Table 3) give quantitative genetic distances and relatedness between populations and show that Turks are the closest to Sudanese population, followed by Egyptian-Bedouins and Iranians. Also, Mediterranean populations like Algerians, Moroccans, Spaniards and Italians are genetically close to Sudanese population studied in present work. Finally, Greeks and Sub-Saharans cluster together and behave as outgroups. In the same way, the correspondence analysis performed show again how Sudanese are placed within the eastern Mediterranean group, which is also related to the western one (Fig. 3). On the other hand, Nubians cluster together with Greeks and other black Sub-Saharan populations included in this work. Genetic distances between Nubians and our Sudanese mixed sample are similar to those among other Sub-Saharans (Oromo and Amhara) and Sudanese (Tables 3 and 4). These results in Greeks have been previously confirmed by different independent research groups and genes (see “Discussion” section).


FIGURE 3
41598_2023_40173_Fig3_HTML.png

Correspondence analysis performed with HLA-DRB1 allele frequencies of Sudanese sample studied in present work together with those of other Mediterranean and African populations included (see Table 1). Three different clusters are obtained from the analysis: for simplicity, cluster A (light blue), cluster B (dark blue) and cluster C (yellow/orange). Mixed Sudanese population analysed in this study appears together with other Mediterraneans like Turks, Iranians, Egyptians, Italians or Jews in the eastern-Mediterraneans cluster (cluster A, light blue). However, Sub-Saharan Sahelians (Fulani, Rimaibe, Mossi) and Nubians cluster together with Greeks and other African Sub-Saharan populations (cluster C, yellow/orange), as previously obtained by two independent groups4,5,16,28. Correspondence analysis supports the results previously obtained in the genetic distances analysis (DA) (Table 3) and NJ dendrogram (see Fig. 2). Italians have been chosen from North Italy6, a population that usually cluster with northern Balkan Peninsula or Central European groups.


Discussion
Sudanese HLA Mediterranean background
Our present study shows that Sudanese population is related to Mediterraneans like Turks (who are genetically Mediterraneans except because of an Asian “elite” imposed language18), Egyptians, Iranians, Algerians, Italians and Iberians. This is concordant with other North African, Middle East and Iberian HLA compilation study31 by using another methodology (high-resolution HLA typing). On the other hand, Greeks were found initially close to Sahel populations (Rimaibe, Mossi, Oromo, Amhara); it disconcerted us, and an allele-by-allele comparison was carried out between Greeks and Sub-Saharans to finally show that they both share some HLA alleles in common, confirming our phylogenetic results5,16.



It is well established that North Africans and southern Europeans are genetically related, and this may be due to a long lasting circum-Mediterranean cultural and genetic flow particularly during the last glacial peak4,35,36,37,38,39, being a secluded population between European North Ices and Desert. On the basis of our present day genetic and linguistic studies, we have postulated that many people coming from what is nowadays the Sahara Desert started to move towards East, West, North, and also South, being an important part of the primitive people stock of Sumerians, Egyptians, Guanches (Canary Islands), Iberians, Etruscan, Minoans, Anatolians (currently named Turks on only linguistic bases because they show a clear Mediterranean HLA profile)4, Kurds, and other islanders or northern Mediterraneans4,5,18,36,37,38,39. In the present work, HLA genetic background of Sudanese people from different ethnicities is studied, and results obtained in part confirm these North African-Mediterranean peoples (genes) exchange.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40173-x
 
This article takes genetics back 70 years. It's pure garbage. The problem is not the thesis behind it, but the approach it uses, which appears extremely outdated; here the authors seem totally lacking in knowledge of ancient history, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, and even in population genetics and archaeogenetics itself; this article uses as sources studies that are considered very controversial, such as those of Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, who is an immunologist who has produced a series of historical and linguistic genetics research that enjoy no consensus, and which are aligned with early Afrocentrism (Balck Athena). None of the major archaeogenetic and genetic studies that have come out in recent years are used as sources. In the curriculums of the main authors, Fabio Suarez-Trujillo, an immunologist, and likely a protegé of Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, and Sayda El-Safi, professor of microbiology and parasitology, there is no trace of specific training in these topics.

This paper uses obsolete terms as if the Mediterranean were a separate race or ethnic group from the rest of Europe, in the case of the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, Greeks. The French are also mentioned, but we know that they are on average a genetically typical population of central Europe. Putting all in the same cauldron ancient peoples who had different origins and spoke different languages, and even lived in some cases in different eras, such as Sumerians, Egyptians, Guanches, Iberians, Etruscans, Minoans, Anatolians... in complete contrast to all the archaeogenetic studies that have come out so far, is typical pseudoscience.

It sounds like an article that came out during Nazism, but with the opposite purpose. It is very bad for a journal like Nature to publish a study based on theories that are considered pseudoscientific. Nature shows that it is no longer a credible journal. It is not by publishing pseudoscientific studies that one fights racism against sub-Saharan populations. It only ends up fuelling racism.

Read the Wikipedia page on Antonio Arnaiz-Villena and you will understand.

 
This article takes genetics back 70 years. It's pure garbage. The problem is not the thesis behind it, but the approach it uses, which appears extremely outdated; here the authors seem totally lacking in knowledge of ancient history, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, and even in population genetics and archaeogenetics itself; this article uses as sources studies that are considered very controversial, such as those of Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, who is an immunologist who has produced a series of historical and linguistic genetics research that enjoy no consensus, and which are aligned with early Afrocentrism (Balck Athena). None of the major archaeogenetic and genetic studies that have come out in recent years are used as sources. In the curriculums of the main authors, Fabio Suarez-Trujillo, an immunologist, and likely a protegé of Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, and Sayda El-Safi, professor of microbiology and parasitology, there is no trace of specific training in these topics.

This paper uses obsolete terms as if the Mediterranean were a separate race or ethnic group from the rest of Europe, in the case of the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, Greeks. The French are also mentioned, but we know that they are on average a genetically typical population of central Europe. Putting all in the same cauldron ancient peoples who had different origins and spoke different languages, and even lived in some cases in different eras, such as Sumerians, Egyptians, Guanches, Iberians, Etruscans, Minoans, Anatolians... in complete contrast to all the archaeogenetic studies that have come out so far, is typical pseudoscience.

It sounds like an article that came out during Nazism, but with the opposite purpose. It is very bad for a journal like Nature to publish a study based on theories that are considered pseudoscientific. Nature shows that it is no longer a credible journal. It is not by publishing pseudoscientific studies that one fights racism against sub-Saharan populations. It only ends up fuelling racism.

Read the Wikipedia page on Antonio Arnaiz-Villena and you will understand.


I'm well aware of Arnaiz-Villena and his flawed and deceptive methodology, as well as the fact that his paper was dismissed by actual geneticists. However, my concern, like yours, is that Nature published this useless and fraudulent DNA paper in 2023, which is being interpreted as verification or validation of Arnaiz-Villena's conclusions that Greeks cluster with SSAs. The point is, that Nature is the world's most prestigious multidisciplinary science journal. Moreover, Nature has a reputation for publishing the best peer-reviewed research, which leads to ground-breaking discoveries. Hence when discussing with Afrocentrists and explaining that this paper is flawed and misleading, they replied that Arnaiz Villena's finding were confirmed by Nature on 2023 and that I can't argue against DNA and scientists.

Anyway, this is yet another example of why scientific literacy is important and why scientists do not deserve blind trust.
 
I just found this. Abstract (the choice for bold letters is mine) - I"m not ure I understood well.

Tracking human migrations by the analysis of the distribution of HLA alleles, lineages and haplotypes in closed and open populations​

Marcelo A. Fernandez Vina,1,* Jill A. Hollenbach,2 Kirsten E. Lyke,3 Marcelo B. Sztein,3 Martin Maiers,4 William Klitz,5 Pedro Cano,6 Steven Mack,2 Richard Single,7 Chaim Brautbar,8,9 Shosahna Israel,9 Eduardo Raimondi,10 Evelyne Khoriaty,11 Adlette Inati,12 Marco Andreani,13 Manuela Testi,13 Maria Elisa Moraes,14 Glenys Thomson,15 Peter Stastny,16 and Kai Cao17
Author information Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer

Beginning!
Go to:

Abstract​

The human leucocyte antigen (HLA) system shows extensive variation in the number and function of loci and the number of alleles present at any one locus. Allele distribution has been analysed in many populations through the course of several decades, and the implementation of molecular typing has significantly increased the level of diversity revealing that many serotypes have multiple functional variants. While the degree of diversity in many populations is equivalent and may result from functional polymorphism(s) in peptide presentation, homogeneous and heterogeneous populations present contrasting numbers of alleles and lineages at the loci with high-density expression products. In spite of these differences, the homozygosity levels are comparable in almost all of them. The balanced distribution of HLA alleles is consistent with overdominant selection. The genetic distances between outbred populations correlate with their geographical locations; the formal genetic distance measurements are larger than expected between inbred populations in the same region. The latter present many unique alleles grouped in a few lineages consistent with limited founder polymorphism in which any novel allele may have been positively selected to enlarge the communal peptide-binding repertoire of a given population. On the other hand, it has been observed that some alleles are found in multiple populations with distinctive haplotypic associations suggesting that convergent evolution events may have taken place as well. It appears that the HLA system has been under strong selection, probably owing to its fundamental role in varying immune responses. Therefore, allelic diversity in HLA should be analysed in conjunction with other genetic markers to accurately track the migrations of modern humans.
Keywords:
histocompatibility, HLA, migrations, selection, convergent evolution, diversification
 
their overdominant selection seems favouring heterozygoty, not homozygoty
 

I did quick search on research on HLA. This paper is from South Africa where he compared those of African ancestry, European and mixed-ethnicity. Interesting, of the most 4 common variants of the HLA found in African populations and European, 1 of the 4 variants is the most common in both African and European descent populations.

To use HLA to form genetic relationships across populations when we have Y and mtdna, which itself is limited and should always be used with autosomal (Full genome) analysis is a joke. However, it can serve a purpose in that identifying common alleles on the HLA can help better predict disease and the ability of organ donations across ethnic groups, which often times is a problem to find matches for organ donation. So on that point, the research is helpful, in terms of modeling ancestry of populations in is BS. We have ancient DNA, both Y and mtdna and full genome analysis, from both Minoans and Myceneans published in 2 papers Lazaridis et al 2017 "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans" (Nature Vol 548) and Lazaridis et al 2022 "A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia" (Science 377).
 
I agree.
This sentance below shows IMO we have to be very cautious when tryingo to show some interpopualtions connections whith only ALH
.On the other hand, it has been observed that some alleles are found in multiple populations with distinctive haplotypic associations suggesting that convergent evolution events may have taken place as well. It appears that the HLA system has been under strong selection, probably owing to its fundamental role in varying immune responses.
 
Arnaiz-Villena et al. published five scientific articles, where, among other claims, they concluded that the Greek population originates from Sub-Saharan Africa and do not cluster with other Mediterraneans.[8][14][15][16][17] The explanation they offered is that a large number of Sub-Saharans had migrated to Greece (but not to Crete) during Minoan times,[8][14][15][16] i.e. predating both Classical and Mycenaean Greece. Those conclusions were related to the "Black Athena" debate and became embroiled in disputes between Greek and ethnic Macedonian nationalists.[18]

Not only is this totally nonsensical, but the truth of the matter is that Greeks were the single most important vector for spreading bronze age Anatolian DNA around the N. Mediterranean to unify its ancestry. If we are to apply an identity concept of a "Mediterranean Race" to populations of Southern Europe, such as what Villena is doing, the influence of the Greek colonization between the bronze and iron age was instrumental in homogenizing the genetic cline of Italy and the rest of the Balkans in the ancient world. To attempt to claim that these same Greeks are now simultaneously unrelated to Southern Europe and instead are closer related to Subsaharan Africans (who in reality they share 0 ancestry with) is nothing short of comedic garbage.

I still remain waiting for the day for when afrocentricists, nordicists, MENA centricists and multicultural fetishists will leave Southern Europeans alone instead of trying to write a new history/prehistory with their own flavor of delusion.
 
Just a thought to the Mods. Shouldn't this paper be more appropriately placed in the Medical Genetics sub-Forum since the study does not analyze full genomes or neither Y/mtdna Haplogroups, both of which have their own sub-Forums.

Cheers
 
I still remain waiting for the day for when afrocentricists, nordicists, MENA centricists and multicultural fetishists will leave Southern Europeans alone instead of trying to write a new history/prehistory with their own flavor of delusion.

Agreed, Vitruvius. Nordicists including the white supremacists, of course.
 
It's obviously nonsense but I wonder what the Minoans looked like. Greeks today are fairly dark skinned for Europeans and that is after substantial input from Albanians and Slavs, you can imagine ancient Greeks were darker skinned than Greeks of today

ANF had mostly olive skin, some had light skin and some had brown and Minoans would have been like this without any blue eyes or light hair which you see in some Greeks today
 
I still remain waiting for the day for when afrocentricists, nordicists, MENA centricists and multicultural fetishists will leave Southern Europeans alone instead of trying to write a new history/prehistory with their own flavor of delusion.
To me it is kind of strange, almost politically suspicious, that any possible "exotic"/non European element concerning past and present Southern Europeans is so much amplified in studies and forum discussions (see the "Near Eastern" ancient Romans dug up near Rome, for example, apparently enough to determine that ancient Romans from Central Italy were genetically Near Easterners).

Maybe it's the jealous R1b U106 speaking here... I say jealous because my deep ancestry seems to be constantly downplayed in Italy, even by my own countrymen who seem more willing to accept a large population of Near Eastern Romans than any Northern European genetic input.
 
To me it is kind of strange, almost politically suspicious, that any possible "exotic"/non European element concerning past and present Southern Europeans is so much amplified in studies and forum discussions (see the "Near Eastern" ancient Romans dug up near Rome, for example, apparently enough to determine that ancient Romans from Central Italy were genetically Near Easterners).

Maybe it's the jealous R1b U106 speaking here... I say jealous because my deep ancestry seems to be constantly downplayed in Italy, even by my own countrymen who seem more willing to accept a large population of Near Eastern Romans than any Northern European genetic input.
"Fellows in Civilization" I guess, as opposed to those dirty Northern Barbarians who screwed them over militarily in late antiquity.
 
"Fellows in Civilization" I guess, as opposed to those dirty Northern Barbarians who screwed them over militarily in late antiquity.

Shouldn't it be a case of Roman empire becoming weaker after influx of "near eastern" immigrants? Romans were sweeping everyone aside in iron age and early AD but then gradually declined after the near eastern influx (especially after introducing Christianity) losing many wars and lands to "barbaric" northern and eastern European people. I don't know if focusing on Christianity or bringing in too many near eastern immigrants was the main cause but both things may have unsettled the locals
 
Last edited:
"Fellows in Civilization" I guess, as opposed to those dirty Northern Barbarians who screwed them over militarily in late antiquity.
If that is the case, probably it's time for them to move on... Supposedly being "fellows in civilizations" (assuming Roman civilization had anything in common with the other eastern Mediterranean civilizations bar the Greek, mostly copied because it was deemed "fashionable") does not make them genetically similar.
 
This is Spanish science. At least Ancient Greeks believed Nubians were good-looking though. Our gods liked them too.
 
Shouldn't it be a case of Roman empire becoming weaker after influx of "near eastern" immigrants? Romans were sweeping everyone aside in iron age and early AD but then gradually declined after the near eastern influx (especially after introducing Christianity) losing many wars and lands to "barbaric" northern and eastern European people. I don't know if focusing on Christianity or bringing in too many near eastern immigrants was the main cause but both things may have unsettled the locals
Nope, the Romans expanded beyond defendable borders and most of the Legions were no longer Roman but composed almost exclusively of mercenaries which meant heavy taxes on the populace.
 
To me it is kind of strange, almost politically suspicious, that any possible "exotic"/non European element concerning past and present Southern Europeans is so much amplified in studies and forum discussions (see the "Near Eastern" ancient Romans dug up near Rome, for example, apparently enough to determine that ancient Romans from Central Italy were genetically Near Easterners).

Maybe it's the jealous R1b U106 speaking here... I say jealous because my deep ancestry seems to be constantly downplayed in Italy, even by my own countrymen who seem more willing to accept a large population of Near Eastern Romans than any Northern European genetic input.
The chief problem is the convergence of ignorance from groups of multitudes of ideological backgrounds that take interest in Southern European ethnography specifically for the reason of post validating their preexisting belief system. It's pretty easily broken down:

Nordicists will attempt to postulate the great civilizations of the mediterranean as genetically central or northern european and characterize their decline or fall as the result of southern genetic introgression. They will simultaneously characterize modern nationals of these lands as "race-mixed" and unakin to their predecessors which lead great empires.

Afrocentrists & MENAcentricsts will do the same, but simply replace ideas of nordic origin with their own racial groups.

Multiculuralists will attempt to characterize the great civilizations as causally driven by diverse mass immigration from the near east to further a narrative that genetic diversity is desirable under the guise of legitimizing the modern phenomenon of mass global migration to Europe, Australia and North America.

In the modern, liberalized and politically fractured world the idea of population continuity in southern europe to modern times is a hated and spat upon idea in the public sphere and media, but it is simultaneously the best supported scenario via archaeology, geneaology and historicity. That is not to say there were 0 introgressions or population movements in the ancient world, however the movements that did occur were much less "diverse" or "extreme" than what is claimed by these groups and more importantly they were limited to the northern mediterranean geography. The idea of a nordic, african, slavic and/or levantine mass population movements into southern europe relative to the preexisting populations is little more than ideologically motivated slander. The idea of the ancient Romans, Etruscans and Greeks deriving their origins from any of these groups is likewise the same.
 
Shouldn't it be a case of Roman empire becoming weaker after influx of "near eastern" immigrants? Romans were sweeping everyone aside in iron age and early AD but then gradually declined after the near eastern influx (especially after introducing Christianity) losing many wars and lands to "barbaric" northern and eastern European people. I don't know if focusing on Christianity or bringing in too many near eastern immigrants was the main cause but both things may have unsettled the locals
Rome's expansion peaked in 117 AD during the early empire. This was the most militarily dominant period of its history and it is estimated that the empire fielded 400,000 regular professional Italian drawn legionaries to maintain control over 33% of the world's population.
Nope, the Romans expanded beyond defendable borders and most of the Legions were no longer Roman but composed almost exclusively of mercenaries which meant heavy taxes on the populace.
It has already been studied and evidenced that Rome's military remained majority Italian derived up until about 200AD. The reason for this is pretty obvious. The Edict of Caracalla was put into effect 212AD at which point most free inhabitants of the empire could enlist as legionaries. Citizenship prior to this point was nearly exclusive to Italians living in Italy and the descendents of Italians living in veteran colonies with few exceptions.

On this topic the decline of the empire in terms of military strength occurred precisely during this time period as seats of power began to move eastward and with the ascendance of barbarian emperors who took their seats of power through civil wars funded by mass monetary inflation. This also coincided with the same period which decoupled Rome's national interests to Italy and broadened its citizenry body to the rest of the empire, eventually leading to barbarian incursions and barbarian control of Italy, itself. The Roman Italy that "lost" such wars to the barbarians on its borders was one that was practically undefended and seriously neglected by the ruling Byzantine class of its since co-opted empire.

In contrast the Romans during the Iron age they were a small war like city state that was seen as mostly insignificant by the much larger and more powerful Etruscan and Greek city states of the day. Their competitive advantage was that they were willing to assimilate the Italics they conquered which allowed them to swell their numbers rapidly as they consistantly made oppurtunistic wars of expansion. They only really became a large regional power in Italy after the Pyrrhic Wars (275BC), and they only became dominant in the western Mediterranean after the Second Punic War (201BC). So if you're looking to pinpoint a date in which Rome became an international heavy hitter, the iron age is not it. You're looking at a period that comprises roughly the last half of the republic and the first half of the principate (275BC-200AD).
 
Nope, the Romans expanded beyond defendable borders and most of the Legions were no longer Roman but composed almost exclusively of mercenaries which meant heavy taxes on the populace.

But why did they pay mercenaries? Because the locals refused to fight for Rome after imposing Christianity and bringing in migrants from near east?
 

This thread has been viewed 2734 times.

Back
Top