posted
NOTE: The video is in arabic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEW8RdrhG9M&feature=player_embedded Professor 3umr 3bdulaziz Al zaid says that in his opinion Haplotype J is semitic however the haplotype E is the oldest Arabian Haplotype and all Haplotypes come from Africa and E has been in the Arabian peninsula before J and Ibrahim. He said that A and B cultivated in Africa then spread to east africa(where the rest of the haplogroups formed) and from there to the rest of the world. best to start at 27:00 but he said it around 27:54 The professor said that they have people in the peninsula till this very day who carry the E. haplotype
The Explorer Member # 14778
posted
Although some estimates have the common ancestor of the haplogroup J emerge somewhat closer to [but younger] the age range of hg E, if not closer to those of the M78 and M2 sub-clades of the P2 clade according to other sources, hg J1 which is the most frequent J haplogroup among Arab-speaking populations of the Arabian plate, is generally estimated to have undergone its earliest significant expansions close to the dawn of the Holocene in the Arabian region. This would have been after M35 hg E carriers made their way into the Arabian plate in the late Upper Paleolithic. It therefore goes without saying, that hg E M215 sub-clades had been established in that region long before the genesis of Arabic as a distinct phylum. Logically, the hg E bearers were primarily responsible for the Semitic identity of hg J1 Arabian populations, since the latter are primarily Semitic speakers. So, with respect to al Zaid's opinion about haplotype J being "Semitic", it would be more accurate to say that thanks to E bearers, haplogroup J bearers became "Semitic".
Diversity by distance simulations have generally noted either two locations of possible centers of human origins: near Southern Africa or eastern Africa. That might implicitly determine the direction of expansions of deep-root clades like hgs A and B.
alurubenson Member # 12885
posted
quote:It therefore goes without saying, that hg E M215 sub-clades had been established in that region long before the genesis of Arabic as a distinct phylum.
what makes u think the carriers were not arabic speakers.
The Explorer Member # 14778
posted
It's simple. Although Arabic is part of the Semitic phylogeny, Arabic itself looks to have emerged somewhere on the Arabian plate, instead of the parental home of Semitic--aka Africa. However, for Arabic to develop in the first place, proto-Semitic of some form would have had to have been available. Proto-Semitic would have been brought into the region for the first time by hg E carriers, as evidenced by the bulk of "Afro-Asiatic" phylum's diversity concentrated in African populations where hg E is fairly frequent. Semitic is the ONLY "Afro-Asiatic" branch in the Arabian plate. Therefore, hg J carriers in Arabia should best be viewed as folks acculturated to speak Semitic.
In other words: Arabs would not exist, had it not been for hg E carriers in the region!
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^^ This fits in with the historical reality of 'Arabization' or non-indigenous groups becoming Arabized or assimilating (many could argue co-opting) somewhat into the original Arabian culture upon entering the Arabian peninsula from the north.
alurubenson Member # 12885
posted
quote:It's simple. Although Arabic is part of the Semitic phylogeny, Arabic itself looks to have emerged somewhere on the Arabian plate, instead of the parental home of Semitic--aka Africa. However, for Arabic to develop in the first place, proto-Semitic of some form would have had to have been available. Proto-Semitic would have been brought into the region for the first time by hg E carriers, as evidenced by the bulk of "Afro-Asiatic" phylum's diversity concentrated in African populations where hg E is fairly frequent. Semitic is the ONLY "Afro-Asiatic" branch in the Arabian plate. Therefore, hg J carriers in Arabia should best be viewed as folks acculturated to speak Semitic. [Wink]
In other words: Arabs would not exist, had it not been for hg E carriers in the region!
i see u now
Manu Member # 18974
posted
Current Y-DNA dates are not very stable, they fluctuate around depending on density of markers. In the near future when complete Y-DNA sequences are utilized the dates should be much more reliable.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ True, however the archaeological as well as historical data is compelling and supports the genetic data-- both Y-DNA and Mitochondrial-DNA.
The Explorer Member # 14778
posted
quote:Originally posted by Manu:
Current Y-DNA dates are not very stable, they fluctuate around depending on density of markers. In the near future when complete Y-DNA sequences are utilized the dates should be much more reliable.
If by "density", you are referring to internal diversity of clades under study, then yes, that can affect the coalescence age of a clade. Internal diversity can in turn be affected by the sample size. This can be placated by "reproducibility" of findings across recurrent studies on a marker. In the case of J1, study after study generally place J1 markers in the Arabian plate at around the early Holocene (from little over 11 ky ago on-wards) expansion time frames. This is so, keeping in mind that sometimes more recent expansion events mask much older ones, particularly when a founder effect event dramatically expands the distribution of an otherwise previously rare clade/sub-clade.
astenb Member # 14524
posted
This is kinda old news. We have been hypothesizing that V-22 and or E-M123 = proto-semites for a years.
posted ![[Wink]](wink.gif)