Talk:Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Genetics This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of genetic genealogy, genetics-based population history, and associated theory and methods. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is part of WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-Importance within African diaspora.

Partially Copied from Talk:White (people)/Archive 3#Sub-Saharan admixture in Europe

Contents

[edit] Complaint

NEARLY ALL THE STUDIES CITED HERE ARE INCORRECT AND SOME ARE HIGHLY DUBIOUS.

The only studies indicating Sub-Shahran ORIGINS for any European group is the University of Madrid article of 2004. Greeks are the only Europeans confirmed with Sub-Saharan ORIGINS (from Ethiopia, essentialy), and the figures are low. The percentages engendered for non-origin admixture for Portugal are far to high (the range is more like 2.0 to 3.0) and far too low for Sicily, closer to 4.0...Read people...read legitimate research please! Rediculous!

[edit] Sub-Saharan admixture in Europe

The information on sub-Saharan African admixture in Europe is inaccurate. Only Portugal has up to 8% L mtDNA (Holland and Belgium may also, but no definitive data is available [1]). Italy and Spain have <3% and Greece has none at all, making those countries no different from Britain, France, Germany and others in this respect. Here's a source listing the L sequences found in various European populations: Pereira et al. (2005). The information on sub-Saharan Y-DNA on this discussion page is also wrong. No Y-chromosome proposed to be of black slave or other Negroid derivation has ever been detected in Sicily or Greece. Small Victory

The link cited above goes to a notoriously ideological web page, whose mission is to deny African admixture in modern Europeans. For one thing, it fraudulently claims that several of the following studies have been retracted. The following, in contrast, are scholarly, peer-reviewed sources:
For Sicily, see:
The following use mtDNA, Y, and autosomal markers to illuminate hemoglobin:
  • S.G. Sandler et al., "Blood group phenotypes and the origin of sickle cell hemoglobin in Sicilians," Acta Haematologica 1978;60(6):350-7.
  • G. Schiliro et al., "Presence of hemoglobinopathies in Sicily: a historic perspective," American Journal of Medical Genetics, 1997 Mar 17;69(2):200-6.
  • G. Schiliro et al., "Clinical, hematological, and molecular features in Sicilians with sickle cell disease," Hemoglobin, 1992;16(6):469-80.
  • E.F.R. Roth et al., "Sickle cell disease in Sicily," Journal of Medical Genetics, 1980 Feb;17(1):34-8.
  • A. Ragusa, et al., "Beta S gene in Sicily is in linkage disequilibrium with the Benin haplotype: implications for gene flow," American Journal of Hematology 1988 Feb;27(2):139-41.
  • G.R. Serjeant, "The geography of sickle cell disease: opportunities for understanding its diversity," Annals of Saudi Medicine, 27 November 1993.
  • M. Travi et al., "Molecular characterization of hemoglobin C in Sicily," American Journal of Hematology, 1992 Jan;39(1):5-8.
  • F. Cataldo, et al., "Evidence of Negro origin of HbC in Sicily," Haematologica, 1987 Jan-Feb;72(1):95-6.
The following use mtDNA, Y, and autosomal markers to trace ancestry.
  • R.E. Bernstein, "'African' genetic markers in Sicilians," Acta Haematologica 1980;63(3):174-5.
  • P. Sammarco et al., "Evidence of the African origin of sickle cell hemoglobin in western Sicily," Hemoglobin, 1988;12(2):193-6.
  • A. Ragusa, et al., "Presence of an African beta-globin gene cluster haplotype in normal chromosomes in Sicily," American Journal of Hematology 1992 Aug;40(4):313-5.
  • O. Semino et al., "Mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms in Italy. III. Population data from Sicily: a possible quantitation of maternal African ancestry," Annals of Human Genetics, 1989 May;53 ( Pt 2):193-202.
  • C.M. Calo et al., "Genetic analysis of a Sicilian population using 15 short tandem repeats," Human Biology, Apr 2003.
  • M.E. Ghiani et al., "New data on the genetic structure of the population of Sicily: analysis of the Alia population (Palermo, Italy)," American Journal of Human Biology, 2002 May-Jun;14(3):289-99.
The following specifically look at Y:
  • Z.H. Rosser et al., "Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language," American Journal of Human Genetics, 67:1526-1543, 2000.
  • M.E. Ghiani et al., "Y-chromosome 10 locus short tandem repeat haplotypes in a population sample from Sicily Italy," Legal Medicine, 2004 Apr;6(2):89-96.
  • G. Lucotte et al., "Y-chromosome haplotypes in Corsica," Comptes Rendus Biologies, 2002 Mar;325(3):191-6.
For Greece:
  • A. Arnaiz-Villena et al., "HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks," Tissue Antigens, 2001 Feb;57(2):118-27.
  • M. Boussiou et al.' "The origin of the sickle mutation in Greece; evidence from beta S globin gene cluster polymorphisms," Hemoglobin. 1991;15(6):459-67.
  • F. Di Giacomo et al., "Clinal patterns of human Y chromosomal diversity in continental Italy and Greece are dominated by drift and founder effects," Molecular phylogenetics and evolution, 2003 Sep;28(3):387-95.
Again, I urge anyone interested in this topic to read the articles for themselves at [2]. Frank W Sweet 16:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

TRANSLATION: You have no sources pointing to L mtDNA in Greece or Negroid Y-DNA in Greece and Sicily, so you desperately compiled a list of old blood group and off-topic studies in a transparent attempt to cover your lies. And btw, not a single one of those studies uses autosomal DNA. Time to go back to Population Genetics 101. Here's where autosomal analyses place Greeks, Italians and Iberians in relation to Africans: [3] [4] [5] [6]

HLA polymorphismams are autosomal! Alu variations are autosomal! Even the isolated principal-component diagrams that you link to in the above sentence, are autosomal! Do you even know what "autosomal" means? Here is a direct quotation from the Arnaiz-Villena article that used HLA (autosomal on chromosome #5):

Greeks are genetically related to sub-Saharans.
Much to our surprise, the reason why Greeks did not show a close relatedness with all the other Mediterraneans analyzed was their genetic relationship with sub-Saharan ethnic groups now residing in Ethiopia, Sudan, and West Africa (Burkino-Fasso). Although some Greek DRB1 alleles are not completely specific of the Greek/sub-Saharan sharing, the list of alleles is self-explanatory. The conclusion is that part of the Greek genetic pool may be sub-Saharan and that the admixture has occurred at an uncertain but ancient time.
The origin of the West African Black ethnic groups (Fulani, Mossi, and Rimaibe sampled in Burkina-Fasso) is probably Ethiopian. The Fulani are semi-nomadic hunters and gatherers and one of the few people in the area to use cows' milk and its by-products to feed themselves and to trade; their facial parameters show a Caucasian admixture. The Rimaibe Blacks had been slaves belonging to the Fulani and have frequently mixed with them. The Nuba people are now widespread all over Sudan, but are descendants of the ancient Nubians that ruled Egypt between 8th-7th centuries B.C. and later established their kingdom at Meroe, North Khartoum. Two kinds of Nubians were described in ancient times: Reds and Blacks, probably reflecting the degree of Caucasian admixture. Both the Oromo and Amharic peoples live in the Ethiopian mountains. They obviously have in common a genetic background with the west-African groups mentioned above. Linguistic, social, traditional, and historical evidence supports an east-to-west migration of peoples through the Sahel (southern Sahara strip), although this is still debated.
Thus, it is hypothesized that there could have been a migration from southern Sahara which mixed with ancient Greeks to give rise to a part of the present day Greek genetic background. The admixture must have occurred in the Aegean Islands and Athens area at least. The reason why this admixture is not seen in Crete is unclear but may be related to the influential and strong Minoan empire which hindered foreigners' establishment. Also, the time when admixture occurred could be after the overthrow of some of the Negroid Egyptian dynasties (Nubian or from other periods) or after undetermined natural catastrophes (i.e.: dryness). Indeed, ancient Greeks believed that their religion and culture came from Egypt. -- Frank W Sweet 13:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Y: again, many recent studies have reported on such sub-Saharan Y chromosome haplotypes as E-M35* in Sicily and Greece. Two recent ones are F. Cruciani et al., "Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa," Am J Hum Genet. May 2004; 74(5): 1014–1022; and O. Semino et al., "Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area," Am J Hum Genet. May 2004; 74(5): 1023–1034. What would it take to convince you that these people are not making it up? -- Frank W Sweet 09:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't change the paragraph on sub-Saharan admixture to reflect reality, I will. ---- Small Victory

And someone will revert it, of course. You cannot remove material citing scholarly peer-reviewed scientific sources without citing refuting scholarly peer-reviewed sources, just because you have an idealogical dislike for their findings. Links to an idealogical website are simply not credible. Such insistence on ignoring real sources would be in violation of WP:NOR. -- Frank W Sweet 09:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course the sources I referenced are autosomal studies (learn how to read), but the ones you listed are not. They're single-locus analyses, and therefore of very little value (especially the one using the HLA-DRB1 locus [7]). E-M35* is a subclade of E3b, which is not "sub-Saharan." It's East African and prehistoric. No research has ever linked it to black slaves or other Negroid peoples. And anyway, Cruciani and Semino detected it only in Sicilians, and at a rate of just 1.6% (3/191). The Y-DNA marker that's Negroid-affiliated is E(xE3b), which has never been detected in either Sicily or Greece. The paragraph on sub-Saharan admixture falsely claims that all southern Europeans have 4-8% L mtDNA. Those figures apply only to Portugal. Italy and Spain have <3% and Greece has zero. Furthermore, many northern Europeans have similar levels of L. The data needs to be corrected...and it will be. ---- Small Victory Of course there is sub-Saharan admixture in Europe. There is sub-Saharan, above-Saharan, Asian etc. And of course, there is nothing wrong with that. We are richer because of that. Just browse well the Haplogroups of Europe. HCC.

These figures are so distorted that it borders on the ludicrous. The incredible thing is that the statistics have been twisted so badly that the percentages are higher for some peoples than they should be and lower for others. There are tiny amounts of negroid traces in many European cultures, but most incidences have nothing to do with race mixing. I hardly trust the samples put forward here. The whole article is most suspect and a waste of time.

Mr. Logic

[edit] Trans-Saharan slave trade into Europe

Where does the figure of 8 million slaves imported to Europe come from? That sounds very high. JWB 03:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

See the main article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe where it is footnoted as: Pier M. Larson, "Reconsidering Trauma, Identity, and the African Diaspora: Enslavement and Historical Memory in Nineteenth-Century Highland Madagascar," William and Mary Quarterly 56, no. 2 (1999): 335-62. Larson, in turn, got it from the hugely detailed Appendix in Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997). Thomas, in turn, has a chapter-long bibliographical essay explaining all the sources that he used. Since 1997, Thomas is the best source for slave trade statistics. -- Frank W Sweet 04:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking at Hugh Thomas's book via amazon.com's Search Inside feature. Appendix 3 estimates slaves delivered to Europe (including Portugal, Madeira, Azores, Canary Islands, etc.) at 200,000.--JWB 04:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that you are right. Eight million is too high and Larson could not have gotten the number from Thomas. Check out footnote 3 on page 336 of The Larson Article. Apparently, the 8 million is the total transported north across the Sahara to the Mediterranean coast. But most of these apparently stayed in North Africa and were not sold on the north (European) coast. In fact, another source mentioned in the footnote puts the total trans-Saharan volume at only four million. -- Frank W Sweet 12:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The footnote points to [8] but Amazon does not provide Search Inside for this book, so I can't easily trace it back further. 8 or even 4 million still sounds like a high figure, comparable to the whole population of the Maghreb in premodern times. If 4-8 million slaves left any significant number of descendants, the present Maghreb population would likely have more sub-Saharan genetic heritage. On the other hand, if the trans-Saharan trade is assumed to have gone on for 1 or 2 millenia, the average yearly figure could be as little as 2000 slaves. It is likely that someone started with a yearly estimate such as this and extrapolated, something which can quickly lead to error, as I've seen with estimates of "the number of humans who have ever lived". Many slaves were used to work the salt mines in the middle of the Sahara itself and would not have left any descendants farther north, if at all. In any case, the passage "the eight million taken to Europe" in Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe is quite misleading and needs to be change. Actually, during most of the Islamic period, the predominant direction of the slave trade across the Mediterreanean was south, not north.--JWB 22:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 8 million

Frank, thanks for making the change to the 8m to Europe figure. One more minor point though, Thomas's 200k to Europe estimate was for the Atlantic slave trade, not the Saharan trade. I haven't seen any actual estimates for Saharan slaves going to Europe yet. I think the number is likely to be quite low as this was not an economical way to obtain labor in medieval Europe. Also, about "unimodal DNA admixture scatter diagrams"; this is more true in some places than others. I think it is a fairly good description in Mexico. Brazil probably has a flatter diagram and I would not be surprised to see more than one (low) peak. Columbia has an isolated black community on the west coast and surely has a peak associated with it.--JWB 18:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E3b

The section seems a little off. The figures I've seen for Greece are much higher than 0.27%, and the "5%" black admixture in N. Africa seems way off. E3b in the Maghreb is found at between 70-80%, not 5%. See, e.g. Semino et al. 2004. See here, Table 1. The figures for Greece are above 20%, for instance. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E3b is not "sub-Saharan" in the sense of this article

The E3b clade that exists in Europe originated there, and is not present at all in sub-Saharan Africa. Its predecessors left East Africa for West Asia and then traveled to Europe in prehistory, following the same pattern observed with every other now European haplogroup. Hence, it isn't a marker of sub-Saharan African admixture, but rather of ancient Out of Africa migrations. So I've removed that whole section, which doesn't belong in this article. I've also removed the strange quote inserted inappropriately into the Footnotes. Small Victory

Of course E3b is sub-Saharan in nature. The E3b clades found in Europe are merely subsets of a clade that originated elsewhere, not completely independent lineages. It is nowhere near on the same level as the Out of Africa migrations, having entered Europe only in the Neolithic. Its origin in sub-Saharan is clear to all.
  • For E3, "Both phylogeography and microsatellite variance suggest that E-P2 and its derivative, E-M35, probably originated in eastern Africa. This inference is further supported by the presence of additional Hg E lineal diversification and by the highest frequency of E-P2* and E-M35* in the same region" (Semino et al. 2004).
  • For E3b, "An estimate of 25.6 ky for the TMRCA was obtained for the haplogroup E3b, which most likely originated in Eastern Africa" (Cruciani et al. 2004).
  • For E3b1, "The frequency of haplogroup E3b1* in Somali males is the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup" (Sanchez et al. 2005).No researcher believes anything other than the fact that E3, E3b, and E3b1 all derived in East Africa (in sub-Saharan Africa). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Every genetic marker on earth is descended from other markers that originated elsewhere, ultimately tracing back to East Africa. That's not the same thing as "sub-Saharan admixture". We already had this discussion in the E3b article's talk page: Talk:Haplogroup E3b (Y-DNA). You were wrong there, and you're wrong here too. Small Victory

If you're going to play that route, then this article wouldn't exist, merely stating that 100% of European lineages are African. Clearly we are able to distinguish from genes that are associated with the original exit out of Africa and genes that arrived later on the scene. E3b unquestionably is of later, Neolithic origin in Europe, and the presence of the gene should be noted. What we were talking about on the E3b page was of specific lineages, which, no matter how hard you try, cannot be removed from their original East African origin. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
For a gene to serve as evidence of sub-Saharan admixture, and therefore be eligible for mention in this article, it has to have originated, and be present, in sub-Saharan Africa. E-M78α originated in Europe and is only present there. Hence, it can't possibly denote admixture from sub-Saharan Africa. Period. ---- Small Victory
So if a sub-Saharan with E-M78 has an offspring by a European, and the offspring gets the E-M78 derived haplotype E-M78α by way of a small mutation, the offspring has no sub-Saharan derived DNA? Give me a break, the origin of the larger clade is in sub-Saharan Africa and the admixture is of Neolithic origin; that a few of the sub-clades are found only in Europe doesn't change the sub-Saharan origin. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I can see you have trouble following simple logic. Using your example, if a sub-Saharan with E-M78 had offspring with a European, that offspring could not possibly get E-M78α because the alpha cluster is not present in any sub-Saharan populations. It's only present in Europeans. Therefore, E-M78α is not evidence of sub-Saharan ancestry. It can only be evidence of European ancestry. And the clusters of E-M78 are in fact completely independent lineages. A recent paper by Cruciani found that they each have membership in different unique event polymorphisms. The alpha cluster, which doesn't have an African origin, is monophyletic and corresponds almost perfectly to newly defined haplogroup E-V13 (see Table). Small Victory

Yom and Small Victory: this is becoming a revert war! Please find a reasonable way to present the problem of E3b! For instance, present the controversy... The Ogre 12:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not insult me Small Victory, your comment ("I can see you have trouble following simple logic.") violates WP:NPA. How about this. I have reinserted my information. Below it, present the case of why some people think that E3b cannot be used to determine sub-Saharan ancestry. E3b still unambiguously arose in sub-Saharan Africa (somewhere in the Horn of Africa most likely - East Africa in general), so to simply remove the information without comment would be POV. You didn't understand my analogy, by the way. E-M78α, assuming it represents a monophyletic group (supported in Hum Mutat. July 11, 2006;27(8):831-832, but still not yet certain), had to come from somewhere, and that could only be from an individual with E-M78*, who would have been either an African or someone with paternal African admixture. So regardless if all the different clusters each represent monophyletic groups, the origin of those groups would still be African. Going back to my example, let's say that an African with E-M78* procreates with a European without the haplotype, and that while their male offspring inherit E-M78*, one of them inherits it with mutations putting it in cluster α. The cluster (again assuming the cluster is representative of a monophyletic group) would stay localized due to the lack of back-migrations to Africa and remain in Europe, but would be representative of African admixture nonetheless as it is a sub-clade of Haplogroup E3b. That the haplogroup originated before the Neolithic is of no consequence, as it is nowhere near being similar to defining genes that are representative of the first migration out of Africa as representing African "admixture," since these genes were not present in the original exodus. The spread of E3b happened in waves, but the last one coming directly from Sub-Saharan Africa was still in the early Holocene (Keita et al. 2004), and migrations into Europe from populations resulting from the offspring of East African (largely) males and native North African and West Asian females was largely in the Neolithic. You are simply trying to pretend as if the ancestry doesn't exist because its of a particular haplotype that originated later from the original East African haplotype. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 00:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

@ The Ogre: That's just the thing. There isn't any problem or controversy with E3b. No geneticist considers it evidence of "sub-Saharan admixture" or labels it a "black" gene, because it originated in prehistory (~26,000 YBP) and followed a standard Out-of-Africa pattern of dispersal and mutation. There are a few amateurs on the web with Afrocentrist political beliefs who misrepresent the scientific findings, but their distortions hardly merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, Europeans have E-V13 and North Africans have E-M81, neither of which has a sub-Saharan African origin. Both originated in situ and are totally absent in sub-Saharan Africa, rendering the question of whether they represent sub-Saharan admixture completely moot. Geneticists use them to mark expansions from Europe and North Africa, respectively, not the other way around. Note also that the paragraph Yom keeps reinserting into this article was basically copied from the White people article where it's used to discuss North African admixture (major inconsistency). Finally, when we look at genetic structure via autosomal DNA or racial characteristics via craniometry, it's not Greeks, Italians or Spaniards who show sub-Saharan affinities, but rather Ethiopians and Somalis who show (quite substantial) European affinities. If E3b were "black" we would see the exact opposite. Hence, mentioning that haplogroup in an article on sub-Saharan admixture is just plain factually wrong and deliberately misleading. Small Victory

I have been checking the sources mentioned in this discussion and it seems to me that you are absolutely right Small Victory! Yom You seem to be defending a POV position that tries to enhance supposed Ethiopian contributions to the European gene pool - you are not being neutral! Small Victory I support your balanced position. The Ogre 14:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Small Victory, genes aren't labeled as "black" or "white," which are social categories separate from genetics. What geneticists do is attempt to ascribe genes a time, place, and population of origin. That E3b originated ca. 25.6 kya is of no consequence, because the haplotype stayed in East Africa for a while before it spread (e.g. East African versions of E-M78 didn't split off until about 14.7 kya (+/- 2.7 ky)). I'm not an Afrocentrist, so do not attempt to dismiss my views by your mischaracterizations. That Europeans have E-V13, a sub-clade of E3b, and North Africans E-M81, another sub-clade of E3b, is inconsequential, as these are both later developments after the haplotype had already entered the regions in question. As to the text I incorporated, yes I originally wrote it for the White people article, and then added it also here as it is relevant. In the header I used was "North and Northeast African," as some of the E3b made it to Europe as a result of more recent North African admixture, e.g. 5.5% (E3b) of Sicilian male lineages (as opposed to ~22% of Neolithic origin that are E3b). Now, with craniometry you are making a serious error. Do not link geneotype with phenotype. You assume that E3b is "Caucasoid" due to the craniofacial traits of the members of the haplogroup, but these lineages, while useful in measuring admixture, do not tell us what a population looks like. E.g. the Fulani, another "Elongated" African group (e.g. having little prognathism and long noses) carry 100% paternal E3a lineages, which is West African in origin. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Following agreement from The Ogre, I'm removing the E3b section from this article. If Yom wants it reinserted, he needs to quote a source that treats E-V13 and E-M81 as evidence of sub-Saharan African admixture. Otherwise, it makes no sense, especially in light of his own reference to E3b as North African in the White people article (which is also misleading, btw). Regarding craniometry, I've never seen the Fulani plotted in relation to other groups (nor their autosomal DNA structure). But no matter what, the fact remains that Ethiopians and Somalis are phenotypically and genetically related to Caucasoids, but Southern Europeans are not similarly related to blacks, which certainly puts a damper on the whole "E3b is sub-Saharan admixture" argument. ---- Small Victory

Just because one other person agrees with you does not mean that consensus has been reached. I never refered to E3b as "North African," either. The section at the white people article deals with both E3b haplotypes (East African) and other haplotypes of North African origin (e.g. U6, possibly, but not certainly representative of a back migration from Europe) in Europe. Fulanis group with East Africans skull-wise, but genetically carry 100% E3a lineages unrelated to anything found in Europeans (it is associated mostly with Senegalese and to a degree Bantu speakers in general, though the migration pattern of the gene doesn't fit the Bantu expansion). You cannot cite a discussion board for your arguments, by the way. The term "Caucasoid" is an outdated one, but yes, Ethiopians are related to European populations primarily due to the Neolithic revolution, which brought the E3b Haplogroup to Europe, along with the J haplogroup (both found in Ethiopia, especially the former, which is found at around 80% among Cushitic speaking groups). You cannot say that one population is simply related to another; relations are reciprocal. If you claim that Ethiopians are related to Southern Europeans (which they are, through E3b mainly, and in the east also by J), then the reverse is true: Southern Europeans are related to Ethiopians. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"Fulanis group with East Africans skull-wise"
Source?
"You cannot cite a discussion board for your arguments, by the way."
I didn't. I cited 12 peer-reviewed studies conveniently excerpted on a discussion board. But your attempt to evade the data has been noted.
"Ethiopians are related to European populations primarily due to the Neolithic revolution, which brought the E3b Haplogroup to Europe, along with the J haplogroup"
Incorrect. Ethiopians share 62% of their autosomal DNA with Norwegians, who have virtually no E3b or J. This ancestry separates Ethiopians from other sub-Saharan Africans. Greeks, Italians and Spaniards share none of their autosomal DNA with sub-Saharan Africans and are not at all separated from other Europeans. ---- Small Victory

[edit] Yom is violating Wikipedia policy

I recommend that disciplinary action be taken against Yom for repeatedly reverting to factual inaccuracies and POV that were removed following discussion and consensus. His position was proven to be incorrect and inconsistent, yet he simply ignores the contrary information and defies the verdict arrived at by other Wikipedia editors. ---- Small Victory

No, both of you have been edit warring. The materials that you've been deleting are supplied with sources, all published within the last 10 years & taken from the US Government PubMed database. On the other hand, you appear to have mustered arguments persuasive enough for one other reader (The Orge), so your opinions can't be quickly dismissed out of hand.
Speaking as an Admin, I suggest that if you want this edit war to end list this article under the appropriate topic at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, & enlist the interest of other disinterested editors. (I tried to verify who was doing the better job of representing the current academic discussion on this matter, but I soon found understanding the issue would take more time than I could devote to it.) I encourage both sides to furnish copious and reliable sources for their interpretation of the matter, & be willing to acknowledge that other side may actually deserve equal space in the article.
If this edit war continues, an Admin (probably not me because I always manage to be away from Wikipedia when I should be here) will then protect the article at the wrong version, which will cause much frustration & gnashing of teeth for one or both sides in this dispute. And you will still have to talk civilly to each other on this talk page. -- llywrch 20:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I stopped automatically reverting after The Ogre issued a warning. Yom continued to revert after the debate was over and a course of action had been settled upon. Now he's taken to deleting the template messages I've placed above the disputed section. Please stop him.

The sources used in the section are fine. The problem is that they don't support Yom's text. Here's what genetic experts say about the European and North African markers that he's treating as sub-Saharan and claiming expanded from the Horn of Africa during the Neolithic:

"...the clinal frequency distribution of E-M78α within Europe testifies to important dispersal(s), most likely Neolithic or post-Neolithic. These took place from the Balkans, where the highest frequencies are observed, in all directions, as far as Iberia to the west and, most likely, also to Turkey to the southeast. Thus, it appears that, in Europe, the overall frequency pattern of the haplogroup E-M78, the most frequent E3b haplogroup in this region, is mostly contributed by a new molecular type that distinguishes it from the aboriginal E3b chromosomes from the Near East." (Cruciani et al. 2004)
"Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East. [...] Since most of the languages spoken in North Africa and in nearby parts of Asia belong to the Afro-Asiatic family (Ruhlen 1991), this expansion could have involved people speaking a proto-Afro-Asiatic language. These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment containing few humans." (Arredi et al. (2004)

As you can see, those two haplogroups originated in situ, and there's no mention whatsoever of sub-Saharan Africa. It's their distant ancestors that originated in the Horn of Africa, but that was long before the Neolithic, with expansion Out of Africa beginning during the Upper Paleolithic.[9] Of course, every haplogroup on earth has ancestors that originated elsewhere, ultimately tracing back to East Africa. Using Yom's reasoning, primary European haplogroup R1b would be evidence of "Asian admixture" because its immediate ancestors originated in Central Asia. But that's not how the field of population genetics functions. ---- Small Victory

I've taken the time to carefully read the three articles Small Victory has referenced, & it was not an easy task to understand them: I understand well what the first-year law student meant, after completing his first reading of a court decision, when he wrote that he felt as if he had been trying to stir cement with his eyelashes. Understanding them was not made easier by a lot of confusing terminology -- as well as attempting to figure out just what the dispute is here.
As best as I can understand, this dispute is over two points:
  • Whether there are suitable genetic criteria for determining the admixure of African DNA in the European population after 10,000 BPE (=Before the Present Era), &
  • Whether the E3b haplogroup a suitable critereon for the above.
The proof of the first point depends to a degree on the second: if the E3b halpogroup can be shown to be a suitable critereon, then we know there is at least one. However, if it is not suitable, its unsuitability does not invalidate the first point.
Favoring the use of the E3b haplogroup for this purpose is not a crackpot theory; one on of the sites that Small Victory referenced above (http://racialreality.sitesled.com), I found the following excerpt:
Two subclades of North African Y-chromosome haplogroup E3b and Middle Eastern haplogroup J (labeled E-M81 and J-M267) are considered unrelated to the Neolithic migrations into Europe, making them useful in detecting historical admixture from Berbers and Arabs or earlier Semitic peoples. These markers exist at combined frequencies of 3% in Catalans of Northern Spain and 6.4% in Andalusians of Southern Spain (for a total of between 1.5% and 3.2% admixture), confirming that gene flow from Phoenicians/Carthaginians and Islamic Moors was minimal. -- (Semino et al., Am J Hum Genet, 2004)
At the same time, Small Victories accurately quotes Cruciani et al. (2004) to show that one of the lineages associated with E3b (i.e. M78) likely originated in the Balkans. However, the model presented in that paper is more nuanced:
Our data show that haplogroup E3b appears as a collection of subclades with very different evolutionary histories. Haplogroup E-M78 was observed over a wide area, including eastern (21.5%) and northern (18.5%) Africa, the Near East (5.8%), and Europe (7.2%), where it represents by far the most common E3b subhaplogroup. The high frequency of this clade (table 1) and its high microsatellite diversity suggest that it originated in eastern Africa, 23.2 ky ago (95% CI 21.1–25.4 ky). The network of the E-M78 chromosomes reveals a strong geographic structuring, since each of the clusters α, β, and γ (fig. 2B) reaches high frequencies in only one of the regions analyzed.
Cruciani et al. divide the M78 lineage into 4 subgroups:
  • alpha -- concentrated in the Balkans "This cluster is very common in the Balkans (with frequencies of 20%–32%), and its frequencies decline toward western (7.0% in continental Italy, 7.4% in Sicily, 1.1% in Sardinia, 4.3% in Corsica, 3.0% in France, and 2.2% in Iberia) and northeastern (2.6%) Europe. In the Near East, this cluster is essentially limited to Turkey (3.4%)."
  • beta -- concentrated in northwest Africa
  • gamma -- "the highest frequencies in the three Cushitic-speaking groups: the Borana from Kenya (71.4%), the Oromo from Ethiopia (32.0%), and the Somali (52.2%)."
  • delta -- found only in low frequencies in all regions surveyed, & mostly ignored in this article
So in other words, people with the E-M78 chromosome left eastern Africa at a period after 23,200 BPE but arrived there before 7800 BPE, which is the date Cruciani et al. offer for the TMRCA (Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor) with the M78a chromosome. Small Victories is correct about the location of this lineage -- but since the Paleolithic is defined as ending no later than 10,000 BPE (when the Mesolithic and Neolithic are considered to have begun in this part of the world), we can't simply dismiss the E3b haplogroup as having spread throughout Europe & the Middle East during the "Out of Africa Period".
Further, there are other lineages associated with the E3b haplogroup: the M78β and M78γ lineages mentioned above, & the M35 lineage discussed in Luis et al. (2004) -- Small Victory linked to this article in his footnote next to "Upper Paleolithic" above. These lineages are uncommon in the European gene pool, according to the three papers Small Victory references -- so Yom is also correct about the usefulness of the E3b haplogroup.
Luis et al. explains:
A more recent dispersal out of Africa, represented by the E3b-M35 chromosomes, expanded northward during the Mesolithic (Underhill et al. 2001b). The East African origin of this lineage is supported by the much larger variance of the E3b-M35 males in Egypt versus Oman (0.5 versus 0.14; table 3). Consistent with the NRY data is the mtDNA expansion estimate of 10–20 ky ago for the East African M1 clade.
Luis et al. also agrees with the division of E3b into 3 subgroups:
There are three distinctive sublineages (E3b1-M78, E3b2-M123, and E3b3-M81) that display nonrandom distributions (fig. 1). E3b1-M78 predominates in Egypt and Ethiopia, E3b3-M123 in Oman, and E3b2-M81 in northwestern Africa. Importantly, these three sublineages are restricted to regions north of the equator.
They further write that "the E3b*-M35 lineages appear to be confined almost exclusively to the sub-Saharan populations, except for a very low incidence in Egypt (2.7%) and a somewhat larger frequency in Ethiopia (7%, as reported by Underhill et al. [2000]). The highest levels of E3b*-M35 are in Tanzania (37.2%), Kenya (13.8%), and the Khoisans (11% in !Kung and 31% in Khwe)."
This argument has been spinning around & around over such jargon-laden technicalities that I can't be sure I've addressed the true point of this dispute. Assuming that the methodology these papers are based on was done correctly, there are criteria for detecting African DNA in the European population -- which shouldn't be debateable. There are historical records of Egyptians migrating to Rome & Constantinople during the Roman Empire. Moors & Berbers are known to have settled in Spain & Sicily -- & the Cartheginians also had colonies in Sicily. And there are sufficient memoirs to attest to a slave trade that conveyed people from one side of the Mediterranean to the other: Africans to Europe & Europeans to Africa.
Or have I utterly missed the point of this dispute?
FWIW, I was surprised to see the section Small Victory removed consisted of very close paraphrases of the actual abstracts of the referenced papers on MedLine. One might argue that they were copyright violations -- but I don't see any mention of that fact in the edit comment logs. -- llywrch 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have the science down pretty well. Two points though: 1) E-M78α is now considered to be an entirely separate lineage (haplogroup E-V13), and not a subgroup of E-M78 [10]; and 2) E-M81 is North African, not sub-Saharan African, which is an important distinction given the topic of this article.

The bottom line here is that those two genes neither originated in sub-Saharan Africa nor exist there at even the lowest frequencies. So what are they doing in an article tracing sub-Saharan influences? I've been waiting for Yom to answer that question with a source that uses them such, but he seems unable to do so. ---- Small Victory

I know that Yom is busy full-time with school at the moment, so it may take him a long while to respond; this material is not something a person casually undertakes to read, & I suspect he needs a lot of time to digest it. As an aside, I've had to make a leap of faith about the research behind these findings (e.g., the subjects were properly screened & the sampling follows generally accepted statistical practices, the genetic analysis was properly done, etc.) I didn't write this to evade your points, but to underscore a very real, but unmentioned problem here: this article documents the findings of what is undeniably a very young science, where conclusions are more likely to change & mistakes to occur. (Based on my experience with following cutting-edge scientific developments like this, I'd be more surprised if there weren't any mistakes made than if there were.) If Yom is looking further into what I accepted without questioning, then his response may be even longer in coming.
But to address your last paragraph. While I have no problem with conceding that you are right about these two points, I'm not entirely clear on what their relevance is to the subject of this article -- which, despite its title, appears to be a discussion of the scientific evidence of non-Arab Africans having settled & bred into the European population (if I may use that word non-pejoratively). If we eliminate mention of the E-M81 sublineage, then we must remove all mention or discussion of Moorish settlement in the Iberian penninsula & elsewhere -- which I feel would make for an oddly limited article.
Hence my confusion: it appears to me that the argument has turned more on the meaning of the evidence than how that evidence applies to the topic of the article. Even if we admit that the genetic evidence is inconclusive, the historical record does show that there was at least the potential for an admixure. -- llywrch 18:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll just make a quick response, but the fact of the matter is that sub-clades that developed later in situ do not make the lineages not representative of ancient admixture. You say that E-M78α (E-V13) is a separate clade from E-M78, but that is not the case. See your link, which defines E-V13 as a sub-clade of E-M78. E-M78, aka E3b1a, (and formerly known as E3b1) is the larger clade to which E-M78α (or E-V13) aka E3b1a2 belongs. The study shows that E-M78α may in fact be a monophyletic branch of the E-M78 sub-clade (instead of E-M78 that simply clusters together), but not itself an independent sub-clade of E-M35 (E3b1, note that E-M78 is no longer called E3b1). A few quotations from the study:
E-V13 is also commonly found in the populations of the central cluster, where, however, other E-M78 sub-haplogroups are also present.
Thus, the new markers we have detected now offer the opportunity to explore in a better defined phylogenetic context the origin and distribution of the chromosomes belonging to haplogroup E-M78.
Llywrch, note that archaeological and linguistic evidence also supports the spread of E3b migration (really no one disputes its origin in sub-Saharan Africa). Think e.g. of the spread of Afro-Asiatic from East-Northeast Africa to North Africa and Western Asia, followed by the Neolithic spread of farmers from the Levant and Anatolia to Europe — the Neolithic revolution. One possibility is the Mushabaeans
One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people ­ the Mushabaeans? ­ are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.
Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this.
And by the way: we can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the earliest stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati have it. And there are a lot of common words for using grasses and seeds.
(The above is by Christopher Ehret in an interview) — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Straw man. The spread of E3b from northeastern Africa during the Mesolithic is not what's in dispute. Now quit stalling and provide sources that use E-M81 and E-M78α as evidence of "sub-Saharan admixture." Or just admit that you can't because there aren't any. ---- Small Victory

Llywrch: As its title indicates, this article is about sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. Every other marker mentioned within originated in sub-Saharan Africa, characterizes black African populations, and is used by geneticists to detect black admixture in other groups. The Moors were a mix of Middle Eastern Arabs and North African Berbers. They have absolutely nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africa or black people, and no researcher uses E-M81 in that regard. Mention of that marker should definitely be removed, as should mention of E-M78α, which is European. Those lineages were rightly not included in the original article (which I didn't start) and should never have been added. Yom's Afrocentrism-tinged interpretation of the data constitutes original research and hence violates Wikipedia policy. This is really a non-issue. ---- Small Victory

[edit] E-M78 originated in NORTHeast Africa

A new study[11] not only confirms that E-M78α (E-V13) is European and completely absent from sub-Saharan Africa (see Map), but also determines that the ancestral haplogroup E-M78 originated in Northeast Africa and owes its presence farther south to back-migration:

"The geographic and quantitative analysis of haplogroup and microsatellite diversity is strongly suggestive of a north-eastern African origin of E-M78, with a corridor for bidirectional migrations between north-eastern and eastern Africa (at least two episodes between 23.9-17.3 ky and 18.0-5.9 ky ago), trans-Mediterranean migrations directly from northern Africa to Europe (mainly in the last 13.0 ky) and flow from north-eastern Africa to western Asia between 20.0 and 6.8 ky ago." ---- Small Victory
Anyway, all Africans (north, northeast...) were almost certainly black at this times and still black when they migrated from north-eastern Africa to western Asia ... and still black when they migrated from west-asia to europe (E-V13)... The fact that for E-V13 the flow was not direct from Africa to Europe does not means that the people got whiter because they made a short stay to west-asia just before Europe... Todays' northeastern Africans are blacks as they were 6.8 ky ago. So it does not really matter (northeast, sub-saharan...). Africans are Africans
If in some places of Africa, today, for example in the North, people look "white" in fact they are not really as they have an important average of 15-20 % sub-saharan admixture according to AncestryByDna. Also they mixed with a lot or europeans during their recent history (phoenicians, romans, vandals, arabs...) and especially with european slave women. But 10 ky ago, all of them were black...
A genetic marker (E-V13) that did not originate in sub-Saharan Africa, and that is not found anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa, cannot possibly be evidence of sub-Saharan admixture, which is the topic of this article. ---- Small Victory
"White" is not a genetic concept. There are pale people in north-east Asia - are they "white people"? As for north africans being black 10 000 years ago - look at paleolithic cave paintings in western Europe - they depict the hunters as black - probably indicating that "whiteness" is a recent mutation. Furthermore north African (Berber) ancestors originated from around the middle east about 30 000 years plus and spread west along the southern rim of the Mediterranean. They are a branch of the broad grouping we traditionally call caucasian (which includes Middle-Easterners, west Asians and Europeans). The subsaharan admixture - which varies greatly between those north-Africans in the southern parts of the Sahara desert, and the large populations along the Mediterranean coast (who have much lower levels of it) came about with the rise of the trans saharan trade in the last 2000 years. My guess is that as the climate in north Africa got better as the ice age ended, this north african (proto Berber) populaion expanded west into northwest Africa (Morocco, Algeria) from a bit under 16 000 years ago. It certainly did not come from the south, across the Sahara.

[edit] Offensiveness of the title

Did it occur to anyone that the title of this article could be considered offensive to people? I mean, 'admixture' makes children from different cultures sound like some sort of experiment or undesirable side-effect of history

Who is for altering the title for making it less offensive? Wiki wiki1 06:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Admixture is the standard term used by geneticists. It doesn't matter if you (erroneously) think it's not PC enough. That is the word used in the literature.KelilanK 20:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Admixture is OK for me, especially since it is the scientific term, yet I wouldn't mind an equally correct rename. Wiki wiki1, do you have a specific proposal? NikoSilver 20:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

Yes, I mean it.

The disputed data continues to be cited all over the Internet, mostly by White Supremacists, Afrocentrists and Macedonism nationalists who have political motivations to relate modern or ancient Greeks to black Africans. However, it's no longer referenced by population geneticists in contemporary research, mainly due to the criticism of Cavalli-Sforza et al.

The first sentence is derogatory, unsourced, and about living bloggers. I'm sure there are many anecdotes, but I have no idea how a reliable source would prove such a claim.

The second sentence asserts that the "much-cited" paper of five years ago is no longer cited. That's also unsourced, and what does it mean? An instant dropoff? When?

And what criticism of Cavalli-Sforza? His book of seven years before?!? Most devastating criticisms are published after the data they refute, you know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the paragraph is entirely accurate. The evidence is used in "race" disputes between white supremacists and Afrocentrists for political/racialist reasons. The white supremacist "March of the Titans" web page is the most obvious example.[12] The use by Macedonian nationalists is fully documented by 'Scholars for Peace in the Middle East'[13]. The criticisms by Cavalli-Sforza appears as part of his critique of a later paper by Arnaiz-Villena on the genetics of Jews and Palestinians. This is fully documented in the Antonio Arnaiz-Villena page. Paul B 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure all those nationalists do, it sounds just made for them; but there is both a technical problem (we can't say so without citing sources, because of WP:BLP) and a problem with the wording, which generalizes. We really don't want to say that everybody who quotes Arnaiz-Villena is a racist. (The quote from Cavalli-Sforza at Antonio Arnaiz-Villena needs a source, btw.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The quotation is included in the article referenced in the previous note. However the actual article ref is Neil Risch, Alberto Piazza, and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, “Correspondence: Dropped Genetics Paper Lacked Scientific Merit,” Nature 415 (January 2002), p. 115. Paul B 13:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe - Autosomal markers

AncestryByDNA, using autosomal markers, mentions that the average Greek/Italian type with approximately 5% sub-Saharan genetic material and is the highest in Europe with Iberia (6.6%). By comparaison Euro-americans = 3% and Northern European < 1 %. Even though in some cases with respect to certain population groups, for an individual, a low reading such as this may be negated by the confidence interval, in south european countries low levels of sub-Saharan admixture are consistenly found, making them signature results for these populations. This means they are not stastical "noise," but true results.

I will not delete this because I can see it will end up in a futile edit war - but even if true the reference given is not a scientific paper. Please do some work - get the appropriate scientific paper(s) to back the claim! (Also note - there are large (by Europe's highly homogenous standards) variations among "southern Europeans", and even within the three seperate peninsulas (Iberia, Italy, Balkans) that make up this very varied so called "region". I'm also curious about the claim that north Africans, as a whole, are so close to subsaharan Africans - from what I've understood there seems to be great variation - between the bulk of this population near the Med coast and the thin populations of Berbers far to the south, who are much closer to sub Saharan Africa. The Berber/north African populations seem to have occupied northern Africa since the Paleolithic - they are a very ancient population Provocateur 17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Berbers#Origin has discussion of North Africa, how does this compare? --JWB 19:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting JWB. I already see the problem with using the AncestryDNA web page consider the table in it - 10 (people) North Euro Subset, 7 North Africans, 18 Greeks, 12 Italians, 9 Iberians, etc, etc. Get the picture? The sample size is extremely small and and so for proper scientific purposes - utterly useless. And it seems to present odd results like a 10.7 % affiliation of Iberians with Native Americans. Well with such tiny samples anything is possible. The table and its results I think were only meant as an example, not a proper scientific analysis. Perhaps I'm missing something - and I don't doubt the people at AncestrybyDNA are knowledgable, but I prefer properly refereed scientific papers than web sites as a reference. Provocateur 02:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Regarding the dubious paragraph below:

A 2006 study by Tunisian scientists has asserted the relatedness of the Greeks to sub-Saharans by calculating genetic distances at the DRB1 locus,[23] the same used in the controversial Arnaiz-Villena paper. Both papers interpret those results as suggesting an admixture that happened, due to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopic people, during the Pharaonic period.

First off that is based on dubious research work as they used the same SINGLE genetic marker HLA-DRB1 that Arnaiz-Villena used to come to their fallacy of a conclusion and as it was pointed out by geneticists, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Alberto Piazza and Neil Risch, who have argued successfully that the scientific limitations of using a SINGLE genetic marker, HLA-DRB1 methodology, and I quote "Even a cursory look at the papers diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA-DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker particularly one likely to have undergone selection for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics." End quote. Also there is no historic or archeological evidence of any supposed displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopic people, during the Pharaonic period in the Greek region as the dubious papers claim. So stating it as a suppsoed 'fact' in this article when in reality it is nothing but fallacies with no evidence to back up their theories, questions the neutral point that wiki's articles supposed to have. As it is correctly stated as of yet no multiple-marker analysis has ever duplicated Arnaiz-Villena's and the Tunisian which raises questions about the HLA-DRB1 methodology results. For example, Ayub 2003 used 182 loci (as opposed to Villena's and the Tunisians one) to group severl world populations based on genetic distances. Their results reveal Greeks' distance from Africans, and closeness to other Europeans. Cheaters&LiersNeverWin 10:51, 07 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military Angle

The article emphasizes the importance of the slave trade in bringing sub-Saharan genes to Europe, but I think more could also be said about the effect of military presences after the two World Wars. Germany, specifically, found itself hosting large numbers of French-African soldiers after World War One (Hitler worked himself into a fit over that), and many Aftican-American troops in the later 20th century. That might explain why Germany shows more paternal than maternal genetic influence. Cranston Lamont (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Do you not realise what a tiny insignificant speck of dust the time you're talking about amounts to, in the grand scheme of genetic things? FilipeS (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
First, the African slave trade affected Europe for maybe 400 years (~1450-1850) and the U.S. military has been in and around Germany for the past 60 years. So it might be reasonable to suppose that the influence of the latter is about 1/7 of the former. A much smaller percentage, true, but hardly a "tiny insignificant speck".
Second, I find your tone to be immature and antagonizing. If you had anything constructive to impart I'm no longer in any mood to hear it.
Cranston Lamont (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GM and KM allotypes + DNAPrint Genomics

GM and KM allotypes are adaptive markers that offer protection against malaria.[14] They can be discussed briefly along with HbS in the appropriate section, but no percentages should be given since these don't correspond to admixture levels.

Commercial genetic testing services like DNAPrint Genomics are unreliable sources because they include adaptive markers that are not necessarily indicative of shared ancestry.[15] This article should stick to data from peer-reviewed studies. ---- Small Victory (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)