Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.

E-M123* discussion
#1
Adding this discussion thread here as a continuation from Anthrogenica.

This is a spreadsheet with the current known cases of this relatively rare haplogroup:

https://e-m123.blogspot.com/

A recent point of interest is the discovery in Europe of an ancient individual:

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...2257/story

Santo Stefano 113 was a 40-45 year old man who lived between 400 - 600 CE during the Late Antiquity Age and was found in the region now known as Church of Burgusio Santo Stefano, Upper Venosta valley, Italy (South Tyrol). He was associated with the Late Roman cultural group. 

What is interesting is that this individual belongs to the Middle-Eastern branch of E-PF4428, and seems like a direct Roman import during the Imperial age. The website TheYtree suggests a TMRCA - 1965 years before present:

https://www.theytree.com/tree/E-FGC62310 

This bears no relation to the EU branch but is still interesting on its own. 

Related to the EU branch (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y134104/), a recent addition is an individual from Kabardino-Balkaria, from the Cherkess ethnic group - https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y134120/
Riverman, Capsian20, Acv2 like this post
Reply
#2
(12-02-2023, 12:29 AM)vlrs Wrote: Adding this discussion thread here as a continuation from Anthrogenica.

This is a spreadsheet with the current known cases of this relatively rare haplogroup:

https://e-m123.blogspot.com/

A recent point of interest is the discovery in Europe of an ancient individual:

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...2257/story

Santo Stefano 113 was a 40-45 year old man who lived between 400 - 600 CE during the Late Antiquity Age and was found in the region now known as Church of Burgusio Santo Stefano, Upper Venosta valley, Italy (South Tyrol). He was associated with the Late Roman cultural group. 

What is interesting is that this individual belongs to the Middle-Eastern branch of E-PF4428, and seems like a direct Roman import during the Imperial age. The website TheYtree suggests a TMRCA - 1965 years before present:

https://www.theytree.com/tree/E-FGC62310 

This bears no relation to the EU branch but is still interesting on its own. 

Related to the EU branch (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y134104/), a recent addition is an individual from Kabardino-Balkaria, from the Cherkess ethnic group - https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y134120/

Great post about subclade E-M123* ( aka E-Z36113)
I believe this subclade maybe is found in South Europe a era Early European Farmers and origin maybe from North Levant or South Anatolian
vlrs and Sailgios like this post
Target: CapsianWGS_scaled
Distance: 1.2510% / 0.01251049
37.2 Iberomaurusian
36.8 Early_European_Farmer
12.8 Early_Levantine_Farmer
8.0 Steppe_Pastoralist
4.8 SSA
0.4 Iran_Neolithic
FTDNA : 91% North Africa +<2% Bedouin + <2  Southern-Levantinfo + <1 Sephardic Jewish + 3% Malta +  3%  Iberian Peninsula
23andME :  100% North Africa

WGS ( Y-DNA and mtDNA)
Y-DNA: E-A30032< A30480 ~1610 CE
mtDNA: V25b 800CE ? ( age mtDNA not accurate )
Reply
#3
Focusing on the so called “European Downstream Branch of E-M123”*and when / what led to their immigration into Europe. 
Note: I say "so called" b/c there are other separated but similar branches downstream  of  E-M123* that migrated from Levant to Europe  e.g. particularly  EINSTEIN’S Ashkenasi  branch.
 
My interest on this subject persists because it has not been satisfactorily answered.
As the more general thread of E-M123* included: the  following blog  compiles occurrences  of E-M123* [u]https://e-m123.blogspot.com/[/u] conveniently ( one can also check sites individually).
Upon research, one is able to easily notice E-Y134123 and downstream subclades appearing for the 1st time in Western Europe (I.e.  no upstream *directly connecting* branch samples). One can also notice thru Palestinian samples that there was simultaneously a continuation of E-Y134123 in the Levant. One would naturally assume that is when the branches separated and the former entered Europe;
 
HOWEVER, as of now I know of a  sample which puts a wrench on the aforementioned and discussed in the previous verrsion of this website. The Sudanese sample, whose terminal group is also a downstream of E-BY36858. In this case a back migration from Europe can be easily ruled out. This only leads to one reasonable conclusion: That the branch’s migration to Europe from the Levant also consisted of E-BY36858. Thus, the split into Europe occurred no earlier than E-BY36858  and much later than estimated on pertaining websites. And yes, once and if such is accounted for, it mimics another well known migration. Also, it can only be proven ( no credible samples which would indicate gradual immigration) that immigration into Europe did  not  occur gradually over generations.
 
PS. Disclaimer's in websites who do this research cannot account for sudden migrations as accurately as gradual ones and ftdna even gave ( to me it’s ironic) the Jewish migration out of Levant as an example. But, given the above, unless someone is able to show a legit sample that discredits what is evident from the  growing in- flow of E-M123* branch samples in these sites, this would the only “logical” course of reasoning. Of course, there is alwasy ignoring and holding everyone (even yourselves) back.
Please do,  prove me wrong or not, I will be curious either way. Please, feel free to point out anything that may be of interest/ Cool about these lines.
Reply
#4
Einstein's branch is not even under M34 whereas M123* referred to branches specifically negative for M34. What happened in one branch is unrelated to what happened to another when their connection goes back 15000 years. It makes no sense to equate the two.


(12-08-2023, 05:12 PM)Acv2 Wrote: HOWEVER, as of now I know of a  sample which puts a wrench on the aforementioned and discussed in the previous verrsion of this website. The Sudanese sample, whose terminal group is also a downstream of E-BY36858. In this case a back migration from Europe can be easily ruled out.
Why can it? I'm not saying that was the case, we don't really know, but Occam's Razor would suggest that would be the case considering everyone else is of European background. There are plenty of branches of clear European origin (e.g. E-V13) that back migrated into the Middle East:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5789/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC68920/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC44154/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS9952/


If you're expecting an answer that will satisfy you I'm afraid you're being terribly naive. Y31991 is a very rare branch, finding modern individuals is hard, ancient samples even more so. Building a narrative with so little data and sample bias is next to impossible, it's all very hypothetical, especially considering haplogroups don't speak languages, don't follow religions, nor belong to any ethnic group - people do, and people move and change all the time. Odds are we'll never know what really happened, if we do it won't be any time soon.

Additionally, in the eventuality that one future individual sample happens to be Jewish, this will prove nothing anyway. As an example plenty of Portuguese Jewish male lines were local rather than originally from members of the Jewish community, in fact Belmonte Jews have about 50% native Portuguese ancestry. Here's a graphic from a study on that very same topic:
(Note: only the local Portuguese population showed individuals positive for M123, with one exception all were in either in the North or Centre-North)
Show Content




Quote:Also, it can only be proven ( no credible samples which would indicate gradual immigration) that immigration into Europe did  not  occur gradually over generations.
It absolutely did. Data from a rare branch won't tell you much because of sample bias.
There are plenty of studies that show contact between Anatolia, or the wider Middle East, and Europe (namely SE Europe) that goes back all the way to the Bronze Age, and was especially important in shaping the genetic profile of ancient Rome. In fact just yesterday there was a study that showed this type of genetic influence along the Roman Balkans in the Imperial period, including one individual who was positive for E-M123 (he had an Anatolian/Pontic Greek autossomal profile).

By the way they found E-FGC62310, a branch that appears specifically Arabian, in an early medieval sample from the Italian Alps. Clearly there were many individuals moving from the MENA into Europe during the Roman period. In my opinion if our branch hasn't been in Europe since pre-history odds are it arrived with a random man from the eastern provinces who served in the Roman Army (maybe along the limes of the Rhine, maybe in NW Iberia under Legio VII Gemina) and his descendants integrated into the local community. Whether he natively spoke Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Armenian or something else doesn't really matter, we won't ever know anyway. If this was the case he was just another Roman.



But for what is worth, since you seem so hell-bent on finding a Jewish connection, being of Iberian ancestry will almost certainly net you some Jewish ancestors since we know they have been present since the late Roman period around these parts and I doubt they all died out without descendants. No doubt some integrated and now happen to be our ancestors, even if their genetic impact was small or residual. Randomly inheriting a haplogroup, or not, is trivial and irrelevant.
Vinitharya, Capsian20, vlrs like this post
[1] "distance%=1.4662"
Ruderico

Galaico-Lusitanian,72.4
Berber_IA,9.8
Briton_IA,9.8
Roman_Colonial,8
Reply
#5
(12-08-2023, 05:12 PM)Acv2 Wrote: Focusing on the so called “European Downstream Branch of E-M123”*and when / what led to their immigration into Europe. 
Note: I say "so called" b/c there are other separated but similar branches downstream  of  E-M123* that migrated from Levant to Europe  e.g. particularly  EINSTEIN’S Ashkenasi  branch.
 
My interest on this subject persists because it has not been satisfactorily answered.
As the more general thread of E-M123* included: the  following blog  compiles occurrences  of E-M123* [u]https://e-m123.blogspot.com/[/u] conveniently ( one can also check sites individually).
Upon research, one is able to easily notice E-Y134123 and downstream subclades appearing for the 1st time in Western Europe (I.e.  no upstream *directly connecting* branch samples). One can also notice thru Palestinian samples that there was simultaneously a continuation of E-Y134123 in the Levant. One would naturally assume that is when the branches separated and the former entered Europe;
 
HOWEVER, as of now I know of a  sample which puts a wrench on the aforementioned and discussed in the previous verrsion of this website. The Sudanese sample, whose terminal group is also a downstream of E-BY36858. In this case a back migration from Europe can be easily ruled out. This only leads to one reasonable conclusion: That the branch’s migration to Europe from the Levant also consisted of E-BY36858. Thus, the split into Europe occurred no earlier than E-BY36858  and much later than estimated on pertaining websites. And yes, once and if such is accounted for, it mimics another well known migration. Also, it can only be proven ( no credible samples which would indicate gradual immigration) that immigration into Europe did  not  occur gradually over generations.
 
PS. Disclaimer's in websites who do this research cannot account for sudden migrations as accurately as gradual ones and ftdna even gave ( to me it’s ironic) the Jewish migration out of Levant as an example. But, given the above, unless someone is able to show a legit sample that discredits what is evident from the  growing in- flow of E-M123* branch samples in these sites, this would the only “logical” course of reasoning. Of course, there is alwasy ignoring and holding everyone (even yourselves) back.
Please do,  prove me wrong or not, I will be curious either way. Please, feel free to point out anything that may be of interest/ Cool about these lines.

I still do not understand your logic - what does the Jewish emigration to Europe (starting from the 2nd century AD) have to do with our haplogroup? Based on TMRCA's, there is no connection so far. 

There are no Israeli results so far; and the Palestinian samples that we have so far are very dubious because the Palestinian people are immigrants from all over the Middle East and do not represent an autochthonous population (Canaanites). So the Palestinian results so far would belong initially to other ethnic groups and nation-states going 100-200 or 500 years back in time.

Have in mind that Einstein's haplogroup is not downstream of E-m123* but of E-m123 - meaning that E-m123* (having an Asterisk) means a dead end E-m123 with nothing below that level, meaning no E-m34/84 etc. 

Also, I can speculate that not all branches within E-m123* may have arrived at the same time in Europe - that might have been more random.
Sailgios and Capsian20 like this post
Reply
#6
(12-08-2023, 08:18 PM)Sailcius Wrote: Einstein's branch is under M34 whereas M123* referred to branches specifically negative for M34. What happened in one branch is unrelated to what happened to another when their connection goes back 15000 years. It makes no sense to equate the two.


(12-08-2023, 05:12 PM)Acv2 Wrote: HOWEVER, as of now I know of a  sample which puts a wrench on the aforementioned and discussed in the previous verrsion of this website. The Sudanese sample, whose terminal group is also a downstream of E-BY36858. In this case a back migration from Europe can be easily ruled out.
Why can it? I'm not saying that was the case, we don't really know, but Occam's Razor would suggest that would be the case considering everyone else is of European background. There are plenty of branches of clear European origin (e.g. E-V13) that back migrated into the Middle East:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5789/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC68920/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC44154/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS9952/


If you're expecting an answer that will satisfy you I'm afraid you're being terribly naive. Y31991 is a very rare branch, finding modern individuals is hard, ancient samples even more so. Building a narrative with so little data and sample bias is next to impossible, it's all very hypothetical, especially considering haplogroups don't speak languages, don't follow religions, nor belong to any ethnic group - people do, and people move and change all the time. Odds are we'll never know what really happened, if we do it won't be any time soon.

Additionally, in the eventuality that one future individual sample happens to be Jewish, this will prove nothing anyway. As an example plenty of Portuguese Jewish male lines were local rather than originally from members of the Jewish community, in fact Belmonte Jews have about 50% native Portuguese ancestry. Here's a graphic from a study on that very same topic:
(Note: only the local Portuguese population showed individuals positive for M123, with one exception all were in either in the North or Centre-North)
Show Content




Quote:Also, it can only be proven ( no credible samples which would indicate gradual immigration) that immigration into Europe did  not  occur gradually over generations.
It absolutely did. Data from a rare branch won't tell you much because of sample bias.
There are plenty of studies that show contact between Anatolia, or the wider Middle East, and Europe (namely SE Europe) that goes back all the way to the Bronze Age, and was especially important in shaping the genetic profile of ancient Rome. In fact just yesterday there was a study that showed this type of genetic influence along the Roman Balkans in the Imperial period, including one individual who was positive for E-M123 (he had an Anatolian/Pontic Greek autossomal profile).

By the way they found E-FGC62310, a branch that appears specifically Arabian, in an early medieval sample from the Italian Alps. Clearly there were many individuals moving from the MENA into Europe during the Roman period. In my opinion if our branch hasn't been in Europe since pre-history odds are it arrived with a random man from the eastern provinces who served in the Roman Army (maybe along the limes of the Rhine, maybe in NW Iberia under Legio VII Gemina) and his descendants integrated into the local community. Whether he natively spoke Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Armenian or something else doesn't really matter, we won't ever know anyway. If this was the case he was just another Roman.



But for what is worth, since you seem so hell-bent on finding a Jewish connection, being of Iberian ancestry will almost certainly net you some Jewish ancestors since we know they have been present since the late Roman period around these parts and I doubt they all died out without descendants. No doubt some integrated and now happen to be our ancestors, even if their genetic impact was small or residual. Randomly inheriting a haplogroup, or not, is trivial and irrelevant.

I believe this samples Arabians have roots ancestors (E-FGC62255) come from Levant but any era unknown
But of course this sample Italian Late Roman is back his descendants soldier Levantian or Anatolian?
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...62258/tree
Sailgios and vlrs like this post
Target: CapsianWGS_scaled
Distance: 1.2510% / 0.01251049
37.2 Iberomaurusian
36.8 Early_European_Farmer
12.8 Early_Levantine_Farmer
8.0 Steppe_Pastoralist
4.8 SSA
0.4 Iran_Neolithic
FTDNA : 91% North Africa +<2% Bedouin + <2  Southern-Levantinfo + <1 Sephardic Jewish + 3% Malta +  3%  Iberian Peninsula
23andME :  100% North Africa

WGS ( Y-DNA and mtDNA)
Y-DNA: E-A30032< A30480 ~1610 CE
mtDNA: V25b 800CE ? ( age mtDNA not accurate )
Reply
#7
(12-10-2023, 03:00 PM)vlrs Wrote: "I still do not understand your logic - what does the Jewish emigration to Europe (starting from the 2nd century AD) have to do with our haplogroup? Based on TMRCA's, there is no connection so far."
ANSWER: What I wrote is not about Jewish Migration. What I wrote is about E-Y134123 not being the 1st to enter Europe from this "euro
pean branch" 
 
There are no Israeli results so far; and the Palestinian samples that we have so far are very dubious because the Palestinian people are immigrants from all over the Middle East and do not represent an autochthonous population (Canaanites). So the Palestinian results so far would belong initially to other ethnic groups and nation-states going 100-200 or 500 years back in time.
ANSWER: "Dubbious" "palestinian people are migrants from all over" That's not what Y-DNA proves. The are for the mos part the same population in YDNA that has been there for thousands of years. The difference is the changes in Religion and modern politics 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_...n%20Africa.  
[quote pid="6039" dateline="1702220440"]

Have in mind that Einstein's haplogroup is not downstream of E-m123* but of E-m123 - meaning that E-m123* (having an Asterisk) means a dead end E-m123 with nothing below that level, meaning no E-m34/84 etc. 

Also, I can speculate that not all branches within E-m123* may have arrived at the same time in Europe - that might have been more random.
[/quote]

ANSWER: Again. You are wrong about Einstein Y-DNA . He is E-M123* he is easy to look up. Please do.
I am talking about E-134123 & E-BY36858 Branch and how the time it entered into Europe needs to be updated, to reflect a much later time. I even did it's own thread for this intial  post but the administrators bunched it up with this very general E-M123*  thread. So far, I see 3 replies  to it that do not really concentrate on the branch.
Reply
#8
[quote pid="5832" dateline="1702066736"]
ANSWER: As to Einstein being E-M34 You are in-correct/ wrong. He is  E-M123* line. look him up in FTDNA, he is there. 

(12-08-2023, 05:12 PM)Acv2 Wrote: HOWEVER, as of now I know of a  sample which puts a wrench on the aforementioned and discussed in the previous verrsion of this website. The Sudanese sample, whose terminal group is also a downstream of E-BY36858. In this case a back migration from Europe can be easily ruled out.
Why can it? I'm not saying that was the case, we don't really know, but Occam's Razor would suggest that would be the case considering everyone else is of European background. There are plenty of branches of clear European origin (e.g. E-V13) that back migrated into the Middle East:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5789/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC68920/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC44154/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS9952/


If you're expecting an answer that will satisfy you I'm afraid you're being terribly naive. Y31991 is a very rare branch, finding modern individuals is hard, ancient samples even more so. Building a narrative with so little data and sample bias is next to impossible, it's all very hypothetical, especially considering haplogroups don't speak languages, don't follow religions, nor belong to any ethnic group - people do, and people move and change all the time. Odds are we'll never know what really happened, if we do it won't be any time soon.

ANSWER: Not expecting answer that will satisfy just for that sake. I just would like one that is backed by what the ever growing kits show, and what the samples at hand indicate, not a contradictory theory without sample proof . 
Additionally, in the eventuality that one future individual sample happens to be Jewish, this will prove nothing anyway. As an example plenty of Portuguese Jewish male lines were local rather than originally from members of the Jewish community, in fact Belmonte Jews have about 50% native Portuguese ancestry. Here's a graphic from a study on that very same topic:
(Note: only the local Portuguese population showed individuals positive for M123, with one exception all were in either in the North or Centre-North)
[SPOILER]

ANSWER: E-M123 * is not local nor native to Iberia. What I showed is there is no earlier indication either through archeological samples nor through modern kit smaples in dedicated sites that can show it entered europe before E-BY36858 ( see my above post). All the samples (for the branch) actually prove, that it did not.





Quote:Also, it can only be proven ( no credible samples which would indicate gradual immigration) that immigration into Europe did  not  occur gradually over generations.
It absolutely did. Data from a rare branch won't tell you much because of sample bias.
There are plenty of studies that show contact between Anatolia, or the wider Middle East, and Europe (namely SE Europe) that goes back all the way to the Bronze Age, and was especially important in shaping the genetic profile of ancient Rome. In fact just yesterday there was a study that showed this type of genetic influence along the Roman Balkans in the Imperial period, including one individual who was positive for E-M123 (he had an Anatolian/Pontic Greek autossomal profile).

ANSWER:  Your given general eg. of others but not giving proof of specific samples to disprove the evidence there is currently "FOR THIS BRANCH". There are a lot of samples for descendants of E-Y13412 & E-BY36858 in Europe (from there they spread to America), samples are not rare anymore. Compared to general population sure, less than 1%. The other large concentration of E-Y13412 is in Palestine. So how can it have been gradual? where is the trail of population seen thru samples? through time? they are just not there. Hence, the immigration, until proven otherwise was not gradual. 

By the way they found E-FGC62310, a branch that appears specifically Arabian, in an early medieval sample from the Italian Alps. Clearly there were many individuals moving from the MENA into Europe during the Roman period. In my opinion if our branch hasn't been in Europe since pre-history odds are it arrived with a random man from the eastern provinces who served in the Roman Army (maybe along the limes of the Rhine, maybe in NW Iberia under Legio VII Gemina) and his descendants integrated into the local community. Whether he natively spoke Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Armenian or something else doesn't really matter, we won't ever know anyway. If this was the case he was just another Roman.



But for what is worth, since you seem so hell-bent on finding a Jewish connection, being of Iberian ancestry will almost certainly net you some Jewish ancestors since we know they have been present since the late Roman period around these parts and I doubt they all died out without descendants. No doubt some integrated and now happen to be our ancestors, even if their genetic impact was small or residual. Randomly inheriting a haplogroup, or not, is trivial and irrelevant.
[/quote]

ANSWER:  I respect your view but it has  NO SPECIFIC PROOF of a gradual migration for this specific line. 
Reply
#9
As usualy you don't provide a single source for your claims, and even worse still you post false information. After so many years you're getting very annoying and very tiresome to the point you're walking on very thin ice here.

Einstein was NOT E-M123*.
I have no idea why you're lying about this "easy to look up" information. E-M123* doesn't even exist in FTDNA. He's positive for SNP PF1952 and his haplogroup has been very fittingly named E-EMC2. It's obvious from its distribution that the original man was part of a Jewish community in his haplogroup's case - multiple branches splitting in the last centuries, over multiple countries, and people still speaking Yiddish to this day, this is a very common pattern. To the surprise of absolutely no one.
https://www.igenea.com/en/famous-people/einstein
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-EMC2/notable
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-PF1952/story
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...obetrekker
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PF1952/
Your patrilinear ancestor in common with Einstein lived some 18800 years ago, or thereabouts. His branch is actually phenomenal because there's a medieval sample that belongs to it as well. Unfortunately it was collected from a man who was murdered in Norwich during a pogrom.


No one in their right mind even claimed E-M123* was native to Iberia, or even Europe, it's virtually impossible it didn't have its origin in a man that was living somewhere in the broader Middle East, but that was some 17400 years ago, maybe as a part of the Kebaran culture. This is just a straw man fallacy. What I referred was M123+ (all branches, since they didn't know better at the time) detected in a Portuguese study.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-M123/


I think you still don't understand how haplogroups work, there have been literally dozens of people explaining this to you over the years in Anthrogenica, but your religious zealotry prevents you from accepting anything else. You even manage to contradict your original theory: if E-BY36858 is the product of a single migration into Europe, and considering the common ancestor lived some ~6500 years ago then the haplogroup arrived in the neolithic and it's downstream branches would have had their origin here - this is currently the ongoing theory because it's what the current modern samples suggest, but we don't really know if this is what happened because there are massive gaps since people who have been SNP tested are so few, and STR testing is much less reliable.

This is what FTDNA currently constructs the movement as.
Show Content

It's possible (although there are no samples currently to suggest it) that the branch would have been in the East Med some 2000 years ago, and since there were multiple movements into Europe during the Roman period - because the Empire dramatically changed everything genetically and we see many, many people moving into Europe, over the centuries, hailing from the Eastern Mediterranean - and that many unknown branches downstream of BY36858 moved here, whereas other unknown/untested ones might still be in Lebanon, Palestine or whathaveyou. We'll have to wait for more samples because information is severely lacking.
 
Asking for "specific proof" when there are no ancient samples is just dishonest. I have no more patience to entertain this, three and a half years is well enough for me.
Capsian20 likes this post
[1] "distance%=1.4662"
Ruderico

Galaico-Lusitanian,72.4
Berber_IA,9.8
Briton_IA,9.8
Roman_Colonial,8
Reply
#10
(12-14-2023, 03:54 PM)Sailcius Wrote: As usualy you don't provide a single source for your claims, and even worse still you post false information. After so many years you're getting very annoying and very tiresome to the point you're walking on very thin ice here.

Einstein was NOT E-M123*.
I have no idea why you're lying about this "easy to look up" information. E-M123* doesn't even exist in FTDNA. He's positive for SNP PF1952 and his haplogroup has been very fittingly named E-EMC2. It's obvious from its distribution that the original man was part of a Jewish community in his haplogroup's case - multiple branches splitting in the last centuries, over multiple countries, and people still speaking Yiddish to this day, this is a very common pattern. To the surprise of absolutely no one.
https://www.igenea.com/en/famous-people/einstein
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-EMC2/notable
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-PF1952/story
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...obetrekker
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PF1952/
Your patrilinear ancestor in common with Einstein lived some 18800 years ago, or thereabouts. His branch is actually phenomenal because there's a medieval sample that belongs to it as well. Unfortunately it was collected from a man who was murdered in Norwich during a pogrom.


No one in their right mind even claimed E-M123* was native to Iberia, or even Europe, it's virtually impossible it didn't have its origin in a man that was living somewhere in the broader Middle East, but that was some 17400 years ago, maybe as a part of the Kebaran culture. This is just a straw man fallacy. What I referred was M123+ (all branches, since they didn't know better at the time) detected in a Portuguese study.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-M123/


I think you still don't understand how haplogroups work, there have been literally dozens of people explaining this to you over the years in Anthrogenica, but your religious zealotry prevents you from accepting anything else. You even manage to contradict your original theory: if E-BY36858 is the product of a single migration into Europe, and considering the common ancestor lived some ~6500 years ago then the haplogroup arrived in the neolithic and it's downstream branches would have had their origin here - this is currently the ongoing theory because it's what the current modern samples suggest, but we don't really know if this is what happened because there are massive gaps since people who have been SNP tested are so few, and STR testing is much less reliable.

This is what FTDNA currently constructs the movement as.
Show Content

It's possible (although there are no samples currently to suggest it) that the branch would have been in the East Med some 2000 years ago, and since there were multiple movements into Europe during the Roman period - because the Empire dramatically changed everything genetically and we see many, many people moving into Europe, over the centuries, hailing from the Eastern Mediterranean - and that many unknown branches downstream of BY36858 moved here, whereas other unknown/untested ones might still be in Lebanon, Palestine or whathaveyou. We'll have to wait for more samples because information is severely lacking.
 
Asking for "specific proof" when there are no ancient samples is just dishonest. I have no more patience to entertain this, three and a half years is well enough for me.

Hello  @Sailcius
I think its okay to rely on assumptions, but they should be based on good foundations
Target: CapsianWGS_scaled
Distance: 1.2510% / 0.01251049
37.2 Iberomaurusian
36.8 Early_European_Farmer
12.8 Early_Levantine_Farmer
8.0 Steppe_Pastoralist
4.8 SSA
0.4 Iran_Neolithic
FTDNA : 91% North Africa +<2% Bedouin + <2  Southern-Levantinfo + <1 Sephardic Jewish + 3% Malta +  3%  Iberian Peninsula
23andME :  100% North Africa

WGS ( Y-DNA and mtDNA)
Y-DNA: E-A30032< A30480 ~1610 CE
mtDNA: V25b 800CE ? ( age mtDNA not accurate )
Reply
#11
(12-13-2023, 07:24 PM)Acv2 Wrote: [quote="vlrs" pid="6039" dateline="1702220440"]


ANSWER: Again. You are wrong about Einstein Y-DNA . He is E-M123* he is easy to look up. Please do.
I am talking about E-134123 & E-BY36858 Branch and how the time it entered into Europe needs to be updated, to reflect a much later time. I even did it's own thread for this intial  post but the administrators bunched it up with this very general E-M123*  thread. So far, I see 3 replies  to it that do not really concentrate on the branch.




Haha, I see why you are thinking like that now - but it is you who are wrong. Upstreams like E-Z830 (Einstein's) are completely unrelated to us. The last connection E-m123* had with E-Z830 was in the Paleolithic period when they split. Even in the Middle East, where we can say that later branches of these haplogroups remained and lived, they simply had very different stories - E-Z830 participated in the formation of the Jewish tribes, while E-m123* participated in the formation of various Arabic people. And that participation happened in the last 3000 years probably, while the initial split between  E-Z830 and E-m123* was in the Paleolithic times. 

The Palestinian samples as I said previously, have nothing to do with ancient times - 50% of the Palestinians are Medieval migrants from all around the Levant, while the rest arrived in later times as multiple migrations from many directions. So if you are keen to see Palestinian samples as remnants from ancient Jewish tribes, this is not the case. If that was the case, we would have seen at least 1 e-m123* sample from an Israeli person so far. Also, the TMRCAs as you mentioned do not support what you claim. Based on all I know, there is 0% chance for this haplogroup (or the mentioned 2 branches by you) to bear any relation to the Jewish people. 
Reply
#12
(12-10-2023, 03:00 PM)vlrs Wrote: the Palestinian samples that we have so far are very dubious because the Palestinian people are immigrants from all over the Middle East and do not represent an autochthonous population (Canaanites). So the Palestinian results so far would belong initially to other ethnic groups and nation-states going 100-200 or 500 years back in time.

This is not true at all. How did you reach that conclusion?
Reply
#13
I think one of the things he might not realise is how few Jewish individuals were living in Palestine before the Zionist movement in late 1800s/early 1900s, the overwhelming majority was Muslim with significant minorities such as Christians (Lebanon).

Unfortunately the communities had long left the Levant, which is why it is much, much easier to find haplogroups that belonged to Jewish communities in Europe or the US, these folks also tend to take DNA tests a lot more than the poor blokes living in Gaza, or the West Bank. Finding whatever haplogroup in Palestine, or in Israeli Arabs, doesn't suggest that it is present in Jewish populations - if it existed, but is lacking in modern individuals, it likely died out and cannot be proven without ancient samples.

I don't know if the Palestinians who are positive for E-Y134123 descend from people who have been living there for many centuries or not, but it's not particularly important either, it's bound to be a branch that's descended from a Middle Eastern/West Asian man at a given point in time anyway. Interestingly there's two individuals, sharing an ancestor who lived as recently as 1750CE - even my own genealogical record goes back a few generations before that date.

I also don't know why we're having this discussion, there's dozens of samples belonging to a branch that arose a whopping 16000 years ago and so far none of it was recorded in a Jewish man despite the fact there's literally thousands and thousands of tested individuals. This discussion wouldn't have happened if he wasn't blinded by religion.
Rober_tce and Qrts like this post
[1] "distance%=1.4662"
Ruderico

Galaico-Lusitanian,72.4
Berber_IA,9.8
Briton_IA,9.8
Roman_Colonial,8
Reply
#14
(12-15-2023, 04:56 PM)Qrts Wrote:
(12-10-2023, 03:00 PM)vlrs Wrote: the Palestinian samples that we have so far are very dubious because the Palestinian people are immigrants from all over the Middle East and do not represent an autochthonous population (Canaanites). So the Palestinian results so far would belong initially to other ethnic groups and nation-states going 100-200 or 500 years back in time.

This is not true at all. How did you reach that conclusion?

This is well known from history but I am not going to delve deeper into this offtopic because right now this might be sensitive for some people due to the ongoing war, and it is not really important for the thread anyway. To summarize my main idea - you can't make any assumptions based on Palestinian samples, just because those people came from many different directions during the ages. Even the oldest layer (Christian) is still Medieval.
Reply
#15
(12-16-2023, 12:50 AM)vlrs Wrote:
(12-15-2023, 04:56 PM)Qrts Wrote:
(12-10-2023, 03:00 PM)vlrs Wrote: the Palestinian samples that we have so far are very dubious because the Palestinian people are immigrants from all over the Middle East and do not represent an autochthonous population (Canaanites). So the Palestinian results so far would belong initially to other ethnic groups and nation-states going 100-200 or 500 years back in time.

This is not true at all. How did you reach that conclusion?

This is well known from history but I am not going to delve deeper into this offtopic because right now this might be sensitive for some people due to the ongoing war, and it is not really important for the thread anyway. To summarize my main idea - you can't make any assumptions based on Palestinian samples, just because those people came from many different directions during the ages. Even the oldest layer (Christian) is still Medieval.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with this and will respond quickly since it's sensitive and offtopic - this is not 'known history', and at no point was Palestine as a whole depopulated and repopulated in the last not just 500 but 1500 years. 

This is not to say Palestine did not receive movement from neighboring lands, which were all part of Bilad al-Sham (Levant), and indeed it did from Muslim, Christian and Jewish communities nearby, but at no point did this movement constitute a 'replacement' of the locals.

Similarly, to take present-day Jewish haplogroup distribution as representative of pristine and whole Judean diversity in antiquity is an errant approach, especially when many communities picked up some lineages in host regions/countries.

But I do agree and won't derail the thread further than this. If you'd like to discuss it in details over a separate thread, I'd be glad to discuss this with you.
Sailgios, Capsian20, Rober_tce like this post
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)