Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bernie, for me there's something wrong with that map, it looks like they place the "y adam chromosome" in western africa, and it should placed be more to the east and south.
Maybe they are confusing Khoi people (the ancestors of european ans asian peoples) with the black , bantu expansion from west africa.Bantu expansion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nothing wrong with that! Are you well acquainted with haplogroups? The Khoisan people though they originated in parts of Eastern Africa moved south and west, so today are most common in Namibia, southwestern parts of South Africa, southern part of Angola due to Bantu expansion. "Y-Adam" is also common among the people of Southern Sudan (Dinka, etc...). Khoisan and Bantus are all Black people, what are you implying?
Why would R1b or I be unusual in Europe? Those are two of the most common European haplogroups. I'd say haplogroup J is the unusual one since roughly 3-5% of native Europeans have it and it is from the middle east.
Why is there R1b in the heart of Africa on Bernie's map? Also, they have the Na-Dene migration going through the plains area of the US into the SW, instead of down the west coast. They miss the Na-Dene tribes in Oregon and California. The "I" cluster on the west and north sides of Lake Baikal shown in the second map in the OP is also missing. I'm really intrigued by that. Haven't been able to find any further info on it, except that the Evens and Evenks in that area have about 5% "I". No explanation as to why, though.
Probably due to an invasion of Caucasoid-like of Middle-Eastern origin to that part of Africa or people from the Middle-East settling among Africans as they have don for hundreds of years.
Hey, cool map, thanks. I figured out the V88 sub-clade, earlier.
Great map, it's not perfect, but still, there's tons of info on there.
Notice that "R" seems to originate in the area of Tibet. That's interesting. It later gives rise to Indo-European and Indo-Iranian people (R1b, R1a) but it originates in Tibet. And so does Q, which is an unusual group that goes to Siberia (and Europe, though the map doesn't show this) and eventually morphs into Native American.
I hope whoever compiled this map continues to work on it. A few details are left out, but on a larger version of the map, it should be possible to include more detail. I'd love to have this as a wall map!
Why would R1b or I be unusual in Europe? Those are two of the most common European haplogroups. I'd say haplogroup J is the unusual one since roughly 3-5% of native Europeans have it and it is from the middle east.
R1b is indeed common in extreme Western Europe. However, I is not as common. Sure I1 (to which I belong) is pretty common in Scandinavia. Elsewhere, however, it is not all that common. In Southeastern Europe I think "I" and I2 can be found albeit at lower rates. "I" is the only haplogroup which appears to have originated in Europe. It appears not only to have been overtaken by R1b and R1A (Eastern Europe), but may reach smaller numbers soon.
Nothing wrong with that! Are you well acquainted with haplogroups? The Khoisan people though they originated in parts of Eastern Africa moved south and west, so today are most common in Namibia, southwestern parts of South Africa, southern part of Angola due to Bantu expansion. "Y-Adam" is also common among the people of Southern Sudan (Dinka, etc...). Khoisan and Bantus are all Black people, what are you implying?
You're wrong... Today's khoi people have darker skin, but they're more genetically related with euro-asian than with bantus, because people with the same haplogroup than khoi people, were our ancestors.(if you're euro-asian)
The skins colour means nothing in this subject.
Nilotic, australoids, negrito, bantu... you may think they're all the same, blacks.
But they are not, they have different haplogroups, and very different ancestry.
Some are more related with euro-asians than with bantu.
My humble tribute to the San people. I Tried this resumee about the subject.
By kantabriansea
The Khoisan, Khoi and San peoples are amongst the oldest human group in Africa and the world.
Thousands years ago they inhabited most of the South, East and Northeast of Africa.
Peoples with the same haplogroup than the San ( the khoi or the khoisan are the same) leave Africa more than 40.000 years ago, becoming what europeans or Asians are today.
But they were gradually displaced by other peoples in all Africa.
Today they can only be found in small areas in Africa, usually the most desolated and inhospitable ones.
Most of these areas are placed in South Africa.
They inhabited most of todays' South Africa until a few hundred years now.
They were the authentic people of South Africa, the genuine characteristically small-built San people,
The preservation of the wildlife, landscape and nature is something very important in their beliefs.
Then the bantu expansion forced them more into the South. Some of the Sam peoples learnt from the bantues how to shepherd animals and they became the Khoi the pastoralist .
Some others refused and continued their old lifestyle, the Sam the hunt gatherers.
Many years later some of these groups mingled between each others and became the khoisan.
But war continued between the khoisan peoples and the Bantu invaders.
Most of the times the bantues won territory at the expense of the Khoisan, the relations between them were not good and they didn't used to live in peace or mix between each other, with very few exceptions.
The continual war between bantu and khoi people took a great toll for the Khoi people because bantu peoples were by far superior in numbers and maybe in warfare too.
To get things worse, Dutch settlers appeared, and they called the Sam, Khoi and Khoisan people derogatory names as
"bushmen" or "hottentot", they were sometimes considered subhumans and were pushed towards the wastelands of kalahari, killed and treaed like animals.
Dutch East India Company (VOC) imported more zulu warriors from Angola and Guinea to help them in their war against the khoisan peoples.
Afrikaners and british were on war. But the people who suffered most were the khoisan, killed by the europeans and the bantu tribes.
Most of them were killed or displaced from the lands, which had been inhabited since time immemorial by their most ancient inhabitants, the KHOISAN people.
The appearance of the europeans was the definitve blow to the weak position of the khoisan people.
But we have to remember that the first colonialists to kill the Bushmen en masse were the Bantu people.
They suffered a genocide, at the hands of europeans and bantu peoples. There are reports that during the last ten years of the Dutch East India Company’s rule (1795), 2,504 “Bushmen†were killed, 669 captured and 276 colonists ( Khoikhoi) slain.
After a hundred years, the genocide slowly continued, forced to servitude.
In 1809 the so-called “Magna Carta of the Hottentots†was proclaimed that required Khoisan to register and carry a pass or risk being arrested as vagabonds.
Fortunately there were a few exceptions to this cruel situation.
For example Van der Kemp married a Khoikhoi woman, and complained to London the ways the Khoisan were enslaved.
Their charges of cruelty and murder were investigated by judges in what was called the “black circuit".
But the bantu attacks continued, in this case the Xhosa, with continued raiding and many boer khoisan were killed, these xhosa raids ended up in an open war.
During the South Africa and Imperial Wars...
Again more war, but this time zulu or Khoisan take much less causualties than the europeans, but equality brutal, for example the British killed, starved to death ot let to die by many other means 26000 boer women and children.
In 1922 the Smuts general regime destroyed the Khoi chiefdom of the Bondelswarts in southern South West Africa, the excuse was that they refused to pay a dog tax.
In 1927 Dr. Abdurahman, organized the first Non-European Conference in 1927 for Colored (APO), the ANC, and the South African Indian Congress (SAIC)... but there was no repesentation at all for the khoisan people.
In the XX century more and more bantu peoples went into South africa, in 1936 a census showed that there were a half million more Africans outside of the native areas than inside them, this also had a negative impact on the remaining khoisan.
In 1943 the ANC adopted a new constitution, but nothing regarding khoisan, Mandela chief of the MK the military wing of the ANC, was more worried about the communists, breaking up Communist Party meetings by tearing up signs and capturing the microphones, or fighting with Lembede or Sisulu to exclude whites from the League, than for the real native inhabitant of South Africa.
In this apartheid era, and obviously things didn't improved for khoisan, they were even denied from South African nationality.
The represion was great against black people (bantu) but was worst for the khoisan people, rejected by white, black or indian populations.
When the white apartheid regime was thrown, things didn't improved for them either. The ANC regime looked at the other side when khoisan people was killed, or recluded in settlements where poverty and alcohol destroyed their lives, with the ancient ways turned into are a mere memory.
Actual African probantu politicians pretend that the history of the Khoi and the San people never existed, that the ancient rock paintings were made by the xosha newcomers and things like that.
... all to try to build a prove that they have the real legitimacy to have a claim to the Cape.
Most people in this subject are wrong the Khoi-San people are or were cultural, genetical, etnical or linguistically different from the Bantu who came from Central Africa. They are a unique human group that shouldn't be lost.
You're wrong... Today's khoi people have darker skin, but they're more genetically related with euro-asian than with bantus, because people with the same haplogroup than khoi people, were our ancestors.(if you're euro-asian)
The skins colour means nothing in this subject.
Nilotic, australoids, negrito, bantu... you may think they're all the same, blacks.
But they are not, they have different haplogroups, and very different ancestry.
Some are more related with euro-asians than with bantu.
My humble tribute to the San people. I Tried this resumee about the subject. By kantabriansea
The Khoisan, Khoi and San peoples are amongst the oldest human group in Africa and the world. Thousands years ago they inhabited most of the South, East and Northeast of Africa. Peoples with the same haplogroup than the San ( the khoi or the khoisan are the same) leave Africa more than 40.000 years ago, becoming what europeans or Asians are today.
But they were gradually displaced by other peoples in all Africa.
Today they can only be found in small areas in Africa, usually the most desolated and inhospitable ones.
Most of these areas are placed in South Africa.
They inhabited most of todays' South Africa until a few hundred years now.
They were the authentic people of South Africa, the genuine characteristically small-built San people,
The preservation of the wildlife, landscape and nature is something very important in their beliefs.
Then the bantu expansion forced them more into the South. Some of the Sam peoples learnt from the bantues how to shepherd animals and they became the Khoi the pastoralist .
Some others refused and continued their old lifestyle, the Sam the hunt gatherers.
Many years later some of these groups mingled between each others and became the khoisan.
But war continued between the khoisan peoples and the Bantu invaders.
Most of the times the bantues won territory at the expense of the Khoisan, the relations between them were not good and they didn't used to live in peace or mix between each other, with very few exceptions.
The continual war between bantu and khoi people took a great toll for the Khoi people because bantu peoples were by far superior in numbers and maybe in warfare too.
To get things worse, Dutch settlers appeared, and they called the Sam, Khoi and Khoisan people derogatory names as
"bushmen" or "hottentot", they were sometimes considered subhumans and were pushed towards the wastelands of kalahari, killed and treaed like animals.
Dutch East India Company (VOC) imported more zulu warriors from Angola and Guinea to help them in their war against the khoisan peoples.
Afrikaners and british were on war. But the people who suffered most were the khoisan, killed by the europeans and the bantu tribes.
Most of them were killed or displaced from the lands, which had been inhabited since time immemorial by their most ancient inhabitants, the KHOISAN people.
The appearance of the europeans was the definitve blow to the weak position of the khoisan people.
But we have to remember that the first colonialists to kill the Bushmen en masse were the Bantu people.
They suffered a genocide, at the hands of europeans and bantu peoples. There are reports that during the last ten years of the Dutch East India Company’s rule (1795), 2,504 “Bushmen” were killed, 669 captured and 276 colonists ( Khoikhoi) slain.
After a hundred years, the genocide slowly continued, forced to servitude.
In 1809 the so-called “Magna Carta of the Hottentots” was proclaimed that required Khoisan to register and carry a pass or risk being arrested as vagabonds.
Fortunately there were a few exceptions to this cruel situation.
For example Van der Kemp married a Khoikhoi woman, and complained to London the ways the Khoisan were enslaved.
Their charges of cruelty and murder were investigated by judges in what was called the “black circuit".
But the bantu attacks continued, in this case the Xhosa, with continued raiding and many boer khoisan were killed, these xhosa raids ended up in an open war.
During the South Africa and Imperial Wars...
Again more war, but this time zulu or Khoisan take much less causualties than the europeans, but equality brutal, for example the British killed, starved to death ot let to die by many other means 26000 boer women and children.
In 1922 the Smuts general regime destroyed the Khoi chiefdom of the Bondelswarts in southern South West Africa, the excuse was that they refused to pay a dog tax.
In 1927 Dr. Abdurahman, organized the first Non-European Conference in 1927 for Colored (APO), the ANC, and the South African Indian Congress (SAIC)... but there was no repesentation at all for the khoisan people.
In the XX century more and more bantu peoples went into South africa, in 1936 a census showed that there were a half million more Africans outside of the native areas than inside them, this also had a negative impact on the remaining khoisan.
In 1943 the ANC adopted a new constitution, but nothing regarding khoisan, Mandela chief of the MK the military wing of the ANC, was more worried about the communists, breaking up Communist Party meetings by tearing up signs and capturing the microphones, or fighting with Lembede or Sisulu to exclude whites from the League, than for the real native inhabitant of South Africa.
In this apartheid era, and obviously things didn't improved for khoisan, they were even denied from South African nationality.
The represion was great against black people (bantu) but was worst for the khoisan people, rejected by white, black or indian populations.
When the white apartheid regime was thrown, things didn't improved for them either. The ANC regime looked at the other side when khoisan people was killed, or recluded in settlements where poverty and alcohol destroyed their lives, with the ancient ways turned into are a mere memory.
Actual African probantu politicians pretend that the history of the Khoi and the San people never existed, that the ancient rock paintings were made by the xosha newcomers and things like that.
... all to try to build a prove that they have the real legitimacy to have a claim to the Cape.
Most people in this subject are wrong the Khoi-San people are or were cultural, genetical, etnical or linguistically different from the Bantu who came from Central Africa. They are a unique human group that shouldn't be lost.
Nonsense, nonsense! Genetical evidence proves otherwise! It proves that closest people on a genetical level are the Bantus living in Southern and Eastern Africa, also the Sandawe people of Tanzania since they have languages which are grouped closed to those of Khoisan people. Y-chromosome "Adam" which is found prevalent among Khoisan was also found tribes in South Sudan and western Ethiopia. Before the arrival of the white man, Bantu which were a more powerful people living north of them, invaded Southern Africa in so doing, displaced the Khoisan people, but they also absorbed some Khoisan elements as well, especially the Xhosa. The late N. Mandela looks like a Khoisan, but he's a Xhosa. Southern Bantu languages have absorbed some Khoisan elements by using the clicking sounds which differs them from other Bantu languages elsewhere in Africa. It's the White supremacist ideology which separated the Bantus from Khoisans, because it follows the rule of "divide" to conquer. Even older anthropologists had racist ideologies, we all know what the European colonists did to the African people, the damage is irreparable. Both Bantus and Khoisan are African/Black but they do not have to all look alike. The Apartheid government which was Nazi-inspired and extremely racist encouraged a total separation of not only racial groups, but also linguistic groups, for example Zulus on one side, Xhosa on the other and obviously the Khoisan separated. During Apartheid, a Black person was only the one who looked or spoke a Bantu language. If you looked "Black" but had an English/Afrikaans family name, you could classify as "Coloured" or mixed-race. They also encouraged conflicts between different tribes of Black people and so this would benefit Whites and it would be harder for the Blacks to fight Apartheid. The Xhoisan are just as authentically African as are the Bantus!! Actually the Xhoisan lineages are much older than that of the Bantus! Not all Black Africans are Bantus, others are Nilotes, Sudanid, Afro-Asiatics, Pygmoids, etc... By the way, Bantus are originally from Western Africa, before they invaded Central, Eastern and Southern Africa, due to the fact that they possessed a higher technology and weaponry than the other Africans, they met, such as the Xhoisan/Khoisan.
What you are saying is comparable is like saying that Swedes, Norwegians are White, while Italians/Greeks are not because they are darker-haired and -eyed. That would be utter nonsense. The same applies to Bantus and Xhoisans, they are both Africans.
Why would R1b or I be unusual in Europe? Those are two of the most common European haplogroups. I'd say haplogroup J is the unusual one since roughly 3-5% of native Europeans have it and it is from the middle east.
Yes, R1b is the most abondant haplogroup in Western Europe, in some reigions such as Wales, Ireland, Catalonia, Basque and Aquitaine making up the immense majority of the population. R1b came from a region called Maykop and the valle of the Kuban river not a long time ago, but they replaced most of the original population but not matrilineally. It seems that the invaders were mostly males. They are associated with the iron age and horses.
The areas that were left relatively intact were ancient Helades and Scandinavia, in the Helades they had technology to ward them off, and Scandinavia, awful weather, so those are the regions were you can find pre-r1b inhabitants.
Yes, R1b is the most abondant haplogroup in Western Europe, in some reigions such as Wales, Ireland, Catalonia, Basque and Aquitaine making up the immense majority of the population. R1b came from a region called Maykop and the valle of the Kuban river not a long time ago, but they replaced most of the original population but not matrilineally. It seems that the invaders were mostly males. They are associated with the iron age and horses.
The areas that were left relatively intact were ancient Helades and Scandinavia, in the Helades they had technology to ward them off, and Scandinavia, awful weather, so those are the regions were you can find pre-r1b inhabitants.
When the data shows that a population was genetically replaced only patrilinearly, not matrilineally, is a clear evidence that war and violent replacement took place.
We can find that in other places of the world. For example, in South africa, many people from xhosa tribe show evidence of Khoi matrilineal lineage, but no patrilinearly, their male ancestors were black, bantu, peoples.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
