Migrations humaines vers l'Afrique du nord.

[humanbyrace]

Voila le sujet que j'ai poste dans le forum Anglais

Your opinions about the biocultural&spatiotemporal "urheimat" of proto Afroasiatic genesis(branched from proto world)?
We would never be sure 100% since we can not make a travel back to the past, however we can try to built some possible scenarios starting from facts from which we can expand some propositions and speculations about possible old biocultural milieus that would constitute the first innovative geneticocultural niche stemming from the common out of Africa trunk that lead to the genesis of the primeval language that would gave birth to the actual Afroasiatic called languages. (though it should be noted that evidently the afro-asiatic called languages will have elements taken through population or idea diffusion from neighbor biocultural milieus)

According to Shomaraka Keita and Sheikh Anta Diop a cultural complex of the Sahara pupmped human waves speaking some form of "nostratic" languages that would give birth to Afro-Asiatic as well as Ind-European as well as superstratum and borrowings into other languages steming from distant and different niches, though one should ask waht was the technological innovations that could explain such wide dispersal and diffusion of Nostratic languages to such point that they would culturally or/and numerically "submerge" the other biocultures?
Martin Bernal has a similar scenario though he advocates a bioculture of harpoon hunters and foragers from the area of the great lakes in Africa as the source of the Nostratic and Afro-Asiatic phylum.
Nancy fleming advocates an origin in Ethiopia-north Kenya for Afroasiatic proper (though she accepts the nostratic hypothesis) due essentially to the diversity of the afro-asiatic branches spoken in that area
Lionel bender on the other side developped a theory called Macro-Kushitic (basing himself especially on the huge diversity of the Kushomo-Tchadic branch of Afro-Asiatic) and according to him Indo-European do descend from the Macro-Kushitic system.
Also Carleton Hodge advocates an "urheimat" in northern Egypt (the delta region) for a language phylum he calls "Lislakh" consisting of Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European because those 2 language families share many peculiar innovations as well as common inflective ablautic gender including morphology that is alien to the "Borean" languages such as Uralic...

A major difficulty is the scarcity of datas about the human movements and ancient biocultures in Africa and Arabia (Africa and Arabia being connected with the Sinai isthmus could be counted as a single continent afrabia???)
I remember a professor explained that the number of archeological excavations that were made in a single year in a small (and fringe) area such as England was superior to the number of archeological excavations made in the whole western asia (mesopotamia-levant-anatolia) during 10 years and that the situation was worse in Africa , besides the fact that the European equipes that came to western Asia were mostly interested in the great Greco-Roman heritage and to lesser extent the old Sumerian-Assyrian-Hittite but show little interest to Seljuk-Abbasi-Ottoman (ie when they digged they quickly digged to reach the greco-roman stratum and ignoring the upper islamic stratum) according to the professor, though of course this is sounds like a "non innocent" generalisation that one should take with a grain of salt and investigate it personally.
But what should be said is that the lack of sufficien archeological excavations in the deep Africa leads to what archeologists call "argument by silence" ie since there is no attestation of old cultures in some area thus in reality there was NOTHING there.

[We all know that first modern human appeared in Africa and in the same time most of our way of lifes and cultures are shaped and are stemmed from the Western European as well the Grecoroman civilisation but of course those marvellous civilisations and cultures did not appear in situ grace of some obscure inner genetic abilities (because such thinking is illogical, racist and besides all unscienitific) but they are in fact connected (both culturally and genetically) with the other humans and their old and current cultures besides the fact that at first glance one can think that "all credits" of our current culture are accomplishements of a certain "race" and certain "culture" which is totally independant and distinct from the other "races" and "cultures" and did not take anything from them while imposing its culture and way of life upon them.

ie, this is not correct and the current world bioculture is the result of symbiosis+synthesis between different "races" and cultures and all the "races" are in fact "sons" of the first african modern human, besides the fact that no one did choose his ethnicity, race, language so it's unethical to have such a supremacist behavior which in the same time could result in the "others" thinking of themselves that they are innerly "ruthless" and thus will, without any logical base, lack self esteem etc...(imagine if a swahili or hausa or mapuche or papua writing author would win the Nobel prize of litterature=>this will result in the speakers of those languages not abandoning them in favor of English/Spanish...=>the languages will have a revival and avoid extinction=>monocolor standardisation of our world and lack of the regional cultures...)]

On the other hand there are linguists that advocate an "asian" (ie arabian though arabia is sticked to africa by 2 isthmus[sinai]/detroits[bab el madab] and between them a narrow sea=red sea) and associates the proto (nostratic later lislakh later) afro-asiatic with kebaran1/kebaran2/natuf/ubaid/hassuna half biocultural niches.
One of them is Alexandre Militarev arguing that proto afro-asiatic (or afrasian with the appelation of Diakonoff or afrasan with the appelation of some other scholars) had words for agriculture&animal husbandry (from [re]constructions based in reflexes in the daughter languages) and thus should have developped in the fertile crescent area with the "discovery" of agriculture and animal domestication and then there was back migrations to Africa, this scenario is shared also by the linguist Allen Bomhard(see the section below from his book)

Also there are some speculations that some reflex words in the African branches of Afrasan are "loanwords" from asian languages similar to hurric/hattic and being so widespread amongst african branches of the afrasan languages they should have been "borrowed" in the proto afrasan phase when in Asia.

Also the diversity argument can not be relied on much since cultural diversity (such as language diversity) could more easily explained by distinct tempospatial converging migrations rather than being the source, for example nowadays there are in France 3 different ie branches (celtic, italic both from the western ie group and the very distinct germanic sub-branch of the eastern tocharo-germanic branch of the eastern ie group; greco-armeno-indoiranian being the central group) but for archeodemographical, historical, archeotechological, archeofaunaflorical, archeoracial, genetic and archeocultural as well as archeological and artcheoclimatic reasons no scholar thinks of the region corresponding to todays France as the region of the indo-european "homeland", on the other side there is only 1 and rather recent and tip-branched (eastern slavic sub-sub-branch from the slavic sub-branch from the slavo-baltic branch from the central indo-european group) language phylum (ukrainian) in the accepted area of the indo-european homeland and in Anatolia (the most accepted area of indo-hittite[ancestor of indo-european] "homeland")there is only the kurdish sub-sub-sub branch nowadays.

[humanbyrace]

Here below sections from the book of Allen Bomhard (in bold the current-thread-relevant parts)

An even more interesting connection between PIE and PAA is Bomhard’s 318 "Proto" roots. According to the above revised version of the phonetic constituents, Bomhard found 318 roots of both proto-languages that had almost exact correspondence in both sound and meaning. This is some of the evidence that leads him to conclude that Indo-European and Afroasiatic bear a stronger affinity
both in their phonological systems and in their vocabularies, than could possibly have been produced by accident–so strong, indeed, that no linguist could examine them without believing them to have sprung from a common source.

The presence of Afroasiatic speakers in North Africa is due to successive waves of expansion from the Near East, each representing a contemporary form of post-Afroasiatic. In the earliest phase, the language may have been close to contemporary Indo-European, having the same SOV syntactic order inherited from Nostratic, and presumably much the same morphology, but already exhibiting the characteristic Afroasiatic feminine in t, which seems to be peculiar to this family. This wave, with its early Nostratic language, must have represented the first flush of Mesolithic influence in Africa, preceding the advent of the agricultural Neolithic in that region. It extended as far as the Ethiopian highlands and the Chad Basin to the Northwest of them, but there bogged down after converting the local African peoples to Nostratic speech as represented by the Cushitic, Omotic, and Chadic speakers of today… It is probable that the Cushitic and Omotic languages still retain traces of early Nostratic morphology…
“Later Southward waves of Afroasiatic speakers occurred at times when the old SOV pattern had changed – or was in process of changing – to the historically observed VSO pattern, accounting for the Berber and Old Egyptian speakers, the Semites of Syria, Palestine, Arabia, and Ethiopia, and eventually the Arabic expansion of the present era

The proto-Afro-Asiatics have been identified by archaeologists with the Natufians in the territories of Syria and Palestine. “Judging solely from their lexicon, it appears that the Natufians were relatively advanced: they built fortified structures from stone; they cultivated land, raised cattle and hunted with bow and arrow… The Natufians also developed a market system, evident in the existence of words for buy, sell, and price, and they waged war on (kih) and raided (ghwar) their neighbors. Prehistoric poets – or perhaps lawyers – were known for their ability to ‘draw magic signs on sand.’ [Compare these with the emblems the Yang-Shao peoples carved on their potteries.] There were even Natufian haves and have-nots: the rich, who owned w-s-r, or expensive things; those who s-r-kk, or stole; and others made a living by pawning stolen goods…” (Shevoroshkin, ibid., p. 23 – 4.)


These new colonizers of Africa were of caucasian surface-phenotype; and as their tribes encountered the native Africans, genetic admixtures took place with the natives contributing the major part to the genetic constitution of their common descendants and the new comers the minor part. In linguistic respect however the colonizers had the upperhand, converting native Africans to their Afro-Asiatic speech while the native tongues of North Africa were lost in the process. This is similar to the manner in which the (nuclear) genetic composition of the Ethiopians, for example, was constituted, which constitution however may have been the result of a slow process of admixture since the first wave but not completed until historical times, and which consists in a majority of African frequencies plus a minority of Caucasian, reflecting an original mixture of a majority of native Africans with a minority of Caucasians.
Then a second wave of Afro-Asiatic expansion exploded from the Palestine-Syriac center (the Afro-Asiatic "homeland"), probably for reasons associated with the genesis of agriculture, which would locate this expansion at about 10,000 BP. The new expansion into North Africa again virtually covered up the entire area of the first Afro-Asiatics' north African settlement

The basic pattern of the expansion of the Homo sapiens sapiens on the Eurasian continent, of “the peopling of Eurasia,” is of the “ripple” type, with the Near East in the center pumping waves after waves of immigrants to the east (East Asia), west (Europe), and somewhat later, namely after the retreat of the last ice-age, north and south (back to North Africa). The model of Eurasia-peopling is, that is to say, “Out of the Near East Again and Again.” The first wave has just been described and the linguistic vestiges of it identified. Around 40,000 years or so BP, a second wave of immigration “radiated” outward from the Near East center (“homeland”) to both East Asia and Europe. It’s quite possible that many of the descendants of the “first wave”, already resident in the larger part of South Asia, were “assimilated” by the second wave, the linguistic field of which covered up large section of South Asia. That is, they adopted the customs and languages of the new-comers, having lost their own linguistic and cultural identities. This is a too-often repeated pattern in the story of humans-coming-to-be-in-where-they-are-today, as we shall see. On the other side, arriving in Europe, the immigrants of the “second wave,” the first Homo sapiens sapiens to there turn up, quickly swept across and populated all over the frozen continent (“lasting 5 to 10,000 years”; p. 66, Cavalli-Sforza et al. The History and Geography of Human Genes). They brought with them the more sophisticated Aurignacian lithic culture, in contrast with the local, Mousterian culture of the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. They brought about, too, the extinction of the latter through their more accelerated population growth. This second wave is today identified as the Dene-(Sino-)Caucasian substratum, at this time constituting a vast dialect field extending over the entire Eurasia from the tip of Spain to probably as far as the coast of Northeast Asia. The time is approximately 30,000 years BP.
The European sub-culture of this vast Dene-Caucasian substratum has today left its traces in our memory as the “Cro-Magnon Man.”1 & 2 But only few vestiges from this “second wave” remain today. In the European west the only (linguistic) remnant today is the Basque (in southern France and northern Spain). To the east, the rest of the Dene-Caucasian substratum still remaining includes the north Caucasian family, Burushaski (of Pakistan), Sino-Tibetan, Yeniseian (Siberia), and Na-Dene of North America. Now if we want to identify the bearers of the language ancestral to today’s Chinese languages at this time, i.e. around 30,000 years BP, we can surmise that they were probably at this time no longer in the Near East but were to be found near the Himalayan region, the actual homeland of the Sino-Tibetan family 20,000 years or so later.
I want to retrack and put emphasis on the fact that the first “Europeans,” the “Cro-Magnon Man,” who pushed the Neanderthals into ever more unfavorable ecological niches and eventually into extinction, were most probably Dene-Caucasians and not the Indo-Europeans that according to all accounts arrived here only more than 20,000 years later. I’ve always been intrigued by the Europeans today who, when visiting museums of natural history, identified the reconstructions (models and images) of the Cro-Magnon Man they saw as their “(direct) ancestor,” and even by the museum curators who wrote the explanations for the pieces exhibited as if this Cro-Magnon Man were truly (directly) ancestral to themselves and the visitors staring wondrously at the reconstructions. (The museum curators, by virtue of their education, of course knew of the later coming of the “Indo-europeéns.”) The source of this illusion is certainly the fact that they all are on the same continent. The Cro-Magnon Man is ancestral to modern Europeans only in the sense that most of the genetic constitution of modern Europeans are inherited from Cro-Magnon Man;2 but certainly not in the linguistic sense. The complication involved in identifying an “ancestor” reflects the complex pattern of the process of people-coming-to-be-where-they-are-today.
We now come to the “third wave,” the third “Out of Near East.” Most of today’s linguistic and ethnic diversity on Eurasia continent in fact had its origin in this third, Nostratic focal expansion. Let me read to you from the excellent statement on this topic, Allan R. Bomhard and John C. Kern’s The Nostratic Macrofamily (Mouton de Gruyter, 1994). First, his concluding statement on the previous, second focal expansion, that of Dene-Caucasian.
“As always in hunter-gatherer societies, mobility was at a premium. Canoes were used for water travel and snow shoes and sleds were developed for overland travel in winter. The conditions were favorable for the rapid spread of tribes and their new linguistic family over immense distances. This expansion, which is called Mesolithic, is indicated archaeologically by microliths found all along Northern Eurasia and Southward through the Caucasus into the Near East, where it later developed smoothly into the Neolithic with its domestication of cereals and of animals suitable for food and fibers.
“The Mesolithic culture is aptly named, for it provided a gradual though rapid transition between the Upper Paleolithic and the agricultural Neolithic. There was, in fact, a steady advance in man’s ability to control and exploit his environment…”
the Mesolithic culture, with its Nostratic language, had its beginning in or near the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus, with a slightly later northern extension into Southern Russia in intimate association with woods and fresh water in lakes and rivers. From these positions, it had ready access to the lower Danube and the Balkans (Indo-European), to the Caucasus (Kartvelian), south of the Caucasus into Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, and the rest of North Africa (Sumerian and Afroasiatic), eastward into Central Siberia (Elamo-Dravidian), and northward and thence eastward along the Circumpolar fringe (Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic, Chukchi-Kamchatkin, Gilyak, and Eskimo-Aleut [: these together with Indo-European constitute the Eurasiatic subgroup within Nostratic). In the process of its expansion, it undoubtedly effected a linguistic conversion of many tribes of Dene-Caucasian or other origins; this accounts for the fact that non-Nostratic languages in Eurasia in historic times have been found mostly as relics in mountainous regions. Exceptions are Chinese and the now moribund or extinct Ket, which, together with Hattic and Hurrian, probably represent post-Nostratic reemergences of Dene-Caucasian speakers from their relic areas

[humanbyrace]

Erratum:

Quote:
slavobaltic-greco-armeno-indoiranian being the central group) but for archeodemographical, historical, archeotechological, archeofaunaflorical, archeoracial, genetic and archeocultural as well as archeological and artcheoclimatic reasons no scholar thinks of the region corresponding to todays France as the region of the indo-european "homeland", on the other side there is only 1 and rather recent and tip-branched (eastern slavic sub-sub-branch from the slavic sub-branch from the slavo-baltic branch from the central indo-european group) language phylum (ukrainian) in the accepted area of the indo-european homeland and in Anatolia (the most accepted area of indo-hittite[ancestor of indo-european] "homeland")there is only the kurdish sub-sub-sub branch nowadays.

Addenda
Semitic intrusion to Ethiopia is rather recent as showed by the south Arabic scrip origin of the ethiopian script as well as the fact that only one semitic branch ie south Semitic out of 4 banches (north, south, east, west) is present in Ethiopia and thus only one branch remains ie kushomotic which is less than say Niger where there are historical 2 afrasan branches(tchadic+libyc) as well as recent semitic arabic influx

The difficulity is that the old written documents in Egyptian and Semitic are the ones of city dwellers who will only write in their particular dialect and thus we will only have accounts of their languages and not the languages of the illetrate countryside folks who make the majority ie those folks get their tongues "obscured" with time and submerged by the "official languages" of the rulers in the solid historic states of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Levant whereas the "illetrate folk dialects" get conserved in remote areas free of solid state rule in horn of Africa and Sahara.
Though still some oldest attested Semitic languages such as Akkadian and Eblaite have grammatical similarities and isoglosses with some Kushitic and Tchadic languages , such as the SOV word order shared by east(Akkadian, Babylonian, Assyrian)&north(Eblaitic, Mariic) with Kuhsitic languages.

As for the genomic part, Behar's study showed that Ethiopians had near 50% Arabian admixture wich could not explained, of course with the recent 8-7 th BC arrival of Semitic speakers to Ethiopia and should portray very older(kushomotic speaking) and diffused Arabian migrations

End

[Younes78]

Salut,

Je suis Algérien et j'ai fait testé l'ADN de mon chromosome Y avec une compagnie de généalogie génétique américaine (FTDNA). Mon haplogroupe patrilinéaire est R1b . D'après vous d'òu et comment mon ancêtre R1b est-il arrivé en Algérie ?
Merci !

[ernestito]

Je pense que dans l'article, il veulent dire "Berberes" par "mozabites" Car ces derniers et c'est incontestable, sont venus d'arabie.

reponse

Pendant le Moyen Âge, les B Mzab (ancienne population) étaient séparés dans les différentes tribus berbères. Lors des révoltes berbères sufrites et nekarites contre les armées Abbassides et Omeyades. Le groupe des Nefzaouas de la Libye était ibadite et a participé aux batailles durant cette révolte. Aussi, Ibn Rustom regroupe plusieurs individus sous son contrôle et participe à la révolte. Le chef de toutes les armées et de tous les courants sera Abou Qurra et sort victorieux de toutes les guerres. Par la suite plusieurs chefs de dogme cassent l'union. Abou Qurra décide de se retirer avec ses troupes dans sa ville de Tlemcen et s'allie avec les Idrissides au détriment des Rostémides. Ces derniers prennent Tiaret et fondent leur capitale. La guerre éclate entre les Banou Ifren et les Maghraoua contre les Rostémides. Par la suite, les Fatimides prennent l'Ifriqiya. Un membre des Banou Ifren, Abu Yazid regroupe autour de lui tous les sufrites et nakarites Berbères. Au même moment les Azzaba (une population venant d'Irak, selon les mozabites) décident de faire alliance avec Abu Yazid pour contrer les Fatimides. Après la mort d'Abou Yazid. Les Banou Ifren et les Maghraouas continuent à faire la guerre aux Zirides alliés aux Fatimides. À ce moment, plusieurs trêves sont signées, mais la guerre continuera jusqu'au début du xe siècle. Les Hammadides se rebellent et créent leur état. Les Banou Ifren restent maitres de Tlemcen et de quelques villes dans le Maghreb Ouest. Les Maghraoua sont maîtres de la plupart des villes du Maghreb Ouest et ils seront des alliées aux Omeyades sauf dans les derniers temps avant l'arrivée des Almoravides.
En 972, les populations des Azzaba, qui faisaient partie des Rostémides, se réfugient au sud puisque les Zirides (Chiites) les traquent. Les Zirides prennent Tiaret et une partie du Chlef. L'Imam Yacoub (membre des Rostomides) se réfugie dans la vallée du Ouad Mia à Ouargla. Mais, les tribus Zénètes et Sanhadja lui font la guerre après quelques années. L'imam Yacoub fonde plusieurs ksars entre Krima, Sedrata et la montagne Ibad. L'Imam Yacoub quitte la région de Ouargla avec ses membres et se dirige vers la région du Mzab qui était habité par les tribus des Nefzaouas venus de Libye et ils sont majoritaire et pratiquent l'ibadisme.
Selon Yaḥyá ibn Abī Bakr Abū Zakarīyāʾ al-Warjalānī, Yaḥyā ibn Šaraf Abū Zakarīyā Muḥyī al-Dīn al- Nawawī, Abou Zakariya, selon lui, Abou Abd Allah ben Ibad convertit un groupe de Berbères Zénètes, les Ouacilites. Ces derniers fondèrent les ksours d'El Ettaf, Ghardaia et Bou Noura.
Selon Abel André Coÿne, Khelfa ibn Abror chef des populations fonde El Ettaf en 1012. Ensuite, Bou Nora est construite en 1057. Gardiaia est édifié en 1097 par Sliman ben Yahia, Si Boujmaa et Aissa ben Alouan8. Entre ses deux dernières dates, les Hilaliens pénètrent l'Algérie centrale.
Selon Yaḥyá ibn Abī Bakr Abū Zakarīyāʾ al-Warjalānī, Yaḥyā ibn Šaraf Abū Zakarīyā Muḥyī al-Dīn al- Nawawī, Abou Zakariya, selon lui, les Almoravides vont s'attaquer aux Ibadites surtout au règne du Almoravides Yahia ibn ishaq ibn Mohamed ibn Ghania en 1204. 9.
Selon Ibn Khaldoun, la grande tribu des Bani Marin est Zénètes et issue de la tribu des Wassin10. Ils sont frères des Ilumi et des Medyuna. Ils habitaient le grand territoire situé entre le Za et le Muluya. Ils partagent les plaines et les déserts du Maghreb. Les Mérinides faisaient la guerre contre les Banu Badin formés par les tribus zénètes (les Zianides, les Tudjin, les Mzab et les B. Zerdal, B. Rached)11. Les B. Marin étaient localisés entre Figuig et Sijilmassa jusqu'à la Moulouya. Les Mérinides kharidjites s'installent au Zab, lors des attaques Almoravides. Les B. Marin se regroupent et ils attaquent les Almohades, mais les Zénètes les pourchassent. Les Mérinides s'enfuient alors vers le désert en 1145. Par la suite le Khalife Al Mansur des Almohades les appelle à faire la Guerre sainte. Mahiyu, chef de la tribu mourut d'une blessure d'une guerre lors de son retour au désert du Zab12.

Au xiiie siècle, les berbères Ibadites se rassembleront dans la région du Mzab. Tous les réfugiés venaient de Tiaret, du Djbel Amour, etc. D'autres sont venus de Djerba en Tunisie pour des raisons inconnues à nos jours dans la région du Mzab .13.

Depuis le xviiie siècle, le rôle de la région comme carrefour commercial caravanier de l'Afrique saharienne s'est affirmé, autour de produits tels que les dattes, le sel, l'ivoire, les armes, mais aussi les esclaves[réf. nécessaire]. La présence de Mozabites installés dans les villes du Nord du Maghreb telles que Tunis et Alger confirme leurs capacités commerciales.
Après la conquête de Laghouat par les Français, les Mozabites concluent avec le gouvernement d'Alger une convention qui les engage à payer une contribution annuelle de 1800 francs pour obtenir l'autonomie. En 1853, la Fédération des sept cités du Mzab signe un traité avec la France, le texte garantit une autonomie à la région. Mais les incursions répétées de nomades poussent la France à annexer le territoire en 1882. Les Français ont à partir de cette date développé un système d'irrigation dans les oasis. La région du M'Zab fut notamment représentée en peinture par les peintres Maurice Bouviolle, Marius de Buzon et d'autres peintres orientalistes français.
Les chaambas participent activement avec Cheikh Bouamama aux batailles contre l'armée française.

sources
Yaḥyá ibn Abī Bakr Abū Zakarīyāʾ al-Warjalānī, Yaḥyā ibn Šaraf Abū Zakarīyā Muḥyī al-Dīn al- Nawawī, Abou Zakariya, Chronique d'Abou Zakaria, page LXXV
↑ Ibn Khaldoun, Histoire des Berbères, p 1181, édition Berti, Alger, 2003 (ISBN 9961-69-027-7)
↑ Ibn Khaldoun, Histoire des Berbères, p 1181, édition Berti, Alger, 2003 (ISBN 9961-69-027-7)
↑ Ibn Khaldoun, Histoire des Berbères, p 1183, édition Berti, Alger, 2003 (ISBN 9961-69-027-7)

[humanbyrace]

Votre haplogroupe est R1b1b2a1a2d3, aussi abbrege en R-L2 il derive du hg U125 qui lui derive du hg P312; la mutation "finale" de cet hg dateriat de 4000 a 4500 ans.
Ce sub-clade semblerait west europeen, cependant le traçage autosomal est plus important que le hg car le hg ne montre que 1 ancetre parmi des millions et un individu peut etre genetiquement de descendance berbere et moyen orientale avec tres peu d'influence europeene (meme 0,1-1%) et avoire un hg europeen

This subclade is defined by the presence of the marker U152, also called S28.[2] Its discovery was announced in 2005 by EthnoAncestry[50] and subsequently identified independently by Sims et al. (2007).[43] Out of a sample of 135 men in Tyrol, Austria, 45 men tested positive for M343 (R1b). Of these 45, 25 tested positive for U106/S21, and 9 for U152/S28. 8 Men could not be further identified in the study. One man testing positive for U106 also tested positive for U198.[51] Myres et al. report this clade "is most frequent (20-44%) in Switzerland, Italy, France and Western Poland, with additional instances exceeeding 15% in some regions of England and Germany

[humanbyrace]

Pour ce qui est des etudes autosomales , il ya deux individus maghrebins (probablement algeriens ou tunisiens vu que leur score arabique est superieur a celui marocain mais inferieur a celui libyen) qui ont participle voila une moyenne de leur resultats (ça donnerait plus au moins une idee pour les autres algeriens)
Asie occidentale (syrie+iraq+anatolie)=11%
Arabie=19,5%
Afrique du nord=23%
Europe du sud=28%
Asie sudorientale (chinois+viets...)=0
Asie nordorientale (Turcs+mongols+koreens+tunguzes)=0
Europe du nord=6%
Afrique de l'est=6,5%
Afrique de l'ouest=4%
Continent Indien=2%

[Younes78]

Merci beaucoup pour ces infos !

J'ai obtenu également l'haplogroupe de mon génome mitochondrial (origine de la lignée maternelle) et le résultat est U5. Comment ,d'après vous, mon ancestre est-elle arrivée en Afrique du Nord (kabylie)?

Merci encore !

[humanbyrace]

Votre hg patriligne (passe de pere en fils) est R1b1b2a1b4c
Votre hg matriligne (passe de mere a fille/fils) est U5 avec HVR1 Mutations
189C, 270T &HVR2 Mutations 073G, 150T, 263G, 309.1C, 315.1C

Les deux hg sont d'origine west europeene, le hg paternal est issu d'une migration datant du neolithique depuis le moyen orient vers l'europe (migrations qui ont fait diffuse l'agriculture vers l'europe) par contre le hg maternal est present en europe depuis le paleolithique et la premiere colonisation de l'europe par des groupes humains venus aussi de l'afrique a travers le moyen orient (qui a servi comme un incubateur)

Il est difficile de savoire l'ethnie de l'ancestre paternal mais on peut speculer sur celtique ou pre indo-europeen celtise, quant a l'ethnie de l'ancestre maternal c'est impossible de determiner car date du paleolilthique mais l'essentiel est qu'elle est "europeene" depuis le paleolithique.

[Younes78]

Merci Humanbyrace d'avoir pris le temps de répondre aussi clairement à mes interrogations. J'apprécie