Haplogroup Question! Who arrived at the Ocean 1st, the L2 migration to West Africa, or the L3, to Ethiopia?

Question

L1 the oldest, Bushmen, remained in Central Africa.

L2 headed west, towards the Atlantic Ocean..

L3 went Northeast towards the Indian Ocean.

Answer 1

L3 did not go out and populate the world. The mostly stayed in Africa, the L3 group is most common in East Africa. Notice the Ethiopians, Somalis, Eritreans, and some Sudanese have similar facial and bone structure. East Africans are not related to Europeans. They are their own group. Sure everyone is human, and all people share that common bond but Ethiopians, Somalis, Eritreans, and some Sudanese are in their own gene pool.

L2, and L1 populated West and Central Africa. L1 is very common, it is present in 1/3 (or greater) of the world's total population. Not simply because of the Trans Atlantic slave trade, but because, they migrated in small groups during paleolithic times and populated Europe, Australia,etc. West and Central Africans are the closest relatives to Europeans and Aborigines. West and Central Africans carry the genetic code (not seen in East Africans) that can cause photorelated eumelanin ceasing. Meaning that these genes enabled the change in skin color when shifting to colder climates.

L4, and L5  haplo groups populated Asia and the Middle East.  Possible mixing with the  West African migrants (who no longer produced eumelanin because of the cold climate, etc.) could have led to many different phenotypes. Look at all the populations of Europe---- English, Scottish, German, Irish, French, Swedish, Italian, etc. Modern day Europeans are mixed with many different people----Asians, Middle Eastern groups, and West Africans; only because of the climate and harsh selective pressures---the skin color, hair and eye color, and eye shape changed drastically.

Answer 2

Dee Dee do some reading. Ethiopians are part Arab. Just because yo don't know that doesn't mean it's a lie.

Ethiopian mitochondrial DNA heritage: tracking gene flow across and around the gate of tears.Kivisild T, Reidla M, Metspalu E, Rosa A, Brehm A, Pennarun E, Parik J, Geberhiwot T, Usanga E, Villems R.

Estonian Biocentre and Tartu University, Tartu, Estonia. [e-mail]

Approximately 10 miles separate the Horn of Africa from the Arabian Peninsula at Bab-el-Mandeb (the Gate of Tears). Both historic and archaeological evidence indicate tight cultural connections, over millennia, between these two regions. High-resolution phylogenetic analysis of 270 Ethiopian and 115 Yemeni mitochondrial DNAs was performed in a worldwide context, to explore gene flow across the Red and Arabian Seas. Nine distinct subclades, including three newly defined ones, were found to characterize entirely the variation of Ethiopian and Yemeni L3 lineages. Both Ethiopians and Yemenis contain an almost-equal proportion of Eurasian-specific M and N and African-specific lineages and therefore cluster together in a multidimensional scaling plot between Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African populations. Phylogeographic identification of potential founder haplotypes revealed that approximately one-half of haplogroup L0-L5 lineages in Yemenis have close or matching counterparts in southeastern Africans, compared with a minor share in Ethiopians. Newly defined clade L6, the most frequent haplogroup in Yemenis, showed no close matches among 3,000 African samples. These results highlight the complexity of Ethiopian and Yemeni genetic heritage and are consistent with the introduction of maternal lineages into the South Arabian gene pool from different source populations of East Africa. A high proportion of Ethiopian lineages, significantly more abundant in the northeast of that country, trace their western Eurasian origin in haplogroup N through assorted gene flow at different times and involving different source populations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15457...

Answer 3

Ethiopians ARE NOT part Caucasian.  Ethiopians look like Ethiopians (and we bear a resemblance to a genetic cousins the Eritreans and Somalis, and have always looked that way. All the way from B.C. to the present. Look at our ancient art.  

That is so ignorant.

Please do your research and learn whether something is true or false BEFORE stating it as a fact.

I know this because I am of Ethiopian descent.

edit,

Hello Lala, and Hello Monkey Kat

May God bless you both.

You two make alot of sense and it is good to read your posts. Monkey Kat-- you cited the story with Noah, and Moses. Pretty cool. The Bible is so useful in settling all things. Christianity appears to be very important in your daily life because you know what you are talking about.

I will call  you well spoken!

Lala l - I did not know that West African people carried that photo-gene-whatever is called. Do you think it is linked to albinism? I noticed no Ethiopians have albinism, nor do our relatives  the Somalis, Eritreans, or Sudanese. Is albinism a West African trait? I have seen quite a few people of West African descent who have it, albinos born to two dark skinned African parents. Maybe the West Africans with the albinism trait were the people who left Africa in the first place---to find some where less sunny so they could survive?  

Any way, peace---M.K. and Lal.

Answer 4

L1 and L2 lines settled in Western and Eastern Africa respectively, whereas L3 (along with with some eleemtns of L1&2) went on to diverge outside into the big, wide world basically, exhibiting mutanogenesis in adaptation to the various environmental conditions around the globe.

I'd say L3 reached Oceania first, c.0.07mya.

Answer 5

Which ocean?

L3 is ancestral to all the non Africans. But L1 is the oldest, and was known to have been in the horn of Africa, so L1.

Edit 1

Lala L, Ethiopians have about 40% Caucasian DNA in them from a back migration into Africa sometime in prehistory. The other Horn of Africa peoples have varying amounts of Semitic Caucasian DNA in them, it's why they look kind of Caucasian.

L1 is comon in the Khoisan, and it's shown the area they originally inhabited was the horn of Africa, they were forced South by The Bantu expansion and the ancient Semitic movement into the horn of Africa.

Also, L haplotypes are pretty uncommon outside of Africa. Most non African haplotypes are descended from M (Asian) and N (Asian).

Edit2.

No, seriously Eternal. See below...

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJ...

"Phylogeographic analyses suggest that a large component of the present Khoisan gene pool is eastern African in origin and that Asia was the source of a back migration to sub-Saharan Africa. Haplogroup IX Y chromosomes appear to have been involved in such a migration, the traces of which can now be observed mostly in northern Cameroon."

The Khoisan apparently have ancestry from East Africa, and L1 is a parent to L2 and L3, so L1 would have been on the coasts first.

Edit 3.

Dee Dee, That is so ignorant.

Please do your research and learn whether something is true or false BEFORE stating it as a fact.

Here are a bunch of DNA studies that I can guarantee you've never seen that show West Africans to have a fair amount of Caucasian DNA in them. It's from a prehistoric population migration.

.

A high proportion of Ethiopian lineages, significantly more abundant in the northeast of that country, trace their western Eurasian origin in haplogroup N through assorted gene flow at different times and involving different source populations.

Toomas Kivisild et al.

Though present-day Ethiopia is a land of great ethnic diversity, the majority of Ethiopians speak different Semitic, Cushitic, and Omotic languages that belong to the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum. Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cushitic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general

Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75:000, 2004

“The present composition of the Ethiopian population is the result of a complex and extensive intermixing of different peoples of North African, Near and Middle Eastern, and south-Saharan origin. The two main groups inhabiting the country are the Amhara, descended from Arabian conquerors, and the Oromo, the most important group among the Cushitic people. … The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position.”

(De Stefano et al. 2002)

(Scacchi et al. 2003)

“Non sub-Saharan African samples are all grouped together…with…the Ethiopian Amharic sample [on the Y-chromosome]. Ethiopians are not statistically differentiated from the Egyptian and Tunisian samples, in agreement with their linguistic affiliation with the Afro-Asiatic family.”

(Poloni et al. 1997)

“On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times. On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation…. Our Ethiopian sample also lacks the sY81-G allele, which was associated with 86% and 69% of Senegalese and mixed-African YAP+ chromosomes, respectively. This suggests that male-mediated gene flow from Niger-Congo speakers to the Ethiopian population was probably very limited … Caucasoid gene flow into the Ethiopian gene pool occurred predominantly through males. Conversely, the Niger-Congo contribution to the Ethiopian population occurred mainly through females.”

(Passarino et al. 1998)

“Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans.”

Edit 4?

Oh. Well, Homo Erectus seems to have been comfy enough with water to have rafted to the island of Flores, and Neanderthals liked shellfish. Of the modern humans, I think Idaltu is the oldest known one on the East coast, but the southern most finds were at Pinnacle point in South Africa.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scienc...

There haven't been a lot of very old remains found on the Westward side of Africa except in Morocco, and I think they were semi-archaic (Jebel Irhood cave) about 162,000 years old. These guys got mistaken for Neanderthals for a long time.

These may well have been prior to mitochondrial Eve's L0 haplotype. I shouldn't think they'd correspond to any modern ethnic grouping.

Answer 6

Part of this was deleted so I'm  re-posting.

People should learn to appreciate diversity. God did not make us all the same. If we see people that hold some likeable traits like beauty, an interesting culture, intelligence, or whatever it may be. There is no need to downplay or trash talk another person's  culture, or try to take away their independence. Ethiopians (the modern day people all the way to the ones going around in Moses' day---by the way his wife was Ethiopian) predate everyone. I beleive the Garden of Eden was in Ethiopia because it's geographic location fits the one in the book of Genesis.  I believe that Ethiopians are the first people.

Neverthe less,  we all are different looking on the outside  but on the inside we all have the same heart, lungs, liver, and organs. We all laugh, feel, cry, and have complex emotions.

But any way, more about the Ethiopians since every one is disputing who they really are and who can lay claim to which features, simply because Ethiopian people are very beautiful and have a fascinating culture, and the oldest living race of people.

Ethiopian people (from a Biblical stand point) are the progeny of Kush / also spelled Cush. Cush was Ham's son, and Ham has always been believed to be the father of all African people. I beleive Ham was black because all the children he fathered were eumelanin rich people. His descendants are the Ethiopians, Somalis, Eritreans, Sudanese, Egyptians (ancient Egyptians, modern day Egyptians are a mixture of Arab and Africans),  San, Khoisian, and every African tribe that was in existence.

Shem, fathered the Semitic people. These people lived in the area of Mesopotamia and Middle East. No where in the Bible does it say that Semite= Jew or Caucasian. Modern day Jewish people are a mixture of European and Israeli people. The original Semites most closely resembled the olive skinned  and medium colored people of  India and South East Asia.  They were dark haired and curly haired.

In the book of Numbers, chapter 12, when Miriam discriminated against Moses' Ethiopian wife---God sent down leprosy on Miriam. And her skin became as "leprous as snow" meaning all the melanin and color got bleached out of her. If Miriam was not a person with melanin then no one would have noticed if the color was bleached out of her skin. ANd if Miriam was as dark as Moses' Ethiopian wife then she would not have cared if Moses' was with an Ethiopian woman because it would not have been a big deal. God punishing Miriam for being a bigot was the most powerful anti-racism message in the Bible ever.

Other mentionings of black people in the Bible are of the Shulamite girl in the song of Solommon. In chapter 1 verse 5,  the Shulammite says "Black I am, and lovely."  Her having mentioned that she was black (darker than the surrounding women) shows that black skin tones did exist in the Old Testament and that people with  black (or eumelanin rich complexions) were  and could be praised for being beautiful. No where does it mention having to  bir-racial as a beauty standard (that was not mentioned  until the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade era and the time period of European colonialism and expansion).  African people by themselves were called beautiful. Middle Eastern people, Asian people, and any group mentioned in the Bible could have had beautiful people  in it.  There was no need to say that some one had to be mixed to be lovely, and if you ask me, I think very ancient groups like the Ethiopians,  are gorgeous. Their features are very traditional and seen in all Ethiopian people young and old, rich or poor,  (which is not seen in a heterogenous group, like in the USA or Brazil.  In Brazil, since so many people (west Africans, Spanish people, indigeous South American people, French, Asian, etc) have added to the gene pool, every body looks different. ANd yes, there are some very beautiful people in Brazil that come in many colors, but there are no traditional Brazilian features. Unlike in Ethiopia, all Ethiopians (not including immigrants) share the same features; similar complexions, large almond shaped dark eyes (brown is the traditional color), dark curly or dark wavy hair---no one's hair is pin straight, long limbs, and long necks, with similar facial proportions across the board.  Uniformity, means homogeneity.  It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out!

But any how, think what you want. Ethiopian people already know who they are.  

****To Dee Dee,

I liked your post because you aren't trying to muddle in with the crowd and pull the  "I am clueless, I don't know where I belong." That  is spunk that I've only seen in Ethiopia, you all don't have much money  (or food) but you do have heart and a heck of alot of self esteem.  I've known and seen people with everything and they are still insecure and subservient. Go figure!*****