arab muslims over there claim that they are ''arabized or islamized '' copts, therefore trying to claim that they are indigenous which couldn't be further from the truth
Intriguing post Aga, awesome to see you on Substack!
I agree there is a trend for Arabian expansion lineages to have patterns in their structure and TMRCAs for a lot of coalescence to fall in the time frame you identified. But for J-FGC60129 (Top level TMRCA: ca. 300 CE +/- 300 years) and its closest relatives downstream J-ZS10420 (ca. 300 BCE +/- 350 years), why do you think almost all of the samples are Southern Levantines, proximately from Palestine and Jordan? If these are obvious Arabian expansion lineages, why is the clade's distribution skewed so heavily toward the Southern Levant?
Is the idea that J-ZS10420>FGC60129 represents a specific Arabian tribe whose descendants disproportionately ended up in this region? After all, patterns in phylogenetic structure can arise convergently more easily than such patterns in geographic spread, especially given how well tested Arabians are. How might this relate to a clade like J-M10667, which contains Levantines including Palestinians from Gaza and Ramallah within a relatively old clade also downstream J-FGC4415? Might these rather be lineages related to Idumeans and similar populations rather than being tied to Islamic-era Arabian expansions? Thanks for your consideration.
The answer to your question really lies in the tribal pedigree here, most of the Palestinian & Jordanian samples under ZS10420 are affiliated to clans that are of Judhamite descent. For instance under FT153233 we've got a clan descended from the Bani ˤUqba, and under BY112574 we've got the Bani Hassan (from Jordan). I didn't have enough space left to address how FGC1722's phylogeny and tribal genealogies correlate (or fail to do so) in the post, but Judham is a classic example of a tribe that has contested origins (genealogists feuding over a Yemenite or "Mudharite" [northern] origin), it is known that this tribe was active in northern Arabia (in all likelihood around the Hisma desert) on the fringes of the Byzantine empire immediately prior to the Arabian expansion, but I wouldn't necessarily discount a more southern origin beforehand as we're bound to underestimate the mobility of the early Arab herders for which there is some support in the epigraphic evidence (it could be a case similar to the Tayy, a tribe that came from the south and despite this which is mentioned in Safaitic inscriptions long before the advent of Islam). The bulk of FGC60129's expansion however should be tied to the waves of Arab conquerors starting from the mid-7th century, I think this is a foregone conclusion.
ZS1585 by the way is also a major Judhamite line, as it is found chiefly among the Ḥuweiṭāt Bedouin (also descendants of the Bani ˤUqba, albeit in a nomadic setting), and yet this is under YSC76 and not FGC1722 which underlines the inherent complexity of tying tribal pedigrees to a specific subclade. Like FGC60129 however, it is mainly found in the Southern Levant and NW Arabia (Tabuk).
M10667 is a very good example of an FGC4415 clade which ought to predate the Arab expansion in the Levant, it could be Idumean of course, or something older still (Qedarite, Nabatean, etc), if my memory serves me right FT271745 is mainly found in Jordanian, Syrian and Palestinian Christians, which does mitigate the claim that the Christians wholly lack Peninsular Arab ancestry.
could you please do a post on egypt ?
arab muslims over there claim that they are ''arabized or islamized '' copts, therefore trying to claim that they are indigenous which couldn't be further from the truth
Intriguing post Aga, awesome to see you on Substack!
I agree there is a trend for Arabian expansion lineages to have patterns in their structure and TMRCAs for a lot of coalescence to fall in the time frame you identified. But for J-FGC60129 (Top level TMRCA: ca. 300 CE +/- 300 years) and its closest relatives downstream J-ZS10420 (ca. 300 BCE +/- 350 years), why do you think almost all of the samples are Southern Levantines, proximately from Palestine and Jordan? If these are obvious Arabian expansion lineages, why is the clade's distribution skewed so heavily toward the Southern Levant?
Is the idea that J-ZS10420>FGC60129 represents a specific Arabian tribe whose descendants disproportionately ended up in this region? After all, patterns in phylogenetic structure can arise convergently more easily than such patterns in geographic spread, especially given how well tested Arabians are. How might this relate to a clade like J-M10667, which contains Levantines including Palestinians from Gaza and Ramallah within a relatively old clade also downstream J-FGC4415? Might these rather be lineages related to Idumeans and similar populations rather than being tied to Islamic-era Arabian expansions? Thanks for your consideration.
Hi Leo, thanks for the comment!
The answer to your question really lies in the tribal pedigree here, most of the Palestinian & Jordanian samples under ZS10420 are affiliated to clans that are of Judhamite descent. For instance under FT153233 we've got a clan descended from the Bani ˤUqba, and under BY112574 we've got the Bani Hassan (from Jordan). I didn't have enough space left to address how FGC1722's phylogeny and tribal genealogies correlate (or fail to do so) in the post, but Judham is a classic example of a tribe that has contested origins (genealogists feuding over a Yemenite or "Mudharite" [northern] origin), it is known that this tribe was active in northern Arabia (in all likelihood around the Hisma desert) on the fringes of the Byzantine empire immediately prior to the Arabian expansion, but I wouldn't necessarily discount a more southern origin beforehand as we're bound to underestimate the mobility of the early Arab herders for which there is some support in the epigraphic evidence (it could be a case similar to the Tayy, a tribe that came from the south and despite this which is mentioned in Safaitic inscriptions long before the advent of Islam). The bulk of FGC60129's expansion however should be tied to the waves of Arab conquerors starting from the mid-7th century, I think this is a foregone conclusion.
ZS1585 by the way is also a major Judhamite line, as it is found chiefly among the Ḥuweiṭāt Bedouin (also descendants of the Bani ˤUqba, albeit in a nomadic setting), and yet this is under YSC76 and not FGC1722 which underlines the inherent complexity of tying tribal pedigrees to a specific subclade. Like FGC60129 however, it is mainly found in the Southern Levant and NW Arabia (Tabuk).
M10667 is a very good example of an FGC4415 clade which ought to predate the Arab expansion in the Levant, it could be Idumean of course, or something older still (Qedarite, Nabatean, etc), if my memory serves me right FT271745 is mainly found in Jordanian, Syrian and Palestinian Christians, which does mitigate the claim that the Christians wholly lack Peninsular Arab ancestry.
Can you discuss maternal lines next?
I'll write a post on the mitochondrial lines in the near future.
בדיוק