This is the highest estimate of African mtDNA anywhere in the region—it is a smidge elsewhere.

’ No, all the genetic analysis does is indicate that the African male-mediated genes DID NOT REPRODUCE IN SUFFICIENT NUMBERS to influence the genetic makeup of the larger Arab population. ’

Yes, that is exactly what I started out wondering about.

‘The original blog entry deals with Jonah Goldberg’s attempt to wield the word “fascism” around so wildly and recklessly that it loses all meaning. You are doing the same thing with the word “genocide”, and then you claim to wonder what all the fuss is. Are you really so obtuse, or merely playing at it?’

OK, I get it. I am not accustomed to treating words as having magic qualities but I do see what you mean.

Nice paper, and it says precisely what I said: there is evidence of African mtDNA in the Middle East, nothing from the Y. The men were either castrated or killed.

No, it doesn’t. You originally said, “If so, where are the descendants today of the Arab slave trade? There is a smidgeon of African mtDNA (i.e. from women) in Arabia, little else….The word “genocide” comes to mind.” And you also said,
“We don’t even see more than a trace of mtDNA from African females…If Gates’ “intermarriage” ever happened we would see the DNA today. This was big time horrific genocide.”

The “nice paper” called the female-mediated gene flow “extensive”. If you are looking for a synonym for “smidgeon” or “trace”, well, “extensive” is not it. So to now claim that it “says precisely what I said” is precisely a lie.

Neither slave trade history nor population genetics supported your point so now you have changed your argument to, well, there is evidence of female DNA but no male, so therefore it must mean that “all the men were either castrated or killed.” In fact you imply that the study said as much, when it clearly said no such thing.

The genetic study only supports a finding that there is little recent male-mediated African gene flow in current Arab populations, but much greater mtDNA gene flow. From that you have made a broad leap from the lack of the male flow to an imputed reason—genocide: one that is not supported by history. Is genocide the only possible reason for the lack of a significant male-mediated gene flow from Africa? No, all the genetic analysis does is indicate that the African male-mediated genes DID NOT REPRODUCE IN SUFFICIENT NUMBERS to influence the genetic makeup of the larger Arab population. Is being killed the only way that one can fail to reproduce? Of course not. Given that most of the African slaves in the Arabian peninsula were females, used as concubines or domestic help, and that the smaller number of male African slaves included eunuchs, as well as soldiers, thus reducing the likelihold of significant male reproduction, the differences in the gene flow is entirely predictable without resorting to wild theories of “bigtime horrific genocide” as you described it. If one also factors in the historically high Arab birthrates, it is entirely predictable that African male-mediated gene flow would be out reproduced in Arab populations.

And as for the enunuchs, they were usually bought as such, not castrated after purchase, and the eunuchs were not exclusively black. There were many white eunuchs as well. Eunuchs were utilized to fulfull specific social functions They were used as guardians for the harems, and also as protectors and advisers to the elites. Many of them, in return for the early horror of castration, were able to attain high positions of power. As much as we find the whole thing quite abhorrent today, intentional castration to fill societal functions has a long history throughout the world, and genocide was not the engine propelling the existence and use of eunuchs.

The original blog entry deals with Jonah Goldberg’s attempt to wield the word “fascism” around so wildly and recklessly that it loses all meaning. You are doing the same thing with the word “genocide”, and then you claim to wonder what all the fuss is. Are you really so obtuse, or merely playing at it?

Nice paper, and it says precisely what I said: there is evidence of African mtDNA in the Middle East, nothing from the Y. The men were either castrated or killed.

What possible political axe is there here?? This is interesting history. Like Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. What on earth is generating all the snipes and vulgarity here??

The word “genocide” comes to mind. …..This was big time horrific genocide.

This is exactly what I meant by having a political axe to grind. You cite ONE study (with what the study itself admits is a smaller than needed sample of “Middle Eastern” populations for accurate genetic clustering) that really doesn’t directly address your point. The study only deals with the question of whether genetically determined ancestry is superior to self-reported ancestry in assessing epidemiological risks. But it is your only cite to back up your claim that, contrary to all historical record, there must have been some secret “horrific genocide” of African slaves in Arabia. If you throw around the word “genocide” so casually, with no evidence to back it up, that’s a sure sign of an agenda other than scientific inquiry.

Thanks JP and Kevin for the links to the study on African MtDNA gene flow to Arab populations.

From the cited study:

“In summary, these results are consistent with mainly female migration from eastern Africa into Arab communities within the last few thousand years. There have been many opportunities for such migrations between eastern Africa and southern Arabia during this period. However, the most likely explanation for the presence of predominantly female lineages of African origin in other parts of the Arab world is that these may trace back to women brought from Africa as part of the Arab slave trade, assimilated into the Arabian population as a result of miscegenation and manumission.”

… which correlates exactly to historian Gates’ point that I cited. You dismissed this in favor of a “horrific genocide” theory, which has no backing in either history or genetics. It was, in essence, pulled out of your ass. Axe, meet grinder.

Of course, John said all this much more succinctly!

Thanks, that does look interesting. I found a PDF version of the full paper:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/374384

Extensive female-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa into near eastern Arab populations.

We have analyzed and compared mitochondrial DNA variation of populations from the Near East and Africa and found a very high frequency of African lineages present in the Yemen Hadramawt: more than a third were of clear sub-Saharan origin. Other Arab populations carried approximately 10% lineages of sub-Saharan origin, whereas non-Arab Near Eastern populations, by contrast, carried few or no such lineages, suggesting that gene flow has been preferentially into Arab populations. Several lines of evidence suggest that most of this gene flow probably occurred within the past approximately 2,500 years. In contrast, there is little evidence for male-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa in Y-chromosome haplotypes in Arab populations, including the Hadramawt. Taken together, these results are consistent with substantial migration from eastern Africa into Arabia, at least in part as a result of the Arab slave trade, and mainly female assimilation into the Arabian population as a result of miscegenation and manumission.

there is this whole country called “Dar al-Sudan” (land of the black people) which is substantially populated by Arabic-speaking black people and part of the Arab League, for example.

Or, to quote one of the authors nxinxa cites as an authority:

“On a global basis we are finding that the majority of alleles for nuclear DNA polymorphisms are present in most populations around the world, though sub-Saharan African populations have more genetic variation (alleles), in general, than indigenous populations in any other part of the world. We interpret the data to mean that there was a major founder effect and loss of variation associated with the expansion of modern humans out of Africa.”

Which means it is utter nonsense to talk of “African DNA” – it would make more sense to speak of nonAfrican DNA, i.e., if you really needed to divide humanity into five races you might as well regard the nonAfrican chunk of the world’s population as a single race. But I’ve never seen anyone produce a decent reason for dragging race back into genetics.

Needless to say there’s plenty of people living in what used to be the Ottoman empire who may have inherited DNA from African slaves. Some have dark skin, some don’t.

I’ve read this too. It’s not clear if their African sample was big enough and hit the right groups to pick this up.

Not quite: after 5 then individual groups. like tribes, pop out one by one. And anything from 2 to 5 gives old-timey races by someone’s definition. Maybe not 2 since it splits the world east-west while skin color splits it north south and most people think skin color when they think race.