This is a really interesting story, and if true, will force at least some reconsideration of the “out-of-Africa” hypothesis currently the standard model in genetic reconstructions of human history (indeed, that is the model I followed in Genes, Giants, Monsters, and Men):
When one clicks on this article, there is a link to the open access paper itself, which is also well worth reading. Of interest here is the very first paragraph of the actual scientific paper:
“This study concerns the origin of anatomically modern hu- mans, which presumably belong to Y chromosomal haplogroups A through T according to the classification developed in human genetics and DNA phylogeny of man. This paper 1) sets forth a timeframe for the origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids); 2) identi- fies their position among all haplogroups (tribes) known today on the haplogroup tree; and 3) offers evidence to re-examine the validity of the “Out of Africa” concept.” (Anatole A. Klyosov*, Igor L. Rozhanskii, “Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy”, Advances in Anthropology, 2012, Vol 2, No 2, 80-86, p. 80).
The first page zeroes in on how the Out of Africa hypothesis originated:
“The concept was based primarily on the premise that Africa possesses the highest variability, or variance, of the human DNA and its segments. Set apart, it is not a strong argument because a mix of different DNA lineages also results in a high variability and, as we show below, it is largely what occurs in Africa. Moreover, a genomic gap exists between some Africans and non-Africans, which has also been interpreted as an argument that the latter descended from Afri- cans. A more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork. A region where this downstream common ancestor arose would not necessarily be in Africa. In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa.”(Ibid.)
The significant “dent” in the Out of Africa hypothesis, according to the authors (Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanskii), is that European Caucasians do not contain genetic markers common to the African haplogroups A or B (Ibid, p. 2). Indeed, the evidence, according to Klyosov and Rozhanskii, is rather strong that the Out of Africa hypothesis, at least in its standard version, is on rather wobbly ground:
“A critical datapoint has emerged that disproves the “Out of Africa” concept; specifically, recent data shows that non-Afri- can people have neither M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (hap-logroup A and its subclades SNPs), nor M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B SNPs) in their Y-chromosomes.
“In fact, according to the data obtained from the “Walk Through the Y” (chromosome) international project conducted by Family Tree DNA (Texas and Arizona) [see Appendix] not one non-African participant out of more than 400 individuals in the Project tested positive to any of thirteen “African” sub- clades of haplogroup A…” (Ibid.,p. 83)
Now it is quite the crucial matter here to point out that this research is being conducted on the genetic signatures in the Y chromosome, that is to say, in males. On p. 84, Klysov and Rozhanskii produce a tree diagram, which clearly shows the two major branches of the human family(and ponder that diagram closely, and its implications), and it is worth citing their conclusions in this regard:
“These data, based on the SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymor- phism), along with the data based on the STRs (Short Tandem other and undeniably indicate that non-African people, bearers of haplogroups from C to T, did not descend from the “African” haplogroups A or B. Their origin is likely not in Africa. A higher variance of the DNA in Africa, which was a cornerstone of the “Out of Africa” theory, is explained by Figure 3, in which haplogroup A has been evolving (mutation-wise) for 132,000 years, while the non-European haplogroups are much younger. Hence, there is a lower variability in the latter. The same is related to language variability, which has also been used as an argument of the African origin of non-Africans. We believe that those arguments upon which the “Out of Africa” theory was based were, in fact, conjectural, incomplete and not actually data-driven. Therefore, we are left holding the question of the origin of Homo sapiens.”(Ibid., pp. 84-85.)
It remains to be seen how other geneticists will react to these findings or even if they will be confirmed. But for those studying ancient texts, it is interesting to recall that they speak of the male donor in the ancient “Mesopotamian genetic engineering project” – if we may call it that – as being “one of the gods.” It is additionally interesting that so many ancient myths, from the Norse to the Japanese, seem to indicate that some group of very European-described humanoids interacted with their local cultures and populations. This is a story that of course bears watching, but we can be sure that whatever debates this may touch off, or speculations concerning its possible relationship to ancient texts and myths, those debates will take place out of the public eye.
See you on the flip side.