Quantifying the Sub-Saharan African slave contribution to the DNA in the Azores, Madeira, Canaries

[Sikeliot]

Madeira is around 13% according to two studies. Azores around 3.4%, consistent with countrywide. Canary Islands are 14%. Studies names and links can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa...ture_in_Europe

Based on autosomal DNA, every Madeiran I have on 23andme scores above 0.5% SSA, with the highest at 5%. I did find one on GEDmatch scoring around 7%. Canarians, on many GEDmatch calculators, average 5% SSA.

It is highly unlikely that in Madeira nor Portugal proper, any of this is Moorish. Moorish influence in Portugal and Spain is almost strictly maternal, and 13% of y-dna that is Sub-Saharan even exceeds that of some North African countries themselves. As for the Canary Islands, some of it could be from the Guanches, because they were North African and the Spanish settlers to the islands mostly male.

My guess is roughly 1 Madeiran in 8 is descended on their maternal line from a West African slave woman, and the autosomal contribution to the island's DNA should average 3-5% if we did an island-wide study. This is roughly consistent with the 10% of the island's population that was enslaved prior to 1775, when slavery was outlawed there. As for Canarians, it is harder to say because of the Guanches.

This study deals with African input in Madeira: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

[Ibericus]

You are mixing things up. The mtDNA U6 is north-african, not Sub-Saharan. And it has been found in a paleolithic sample from Romania, so it's ultimate origin is Eurasian.

[Sikeliot]

You are mixing things up. The mtDNA U6 is north-african, not Sub-Saharan. And it has been found in a paleolithic sample from Romania, so it's ultimate origin is Eurasian.

The 13% figure for Madeira is for mtdna L, subclades specific to Sub-Saharan Africa. Not sure about the Canarian figure.

[Ibericus]

The 13% figure for Madeira is for mtdna L, subclades specific to Sub-Saharan Africa. Not sure about the Canarian figure.

The canarian 14% is for mtDNA U6. Anyways, I would not look up on Wikipedia for genetics, because it's super-manipulated by people with an agenda.

[Damião de Góis]

The 13% figure for Madeira is for mtdna L, subclades specific to Sub-Saharan Africa. Not sure about the Canarian figure.

It's 13%, if you consider that sample of 16 people for the city of Funchal and apply it for the whole island. For Madeira as a whole (sample n=153) it's 4%, so you are distorting data and giving false information:



https://www.isfg.org/files/255d8b38d...6571967103.pdf

But this is the 3rd or 4th time i mention this.

[Sikeliot]

It's 13%, if you consider that sample of 16 people for the city of Funchal and apply it for the whole island. For Madeira as a whole (sample n=153) it's 4%, so you are distorting data and giving false information:



https://www.isfg.org/files/255d8b38d...6571967103.pdf

But this is the 3rd or 4th time i mention this.

No, go to the link on Wikipedia and the number of samples was in the 100s, and it gives the link to the study. Add up L1, L2 and L3 and except for Porto Santo it exceeds 10% in each case.

[Bell Beaker]

Are you going to start to post Madeirans instead of Sicilians?

[Sikeliot]

Y'all in serious denial. That chart above shows clearly that with the exception of Porto Santo, all of Madeira exceeds 10% in mtdna L.

[Damião de Góis]

No, go to the link on Wikipedia and the number of samples was in the 100s, and it gives the link to the study.

Fernandes et al 2006 is exactly the one i linked. So Ibericus was right and they were manipulating data.

[Ibericus]

that Wikipedia article omit the studies in which there is very low to none mtDNA L for Spain, like the study of Rhouda et al. 2006 in which there was 0% in a sample of 686 spaniards, or the Plaza 2003 study with just 0.40% in a sample of 250 , or the or they omit other countries of Europe in which it has been found. Take a look at this for more :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...and-spain.html