quote:

---

We assembled genome-wide data from 16 prehistoric Africans. We show that the anciently divergent lineage that comprises the primary ancestry of the southern African San had a wider distribution in the past, contributing approximately two-thirds of the ancestry of Malawi hunter-gatherers ∼8,100–2,500 years ago and approximately one-third of the ancestry of Tanzanian hunter-gatherers ∼1,400 years ago. We document how the spread of farmers from western Africa involved complete replacement of local hunter-gatherers in some regions, and we track the spread of herders by showing that the population of a ∼3,100-year-old pastoralist from Tanzania contributed ancestry to people from northeastern to southern Africa, including a ∼1,200-year-old southern African pastoralist. The deepest diversifications of African lineages were complex, involving either repeated gene flow among geographically disparate groups or a lineage more deeply diverging than that of the San contributing more to some western African populations than to others. We finally leverage ancient genomes to document episodes of natural selection in southern African populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

-Luxmada, the Tanzanian pastoralist clusters with Nilotic populations however is best modeled by Mota + PPNB(37%). This Near Eastern component is hardly EEF and lacks minor Iranian Admixture as do modern Cushitic populations. The high proportion of Near-east related Ancestry in respects to Luxmadas clustering position is anomalous... unless you attribute the Near eastern signatures to an indigenous African population structure ofcourse. ...see Ifri n'Amr or Moussa (IAM) Fregel et al 2017.
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
have you forgotten all your wrong predictions already, xyyman? is it senility, or are you just pretending?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:


And yes, Eurasian signatures in the Malawi etc. are not necessarily indicative of Eurasian admixture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
@Elmaestro

Yeah, they could have put in a lot more populations. But hey, leaves something for other groups to do I guess.

Finally got to the qpGraphs. OK, something that's bugging me - does it even make sense to say less admixture is more parsimonious because you have to posit admixture events? You could just as well say it's less parsimonious because you have to posit barriers to gene flow. Lack of admixture arrows every which way seems more of a necessary evil than a virtue.

I was wondering why they seem to be favouring the Basal African ghost over just Yoruba being closer to East Africans - but looking at those D stats everyone is closer to Yoruba than to Mende - even Mandenka. Crazy!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
I'm REALLY going beyond losing my paitence. This thread is about the Tanzanian pastoralist... NOT North Africans, silly conspiracies or any other off topic nonsense. If you have an issue with this article then make your OWN thread.


Anymore derailment will be met with me contacting Punos Rey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Also found these tidbits interesting

"Western-Eurasian-related ancestry is pervasive in eastern Africa today (Pagani et al., 2012, Tishkoff et al., 2009), and the timing of this admixture has been estimated to be ∼3,000 BP on average (Pickrell et al., 2014). We found that the ∼3,100 BP individual (Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP), associated with a Savanna Pastoral Neolithic archeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38% ± 1% of her ancestry related to the nearly 10,000-year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant (Lazaridis et al., 2016), and we can exclude source populations related to early farmer populations in Iran and Anatolia. These results could be explained by migration into Africa from descendants of pre-pottery Levantine farmers or alternatively by a scenario in which both pre-pottery Levantine farmers and Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP descend from a common ancestral population that lived thousands of years earlier in Africa or the Near East." PR: Basal Eurasian?

"While these findings show that a Levant-Neolithic-related population made a critical contribution to the ancestry of present-day eastern Africans (Lazaridis et al., 2016), present-day Cushitic speakers such as the Somali cannot be fit simply as having Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP ancestry. The best fitting model for the Somali includes Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP ancestry, Dinka-related ancestry, and 16% ± 3% Iranian-Neolithic-related ancestry (p = 0.015). This suggests that ancestry related to the Iranian Neolithic appeared in eastern Africa after earlier gene flow related to Levant Neolithic populations, a scenario that is made more plausible by the genetic evidence of admixture of Iranian-Neolithic-related ancestry throughout the Levant by the time of the Bronze Age (Lazaridis et al., 2016) and in ancient Egypt by the Iron Age (Schuenemann et al., 2017)."

---

quote:

---

These results could be explained by migration into Africa from descendants of pre-pottery Levantine farmers or alternatively by a scenario in which both pre-pottery Levantine farmers and Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP descend from a common ancestral population that lived thousands of years earlier in Africa or the Near East.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I'm not entirely sure but it looks like what little differences in Basal African Ancestry between the Mende and YRI is what defines how close other populations are to either of them. Mende having more Basal African Ancestry siglehandedly makes all other African populations closer to the Yorubans. Mbuti being representative of an early split just became less significant, as maybe even THEIR ancestry is drifted away considerably from the "ghost" African Ancestor. Yorubans as well as maybe all Bantu populations might have more Mbuti-like/(RHG) Admixture than the Mende.

~Reffering back to Patin 2017, elevated levels of RHG seems synonymous with scoring higher for Mbuti in comparison to Mota, It looks like YRI have admixture from Mbuti, and Basal African, and maybe more... this series of recombination is probably what shapes the west African genetic landscape, and that small amount of Archaic African means a lot...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I'm not entirely sure but it looks like what little differences in Basal African Ancestry between the Mende and YRI is what defines how close other populations are to either of them. Mende having more Basal African Ancestry siglehandedly makes all other African populations closer to the Yorubans. Mbuti being representative of an early split just became less significant, as maybe even THEIR ancestry is drifted away considerably from the "ghost" African Ancestor. Yorubans as well as maybe all Bantu populations might have more Mbuti-like/(RHG) Admixture than the Mende.

~Reffering back to Patin 2017, elevated levels of RHG seems synonymous with scoring higher for Mbuti in comparison to Mota, It looks like YRI have admixture from Mbuti, and Basal African, and maybe more... this series of recombination is probably what shapes the west African genetic landscape, and that small amount of Archaic African means a lot...

---

yeah, looks like it. I would like to see a whole bunch more of those qpGraphs with different nodal populations, like with a proto-Pygmy population donating to others.

I know you can't really tack autosomal components on to uniparental markers, but looking at the latter we see some mid-levels that maybe ought to be the models. Mt hg L1 shared between West Africans and western Pygmies, L2 everywhere, L4 and L5 in the east. Y hg B2 practically everywhere outside West Africa. L0 + A1b1 can be accounted for in the East-South cline, L3 + E in the close-to-Eurasians node but I strongly suspect Mota ought to be mixed; L4b2 + B2b should not be conflated with L3 + E.

OT I am embarassed for Semitic Duwa right now, this is far below his usual standards of trolling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
OT I am embarassed for Semitic Duwa right now, this is far below his usual standards of trolling.

---

In another ForumBiodiversity thread, he thanked this post:

If he tries claiming he's objective and unbiased again, I will repost this screencap for all the world to see.
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

OT I am embarassed for Semitic Duwa right now, this is far below his usual standards of trolling. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
But first shout outs to Djehuti. You were right on the money.

Anyways...
http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-86741731008-5

Many on the site Forumbiodiversity were certain this pastoralist would be more "Cushite-Like" with lineages like E-V22/M1 instead we get what I call "true Bantu Negroid" L2a1.

Here is the summary-

quote:

---

We assembled genome-wide data from 16 prehistoric Africans. We show that the anciently divergent lineage that comprises the primary ancestry of the southern African San had a wider distribution in the past, contributing approximately two-thirds of the ancestry of Malawi hunter-gatherers ∼8,100–2,500 years ago and approximately one-third of the ancestry of Tanzanian hunter-gatherers ∼1,400 years ago. We document how the spread of farmers from western Africa involved complete replacement of local hunter-gatherers in some regions, and we track the spread of herders by showing that the population of a ∼3,100-year-old pastoralist from Tanzania contributed ancestry to people from northeastern to southern Africa, including a ∼1,200-year-old southern African pastoralist. The deepest diversifications of African lineages were complex, involving either repeated gene flow among geographically disparate groups or a lineage more deeply diverging than that of the San contributing more to some western African populations than to others. We finally leverage ancient genomes to document episodes of natural selection in southern African populations.

---

Thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:

http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-86741731008-5

Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure
Pontus Skoglund, 2017

__________

Many on the site Forumbiodiversity were certain this pastoralist would be more "Cushite-Like" with lineages like E-V22/M1 instead we get what I call "true Bantu Negroid" L2a1.

---

quote:

---

We found that the ∼3,100 BP individual (Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP), associated with a Savanna Pastoral Neolithic archeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38% ± 1% of her ancestry related to the nearly 10,000-year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant (Lazaridis et al., 2016), and we can exclude source populations related to early farmer populations in Iran and Anatolia.

---

quote:

---

Below another article but talking about African origins of L2a1


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4515592/

60,000 years of interactions between Central and Eastern Africa documented by major African mitochondrial haplogroup L2

Marina Silva,1 Farida Alshamali,1,2 Paula Silva,1,3,4 Carla Carrilho,5,6 Flávio Mandlate,5,7 Maria Jesus Trovoada,8,9 Viktor Černý,10 Luísa Pereira,a,1,3,4 and Pedro Soares1,11


L2a1 (26.5 ka in ML and 29.6 ka in BI) is the most complex sub-clade within L2a and it harbours lineages from all African regions, as well as lineages from other continents, including non-African branches, such as L2a1l2a (connected to Ashkenazi Jewish Diaspora35,36), and the exclusively European L2a1k37. Phylogenetic reconstruction of L2a1 is often difficult due to high levels of homoplasy. Major splits within L2a1 defined by homoplasic positions (143, 16189, 16192 and 16309) exist for parsimonious reconstruction purposes but will not be considered in the text. L2a1a has clearly a Western/Central African origin and distribution, with many sub-clades suggesting a recent Bantu migration southwards, and is hardly present in Eastern Africa. This pattern is also visible in L2a1c, L2a1f and L2a1i. L2a1e and the minor clade L2a1m exist essentially only in Western/Central Africa. L2a1l displays a similar pattern in sub-Saharan Africa, but with the peculiarity of a sub-branch present in Ashkenazi Jews, L2a1l2a35. L2a1b again shows an origin in Central Africa, but subclade L2a1b1a dating to 6.9 ka in ML is present in Southern Africa and has a few lineages in Eastern Africa (mainly Somalia). It might have moved earlier to the East in the Early Holocene and incorporated later by Bantu migrants. L2a1d splits into an Eastern African sub-clade (L2a1d1) at ~10.6 ka and L2a1d2 that shows a split between a Western African lineage and a Southern African clade dating to about 7 ka that contains the star-like L2a1d2a clade dating to 3.7 ka. Other clades show additional evidence of an early migration into Eastern Africa, like L2a1h and L2a1j. We detected a new clade specific to Somalia, L2a1r, at 7.3 ka. The clade L2a1 + 143 shows several basal Eastern African lineages (together with Near Eastern and Arabian lineages) that indicates a migration in the Early Holocene. Minor clades, namely L2a1g and L2a1q, are present in Bantu-speaking populations in the South and, although they were not detected in Western/Central Africa, their lower age suggest a direct involvement in the Bantu expansion.

L2a1b contains Somali lineages, whose founder age in Eastern Africa is 7.9 ka [1.5; 14.5] and the Eastern African L2a1d1 dates to 10.6 ka. L2a1h, probably with Eastern African origin, dates to 14.4 ka while L2a1r, a newly labelled Somali clade, dates to ~7.3 ka. Additionally, around 20% of Eastern African lineages cluster within the L2a1 + 143 branch (24.8 ka in ML). A founder age of this cluster suggests a migration time at 14.8 ka [10.2; 19.5], pointing to a migration in the Late Glacial or postglacial period. Overall, as predicted by HVSI-I data, most of the L2 lineages entered Eastern Africa between 15 and 7 ka.

---

quote:

---

Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure
Pontus Skoglund

Agriculture was the foundation of the ancient Egyptian economy and vital to the lives of the people of the land. Agricultural practices began in the Delta Region of northern Egypt and the fertile basin known as the Faiyum in the Predynastic Period in Egypt (c. 6000 - c. 3150 BCE), but there is evidence of agricultural use and overuse of the land dating back to 8000 BCE.

---

quote:

---

https://www.ancient.eu/article/997/ancient-egyptian-agriculture/

Ancient Egyptian Agriculture


Agriculture was the foundation of the ancient Egyptian economy and vital to the lives of the people of the land. Agricultural practices began in the Delta Region of northern Egypt and the fertile basin known as the Faiyum in the Predynastic Period in Egypt (c. 6000 - c. 3150 BCE), but there is evidence of agricultural use and overuse of the land dating back to 8000 BCE.

---

quote:

---

Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure
Pontus Skoglund

Bantu-speaking agriculturalists originating in western Africa are thought to have brought farming to eastern Africa by ∼2,000 years BP (years before present, defined by convention as years before 1950 CE) and to southern Africa by ∼1,500 BP, thereby spreading the largest single ancestry component to African genomes today (Russell et al., 2014, Tishkoff et al., 2009). Earlier migration(s), which brought ancestry related to the ancient Near East (Lazaridis et al., 2016, Pagani et al., 2012, Pickrell et al., 2014), brought herding to eastern Africa by ∼4,000 BP (Marshall et al., 1984) and to southern Africa by ∼2,000 BP (Sadr, 2015).

---

quote:

---

https://www.ancient.eu/article/997/ancient-egyptian-agriculture/

Ancient Egyptian Agriculture


Agriculture was the foundation of the ancient Egyptian economy and vital to the lives of the people of the land. Agricultural practices began in the Delta Region of northern Egypt and the fertile basin known as the Faiyum in the Predynastic Period in Egypt (c. 6000 - c. 3150 BCE), but there is evidence of agricultural use and overuse of the land dating back to 8000 BCE.

---

quote:

---

Although often marginalized or overlooked in the development of models for agricultural origins, Africa presents unique and theoretically informative case studies for global comparison. Eastern Africa is of particular interest for understanding farming expansions, not only because of its location encompassing the hypothesized migration routes of Bantu-speaking farmers and Cushitic- and Nilotic-speaking herders (Fig. 1), but also owing to its potentially early involvement in Indian Ocean trade, which brought novel domesticated plants and animals to its shores in prehistory. It has been suggested that eastern Africa's pre-agricultural communities had a role in dispersing vegetative crops such as banana (Musa spp.), taro (Colocasia esculenta), and Asian yam (Dioscorea alata) (all of which were first domesticated thousands of kilometers to the east in Sahul) across the tropical forests of Africa as early as the first millennium BCE (De Langhe, 2007; Blench, 2009).

---

quote:

---

For archaeologists, the story of how Near Eastern hunters and gatherers became farmers has become as familiar as a bedtime fable. Beginning as early as 11,000 B.C., people settled into villages and began cultivating wild grasses like rye, emmer wheat and barley. Over time, the genetic makeup of the plants changed, so they needed to be sown and tended in order to grow.

Cows, goats and sheep were domesticated over the next few thousand years, and then ceramics were developed to store food. This new way of life quickly swept across Europe and much of Asia. Soon, almost everyone was farming.

But not in Africa. As Dr. Katharina Neumann, an archaeobotanist at the J.W. Goethe University in Frankfurt, noted in the book ''Food, Fuel and Fields -- Progress in African Archaeobotany,'' published last year, archaeologists at several sites across sub-Saharan Africa have not found evidence of domesticated grains before 2000 B.C., suggesting that until then, people collected wild grains and did not plant their own.

While the first undisputed remains of domesticated cattle appear in the African archaeological record about 5900 B.C. at a site in Chad, other studies suggest that cattle were domesticated in the same region as early as 9,000 years ago.

---

quote:

---

Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure
Pontus Skoglund, 2017


We found that the ∼3,100 BP individual (Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP), associated with a Savanna Pastoral Neolithic archeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38% ± 1% of her ancestry related to the nearly 10,000-year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant (Lazaridis et al., 2016), and we can exclude source populations related to early farmer populations in Iran and Anatolia.

---

quote:

---

We found that the ∼3,100 BP individual (Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP), associated with a Savanna Pastoral Neolithic archeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38% ± 1% of her ancestry related to the nearly 10,000-year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant (Lazaridis et al., 2016), and we can exclude source populations related to early farmer populations in Iran and Anatolia.

---

quote:

---

METHODS

(excerpt)

Here, we used a model with 19 populations (Mbuti, Dinka, Mende, South_Africa_2000BP, Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP, Ethiopia_4500BP, Levant_Neolithic (PPNB), Anatolia_Neolithic, Iran_Neolithic, Denisova, Loschbour, Ust_Ishim, Georgian, Iranian, Greek, Punjabi, Orcadian, Ami, and Mixe), using previously published complete genomes (Fu et al., 2014, Lazaridis et al., 2014, Mallick et al., 2016, Meyer et al., 2012) and ancient DNA data enriched using the 1240k SNP set (Lazaridis et al., 2016, Mathieson et al., 2015) to maximize the power to infer admixture proportions for the ancient African populations. These populations, and in particular the ones from Africa, were chosen to capture major strands of ancestry and extremes in population differentiation found in sub-Saharan Africa (Figure 1)


Support for a single out-of-Africa founding population
Simple tree models suggest that non-African variation represented by Sardinian, English, Han Chinese and Japanese falls within the variation of African populations. To test whether non-Africans are indeed consistent with being descended from a homogeneous population that separated earlier from the ancestors of a subset of African populations – beyond the known effects of archaic admixture in non-Africans – we used African populations with little or no known West Eurasian mixture (South_Africa_2000BP, Mbuti, Biaka, Mende, Ethiopia_4500BP, Dinka) and tested whether they are consistent with being an unrooted clade with respect to a diverse set of non-Africans (Orcadian, Onge, Mixe, Motala_Mesolithic, Japanese, Anatolia_Neolithic) using qpWave (Patterson et al., 2012, Reich et al., 2012). We found that this model was consistent with the data (p = 0.53) (transition SNPs excluded to a final set of 110,507 transversion SNPs). Even when we add New Guinean highlanders to the set of non-Africans, the single-source model for the out-of-Africa founders is not rejected (p = 0.11).

---

code:

---

                                fst:       fitted       estim        diff         std. err     Z score 
Lux        Lev        Eth        Bar       0.000093    -0.003223    -0.003316     0.001744    -1.901 

---

Seems like OOA might not be what I thought it was lol... not too sure yet if I failed to accommodate all the SSAn Admixture in Luxmanda with "NE_Nilotic" ...but for perspective, this model failed miserably. In my heart of hearts I wanna believe Luxmanda is in large 80%+ continental, I'll just let my biases out now.
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
^^^@Capra your thoughts on this?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Oh , I see the whole other section when you hit the methods tab

quote:

---

We found that the ∼3,100 BP individual (Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP), associated with a Savanna Pastoral Neolithic archeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38% ± 1% of her ancestry related to the nearly 10,000-year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant (Lazaridis et al., 2016), and we can exclude source populations related to early farmer populations in Iran and Anatolia.

---

quote:

---

METHODS

(excerpt)

Here, we used a model with 19 populations (Mbuti, Dinka, Mende, South_Africa_2000BP, Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP, Ethiopia_4500BP, Levant_Neolithic (PPNB), Anatolia_Neolithic, Iran_Neolithic, Denisova, Loschbour, Ust_Ishim, Georgian, Iranian, Greek, Punjabi, Orcadian, Ami, and Mixe), using previously published complete genomes (Fu et al., 2014, Lazaridis et al., 2014, Mallick et al., 2016, Meyer et al., 2012) and ancient DNA data enriched using the 1240k SNP set (Lazaridis et al., 2016, Mathieson et al., 2015) to maximize the power to infer admixture proportions for the ancient African populations. These populations, and in particular the ones from Africa, were chosen to capture major strands of ancestry and extremes in population differentiation found in sub-Saharan Africa (Figure 1)


Support for a single out-of-Africa founding population
Simple tree models suggest that non-African variation represented by Sardinian, English, Han Chinese and Japanese falls within the variation of African populations. To test whether non-Africans are indeed consistent with being descended from a homogeneous population that separated earlier from the ancestors of a subset of African populations – beyond the known effects of archaic admixture in non-Africans – we used African populations with little or no known West Eurasian mixture (South_Africa_2000BP, Mbuti, Biaka, Mende, Ethiopia_4500BP, Dinka) and tested whether they are consistent with being an unrooted clade with respect to a diverse set of non-Africans (Orcadian, Onge, Mixe, Motala_Mesolithic, Japanese, Anatolia_Neolithic) using qpWave (Patterson et al., 2012, Reich et al., 2012). We found that this model was consistent with the data (p = 0.53) (transition SNPs excluded to a final set of 110,507 transversion SNPs). Even when we add New Guinean highlanders to the set of non-Africans, the single-source model for the out-of-Africa founders is not rejected (p = 0.11).

---

wikipedia:

PPNB

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) is a Neolithic culture centered in upper Mesopotamia. It was typed by Kathleen Kenyon during her archaeological excavations at Jericho in the West Bank.

---

" the skeleton H8 belonged to the African L3 lineage, this being the most prevalent African haplogroup found in present-day Near Eastern populations."

________________________________
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I think Lioness is moreso questioning the date if anything, no true dating method for admixture was referenced if I remember correctly... in fact it'll be damn near impossible to date a single individuals Admixture event. However I'm guessing that the lack of Iranian ancestry is a key indicator.

---

quote:

---

On that note, what do you guys think about the following... I managed to make some interesting qpGraphs but tbh, I'm baffled at this one. -No Outliers
Worst F-stat:

code:

---

                                fst:       fitted       estim        diff         std. err     Z score 
Lux        Lev        Eth        Bar       0.000093    -0.003223    -0.003316     0.001744    -1.901 

---

Seems like OOA might not be what I thought it was lol...

---

quote:

---

this model[/b] failed miserably. In my heart of hearts I wanna believe Luxmanda is in large 80%+ continental, I'll just let my biases out now.

---

So you can't put Mota 100% upstream of Bari, is Bari actually closer to South African then?
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
This is the type of discussion I wanted to see.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Huh, I got nothing. Sometimes a list of D stats makes more sense to me than a qpGraph.

---

quote:

---

So you can't put Mota 100% upstream of Bari, is Bari actually closer to South African then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
the same population that brought V68 to South Europe or Mediterranean

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
H1 in SSA 8-7kya

---

what's your reference ?
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
For starters, the study you posted has V88 and H1 @ ~7kya in the Fulani.


terminals 1-13 are Africans, 14 South Europe.

Also peep, V68* (V2009) found in Cameroon, Moroccan Berbers Sardinians and southern Italians (Trombetta 2015)

from Bakeda 2013-

quote:

---

Others, like sub-haplogroup U5b1b [34], sub-haplogroups H1 and H3 [20,35,36] and haplogroup V [37] seem to have reached North Africa from Iberia in a post-last glacial maximum expansion. In concordance, an ancient DNA study from Ibero-Maurusian bone remains from Taforalt in Morocco detected the presence of haplogroups U6, V, T and probably H, pointing to a Paleolithic genetic continuity in Northwest Africa [38]. Additionally, male lineages also provide support to a Paleolithic Asia to Africa back migration [39] with Holocene trans-Saharan spreads as testified by the haplogroup R-V88 distribution [40]. Other lineages, E-M81 [26] and E- M78 [41], seem to be of North African origin with Paleolithic and Neolithic expansions that reached surrounding areas. The presence of these clades in southwestern Europe has been attributed to trans-Mediterranean contacts **without involving the Levant**

---

quote:

---

We were able to confirm a number of major features of previous analyses: the differentiation of Sardinia from mainland populations, the presence of high Neolithic farmer ancestry in Sardinia, and the presence of a small amount of sub-Saharan African admixture. Further, our analyses provide more detail regarding the isolation between Sardinia and the mainland. Our analysis of cross- coalescent rates suggest the population lineage ancestral to modern-day Sardinia was effectively isolated from the mainland European populations approximately 330 generations ago. This estimate should be treated with caution, but corresponds to approximately 9,900 years ago assuming a generation time of 30 years and mutation rate of 1.25x10-8 per basepair per generation

---

I mention that to point out the following...


-Schroeder 2015; using an ancient AfroCarribean, they were able to get a coalesced age of 8.5 kya for the V88 split between Sards and Africans. We can effectively predict a timespan for which a lot of these relatively "inexplicable" clades were shuffled between Africa and Southern Europe, anywhere between 9000 and 5000 years ago. And there is detectable substructure among the "Eurasian" contributions to Fulani though the Kulichova et al 2017 article you posted above glosses over this.(because their main concern was Eurasians tbh, particularly potential European genetic and cultural contributions and not the African populations themselves.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ) ...Not to mention Habers dates for non African Admixture and V88.

quote:

---

" ~The number of samples is shown on each branch tip.We estimate that the Chadian R1b emerged 5,700–7,300 ya, whereas most European R1b haplogroups emerged 7,300–9,400 ya. The African and Eurasian lineages coalesced 17,900–23,000 ya."

---

^ His broad coalescent age is important because his model was going off the assumption that V88 was acquired from the near east. However what he unintentionally does is provide evidence for an isolated Eurasian branch being related to the African variety. Which we have evidence for. -see above.
-Sards split from Europeans prior to the Coalesced age of V88 in the latter populations
-SSAfrican V88 coalesces with Sardinian V88 after the supposed Isolation.
-North Africa is between SSA and Sardinia
-European signatures are weak in SSA African populations, other than the handful of Fula(or any other Africans) which recent European or even North African ancestry.

And we should all keep in mind the presence of ancient North African DNA now and how that keeps suggestions such as Bakeda's (quoted above) in check.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Also see:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22236/abstract

Multiple and differentiated contributions to the male gene pool of pastoral and farmer populations of the African Sahel

Authors
Jana Bučková,
Viktor Černý,
Andrea Novelletto
First published: 4 March 2013



https://images.imgbox.com/25/21/z8QtXkXa_o.png

[ 16. May 2018, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Elmaestro ]
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
For starters, the study you posted has V88 and H1 @ ~7kya in the Fulani.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Also peep, V68* (V2009) found in Cameroon, Moroccan Berbers Sardinians and southern Italians (Trombetta 2015)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Other lineages, E-M81 [26] and E- M78 [41], seem to be of North African origin with Paleolithic and Neolithic expansions that reached surrounding areas. The presence of these clades in southwestern Europe has been attributed to trans-Mediterranean contacts **without involving the Levant**

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
-Sards split from Europeans prior to the Coalesced age of V88 in the latter populations
-SSAfrican V88 coalesces with Sardinian V88 after the supposed Isolation.
-North Africa is between SSA and Sardinia
-European signatures are weak in SSA African populations, other than the handful of Fula(or any other Africans) which recent European or even North African ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
For starters, the study you posted has V88 and H1 @ ~7kya in the Fulani.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Also peep, V68* (V2009) found in Cameroon, Moroccan Berbers Sardinians and southern Italians (Trombetta 2015)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Other lineages, E-M81 [26] and E- M78 [41], seem to be of North African origin with Paleolithic and Neolithic expansions that reached surrounding areas. The presence of these clades in southwestern Europe has been attributed to trans-Mediterranean contacts **without involving the Levant**

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
-Sards split from Europeans prior to the Coalesced age of V88 in the latter populations
-SSAfrican V88 coalesces with Sardinian V88 after the supposed Isolation.
-North Africa is between SSA and Sardinia
-European signatures are weak in SSA African populations, other than the handful of Fula(or any other Africans) which recent European or even North African ancestry.

---

Wait, so you subscribe to neolithic north-south trans-mediterranean contacts now? Didn't you strongly reject north-south Mediterranean contacts involving some EEF subgroups and the ancestors of Egyptians as "Hamiticism"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
But yeah, (though I don't remember neglecting trans Mediterranean contact). I view it differently now...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lioness do you think that the same population that brought V68 to South Europe or Mediterranean were conduits for V88 and H1 in SSA 8-7kya?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
But first shout outs to Djehuti. You were right on the money.

Anyways...
http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-86741731008-5

Many on the site Forumbiodiversity were certain this pastoralist would be more "Cushite-Like" with lineages like E-V22/M1 instead we get what I call "true Bantu Negroid" L2a1.

Here is the summary-

quote:

---

We assembled genome-wide data from 16 prehistoric Africans. We show that the anciently divergent lineage that comprises the primary ancestry of the southern African San had a wider distribution in the past, contributing approximately two-thirds of the ancestry of Malawi hunter-gatherers ∼8,100–2,500 years ago and approximately one-third of the ancestry of Tanzanian hunter-gatherers ∼1,400 years ago. We document how the spread of farmers from western Africa involved complete replacement of local hunter-gatherers in some regions, and we track the spread of herders by showing that the population of a ∼3,100-year-old pastoralist from Tanzania contributed ancestry to people from northeastern to southern Africa, including a ∼1,200-year-old southern African pastoralist. The deepest diversifications of African lineages were complex, involving either repeated gene flow among geographically disparate groups or a lineage more deeply diverging than that of the San contributing more to some western African populations than to others. We finally leverage ancient genomes to document episodes of natural selection in southern African populations.

---

Thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
What percentage of EFF ancestry did the ancient Egyptians supposedly have?

---

quote:

---

Understanding human genetic diversity in Africa is important for interpreting the evolution of all humans, yet vast regions in Africa, such as Chad, remain genetically poorly investigated. Here, we use genotype data from 480 samples from Chad, the Near East, and southern Europe, as well as whole-genome sequencing from 19 of them, to show that many populations today derive their genomes from ancient African-Eurasian admixtures. We found evidence of early Eurasian backflow to Africa in people speaking the unclassified isolate Laal language in southern Chad and estimate from linkage-disequilibrium decay that this occurred 4,750–7,200 years ago. It brought to Africa a Y chromosome lineage (R1b-V88) whose closest relatives are widespread in present-day Eurasia; we estimate from sequence data that the Chad R1b-V88 Y chromosomes coalesced 5,700–7,300 years ago. This migration could thus have originated among Near Eastern farmers during the African Humid Period. We also found that the previously documented Eurasian backflow into Africa, which occurred ∼3,000 years ago and was thought to be mostly limited to East Africa, had a more westward impact affecting populations in northern Chad, such as the Toubou, who have 20%–30% Eurasian ancestry today. We observed a decline in heterozygosity in admixed Africans and found that the Eurasian admixture can bias inferences on their coalescent history and confound genetic signals from adaptation and archaic introgression.

African genetic diversity is still incompletely understood, and vast regions in Africa remain genetically undocumented. Chad, for example, makes up ∼5% of Africa’s surface area, and its central location, connecting sub-Saharan Africa with North and East Africa, positions it to play an important role as a crossroad or barrier to human migrations. However, Chad has been little studied at a whole-genome level, and its position within African genetic diversity is not well known. With 200 ethnic groups and more than 120 indigenous languages and dialects, Chad has extensive ethnolinguistic diversity.1 It has been suggested that this diversity can be attributed to Lake Chad, which has attracted human populations to its fertile surroundings since prehistoric times, especially after the progressive desiccation of the Sahara starting ∼7,000 years ago (ya).

Important questions about Africa’s ethnic diversity are the relationships among the different groups and the relationships between cultural groups and existing genetic structures. In the present study, we analyzed four Chadian populations with different ethnicities, languages, and modes of subsistence. Our samples are likely to capture recent genetic signals of migration and mixing and also have the potential to show ancestral genomic relationships that are shared among Chadians and other populations. An additional major question relates to the prehistoric Eurasian migrations to Africa: what was the extent of these migrations, how have they affected African genetic diversity, and what present-day populations harbor genetic signals from the ancient migrating Eurasians? We have previously reported evidence of gene flow from the Near East to East Africa ∼3,000 ya, as well as subsequent selection in Ethiopians on non-African-derived alleles related to light skin pigmentation.

snip

Multiple Eurasian Admixtures in Africa after 6,000 ya

We have previously reported massive gene flow ~3,000 ya from Eurasians to Ethiopian populations.4 Here, we reassess the presence of Eurasian ancestry in Africa by using f3 statistics25 in the form of f3:X; Eurasian, Yoruba, where a negative value with a Z score < -4 indicates that X is a mixture of Africans and Eurasians. We found, as expected, that most Ethiopians are a mixture of Africans and Eurasians. An exception is the Gumuz population, where f3: Gumuz; Eurasian, Yoruba is always positive. The Gumuz language belongs to the Nilo-Saharan family, which could have isolated the Gumuz from the Afro-Asiatic-speaking Ethiopians. However, we found that the Toubou in Chad, who also speak a Nilo-Saharan language, are a mixture of Africans and Eurasians, making f3:Toubou; Eurasian, Yoruba always significantly negative. This suggests that the impact of Eurasian migrations today extends beyond East Africa and the Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations.

---

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929716304487




They say they have little DNA from Chad and other African populations but they are quick to claim that "Eurasians" migrated all the way into Central Africa? Seriously? Where are the other surrounding African populations included as part of this study? Note the primary populations used for comparison: Yoruba (the so called pure sub saharans reference population used in most of these studies), Ethiopians like the Ahmara and then they go way off to Greece and Turkey. No Fulani included, No Tuareg included. No Northern Nigerians included, No populations in Niger included. No Sudanese (Beja, "nubians", Darfurians, Nuer, Dinka, etc). No populations surrounding Chad were included. But this is the game they play with all these papers. By now any Africa wide genomic study should inclcude ALL populations of Africa not certain hand picked populations used over and over again.

And not to mention lets not talk about any DNA from ancient remains in Chad compared to moderns... which is standard for most of these types of DNA studies, except in Africa. Of course they will claim that they cant find any ancient sites and remains in Chad for whatever reason.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Mod

Like I said create your OWN thread. You're free to do so. Final warning.

[ 07. October 2017, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Elite Diasporan ]
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
@Doug
In a perfect world where you got your way as far as how we do research, what results would you expect to see? This isn't an essay question btw, can you keep it short.

EDIT oh fuck, look at what you started ....all because you're afraid to actually read a fucking paper.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

Can you Elaborate on what you specifically mean by EEF, cuz I have the same exact question, Eurasian farmers that actually came from Eurasia, or North Africans that didn't go no where but makes up a portion of the current southern European and Near eastern genepool? I'd like to believe the former was negligible earlier but increased over time, as for the Latter, atm, your guess is as good as mines, could be 100%, but Idk how much sense that would make archaeologically.

---

quote:

---

@Djehuti
at this point, we might as well treat the term "Basal Eurasian" as a misnomer, really suggesting "African Affinity". cuz the only thing these carriers have in common is African Affinity... And it's not even like a singular African population can best fit the mold.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
What percentage of EFF ancestry did the ancient Egyptians supposedly have?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Sorry for the late response. I just got through reading the paper and it's really nothing surprising. A lot of genetic diversity has been lost since the Holocene not only in Africa but throughout the world via the spread of food producing populations which either replaced or subsumed other groups.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way Elite, E-V22/M1 is a male lineage found in the Y-chromosome while L2a1 is a female lineage found in mitochondria. The Luxmanda specimen is female so she doesn't have any Y chromosome. That said, it is interesting to note that most of the ancient Y chromosomes found from males in the sites are A or B and not E derived.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

I have to agree with Punos Rey that this common ancestry that Luxmanda had associated with the neolithic Levant may very well be the so-called "basal Eurasian", and that such ancestry may very well be indigenous to Africa instead of Eurasia. Check out Swenet's blog page on that topic here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

As far as Somali having 16% ± 3% Iranian-Neolithic-related ancestry, this too is no surprise considering the presence of paternal lineage hg T in Somalia and other parts of the Horn. T is derived from hg LT and is a sibling of hg L which is predominantly found in India and Iran. Interestingly while T is also found in India and traces are found throughout western Eurasia, the highest frequency is found in the Horn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
While we do have records of European populations like the Greeks and Sea Peoples settling in northern Egypt during the late dynastic period, I suspect most of the Eurasian ancestry in AE would have come from Levantine rather than European sources. And I don't think we have enough aDNA data yet to say for sure how much Eurasian vs indigenous North & sub-Saharan African ancestry the AE throughout time and space had. We might have to wait and see on this one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
@Doug
In a perfect world where you got your way as far as how we do research, what results would you expect to see? This isn't an essay question btw, can you keep it short.

EDIT oh fuck, look at what you started ....all because you're afraid to actually read a fucking paper.

---

quote:

---

Africa harbors more genetic diversity than any other part of the world (Cann et al., 1987, Tishkoff et al., 2009). This is reflected both in a higher average number of differences among sub-Saharan African genomes than among non-African genomes (Cann et al., 1987, Ramachandran et al., 2005) and in the fact that the ancestry found outside of Africa is largely a subset of that within it (Tishkoff et al., 2009). Today, some of the earliest-branching African lineages are present only in populations with relatively small census sizes, including the southern African Khoe-San (see STAR Methods for terminology), central African rainforest hunter-gatherers, and Hadza of Tanzania (Gronau et al., 2011, Schlebusch et al., 2012, Veeramah et al., 2012). However, the population structure of Africa prior to the expansion of food producers (pastoralists and agriculturalists) remains unknown (Busby et al., 2016, Gurdasani et al., 2015, Patin et al., 2017). Bantu-speaking agriculturalists originating in western Africa are thought to have brought farming to eastern Africa by ∼2,000 years BP (years before present, defined by convention as years before 1950 CE) and to southern Africa by ∼1,500 BP, thereby spreading the largest single ancestry component to African genomes today (Russell et al., 2014, Tishkoff et al., 2009). Earlier migration(s), which brought ancestry related to the ancient Near East (Lazaridis et al., 2016, Pagani et al., 2012, Pickrell et al., 2014), brought herding to eastern Africa by ∼4,000 BP (Marshall et al., 1984) and to southern Africa by ∼2,000 BP (Sadr, 2015).

---

This is nothing more than a rehashing of the old Bantustan model of African DNA. It doesn't go back more than 10 thousand years and doesn't discuss the antiquity of African DNA prior to that.




Not to mention the fact that Africans have been practicing all sorts of subsistence strategies, including collecting wild grains and herding wild cattle and livestock since LONG BEFORE any Eurasian back migration during the Neolithic. In fact I would argue that the movement of Saharan populations after the drying of the Sahara 10,000 years ago is a key spark for the arrival of the Neolithic in the "Near East".

quote:

---

There are essentially three archaeologically-based models for the domestication of cattle in North Africa. Wendorf et al. (2001) argue for domestication in the 9th millennium BC, pointing to their reconstruction of the ecology of the Nabta Play – Bir Kiseiba region and to diminishing skeletal size; there is minimal if any input from Near Eastern cattle later on. Andrew Smith’s (2005) model states that the inhabitants of the NP region were hunter-gatherers prior to the late 6th millennium BC and that all the cattle and ovicaprids came from the Near East via the Red Sea coast. My (2007) model hypothesises that anatomical domestication occurred ca 6300 BC, around the time that ovicaprids were introduced into the Eastern Sahara and this may well have included cattle too, and that they were incorporated into and transformed the economy & social structures of the inhabitants of the Nabta Playa-Bir Kiseiba area who had previously been managing some small numbers of wild cattle. It is this managing of wild cattle which could have been a source for the Y2 introgression and the mixed mtDNA results seen to date.

Maria Gatto (2011), however, notes that the early Nabta Playa-Bir Kiseiba pottery is part of the same tradition as the early Kerma region pottery, augmenting Donatella Usai’s (2005) analysis of the stone tools from Nabta Playa in reaching a similar conclusion. There are also currently no known earlier instances of Bos primigenious in the Kerma region, which argues in favour of Honegger’s cattle having been under human control. This is taken by Honegger and Gatto as being supportive of the early domestication model of Wendorf & Schild, i.e. that the cattle were brought to the Kerma region from Nabta Playa-Bir Kiseiba through pastoralist contact with more settled hunter-forager communities living along the Nile.

However, the issue is not so cut and dried. If the criticisms of the reconstruction of the Nabta Playa-Bir Kiseiba ecology are valid and a limited degree of herd management was occurring, possibly similar to the less dangerous Barbary sheep in the Acacus Mountains around this time (di Lernia, 2001), there is no valid reason why some of these cattle would not have been exchanged and ended up in the more favourable environment in the Nile Valley.

What we may be witnessing in fact are two or more centres of morphological domestication occurring, a phenomenon which frankly should not be surprising. Perhaps as part of re-evaluating our epistemological and theoretical approaches to early cattle domestication in North-East Africa, we should also consider discontinuing the antiquated use of imported terms such as Neolithic (Gatto, 2011; Wengrow 2006) and instead continue developing appropriate regionalised archaeolological traditions (cf. Garcea, 2004). This is a wake-up call for North-East Africanists more broadly to better critically engage with the trends, methods and theories being developed elsewhere both on the African continent and elsewhere, as many who are fauna and faunal specialists already do.

---

quote:

---

Researchers at the Organic Geochemistry Unit in the University of Bristol's School of Chemistry, working with colleagues at Sapienza, University of Rome and the Universities of Modena and Milan, studied unglazed pottery dating from more than 10,000 years ago, from two sites in the Libyan Sahara.

The invention of cooking has long been recognised as a critical step in human development.

Ancient cooking would have initially involved the use of fires or pits and the invention of ceramic cooking vessels led to an expansion of food preparation techniques.

....
Detailed investigations of the molecular and stable isotope compositions showed a broad range of plants were processed, including grains, the leafy parts of terrestrial plants, and most unusually, aquatic plants.

The interpretations of the chemical signatures obtained from the pottery are supported by abundant plant remains preserved in remarkable condition due to the arid desert environment at the sites.

The plant chemical signatures from the pottery show that the processing of plants was practiced for over 4,000 years, indicating the importance of plants to the ancient people of the prehistoric Sahara.

Dr Julie Dunne, a post-doctoral research associate Bristol's School of Chemistry and lead author of the paper, said: "Until now, the importance of plants in prehistoric diets has been under-recognised but this work clearly demonstrates the importance of plants as a reliable dietary resource.

"These findings also emphasise the sophistication of these early hunter-gatherers in their utilisation of a broad range of plant types, and the ability to boil them for long periods of time in newly invented ceramic vessels would have significantly increased the range of plants prehistoric people could eat."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
While we do have records of European populations like the Greeks and Sea Peoples settling in northern Egypt during the late dynastic period, I suspect most of the Eurasian ancestry in AE would have come from Levantine rather than European sources. And I don't think we have enough aDNA data yet to say for sure how much Eurasian vs indigenous North & sub-Saharan African ancestry the AE throughout time and space had. We might have to wait and see on this one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Check out Swenet's blog page on that topic here.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Your argument is good I haven't been following V68.

---

Sure you haven't.

quote:

---

Within E-M35, there are striking parallels between two haplogroups, E-V68 and E-V257. Both contain a lineage which has been frequently observed in Africa (E-M78 and E-M81, respectively) [6], [8], [10], [13]–[16] and a group of undifferentiated chromosomes that are mostly found in southern Europe (Table S2). An expansion of E-M35 carriers, possibly from the Middle East as proposed by other Authors [14], and split into two branches separated by the geographic barrier of the Mediterranean Sea, would explain this geographic pattern. However, the absence of E-V68* and E-V257* in the Middle East (Table S2) makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis. A detailed analysis of the Y chromosomal microsatellite variation associated with E-V68 and E-V257 could help in gaining a better understanding of the likely timing and place of origin of these two haplogroups.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
BTW, this is also why I'm very sceptical of claims that the non-SSA ancestry in Africa (e.g. Luxmanda) is actually PPN. It's anachronistic as it does not fit the aforementioned trend of homogenization. Luxmanda's so-called PPN could easily be something EEF-related + various components of which some are African, because that is exactly what PPN is also.

---

I haven't seen any stats with Natufians for the ancient East Africans, but apparently Maasai and Somalis are equidistant between PPNB and Natufians. There's no Natufian in the qpAdm population set, so maybe something more toward Natufian than PPNB would fit. I'd like to see that stats for them and ancient Egyptians, and of course for IAM when the genomes are released.

The biggest outlier for Luxmanda is with South_Africa_2000BP though, possibly meaning Mota is too southern on the East-South Africa cline as a reference; maybe Luxmanda has a bunch of ancestral East African ancestry from further north?

Looking at the outlier stats for the qpAdm models, most of them are minor and explicable but there are a couple of really weird ones. Like it appears that Ju|'hoan have (non-literal) anti-Denisovan and Mbuti anti-Iran Neolithic.

From what I understand PPNB didn't really expand into Egypt, there's some influence - livestock obviously, Helwan-type points, but doesn't look like a wholesale migration really? But I may have picked that up from some unreliable source, like Afrocentrists.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The point is you are seeing "false positives" based on selective DNA sampling and comparisons.

And it isn't a "perfect world" which is why I don't pretend these papers are really pushing anything more than propaganda.... ie. Eurasians overran North Africa and thus limiting "true African" DNA lineages to the "Sub Saharan" bantustan lineages...

The TL;DR Bottom line African genetic history should not be modeled on or based on "Eurasian" anything. The roots of and origins of farming included.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
If I'm not mistaken EEF means Early European Farmer which is comprised of Neolithic Near Easterners and Western Hunter Gatherers.

Unfortunately we do not yet have the smoking gun so to speak in the form of skeletal remains in Africa yielding the 'Basal Eurasian' component at significant enough frequency which is why they still use the term "Eurasian". This despite the fact that there are skeletal remains in Southwest Asia (both Levant and Arabia) displaying African features.

---

quote:

---

BTW, this is also why I'm very sceptical of claims that the non-SSA ancestry in Africa (e.g. Luxmanda) is actually PPN. It's anachronistic as it does not fit the aforementioned trend of homogenization. Luxmanda's so-called PPN could easily be something EEF-related + various components of which some are African, because that is exactly what PPN is also. I think when predynastics are sampled, their non-SSA ancestry will show a preference for PPN and Natufians (compared to EEF). But, taken literally, this is similarly bogus for all the aforementioned reasons.

---

I cosign the Model, but to me whatever falls inline with being EEF-like is simply NorthAfrican Ancestry shared between European Neolithic Groups... Which I believe is supported by the ruling out of Anatolian Admixture (Skoglund 2017). the remainder of Luxmandas ancestry not shared with African groups in the paper is more related to the Near east (some if not all is actually due to admixture FMPOV)... regardless, this doesn't happen with a archetypal African Basal Eurasian subgroup existing, unless its North African... how does that Idea hold up with NAfrican aDNA, KEB can't be Basal Eurasian like, ...IAM, maybe, however, if you can prove introgression from Ibermaurasians and Model the remaining outgroup as both African but not SSAn... But once again, I don't know how well this is supported by archaeology
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
THIS is the DAMN discussion I wanted!!! thank you Capra, Elmaestro, DJ, Swenet and Lioness.

If we keep this up we can turn around the Egyptology section.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
BTW, this is also why I'm very sceptical of claims that the non-SSA ancestry in Africa (e.g. Luxmanda) is actually PPN. It's anachronistic as it does not fit the aforementioned trend of homogenization. Luxmanda's so-called PPN could easily be something EEF-related + various components of which some are African, because that is exactly what PPN is also.

---

I haven't seen any stats with Natufians for the ancient East Africans, but apparently Maasai and Somalis are equidistant between PPNB and Natufians. There's no Natufian in the qpAdm population set, so maybe something more toward Natufian than PPNB would fit. I'd like to see that stats for them and ancient Egyptians, and of course for IAM when the genomes are released.

The biggest outlier for Luxmanda is with South_Africa_2000BP though, possibly meaning Mota is too southern on the East-South Africa cline as a reference; maybe Luxmanda has a bunch of ancestral East African ancestry from further north?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
From what I understand PPNB didn't really expand into Egypt, there's some influence - livestock obviously, Helwan-type points, but doesn't look like a wholesale migration really? But I may have picked that up from some unreliable source, like Afrocentrists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Swenet makes a good point...

quote:

---

BTW, this is also why I'm very sceptical of claims that the non-SSA ancestry in Africa (e.g. Luxmanda) is actually PPN. It's anachronistic as it does not fit the aforementioned trend of homogenization. Luxmanda's so-called PPN could easily be something EEF-related + various components of which some are African, because that is exactly what PPN is also. I think when predynastics are sampled, their non-SSA ancestry will show a preference for PPN and Natufians (compared to EEF). But, taken literally, this is similarly bogus for all the aforementioned reasons.

---

I cosign the Model, but to me whatever falls inline with being EEF-like is simply NorthAfrican Ancestry shared between European Neolithic Groups... Which I believe is supported by the ruling out of Anatolian Admixture (Skoglund 2017).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
the remainder of Luxmandas ancestry not shared with African groups in the paper is more related to the Near east (some if not all is actually due to admixture FMPOV)... regardless, this doesn't happen with a archetypal African Basal Eurasian subgroup existing, unless its North African... how does that Idea hold up with NAfrican aDNA, KEB can't be Basal Eurasian like, ...IAM, maybe, however, if you can prove introgression from Ibermaurasians and Model the remaining outgroup as both African but not SSAn... But once again, I don't know how well this is supported by archaeology

---

quote:

---

don't understand what you mean here. But if you maintain that Basal Eurasian is Iranian or Arabian, then you can't say that the African ancestry in Luxmanda, IAM and KEB is underestimated. The biggest common denominator in the non-SSA ancestry of all these populations is Basal Eurasian. If you maintain that Basal Eurasian is not African, then you're essentially saying the same thing as Polako (i.e. that only the SSA-like ancestry in these populations is African).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

don't understand what you mean here. But if you maintain that Basal Eurasian is Iranian or Arabian, then you can't say that the African ancestry in Luxmanda, IAM and KEB is underestimated. The biggest common denominator in the non-SSA ancestry of all these populations is Basal Eurasian. If you maintain that Basal Eurasian is not African, then you're essentially saying the same thing as Polako (i.e. that only the SSA-like ancestry in these populations is African).

---

Not if I believe Lazaridis' basal Eurasian can't be a singlepopulation. If you recall I was open to the idea of a "pseudo basal Eurasian" expansion from North Africa but as far as the laz 2016 distribution goes, I don't see all those non african populations sharing the same African ancestry. How do you go about explaining shared ancestry between CHG (@ ~30%) and Ancient African for example?

And yeah they weren't particularly transparent on what they meant by Anatolian ancestry but I have a hard time believing they'd consider luxmanda as a possible source for such ancestry in PPNB... Why they didn't include natufians in qpAdm is another story/possible complaint.

---

quote:

---

We have previously reported massive gene flow ~3,000 ya from Eurasians to Ethiopian populations.4 Here, we reassess the presence of Eurasian ancestry in Africa by using f3 statistics25 in the form of f3:X; Eurasian, Yoruba, where a negative value with a Z score < -4 indicates that X is a mixture of Africans and Eurasians. We found, as expected, that most Ethiopians are a mixture of Africans and Eurasians. An exception is the Gumuz population, where f3: Gumuz; Eurasian, Yoruba is always positive. The Gumuz language belongs to the Nilo-Saharan family, which could have isolated the Gumuz from the Afro-Asiatic-speaking Ethiopians. However, we found that the Toubou in Chad, who also speak a Nilo-Saharan language, are a mixture of Africans and Eurasians, making f3:Toubou; Eurasian, Yoruba always significantly negative. This suggests that the impact of Eurasian migrations today extends beyond East Africa and the Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
What about CHG? CHG forms a clade with EEF to the exclusion of non-Basal Eurasian carriers (Jones et al 2015). That's unequivocal evidence as far as Basal Eurasian being a single ancestral population. If I'm understanding you right, you say it's a contradiction for CHG to have additional types of African ancestry (i.e. other than Basal Eurasian). What is the contradiction, in your view? The fact that additional types of African ancestry consistently accompany Basal Eurasian carriers is not exactly damning evidence against an African origin. Lol.

Placing Basal Eurasian in or outside of Africa would not solve your position that Basal Eurasian is not a single population. Meaning, if you think Basal Eurasian is not a single population in Africa, it'd be similarly odd for them to be a single population in Iran or Arabia. The question of what they are is a separate discussion from where they lived, except that their 'geographical extent' is constrained since they were tropically adapted. (I.e. they must have lived near the tropics). That is an example of a connection I see between their genetic make up and their homeland, that justifies placing them somewhere, over other places. But if your argument is that they weren't a single population, relegating them to Iran or Arabia merely displaces (not solve) the problem you see with an African origin.

---

quote:

---

Simple tree models suggest that non-African variation represented by Sardinian, English, Han Chinese and Japanese falls within the variation of African populations. To test whether non-Africans are indeed consistent with being descended from a homogeneous population that separated earlier from the ancestors of a subset of African populations – beyond the known effects of archaic admix- ture in non-Africans –we used African populations with little or no known West Eurasian mixture (South_Africa_2000BP, Mbuti, Biaka, Mende, Ethiopia_4500BP, Dinka) and tested whether they are consistent with being an unrooted clade with respect to a diverse set of non-Africans (Orcadian, Onge, Mixe, Motala_Mesolithic, Japanese, Anatolia_Neolithic) using qpWave (Patterson et al., 2012; Reich et al., 2012).Wefound that this model was consistent with the data (p = 0.53) (transition SNPs excluded to a final set of 110,507 trans- version SNPs). Even when we add New Guinean highlanders to the set of non-Africans, the single-source model for the out-of-Africa founders is not rejected (p = 0.11).

-See Support for a single out-of-Africa founding population

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
What about CHG? CHG forms a clade with EEF to the exclusion of non-Basal Eurasian carriers (Jones et al 2015). That's unequivocal evidence as far as Basal Eurasian being a single ancestral population. If I'm understanding you right, you say it's a contradiction for CHG to have additional types of African ancestry (i.e. other than Basal Eurasian). What is the contradiction, in your view? The fact that additional types of African ancestry consistently accompany Basal Eurasian carriers is not exactly damning evidence against an African origin. Lol.

Placing Basal Eurasian in or outside of Africa would not solve your position that Basal Eurasian is not a single population. Meaning, if you think Basal Eurasian is not a single population in Africa, it'd be similarly odd for them to be a single population in Iran or Arabia. The question of what they are is a separate discussion from where they lived, except that their 'geographical extent' is constrained since they were tropically adapted. (I.e. they must have lived near the tropics). That is an example of a connection I see between their genetic make up and their homeland, that justifies placing them somewhere, over other places. But if your argument is that they weren't a single population, relegating them to Iran or Arabia merely displaces (not solve) the problem you see with an African origin.

---

Iight, you got me there, I respect that...

Not trying to go too deep into Eurasian DNA, but I didn't know it's appropriate to equate EEF - CHG relatedness to shared admixture as opposed to shared ancestry. As it relates to the latter, how far back can you possibly push BE geneflow (as a singular population) to Eurasia and how relevant would they be if you do you so? I'm saying that relevant North African dispersal post-dates the split in EEF and CHG, & I don't think relatively recently shared African Ancestry is responsible for bringing EEF and CHG together.

My theory was that the closest thing that'd resemble Lazaridis' BE is a post Bottleneck/Homogenized Iranian/Arabian With limited admixture from other ancient Eurasian groups and no Archaic introgression... the kicker though is that though this populations Autosomal profile fits the description it isn't responsible for the "BasalEurasian" ancestry we find in all modern west Eurasian populations, however it's the default proximity towards Africans that would create these false positives. So in actually, that is why I suggest caution in putting Lazaridis' "Basal Eurasian" Eurasian in Africa, despite converting my beliefs on indigenous North Africa.

It's a safety net for shit like this, which is even stated in the OP as we speak.

quote:

---

Simple tree models suggest that non-African variation represented by Sardinian, English, Han Chinese and Japanese falls within the variation of African populations. To test whether non-Africans are indeed consistent with being descended from a homogeneous population that separated earlier from the ancestors of a subset of African populations – beyond the known effects of archaic admix- ture in non-Africans –we used African populations with little or no known West Eurasian mixture (South_Africa_2000BP, Mbuti, Biaka, Mende, Ethiopia_4500BP, Dinka) and tested whether they are consistent with being an unrooted clade with respect to a diverse set of non-Africans (Orcadian, Onge, Mixe, Motala_Mesolithic, Japanese, Anatolia_Neolithic) using qpWave (Patterson et al., 2012; Reich et al., 2012).Wefound that this model was consistent with the data (p = 0.53) (transition SNPs excluded to a final set of 110,507 trans- version SNPs). Even when we add New Guinean highlanders to the set of non-Africans, the single-source model for the out-of-Africa founders is not rejected (p = 0.11).

-See Support for a single out-of-Africa founding population

---

..It'll better explain how Basal Eurasian is undetected as a secondary wave of migration, than a mass expansion of Africans >20kya, and it's consistent with the timing of Iranian Haplogroup dispersal in Europe, etc. This is why I had put so much emphasis of the differences among SSAfrican signals in Eurasians.

---

quote:

---

From the African BSP (Figure 3B), all the African random samples also showed a 5-fold growth at ~15−11 kya, corresponding to expansion haplogroups L0a1a, L1b1a, L1b1a3, L2a1a, L3b1a, L3e1, L3e2a and L3e2b, and subsequently a 2-fold growth ~5−4kya, which might be driven by the Neolithic Revolution.

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00745

^Hence, the ~5% West/Central African ancestry in the recently sampled Natufians. I also expect the maximum percent of SSA ancestry, as well as the maximum amount of Basal Eurasian, to increase as samples of these new arrivals get closer to the 14ky date and as more endogamous members among these new arrivals are sampled. For instance, the Natufians found in the Shuqbah cave are good examples of more endogamous arrivals in the Levant, in my view. I expect the same for all other Neolithic regions with notable Basal Eurasian.

Those are some of my predictions for future aDNA. Feel free to hold me to every single point.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 




Oase 2


DNA analysis of Oase 1 since 2015 has made a number of significant findings.

About 6%-9% of the genome is Neanderthal in origin. This is the highest percentage of archaic introgression found in an anatomically modern human and suggests that Oase 1 had a relatively-recent Neanderthal ancestor – about four to six generations earlier.

The autosomal DNA of Oase 1 by Fu et al. (2015) indicates that he may have shared more alleles with modern East Asian populations than with modern Europeans. However Oase shared equal alleles with Mesolithic Europeans and East Eurasians suggesting non-European admixture in modern Europeans[7]
Oase 1 belongs to an extinct Y-DNA haplogroup and an extinct mitochondrial DNA haplogroup.
Research by Poznik et al. (2016) suggests that Oase 1 belongs to haplogroup K2a*. That is, Oase 1 possesses SNPS similar to Ust'-Ishim man (also K2a*), 45,000-year-old remains from Siberia, and upstream from a rare lineage found in two living males (from ethnic Telugu and Malay backgrounds, respectively, for whom Poznik et al. proposed the creation of a new subclade, named "K2a1").[8] (Earlier research by Fu et al. reported that Oase 1 belonged to a subclade of Y-DNA haplogroup F, other than haplogroups G, H, I and J – leaving open the possibility that Oase 1 belonged to macrohaplogroup K.)
According to Fu, Oase-1 belongs to a basal subclade of mitochondrial DNA haplogroup N.[7] (General research into N* has found that it occurs at its highest frequencies among the modern populations of Socotra,[9] and Somalia, albeit only at levels of 20–24%.[10] It is also found at low frequencies among Algerians and Reguibate Sahrawi.[
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
Oase I is a basal Eurasian but not the Basal Eurasian. His N is not even true N* but pre-N, which is (as far as anyone knows) long extinct. So there is no reason to connect it to modern N*; for that matter one N* is no more relatable to any other N* that it is to an identified N branch.
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
This point right here makes sense imo.

quote:

---

My money is on Basal Eurasian being mostly a result of postglacial movements out of northeast Africa and spreading in all directions (including the Maghreb, the Sinai, the Aegean and other coasts to the west). There might have been older, pre-existing pockets of groups with Basal Eurasian in the Middle East, but most Middle Eastern ancestry will fit somewhere on this ancient DNA landscape, which so far has been a complete Basal Eurasian desert before 14kya. I see that Sub-Saharan ancestry which you take as an argument against Basal Eurasian, as ancestry that Basal Eurasians mixed with right before migrating to the Middle East:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
This point right here makes sense imo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


DNA analysis of Oase 1 since 2015 has made a number of significant findings.

About 6%-9% of the genome is Neanderthal in origin. This is the highest percentage of archaic introgression found in an anatomically modern human and suggests that Oase 1 had a relatively-recent Neanderthal ancestor – about four to six generations earlier.

The autosomal DNA of Oase 1 by Fu et al. (2015) indicates that he may have shared more alleles with modern East Asian populations than with modern Europeans. However Oase shared equal alleles with Mesolithic Europeans and East Eurasians suggesting non-European admixture in modern Europeans[7]
Oase 1 belongs to an extinct Y-DNA haplogroup and an extinct mitochondrial DNA haplogroup.
Research by Poznik et al. (2016) suggests that Oase 1 belongs to haplogroup K2a*. That is, Oase 1 possesses SNPS similar to Ust'-Ishim man (also K2a*), 45,000-year-old remains from Siberia, and upstream from a rare lineage found in two living males (from ethnic Telugu and Malay backgrounds, respectively, for whom Poznik et al. proposed the creation of a new subclade, named "K2a1").[8] (Earlier research by Fu et al. reported that Oase 1 belonged to a subclade of Y-DNA haplogroup F, other than haplogroups G, H, I and J – leaving open the possibility that Oase 1 belonged to macrohaplogroup K.)
According to Fu, Oase-1 belongs to a basal subclade of mitochondrial DNA haplogroup N.[7] (General research into N* has found that it occurs at its highest frequencies among the modern populations of Socotra,[9] and Somalia, albeit only at levels of 20–24%.[10] It is also found at low frequencies among Algerians and Reguibate Sahrawi.[ [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Oase I is a basal Eurasian but not the Basal Eurasian. His N is not even true N* but pre-N, which is (as far as anyone knows) long extinct. So there is no reason to connect it to modern N*; for that matter one N* is no more relatable to any other N* that it is to an identified N branch.

---

What is this "pre haplogroup" you speak of?

N* is the basal N. That is pre N and it's found in modern populations as quoted above.
Oase is 30-45 kya

Didn't you mention Ust'-Ishim earlier?
What about K2a*
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
@Swenet

Again very good point. When we always discuss genetic history of a region of the world we always forget to add the context of the environment/climate of that time. Sure we bring up the Sahara(desert vs fertile) but we never talk about the other climate events.


Even when the ice sheets were retreating Southern Europe and Northern Southwest Asia would have still been quite cold for a large population. Africa would have easily been able to support a large population that would have been ancestral to basel Eurasian.

I mean not to go off-topic but I feel this is a good example. Look at the population of Canada. Only 30,000,000 million people. The African-American population is larger than that. But why is that?

Sure Southern Canada is densely populated and not in the arctic.


But the majority of Canada IS in the arctic. And while Canada is much bigger than the USA. The USA can more easily support a larger and diverse population. To me this would have been the same with Africa vs Western Eurasia.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Isn't basal Eurasian of topic? I thought the topic is Neolithic, much more recent
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Swenet, I've read a few studies indicating ANE influence in prehistoric SW Asia and such influence would seem to correlate with hg R lineages in that region. If so, do you identify ANE as being a possible component in EEF and thus its arrival in Africa?
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
@Elite Diasporan
You have to be aware that that particular point you're elaborating on can also be a counter argument. Lazaridis' Basal Eurasian should be some what homogenized suggesting founder, or drift. A large founding population increases the gene pool and so far we are collectively doing a poor job of detecting ancient recombination with modern and some ancient African populations.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23285/full

Internal diversification of non-Sub-Saharan haplogroups in Sahelian populations and the spread of pastoralism beyond the Sahara july 2017


Authors
Iva Kulichová,
Verónica Fernandes,
Alioune Deme,
Jana Nováčková,
Vlastimil Stenzl,
Andrea Novelletto,
Luísa Pereira,
Viktor Černý


Abstract

Background

Today, African pastoralists are found mainly in the Sahel/Savannah belt spanning 6,000 km from west to east, flanked by the Sahara to the north and tropical rainforests to the south. The most significant group among them are the Fulani who not only keep cattle breeds of possible West Eurasian ancestry, but form themselves a gene pool containing some paternally and maternally-transmitted West Eurasian haplogroups.
Materials and Methods

We generated complete sequences for 33 mitogenomes belonging to haplogroups H1 and U5 (23 and 10, respectively), and genotyped 16 STRs in 65 Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup R1b-V88.
Results

We show that age estimates of the maternal lineage H1cb1, occurring almost exclusively in the Fulani, point to the time when the first cattle herders settled the Sahel/Savannah belt. Similar age estimates were obtained for paternal lineage R1b-V88, which occurs today in the Fulani but also in other, mostly pastoral populations. Maternal clade U5b1b1b, reported earlier in the Berbers, shows a shallower age, suggesting another possibly independent input into the Sahelian pastoralist gene pool.
Conclusions

Despite the fact that animal domestication originated in the Near East ∼ 10 ka, and that it was from there that animals such as sheep, goats as well as cattle were introduced into Northeast Africa soon thereafter, contemporary cattle keepers in the Sahel/Savannah belt show uniparental genetic affinities that suggest the possibility of an ancient contact with an additional ancestral population of western Mediterranean ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
@Elite Diasporan
You have to be aware that that particular point you're elaborating on can also be a counter argument. Lazaridis' Basal Eurasian should be some what homogenized suggesting founder, or drift. A large founding population increases the gene pool and so far we are collectively doing a poor job of detecting ancient recombination with modern and some ancient African populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
What is this "pre haplogroup" you speak of?
N* is the basal N. That is pre N and it's found in modern populations as quoted above.

---

Pre-haplogroup is an informal way of referring to a lineage with some, but not all, of the mutations defining that haplogroup. If you look at PhyloTree you can see there are 5 mutations shared by N. Oase-1 is missing two of them: he has ancestral 8701G and 9540C. Likewise MA-1 is missing some of the mutations leading to Y haplogroup R, so we can call him pre-R. This is just to avoid reorganizing the entire frigging tree to account for a single extinct ancient lineage.

Pre-N is not the same as N*, which is anything that belongs to haplogroup N but not to any known branch that could be detected by the study in question. N* just means "unidentified branch of N". In fact unless it is a full sequence it is probably part of some known branch. All known full N sequences other than Oase-1 have all 5 mutations and hence are N and not pre-N. So an N* branch is parallel to identified N branches, it doesn't branch off before them, it is not basal or earlier.

All three of the sources cited in the Oase-1 Wikipedia article sequenced only the HVS-1 and few coding region mutations, which is a lot cheaper than full sequencing but can make it impossible to determine the actual haplogroup. Now, the second source cited by Wikipedia decided that the N* from Soqotra reported in the first source was actually either I3 or I5. However, the Wikipedia editor who put this stuff in ignores that and refers to all of it as N* anyway. In fact this Soqotri N* is I5a according to Fernandes et al 2012, I5a2a on PhyloTree. The Algerian N from the third source is some other random subclade unrelated to the Yemeni one.

None of it has anything to do with Oase-1. Oase-1 is not any more closely related to any modern N* than he is to, say, U6a1a, or W3b2, or anything else under haplogroup N. You should know better than to trust random junk on Wikipedia, Lioness.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
It's not random junk. It's all referenced in scientific articles

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/full/nature14558.html?foxtrotcallback=true

An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor

David Reich, Svante Pääbo et al

Nature 524, 216–219 (13 August 2015) doi:10.1038/nature14558
2015
_________________________________

If basal Eurasian remains were found
-How would they know they were basal Eurasian?


However I'm not going to pursue it further because basal Eurasian is off topic. The topic is

•Genome-wide analysis of 16 African individuals who lived up to 8,100 years ago

But "Basal Eurasian" is tens of thousands of years later

quote:

---

Basal Eurasian and Neanderthal ancestry
The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized13 to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11


The finding of little if any Neanderthal ancestry in Basal Eurasians could be explained if the Neanderthal admixture into modern humans ~50,000–60,000 years ago11 largely occurred after the splitting of the Basal Eurasians from other non-Africans.

The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44 ± 8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations

--Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
Iosif Lazaridis

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:


Lastly what does this have to do with ancient Tanzanian Pastoralists??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lioness do you think that the same population that brought V68 to South Europe or Mediterranean were conduits for V88 and H1 in SSA 8-7kya?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:


Lastly what does this have to do with ancient Tanzanian Pastoralists??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lioness do you think that the same population that brought V68 to South Europe or Mediterranean were conduits for V88 and H1 in SSA 8-7kya? .....

European signatures are weak in SSA African populations, other than the handful of Fula(or any other Africans) which recent European or even North African ancestry.

---

---

quote:

---

Basal Eurasian and Neanderthal ancestry
The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized13 to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11


The finding of little if any Neanderthal ancestry in Basal Eurasians could be explained if the Neanderthal admixture into modern humans ~50,000–60,000 years ago11 largely occurred after the splitting of the Basal Eurasians from other non-Africans.

The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44 ± 8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations

--Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
Iosif Lazaridis

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
@Swenet

Again very good point. When we always discuss genetic history of a region of the world we always forget to add the context of the environment/climate of that time. Sure we bring up the Sahara(desert vs fertile) but we never talk about the other climate events.


Even when the ice sheets were retreating Southern Europe and Northern Southwest Asia would have still been quite cold for a large population. Africa would have easily been able to support a large population that would have been ancestral to basel Eurasian.

I mean not to go off-topic but I feel this is a good example. Look at the population of Canada. Only 30,000,000 million people. The African-American population is larger than that. But why is that?

Sure Southern Canada is densely populated and not in the arctic.


But the majority of Canada IS in the arctic. And while Canada is much bigger than the USA. The USA can more easily support a larger and diverse population. To me this would have been the same with Africa vs Western Eurasia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Swenet, I've read a few studies indicating ANE influence in prehistoric SW Asia and such influence would seem to correlate with hg R lineages in that region. If so, do you identify ANE as being a possible component in EEF and thus its arrival in Africa?

---

quote:

---

Table 4 shows the comparison of the frequencies of
alleles of the autosomal microsatellite loci found in
Russians with mitochondrial haplotypes of African
origin in European, African, and Russian populations.
We found that the autosomal haplotypes of the Rus-
sians carrying African mtDNA haplotypes were
mainly characterized by alleles common to European
and African populations. However, Russians had alle-
les that are characteristic of Europeans but are
extremely rare in Africans (e.g., D13S317*8,
D13S17*9, D81179*10, and D19S433*15 in an L1b
subject and D18S51*17 in an L3b subject), which
indicates their European origin. Only two alleles
found in an L3b Russian subject (D2S1338*22 and
TPOX*7) were frequent in Africans but extremely rare
or absent in Russians. Apparently, these alleles are a
genetic trace of a past mixing of races.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
People do this all the time. They make elaborate narratives with no regard for things that hamper or promote growth and migration. One of the reasons I saw through that claim on ABF about Malawian-mediated Neolithization of South Africa is because Malawi is in the middle of Tsetse-infested zone.

---

code:

---

1	SUB_SAHARAN	        50.15
2	NATUFIAN	        30.41
3	ANATOLIA_NEOLITHIC	11.04
4	IRAN_NEOLITHIC	        1.51
5	EHG	                1.43
6	SHG_WHG	                1.41
7	SIBERIAN	        1.36
8	PAPUAN	                1.33
9	SE_ASIAN	        1.23
10	ANCESTRAL_INDIAN	0.12

---

code:

---

#	 	Primary Population (source)	Secondary Population (source)	Distance
1	 	66.1%	Hadza	+	33.9%	Levant_N	@	5.39
2	 	64.3%	Hadza	+	35.7%	Levant_BA	@	5.62
3	 	74.9%	Masai	+	25.1%	Levant_N	@	5.91
4	 	61.8%	Mota	+	38.2%	Levant_BA	@	6.78
5	 	63.6%	Mota	+	36.4%	Levant_N	@	6.89
6	 	73.6%	Masai	+	26.4%	Levant_BA	@	7.09
7	 	51.5%	Gambian	+	48.5%	Levant_BA	@	7.95
8	 	50.1%	Levant_BA+	49.9%	Esan	        @	8.16
9	 	50.1%	Levant_BA+	49.9%	Yoruba	        @	8.16
10	 	60.1%	Masai	+	39.9%	Moroccan	@	8.21
11	 	66.2%	Masai	+	33.8%	Libyan	        @	8.73
12	 	61.2%	Masai	+	38.8%	Saharawi	@	8.74
13	 	50.2%	Hadza	+	49.8%	Saharawi	@	8.75
14	 	72.8%	Masai	+	27.2%	Jew_Libyan	@	9.19
15	 	67.9%	Masai	+	32.1%	Egyptian	@	9.3
16	 	55.6%	Hadza	+	44.4%	Libyan	        @	9.3
17	 	77.9%	Masai	+	22.1%	Anatolia_ChL	@	9.31
18	 	73.3%	Masai	+	26.7%	Jew_Tunisian	@	9.37
19	 	52.8%	Saharawi+	47.2%	Mota	        @	9.47
20	 	63.5%	Masai	+	36.5%	Algerian	@	9.48

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:


The more I look into it, the more I get suspicious about Skoglunds postulation in regards to Luxmanda being partially ancestral to PPNB... we might need to take it more seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
The more I look into it, the more I get suspicious about Skoglunds postulation in regards to Luxmanda being partially ancestral to PPNB... we might need to take it more seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
The more I look into it, the more I get suspicious about Skoglunds postulation in regards to Luxmanda being partially ancestral to PPNB... we might need to take it more seriously.

---

yeah, I wonder if they were just being logically complete, or do they have some hunch or new model?

I don't like pure Basal Eurasian for it, not as worked out by Laziridis et al at least; didn't fit for East Africans before and doesn't fit for Luxmanda now. Some earlier population shared between West Asia and North Africa yes, the question is always why does Anatolia Neolithic work relatively well and why isn't Natufian the best fit?

But maybe there is a widely shared base Paleo-MENA population here, and there is not only the recognizable additional ancestry in Anatolians (WHG etc) pulling them away from it, but some unrecognized ghost contributing to Natufians which is pulling them away in a different direction?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:


The more I look into it, the more I get suspicious about Skoglunds postulation in regards to Luxmanda being partially ancestral to PPNB... we might need to take it more seriously.

---

IMO this is where all roads have been leading for while. I think the community at large is reluctant to make that jump due to long held biases....BUT it’s exactly what we would expect.

Speaking of “taking things more seriously”.....I think we are going to have to start taking some of those splits times and divergences a bit more literal a la XYYMAN style. When it comes to all his bio-anthro many of us have a different research styles and come from a different backgrounds. For better or for worse I think the newer group of folks looking into this have come to totally different conclusions than some of us “old guard” folks. There are plenty of scenarios I wouldn’t have even considered until someone with younger eyes took a look at the data and evaluated it. Ma’alta boy at 25kya has Amerindian affinities. The new skeleton out of East Asia at 40 kya has Amerindian affinities.

It’s pretty much “game over man”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Beyoku, you smashed the nail on the head all the way hard! The implications you point out is what I've been trying to get at! If you have pre- Holocene Chinese crania who don't look like modern Chinese but rather more like Amerindians. And in East Africa crania that don't look like typical 'Sub-Saharans' but rather like certain early West Asians. Yet in the latter case many scholars assume back-migration instead of the other way around. As another example, you have experts who use autosomal DNA data as proof of the difference between Natufians and 'Sub-Saharans' as proof that they are not of African origin, yet the Ainu aborigines of Japan and their Jomon ancestors also have autosomal signatures radically different from typical East Asians including most Japanese. The implications are clear as it pertains to Asian diversity visavi African diversity.

---

quote:

---

Holocene Chinese crania who don't look like modern Chinese but rather more like Amerindians

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Ainu aborigines of Japan and their Jomon ancestors also have autosomal signatures radically different from typical East Asians including most Japanese.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
But first shout outs to Djehuti. You were right on the money.

Anyways...
http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-86741731008-5

Many on the site Forumbiodiversity were certain this pastoralist would be more "Cushite-Like" with lineages like E-V22/M1 instead we get what I call "true Bantu Negroid" L2a1.

Here is the summary-

quote:

---

We assembled genome-wide data from 16 prehistoric Africans. We show that the anciently divergent lineage that comprises the primary ancestry of the southern African San had a wider distribution in the past, contributing approximately two-thirds of the ancestry of Malawi hunter-gatherers ∼8,100–2,500 years ago and approximately one-third of the ancestry of Tanzanian hunter-gatherers ∼1,400 years ago. We document how the spread of farmers from western Africa involved complete replacement of local hunter-gatherers in some regions, and we track the spread of herders by showing that the population of a ∼3,100-year-old pastoralist from Tanzania contributed ancestry to people from northeastern to southern Africa, including a ∼1,200-year-old southern African pastoralist. The deepest diversifications of African lineages were complex, involving either repeated gene flow among geographically disparate groups or a lineage more deeply diverging than that of the San contributing more to some western African populations than to others. We finally leverage ancient genomes to document episodes of natural selection in southern African populations.

---

Thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

If you don't buy the idea of back migration of Eurasians into East Africa that can't be used as an analogy with Amerindians and modern Chinese.

---

quote:

---

If the traits or DNA called Eurasian were actually African and went from Africa to Asia, an analogous theory seems not work with Amerindians and modern Chinese because geographically and sequentially in time the Americas were populated after China. Amerindians can't be the ancestors of modern Chinese so please explain how this works.

---

I would recommend that you go back and read what I posted on Doug's thread about Tianyuan Man, but I'm just going to assume you have and still don't understand so I'll break it down myself.



^Findings show that Amerindians derive from two main lines of ancestry--one predominant line that came from Siberia and splintered off from another line that is ancestral to many modern Central Asians and Europeans which is known as 'Ancient North Eurasian', while the other peculiar line comes from Eastern Asia from a ghost population whose line also spread to Southeast Asia and Australasia and Oceania.

So you have Western Asians whose OOA ancestry is not much different from other Eurasians, probably descending from an 'Ancient North African' or rather 'Ancestral Out-of-African' line while there are other West Asians who descend from a ghost population called 'Basal Eurasian' which may very well be in fact a more recent African population compared to the Ancestral OOA.

Tianyuan Man by the way is geographically Chinese although he may very well look more Amerindian. (btw, I base this on crania from nearby sites like Shandingdong since all that remains of Tianyuan Man's skull is part of his mandible) The findings show Tianyuan Man to carry the 'Population Y' or 'Basal East Asian' ancestry.

Finally we have both linguistic and genetic evidence for American back-migrations into Asia!



So I hope the analogy is clear to you now.

quote:

---

why?

---

Because there is genetic diversity in East Asians with autosomal differences of the Ainu/Jomon showing that but that doesn't make the Ainu any less 'Asian'. The same can be said for Africans. Just because you have African populations especially in ancient times who genetically differ from today's 'typical' "Sub-Saharans" doesn't make them any less African or as you would have it "Eurasian".
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
@BBH What do you think about the Sudanese (nubians-Arabs) "Non-Eurasian" signatures being more similar to Great-Lakes than to Horners and or even Nilotes? ...More specifically, Which ancient or extant population do you think the unadmixed sudanese will resemble? being intermediate or a mixture of "cushitic" and Nilotic..?


 

---