quote:

---

Approximately 160 sets of human skeletal remains were examined. Of these, 77 from sites HK6 (n=16), HK27 (n=1), and HK43 (n=60) were complete enough for detailed dental morphometric analyses. Amongst them, 14 possessed complete—or nearly complete—skulls, which allowed for further craniometric studies... Because this report is preliminary, statistical analyses have not yet been undertaken. However, based on a qualitative inspection of the dentitions, it appears that: 1) dental phenetic homogeneity was prevalent among the Hierakonpolis inhabitants; and 2) they exhibit dental traits that ally them with other post-Pleistocene populations in greater North Africa. Prior work shows North Africans have morphologically simple, mass-reduced teeth. This dental pat-tern was shown to be ubiquitous among samples, regardless of distance—from the Canary Islands to Egypt and Nubia— or time—from 8,000 year-old Capsians to recent Berbers in western North Africa. This pattern, termed the “North African Dental Trait Complex,” includes high frequencies of several traits such as an interruption groove on UI2, M3 agenesis, and rocker jaw, plus a low occurrence of LM2 Y-5 groove pattern. All of these features are also present in Europeans and West Asians to some degree, but are uncommon in sub-Saharan peoples. Craniometric indicators appear to support these results, and European-like discrete traits, such as alveolar orthognathism, dolichocephaly, rhomboid orbits, narrow nasal aperture, and nasal sill, are prevalent.

---

www.hierakonpolis-online.org/nekhennews/nn-12-2000.pdf


I thought that Keita said the crania of similar southern Egyptian sites was more tropical? Irish seems to be saying something else?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
They are more tropical than Europeans and West Eurasians. Irish is emphasizing the difference to his SSA samples, but doesn't mention differences to his West Eurasian samples.

I would stay away from Irish and researchers like him until you have a firm foundation. They will only confuse you. Been there.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
In the article you posted Irish only gives descriptions. Descriptions can only tell you so much. What you want is a statistical analysis. Irish has actually done that with those predynastic Hierakonpolis remains. You can see how they cluster compared to various other samples here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joel_Irish/publication/232660381_Gebel_Ramlah_Final_Neolithic_Cemeteries_from_the_Western_Desert_of_Egypt/links/0deec52b1e7c2c1e92000000/Gebel- Ramlah-Final-Neolithic-Cemeteries-from-the-Western-Desert-of-Egypt.pdf

Here is a screenshot of the analysis. Unlike the Lower Egyptian sample (see LEG) and the modern Maghrebi sample (see MAG), the Hierakonpolis sample (HRK) is not closely related to Europeans (see EUR), nor is it closely related to the West Asian sample (see MEA). But it's not exactly close to the pooled SSA sample either (see SAF). That is what Irish was saying in your quote. Except that he "forgot" to say they have a degree of distance to modern Europeans as well.


 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Don't SSA have the highest phenotypic diversity on the planet? Why would he average East Africans below the Sahara with West Africans and Central Africans? That would make East Africans like Somali appear a lot further in terms of phenetic relationship because they are being lumped in with Africans that look fairly different. Maybe I missed it while I was trying to read it, but do they specify what tribes or countries they used for SAF?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
It's not about having diversity. It's about having diversity of the right kind. Diversity in groceries doesn't ensure you have all the ingredients to cook what you want. It is the same with ancestry components and the non-metric features Irish listed. Diversity doesn't ensure you have the right kind to have affinities with a particular population.

Irish didn't pool Somalis in his SAF sample. Irish's Ethiopian sample (see ETH) is unpooled and it clusters near his Upper Egyptian sample (see UEG). You can pursue this issue in your research if you feel unpooling that SSA sample would bridge the gap in between his pooled SSA sample and his other African samples.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Precisely. Compared to most of Sub Saharan Africa, most other places sampled are more homogenous in phenotype. So when he pools Africans with similar phenotype to Egyptian samples with Africans that are much farther from east/northest Africa it's using Africa's diversity to statistically eject the significance of the African populations that contain features in Egypt, Europe and Asia. A Somali having to have their scores averaged against a Yoruba is going to appear far less relevant than a European or Near Easterner who doesn't have to worry about the levels of diversity being so high that it gives such dramatic results.


One thing I was curious about with the ETH was whether or not that was a modern population or ancient sample, and if ancient, would the ethiopian sample still fit within modern tropical diversity. I wasn't sure what he was getting at with that.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
You can find an updated list of Irish’s SSA samples here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259344531_Afridonty_the_''Sub-Saharan_African_Dental_Complex''_revisited

Although these samples are teeth only, so I don’t know the specifics of the Ethiopian sample you’re asking about. It’s modern through. It’s either the same as the Ethiopians in the link I just posted or it’s another modern Ethiopian sample. Ethiopia doesn’t have ancient samples with large sample size, so it’s not an ancient sample.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Wow lookit page 9. They used NO horners in the original sample. All East African samples are below the horn. Most of the original samples were west African too. Even with updated samples, the horn and anything north of it is mostly ignored.

They say: "This composite includes disparate, yet dentally similar populations who originated in the western, central, and eastern parts of the continent just south of the Sahara. All told, 2,347 dentitions were analyzed."

Meaning any likelier samples that didn't fit the "True Negro" grouping of SAF wouldn't have been counted anyway. Swenet, how do we know it was this sample in particular that they used? Because for the Gebel Ramlah study they didn't mention South African samples. I still wonder about the ETH might be older, because they say: "Among others, a sample from Ethiopia also shows some phenetic similitude."

They make it sound like they may have only used one for comparison? IDK. But if that was their SAF sample then I can see why the results look as dramatic as they do. It's even worse than I originally imagined.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Meaning any likelier samples that didn't fit the "True Negro" grouping of SAF wouldn't have been counted anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Swenet, how do we know it was this sample in particular that they used? Because for the Gebel Ramlah study they didn't mention South African samples. I still wonder about the ETH might be older, because they say: "Among others, a sample from Ethiopia also shows some phenetic similitude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
It is purely a result of historical precedent in treating North Africa as different and separate from the rest of Africa.

---

quote:

---

As expected, all individuals in the study were found to be members of haplogroup T1. Only half of the sub-haplogroups of T1 (T1a-T1f) are represented in our sample and the overwhelming majority (94%) in this study belong to subhaplogroup T1b. A previous study of African cattle found frequencies of T1b of 27% in Egypt and 69% in Ethiopia. These results are consistent with serial multiple founder effects significantly shaping the gene pool as cattle were moved from north to south across the continent.

---

The Genetic Diversity of the Nguni Breed of African Cattle (Bos spp.): Complete Mitochondrial Genomes of Haplogroup T1
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071956

In other words, the cattle spread by Luxmanda's people would have carried a subset of the DNA of North African cattle. Which in turn tells you about the population history of Luxmanda's people.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
But none of the North African admixed aDNA that has come out since then (Luxmanda, IAM, Taforalt, Abusir, Natufian) supports your claim that it's all a conspiracy. With the exception of Luxmanda they're all closer to Eurasians than to Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
They are more tropical than Europeans and West Eurasians. Irish is emphasizing the difference to his SSA samples, but doesn't mention differences to his West Eurasian samples.

I would stay away from Irish and researchers like him until you have a firm foundation. They will only confuse you. Been there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
It is purely a result of historical precedent in treating North Africa as different and separate from the rest of Africa.

---

I know you think that. That was your argument in the "when to use black" thread: that treating NA as different from SSA is a conspiracy that's not based on data.

But none of the North African admixed aDNA that has come out since then (Luxmanda, IAM, Taforalt, Abusir, Natufian) supports your claim that it's all a conspiracy. With the exception of Luxmanda they're all closer to Eurasians than to Africans.

But I get what you're going to say next. "That's not what I mean: what I mean is (insert totally different argument from what was argued initially)".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
So who would you suggest to get a firm foundation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
They are more tropical than Europeans and West Eurasians. Irish is emphasizing the difference to his SSA samples, but doesn't mention differences to his West Eurasian samples.

I would stay away from Irish and researchers like him until you have a firm foundation. They will only confuse you. Been there.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
What I hear you say is that because they're racists, have racist motives and methods, they can't be correct on the specific issue that African populations are assymmetrically related to Eurasians, with some actually being closer to Eurasians than they are to most Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Of course regardless of any semantic distortion, Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians as Africa is the origin of Eurasian populations and all populations.

---

Make up your mind, please. This was your position before Abusir, Natufian, Taforalt and IAM aDNA:

a) that the AE were 'black'
b) that there is no valid reason to not apply the term 'black' to AE
c) that anyone who has reservations with applying that term to AE is necessarily a racist, because those reservations can't come from any data

Now you don't want to have the same energy.

Make up your mind, Doug. Which is it? Either it's

• "Some Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians due to OOA"

• "it's always clear-cut who is African and if you're confused, don't understand or have reservations, then you're racist by default"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Itoli:
Someone should do the honors and make a thread compiling all those studies ^

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Itoli:
Someone should do the honors and make a thread compiling all those studies ^

---

If someone starts one and puts in some of the effort I will help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Of course regardless of any semantic distortion, Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians as Africa is the origin of Eurasian populations and all populations.

---

Make up your mind, please. This was your position before Abusir, Natufian, Taforalt and IAM aDNA:

a) that the AE were 'black'
b) that there is no valid reason to not apply the term 'black' to AE
c) that anyone who has reservations with applying that term to AE is necessarily a racist, because those reservations can't come from any data

Now you don't want to have the same energy.

Make up your mind, Doug. Which is it? Either it's

• "Some Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians due to OOA"

or it's:

• "it's always clear-cut who is African and if you're confused, don't understand or have reservations, then you're racist by default"

---

Maybe he's taken the Lioness position: Some blacks aren't African but are black as long as they look "black enough."
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
I don't know what Doug is thinking, but he sho was giggly when he thought Lazaridis 2018 proved Basal Eurasian is non-African. I think Doug has some internal conflicts he needs to work on.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Itoli:
Someone should do the honors and make a thread compiling all those studies ^

---

If someone starts one and puts in some of the effort I will help.

---

That project is an excellent idea and may introduce
some collective work and responsibility evolving ES
beyond showdowns and protected trolling.

I had started doing that on Africana21 in two parts.

Part 1 a thread that just lists titles authors pub info and a link to Part 2.

Part 2 a thread with the above + abstract open to analysis and discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Judging by the timestamp of your post, I think you may have read an early version of that post that was still being edited. I certainly didn't mean to say Luxmanda is genetically North African. But a minority of her ancestry is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Of course regardless of any semantic distortion, Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians as Africa is the origin of Eurasian populations and all populations.

---

Make up your mind, please. This was your position before Abusir, Natufian, Taforalt and IAM aDNA:

a) that the AE were 'black'
b) that there is no valid reason to not apply the term 'black' to AE
c) that anyone who has reservations with applying that term to AE is necessarily a racist, because those reservations can't come from any data

Now you don't want to have the same energy.

Make up your mind, Doug. Which is it? Either it's

• "Some Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians due to OOA"

or it's:

• "it's always clear-cut who is African and if you're confused, don't understand or have reservations, then you're racist by default"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Are you going by the Lioness: Phenotype makes black model? You're in Australia, so would Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders count? or are you the type that thinks that it's being African that makes people black? What defines blackness to you when you ask that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Are you going by the Lioness: Phenotype makes black model? You're in Australia, so would Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders count? or are you the type that thinks that it's being African that makes people black? What defines blackness to you when you ask that.

---

The Australian Aboriginals, Torres Strait Islanders, Papuans, Negritos, Fijians, Melanesians, Sri Lankans, South Indians and more, are black --they're just not African.

Africans obviously don't have a monopoly on black skin. The AE (Upper Egyptians) were African and black, and I don't see how this has been refuted. If North Sudanese and Lower "Nubians" are recognised as black, then why and how would Upper Egyptians be exempt when these populations share a common origin in the Predynastic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
... though the debate we should be focused on is whether or not AE were African and to what extent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Of course regardless of any semantic distortion, Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians as Africa is the origin of Eurasian populations and all populations.

---

Make up your mind, please. This was your position before Abusir, Natufian, Taforalt and IAM aDNA:

a) that the AE were 'black'
b) that there is no valid reason to not apply the term 'black' to AE
c) that anyone who has reservations with applying that term to AE is necessarily a racist, because those reservations can't come from any data

Now you don't want to have the same energy.

Make up your mind, Doug. Which is it? Either it's

• "Some Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians due to OOA"

or it's:

• "it's always clear-cut who is African and if you're confused, don't understand or have reservations, then you're racist by default"

---

Forgive me for asking this question... but couldn't the predynastic, Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom Upper AE be reasonably described as 'black' just as other Northeast Africans are recognised as black?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
... though the debate we should be focused on is whether or not AE were African and to what extent.

---

Agreed. Unfortunately "black" has become a subjective term with unclear boundaries, which is one of the reasons it isn't really useful in an anthropological context. What we can evaluate is where the roots of AE culture and ethnicity lie. But then, I'm damn tired of all these conversations about the meaning of certain terminology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
How come no issue defining white? No, they don't
call Greece and Rome white. They don't have to.
Some common sense taken for granted. But Negroes
want to run from black Egypt despite how many eye
witness Greek and Roman authors say so. And they
saw 'em only after the New Kingdom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Are you going by the Lioness: Phenotype makes black model? You're in Australia, so would Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders count? or are you the type that thinks that it's being African that makes people black? What defines blackness to you when you ask that.

---

The Australian Aboriginals, Torres Strait Islanders, Papuans, Negritos, Fijians, Melanesians, Sri Lankans, South Indians and more, are black --they're just not African.

Africans obviously don't have a monopoly on black skin. The AE (Upper Egyptians) were African and black, and I don't see how this has been refuted. If North Sudanese and Lower "Nubians" are recognised as black, then why and how would Upper Egyptians be exempt when these populations share a common origin in the Predynastic?

---

Well it'd seem Irish is saying he doesn't think they're Sub Saharan African and has created this generalized pooled phenotype to characterize the entire area to postulate affinities. Even in the best situation where he included Sudan and the Horn that pooled sample also added places like West Africa. It never really stood much chance for Egyptians to carry much "affinity." But then.. if you don't think SSA affinity is required to be black in the first place then this and even the Abusir genetic data wouldn't really matter to you then I guess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
White is not defined by being privileged in America.

No American classroom teaches AG and AR were
anything but white even in the face of Romes cosmopolitan makeup.

Outside of arguing semantics all Europeans are classed white caucasian.

This is a physical reality, not worth debating.

Have it any way you wanna in a world where
Duchess Megan Markle is black but AE is not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
... though the debate we should be focused on is whether or not AE were African and to what extent. [/qb]

---

Agreed. Unfortunately "black" has become a subjective term with unclear boundaries, which is one of the reasons it isn't really useful in an anthropological context. What we can evaluate is where the roots of AE culture and ethnicity lie. But then, I'm damn tired of all these conversations about the meaning of certain terminology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Of course regardless of any semantic distortion, Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians as Africa is the origin of Eurasian populations and all populations.

---

Make up your mind, please. This was your position before Abusir, Natufian, Taforalt and IAM aDNA:

a) that the AE were 'black'
b) that there is no valid reason to not apply the term 'black' to AE
c) that anyone who has reservations with applying that term to AE is necessarily a racist, because those reservations can't come from any data

Now you don't want to have the same energy.

Make up your mind, Doug. Which is it? Either it's

• "Some Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians due to OOA"

or it's:

• "it's always clear-cut who is African and if you're confused, don't understand or have reservations, then you're racist by default"

---

Forgive me for asking this question... but couldn't the predynastic, Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom Upper AE be reasonably described as 'black' just as other Northeast Africans are recognised as black?

---

What I meant to say in that post has nothing to do with taking a stance on whether AE are 'black' or not. I'm simply pointing out how incongruent both points are. Either it's automatically racist to disagree, or he admits the data is not clear-cut and can be somewhat open to more than one interpretation depending on the information you have at your disposal. If you only work with, say, non-metric data it's very easy to come to the conclusion that AE were backmigrants. You have to use language, archaeology and other data to know what "closeness to Eurasians" means. Does it mean backmigration or does it mean a Basal Eurasian scenario involving African ancestry in Eurasia and Africa? Someone can argue that is a valid debate, without being racist or part of a racist conspiracy.

As for my take on the term 'black', you can review the "when to use black" thread for clarification.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
White is not defined by being privileged in America.
And you're not going to convince me because I was
alive before the civl rights act of 1964 and in my
school and work experience in the white world I
interacted with various types of Italians. None
claimed anything but Caucasian. White privilege?
Yes denied to dark Italians even in Italy.

What census by what country ever excluded
Portuguese Spaniards Italians Greeks Albanians etc
from the white category if race is on the census?


Again its not worth debating, better uses of resource
like cooperating to build an index of gen reports.


No American classroom teaches AG and AR were
anything but white even in the face of Romes cosmopolitan makeup.

Outside of arguing semantics all Europeans are classed white caucasian.

This is a physical reality, not worth debating.

Have it any way you wanna in a world where
Duchess Megan Markle is black but AE is not.

---

In other words, you saw what was posted on 'white' not being self-evident and without reservations, but don't care. Got it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Of course regardless of any semantic distortion, Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians as Africa is the origin of Eurasian populations and all populations.

---

Make up your mind, please. This was your position before Abusir, Natufian, Taforalt and IAM aDNA:

a) that the AE were 'black'
b) that there is no valid reason to not apply the term 'black' to AE
c) that anyone who has reservations with applying that term to AE is necessarily a racist, because those reservations can't come from any data

Now you don't want to have the same energy.

Make up your mind, Doug. Which is it? Either it's

• "Some Africans will always have a relationship to Eurasians due to OOA"

or it's:

• "it's always clear-cut who is African and if you're confused, don't understand or have reservations, then you're racist by default"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Swenet clarity is everything

If you take the position that some Africans are genetically closer to Eurasians than other Africans you also need to clarify.

It's because

A) Eurasians are descendant of a group of north East Africans

B) North Africans are closer to Eurasians because Eurasians came into Africa and mixed with them

C) both of the above

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Why you always behind on everyone's positions yet blaming it on other people. How is it my fault you're confused about things I've already spoken on many times?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Why you always behind on everyone's positions yet blaming it on other people. How is it my fault you're confused about things I've already spoken on many times? [/qb]

---

I'm not behind on anything. I'm ahead. You are talking to Jari about being "hoodwinked" but are purposely vague on how. Just read everything you can you advise, the very articles doing the hoodwinking
Then Doug comes in and thinks you are talking about back migration.
It's obfuscation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Maybe you should let Doug speak for himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
It is purely a result of historical precedent in treating North Africa as different and separate from the rest of Africa.

---

I know you think that. That was your argument in the "when to use black" thread: that treating NA as different from SSA is a conspiracy that's not based on data.

But none of the North African admixed aDNA that has come out since then (Luxmanda, IAM, Taforalt, Abusir, Natufian) supports your claim that it's all a conspiracy. With the exception of Luxmanda they're all closer to Eurasians than to Africans.

But I get what you're going to say next. "That's not what I mean: what I mean is (insert totally different argument from what was argued initially)". [/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
So who would you suggest to get a firm foundation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
They are more tropical than Europeans and West Eurasians. Irish is emphasizing the difference to his SSA samples, but doesn't mention differences to his West Eurasian samples.

I would stay away from Irish and researchers like him until you have a firm foundation. They will only confuse you. Been there.

---

---

To get a good foundation I would suggest getting everything you can get your hands on about backmigration and OOA migrations. Once you know that, they can't hoodwink you anymore. When there is a closeness to Eurasians, or a closeness of Eurasians to Africans, you will know why and what it is they're not telling you.

The problem is this type of information is scattered. There is no one single book that will bring you fully up to speed. But some sources are better to start with than others. Irish is not one of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
People need to learn to read and comprehend english. Irish is no different than many other anthropologists who assign the primary origin of North Africans to Eurasia. It doesn't matter what traits you are focusing on, be it nose shape, head shape and skin color or whether it is DNA. Many of these scientists, if not most will say that not only do modern North Africans have Eurasian mixture but that ancient North Africans going back thousands of years were also substantially the result of Eurasian mixture as well. And yes the only way this Eurasian mixture could have taken place and most often the way this mixture is proposed is as a result of back migration.

Trying isolate Irish from the rest of the scientists who say similar things using other characteristics of biology is what I am disagreeing with.

I am certainly not going to sit here and debate people about the scientific consensus on North Africa as having a distinct biological ancestry from the rest of Africa based on Eurasian ancestry going back many thousands of years. There are far too many papers available that people can read for themselves for me to sit here and debate it.

The problem is that some individuals have their own opinions on the history of African biological diversity but those opinions are not always in agreement with the scientific community at large. So rather than pretending there is a quorum we need to be precise in how we describe our position so as to distinguish one's personal vies from others, whether in the scientific community or otherwise. At no point have I seen any papers claiming that ancient North Africans evolved a separate set of indigenous features and traits that were a branch that split off from other Africans before, during or after OOA. Some people may have this view and that probably did take place. But most papers on the topic of African DNA history do not support such a theory even going back to the time of OOA and prior to OOA.

My personal take on this is that such a branch did exist and there were multiple sub branches and those branches are also associated with various migration scenarios OUT Of Africa that make Africans in North Africa closer related to Eurasians as a result of those various branches and waves of migration being ancestral to various Eurasian populations. The problem is we cannot identify these branches or cases of ancestral relationship because there isnt any ancient DNA from Africa going back far enough to identify them.

---

Please. At the end of the day, the anthropologists you're talking about have imperfect models in regards to the ancestry types under discussion, but they are still closer to the truth than what you have claimed in your posts in all these years. Your bogus claims are well preserved in the "when to use black thread". You said their claims were all a racist conspiracy. aDNA says it isn't all a racist conspiracy. You said there is no relationship between EEF and North Africans. aDNA proves you wrong on that, too. First you had no problem with third intermediate period aDNA, then Abusir aDNA dropped and you started special pleading. Then Middle Kingdom Upper Egyptian aDNA dropped and you started special pleading and posting sore loser non sense. Now you have backpedaled all the way to the Nubian border begging for samples to be taken there only. You look confused in all North African aDNA threads, giggling at imaginary vindications, special pleading, etc. I know you're not pontificating about others being wrong, with your track record.

You were definitely more off the mark than Irish. Let's be absolutely clear about that. One can salvage a lot of his work by putting it in an African context, instead of a backmigration context. Which of your analyses on North African affinities can be given a place in the aDNA era with some modifications? Your analyses can't even be salvaged. That's how lost you were all these years.



And BTW, I'm not going to keep responding to you on your delusional claims. On the first page you tried to go into your rants again about everything being a conspiracy. You're wrong about that (as aDNA shows some parallels with Irish's work). Does not matter how many times you repeat a lie in your sermons. It's still a lie.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
I wouldn't be surprised honestly if Upper Egypt was mixed with back migrants too. What blackness means to people with that in mind is another matter. I suspect Doug will be team Lioness on the subject before long though.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
don't jinx
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
I wouldn't be surprised honestly if Upper Egypt was mixed with back migrants too. What blackness means to people with that in mind is another matter. I suspect Doug will be team Lioness on the subject before long though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

Btw @Tukuler your first schematic is what I believe people are suggesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
I wouldn't be surprised honestly if Upper Egypt was mixed with back migrants too. What blackness means to people with that in mind is another matter. I suspect Doug will be team Lioness on the subject before long though.

---

Which Eurasian population?
Do you believe it’s appropriate to call M and U6 Eurasian?

Btw @Tukuler your first schematic is what I believe people are suggesting.

---

I don't think there would've been any one particular Eurasian population. groups such as a proto Natufian or a Soqotri like people that may even predate the development and spread Near Eastern agriculture. Mixing someone like this:







This:




mix some East Africans and you'd probably get a Southern Egyptian. However one thing that'd likely offer distinction is that I would expect back migration to have been more irregular and (generally) earlier than northern Egypt which would have multiple pulses of gradual Near Eastern flow, some very ancient some a lot younger.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Will somebody please help me with this. For
years now nobody has clarified what this means

Some africans are closer to 'eurasians' than other Africans


Does it mean
closer to 'eurasians' than to any and all africans
Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras

Or does it mean
closer to 'eurasians' than some other africans are to 'eurasians'
Afr_A . . Afr_B . . Afr_C . . . . . . . . . Euras

Am I so clueless that it means neither of the above but means something I can't conceive?

Help

---

I think the more ancient dna we get the 1st option is going to be correct.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Sweenet goes by skull shape
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
It's good to know I wasn't wrong on lioness giving Irish a pass on his European-like comment. Who knew all it takes to draw out lioness astronomical bias is just to ask her to comment on false claims in Lazaridis and Irish. It's really that simple, apparently. Just ask, sit back, wait for her distracting evasions and keep asking until it's obvious she's not going to utter one critical note in regards to these authors' openly false claims.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Look, either their teeth were black or they weren't
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Troll. Even Eurocentric authors have agreed there is a negroid component in predynastics.



Yet Irish breaks with established fact, sidesteps what is already known and demonstrated, and makes it sound like predynastic Hierakonpolis is fully European/West Asian

All of these features are also present in Europeans and West Asians to some degree, but are uncommon in sub-Saharan peoples. Craniometric indicators appear to support these results, and European-like discrete traits, such as alveolar orthognathism, dolichocephaly, rhomboid orbits, narrow nasal aperture, and nasal sill, are prevalent.
Irish

In your troll point of view, was it okay for Irish to blatantly misrepresent the variations in the Hierakonpolis population? And how is it you keep running from the elephant in the room re: Irish's obfuscations, but yet you keep mentioning my name and my supposed "obfuscations"?
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB] Troll. Even Eurocentric authors have agreed there is a negroid component

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
[QB] But why are you cool with his describing their features Eurocentrically,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Ok. But can I get an answer to that question? What do you think about that Irish quote emphasizing European traits but not non-European traits?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I'll look later, got to go to bed

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
People need to learn to read and comprehend english. Irish is no different than many other anthropologists who assign the primary origin of North Africans to Eurasia. It doesn't matter what traits you are focusing on, be it nose shape, head shape and skin color or whether it is DNA. Many of these scientists, if not most will say that not only do modern North Africans have Eurasian mixture but that ancient North Africans going back thousands of years were also substantially the result of Eurasian mixture as well. And yes the only way this Eurasian mixture could have taken place and most often the way this mixture is proposed is as a result of back migration.

Trying isolate Irish from the rest of the scientists who say similar things using other characteristics of biology is what I am disagreeing with.

I am certainly not going to sit here and debate people about the scientific consensus on North Africa as having a distinct biological ancestry from the rest of Africa based on Eurasian ancestry going back many thousands of years. There are far too many papers available that people can read for themselves for me to sit here and debate it.

The problem is that some individuals have their own opinions on the history of African biological diversity but those opinions are not always in agreement with the scientific community at large. So rather than pretending there is a quorum we need to be precise in how we describe our position so as to distinguish one's personal vies from others, whether in the scientific community or otherwise. At no point have I seen any papers claiming that ancient North Africans evolved a separate set of indigenous features and traits that were a branch that split off from other Africans before, during or after OOA. Some people may have this view and that probably did take place. But most papers on the topic of African DNA history do not support such a theory even going back to the time of OOA and prior to OOA.

My personal take on this is that such a branch did exist and there were multiple sub branches and those branches are also associated with various migration scenarios OUT Of Africa that make Africans in North Africa closer related to Eurasians as a result of those various branches and waves of migration being ancestral to various Eurasian populations. The problem is we cannot identify these branches or cases of ancestral relationship because there isnt any ancient DNA from Africa going back far enough to identify them.

---

Please. At the end of the day, the anthropologists you're talking about have imperfect models in regards to the ancestry types under discussion, but they are still closer to the truth than what you have claimed in your posts in all these years. Your bogus claims are well preserved in the "when to use black thread". You said their claims were all a racist conspiracy. aDNA says it isn't all a racist conspiracy. You said there is no relationship between EEF and North Africans. aDNA proves you wrong on that, too. First you had no problem with third intermediate period aDNA, then Abusir aDNA dropped and you started special pleading. Then Middle Kingdom Upper Egyptian aDNA dropped and you started special pleading and posting sore loser non sense. Now you have backpedaled all the way to the Nubian border begging for samples to be taken there only. You look confused in all North African aDNA threads, giggling at imaginary vindications, special pleading, etc. I know you're not pontificating about others being wrong, with your track record.

You were definitely more off the mark than Irish. Let's be absolutely clear about that. One can salvage a lot of his work by putting it in an African context, instead of a backmigration context. Which of your analyses on North African affinities can be given a place in the aDNA era with some modifications? Your analyses can't even be salvaged. That's how lost you were all these years.



And BTW, I'm not going to keep responding to you on your delusional claims. On the first page you tried to go into your rants again about everything being a conspiracy. You're wrong about that (as aDNA shows some parallels with Irish's work). Does not matter how many times you repeat a lie in your sermons. It's still a lie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

He is not a geographer and so he will have geography as less important in his criteria than affinity. This is why his "SSA dental trait complex" reminds you of True Negro. But he's not doing that. That is how the affinities of these populations are structured.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
... [clarify] what this means

Some africans are closer to 'eurasians' than other Africans


Does it mean
closer to 'eurasians' than to any and all africans
Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras

Or does it mean
closer to 'eurasians' than some other africans are to 'eurasians'
Afr_A . . Afr_B . . Afr_C . . . . . . . . . Euras

[Does] it means neither of the above but [] something I can't conceive?

---

.

I think the more ancient dna we get the 1st option is going to be correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Doug how many chances do you think you get with aDNA for I stop taking you serious. Lol. Go bother someone else with your long winded posts that never turn out to be correct with new papers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Please. At the end of the day, the anthropologists you're talking about have imperfect models in regards to the ancestry types under discussion, but they are still closer to the truth than what you have claimed in your posts in all these years. Your bogus claims are well preserved in the "when to use black thread".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
What I am specifically saying is that Irish's use of the distinction between SSA and North Africans is following the common usage of the term is the problem. He is not off on his own outside the context and precedent already established within the anthropological community.

And you keep contradicting yourself. On one hand you say the man is biased, yet you agree with the overall conclusion? Really?.....


This was the underlying issue that caused various debates here with you starting with the whole EEF and Basal Eurasian fiasco.....

I can't take anybody seriously who wants to claim there was a Eurasian branch of Africans in Africa before humans even left Africa. My point is that the only populations in Africa before OOA and after OOA were Africans. Period. Their skin color isn't even the main issue, as we can assume it to be black. The issue is this nonsense of trying to make up new names for African populations who never left Africa and assigning them to a "Eurasian" category even if they aren't Eurasian. And no, Irish is not supporting that nonsense either. I think you are just grasping at straws to make up a scenario where somehow these papers touting "Eurasian" affinities in Africa somehow support your ancient indigenous "Eurasian" branch of pre-OOA Africans when they dont. All these people are referring to back migrants. Back migrants are not the same as some pre-OOA "basal" Eurasian group of Africans who never left Africa. That is your position from what I gather and it makes no sense and is not really supported by the science talking of Eurasian affinities in North Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


But none of the North African admixed aDNA that has come out since then (Luxmanda, IAM, Taforalt, Abusir, Natufian) supports your claim that it's all a conspiracy. With the exception of Luxmanda they're all closer to Eurasians than to Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Prediction noted.

Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Will somebody please help me with this. For
years now nobody has clarified what this means

Some africans are closer to 'eurasians' than other Africans


Does it mean
closer to 'eurasians' than to any and all africans
Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras

Or does it mean
closer to 'eurasians' than some other africans are to 'eurasians'
Afr_A . . Afr_B . . Afr_C . . . . . . . . . Euras

Am I so clueless that it means neither of the above but means something I can't conceive?

Help

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
it seems likely to me that the so-called "Basal Eurasian" population that remained in Northeast Africa would have still been phenotypically "black", and that they would have stayed that way prior to later admixture with West Eurasian populations. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Lmao. This negro saw Laz 2018's cartoon slide and started celebrating conjecture about BE being non-African. But has the nerve to tell me I'm wrong for accepting Irish statistical data that has been reproduced many times by many researchers. At least I'm not falling for someone's powerpoint presentation concept slide. Or whatever that was supposed to be. Such a dupe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
it seems likely to me that the so-called "Basal Eurasian" population that remained in Northeast Africa would have still been phenotypically "black", and that they would have stayed that way prior to later admixture with West Eurasian populations.

---

So are they Ethiopians ? or are they Levantines or Arabians?

This mysterious term "basal Eurasians" , why can't a place be named?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Will somebody please help me with this. For
years now nobody has clarified what this means

Some africans are closer to 'eurasians' than other Africans


Does it mean
closer to 'eurasians' than to any and all africans
Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras

Or does it mean
closer to 'eurasians' than some other africans are to 'eurasians'
Afr_A . . Afr_B . . Afr_C . . . . . . . . . Euras

Am I so clueless that it means neither of the above but means something I can't conceive?

Help

---

If I understand the pre-OOA argument correctly, Africans are naturally going OOA vary in their relative closeness to Eurasians depending on how early their ancestors "got off the bus". The proto-Afrasan Northeast Africans whom we assume were the foundational ancestors of AE etc. would have gotten off the bus after the ancestors of West Africans, who in turn got off the bus long after Khoisan, and so on. So yeah, when you consider Northeast Africa would have been the last bus stop before OOA proper, the first option you listed would be more accurate.

Obviously, the implications of that aren't attractive to those in the "Afrocentric" community who want population genetics to mirror pan-Africanist sociopolitical views. But if it's any consolation, it's not likely that Homo sapiens turned pale the moment they passed the Sinai into the Middle East ~50 kya. That depigmentation would have probably happened in somewhere in West Eurasia long after OOA. So it seems likely to me that the so-called "Basal Eurasian" population that remained in Northeast Africa would have still been phenotypically "black", and that they would have stayed that way prior to later admixture with West Eurasian populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Tyrannohotep

I agree with your interpretation in the first paragraph. I would also add that there is no longer a need to present this as a likely scenario. It's mainstream science that North Africans conforming to your description exist. They have the low Neanderthal proportion to prove that their African ancestry is contributing to their closeness to Eurasians (not [just] their Eurasian ancestry).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Tyrannohotep

I agree with your interpretation in the first paragraph. I would also add that there is no longer a need to present this as a likely scenario. It's mainstream science that North Africans conforming to your description exist. They have the low Neanderthal proportion to prove that their African ancestry is contributing to their closeness to Eurasians (not [just] their Eurasian ancestry).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

But none of the North African admixed aDNA that has come out since then (Luxmanda, IAM, Taforalt, Abusir, Natufian) supports your claim that it's all a conspiracy. With the exception of Luxmanda they're all closer to Eurasians than to Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
It's like how you don't see people who look precisely like Cheddar Man walking around Europe anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I didn't say admixed North African. I said North African admixed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
For what it's worth, I don't think any modern population looks exactly like the original "Basal Eurasian" population. All the populations in northern Africa seem to have acquired too much admixture from all directions in the millennia since. This would be true even for the populations people on ES would have cited as the best models for AE phenotype, like the Beja or certain modern Upper Egyptians. It's like how you don't see people who look precisely like Cheddar Man walking around Europe anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Interesting turn of events. Seems some of the folks involved in the reconstruction are doubting if it is possible to determine skin color from ancient DNA. Obviously this has implications across the board when trying to understand when and how major phenotype changes, such as skin color took place.

quote:

---

There's no way to know that the first Briton had ‘dark to black skin’ says scientist who helped reconstruct his 10,000-year-old face

The bones are the oldest near-complete human skeleton ever found in Britain
Experts tested DNA taken from bone powder by drilling a hole through the skull
It showed there was a 76 per cent chance that Cheddar Man was ‘dark to black’
Scientist behind the test used says it is impossible to be certain of this fact


Cheddar man may not have been 'dark to black skinned' after all.

Last month, researchers claimed that they had been able to accurately reconstruct the face of the 'first Brit' based on his DNA - and sensationally revealed he had black skin and blue eyes.

But now, one of the main scientists who helped create the reconstruction of his 10,000-year-old face says he may not have been black at all.

Geneticist Susan Walsh at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, says we simply don't know his skin colour.

While her computer model shows being black is his 'probable profile', DNA testing is not advanced enough to say for certain.

....
A team of experts, including Professor Walsh, recently created a computer model that tries to predict a person's skin pigmentation, hair and eye colour, purely from their genes.

The test focused on 36 points of comparison in 16 genes, which are all linked to skin colour.

Dr Walsh and her colleagues analysed genetic data taken from more than 1,400 people.

They were mainly from Europe and the US, but also included people from Africa and Papua New Guinea.

....

The rest of the data was used to test how well the model could predict skin colour from DNA alone.

The model came up with 'black' or 'dark black' skin for Cheddar Man based on his DNA.

Some, particularly on the far-right, have questioned whether there was a political agenda behind the claims.

Dr Walsh believes that the tests can't prove Cheddar Man's skin colour and that his DNA may have degraded over the past 10,000 years.

Speaking to New Scientist, she said: 'It’s not a simple statement of "this person was dark-skinned".

'It is his most probable profile, based on current research.'

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5453665/Was-Cheddar-man-white-all.html

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
for visual reference another of the predynastic remains at Hierakonpolis

_______________________________________________________________
http://www.hierakonpolis-online.org/index.php/explore-the-predynastic-cemeteries/hk43-workers-cemetery

Predynastic Workers' cemetery - HK43, Wadi Khamsini, Hierakonpolis

The cemetery called HK43, belonging to the non-elite (or workers) segment of the predynastic population, is located on the southern side of the site beside the Wadi Khamsini. Work here in 1996 when a land reclamation scheme threatened its preservation and excavations continued until 2004, resulting in the discovery of a minimum of 452 graves holding over 500 individuals of Naqada IIB-IIC date (roughly 3650-3500BC).






 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Prediction noted.

Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras

---

And then we’ll discover a group of Africans between Afr_A and Afr_B with ancestry from Afr_C called the “Bantu”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Will somebody please help me with this. For
years now nobody has clarified what this means

Some africans are closer to 'eurasians' than other Africans


Does it mean
closer to 'eurasians' than to any and all africans
Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras

Or does it mean
closer to 'eurasians' than some other africans are to 'eurasians'
Afr_A . . Afr_B . . Afr_C . . . . . . . . . Euras

Am I so clueless that it means neither of the above but means something I can't conceive?

Help

---

If I understand the pre-OOA argument correctly, Africans are naturally going OOA vary in their relative closeness to Eurasians depending on how early their ancestors "got off the bus". The proto-Afrasan Northeast Africans whom we assume were the foundational ancestors of AE etc. would have gotten off the bus after the ancestors of West Africans, who in turn got off the bus long after Khoisan, and so on. So yeah, when you consider Northeast Africa would have been the last bus stop before OOA proper, the first option you listed would be more accurate.

Obviously, the implications of that aren't attractive to those in the "Afrocentric" community who want population genetics to mirror pan-Africanist sociopolitical views. But if it's any consolation, it's not likely that Homo sapiens turned pale the moment they passed the Sinai into the Middle East ~50 kya. That depigmentation would have probably happened in somewhere in West Eurasia long after OOA. So it seems likely to me that the so-called "Basal Eurasian" population that remained in Northeast Africa would have still been phenotypically "black", and that they would have stayed that way prior to later admixture with West Eurasian populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Yet we have multiple sets of ancient North African samples all of which should have direct NE african ancestry none of which corresponds to their Neanderthal proportions(negative correlation) and we’re wondering how someone like Lazaridis can say Basal Eurasian isn’t african.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
we have multiple sets of ancient North African samples all of which should have direct NE african ancestry none of which corresponds to their Neanderthal proportions(negative correlation) and we’re wondering how someone like Lazaridis can say Basal Eurasian isn’t african.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet

evidence ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Yet we have multiple sets of ancient North African samples all of which should have direct NE african ancestry none of which corresponds to their Neanderthal proportions(negative correlation) and we’re wondering how someone like Lazaridis can say Basal Eurasian isn’t african.

---

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying the presence of NE African ancestry doesn't contribute to the lower proportion of Neanderthal in ancient Maghrebis. Is this what you mean? And, if so, what is your evidence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
the SSA ancestry in Taf?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
are you legitimately saying that Neanderthal ancestry came with the SSA ancestry in Taf?

---

quote:

---

No, What I'm saying is that the portion of ancestry shared with other Africans should directly correlate negatively with neanderthal. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Contribute? probably, I guess... but we're talking about Basal Eurasian, this isn't about minor contributions to reduction in neanderthal admixture... these are the "people" who were responsible for ~30% ancestry in caucus and Iranians yet brought down their neanderthal proportions to numbers comparable and even less than these Maghrebis and modern north Africans

---

quote:

---

After the dispersal of modern humans (Homo sapiens) Out of Africa, hominins with a similar morphology to that of present-day humans initiated the gradual demographic expansion into Eurasia. The mitogenome (33-fold coverage) of the Peştera Muierii 1 individual (PM1) from Romania (35 ky cal BP) we present in this article corresponds fully to Homo sapiens, whilst exhibiting a mosaic of morphological features related to both modern humans and Neandertals. We have identified the PM1 mitogenome as a basal haplogroup U6*, not previously found in any ancient or present-day humans. The derived U6 haplotypes are predominantly found in present-day North-Western African populations. Concomitantly, those found in Europe have been attributed to recent gene-flow from North Africa. The presence of the basal haplogroup U6* in South East Europe (Romania) at 35 ky BP confirms a Eurasian origin of the U6 mitochondrial lineage. Consequently, we propose that the PM1 lineage is an offshoot to South East Europe that can be traced to the Early Upper Paleolithic back migration from Western Asia to North Africa, during which the U6 lineage diversified, until the emergence of the present-day U6 African lineages.

After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation (Neandertals) to modern human (Homo sapiens) expansion on to the continent1. The first insights of the genetics of early Eurasian modern humans were recently provided by four ancient human genomes: Ust’-Ishim (Western Siberia, 45 ky cal BP)6, Kostenki (Russia, 39–36 ky cal BP)7, Fumane 2 (Italy, 41–39 ky cal BP)8 and Peştera cu Oase (Romania, 37–42 ky cal BP)9. Population genetic analyses of modern-day human mitochondrial haplogroup distributions suggest that in conjunction with the Eurasian expansion, some populations initiated a back-migration to North Africa10,11,12,13. Although the first genome of an ancient African individual (Ethiopia, 4.5 ky cal BP) identified a back-migration from Eurasia to Africa within the last 4.500 years14, the scarcity of older human remains in North Africa has prevented researchers from obtaining direct evidence of such a migratory phenomenon during the Paleolithic period. We present the mitochondrial genome (mitogenome) of the Peştera Muierii 1 (PM1) remains from Romania, directly dated to 35 ky cal BP15, which sheds new light on the Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) migrations in Eurasia and North Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
On the first page we see that the TAF don't cluster with the AE or Nubians at all. And before anyone mentions my earlier problems with Irish, my problem was his pooling modern SAF with groups far away from Egypt and the horn. I'm not saying I know to be false the TAF.

---

Keep in mind that the skeletal Taf sample on the 1st page is younger than the Taf genomes. The younger TAF sample has more skeletal affinities to Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, which is supported by the largely Eurasian mtDNA pool of this sample. The older TAF genomes have little direct genetic input from Upper Palaeolithic Europeans according to Loosdrecht. This is why the younger TAF sample on the first page looks completely different from AE and Nubians. They have Upper Palaeolithic European ancestry that can still be found in modern Maghrebis (see, for instance, the red mtDNA H in the pie charts below):



But one thing that is interesting is that some physical anthropologists who have studied the younger TAF sample (the one used by Irish in the Gebel Ramlah paper), is that they found some phenotypes reminiscent of later AE and Nubians in this population. But this component was only the minority. This is consistent with these individuals being survivors of the older TAF population (which has 5 E-M78 Y-chromosomes which represent common ancestry with Nubians, AE and Ethiopians). The younger Taforalt population is likely more or less the same as the older TAF population, except with much more Upper Palaeolithic European ancestry.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
You can't lump all ancient populations in North Africa together. There are too many variations in populations based on time and location to support such a lumping. The Sahara pump pushed different populations around in Africa post OOA at various intervals. Similarly, various populations from around the Mediterranean would have come into the picture in small pockets in certain locations at various times but they don't represent all populations outside those localized areas of impact. Then you have the populations in North Africa pre-OOA who may or may not have any relationship to more recent Africans in the same areas let alone the mixed populations that came along much later.

It is this over simplification and lumping of all North Africans in prehistory to a single population group spanning all time periods up to the modern day as the "flawed model" of African bio-history.
 

---

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

Marieke van de Loosdrecht et al., Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations. Science 2018


.


.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Keep in mind that the skeletal Taf sample on the 1st page is younger than the Taf genomes. The younger TAF sample has more skeletal affinities to Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, which is supported by the largely Eurasian mtDNA pool of this sample. The older TAF genomes have little direct genetic input from Upper Palaeolithic Europeans according to Loosdrecht.

---

quote:

---

Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence
T. W. HOLLIDAY*
Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA

Irish (2000, 2005) found that late Pleistocene Nubians (and especially the Jebel Sahaba sample) are wholly dissimilar to Iberomaurusian populations from the Maghreb. He pointed out that despite the typological similarities in their cultural traditions (Iberomaurusian vs. Qadan), that dentally the two populations are easily distinguished. In fact, late Pleistocene Nubians (Jebel Sahaba) were the extreme outlier in a comparison of Pleistocene and Holocene North African groups (Irish, 2000, 2005). Irish (2000) also discovered discontinuity among the Mechtoid groups, whom others (Anderson, 1968; Greene & Armelagos, 1972; Dutour, 1995; Lahr & Arensburg, 1995) had previously argued were largely homogeneous. Specifically, whereas Afalou specimens could serve as an outgroup to a North African cluster of all but the late Pleistocene Nubians, the Taforalt specimens shared closest phenetic affinities to a sample of Punic and/or Roman era Carthaginians, a presumed immigrant population from Western Asia.

Because body proportions are being investigated, ossuary samples, where bodies have been disarticulated prior to burial (such as Taforalt or Grotte des Pigeons), are not included in the analyses.

---

quote:

---

Rym Kefi et al., On the origin of Iberomaurusians: new data based on ancient mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic analysis of Afalou and Taforalt populations

---

.


.
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample (Holliday 2013)

Swenet, the Taforalt Morocco remains were E-M78. I don't know if Afalou Algerians, also considered "Iberomaurusian" were also E-M78 but if the Taforalts were also of the very cold adapted limb ratios that the Afalou were this suggest that cold adapted limb ratios might be related to U6.
On top of this the dental data of Irish leans that way to an extent

and even if U6 is a North African clade it is a descendant of haplogroup U Possible time of origin 46,500 ± 3,300 years
Possible place of origin Western Asia.

However Haplogroup U6 is dated to between 31,000 and 43,000 years ago by Behar et al. (2012). This is consistent with the discovery of basal U6* in a Romanian specimen of ancient DNA (Peștera Muierilor) dated to 35,000 years ago. Hervella et al. (2016) take this find as evidence for Paleolithic back-migration of Homo sapiens from Eurasia into Africa.

I wonder what the limb ratios of modern U6 carriers is or if the limb ratios could vary. And if the Taforalt were maternally E-M78 then potentially the U6 Maternal side dominated ?

Anyway

wikipedia

quote:

---

Haplogroup U is found in 15% of Indian caste and 8% of Indian tribal populations.[9] Haplogroup U is found in approximately 11% of native Europeans and is held as the oldest maternal haplogroup found in that region.[9][10][11] In a 2013 study, all but one of the ancient modern human sequences from Europe belonged to maternal haplogroup U, thus confirming previous findings that haplogroup U was the dominant type of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in Europe before the spread of agriculture into Europe and the presence and the spread of the Indo-Europeans in Western Europe.[12][13]

Haplogroup U has various subclades numbered U1 to U9. Haplogroup K is a subclade of U8.[14] The old age has led to a wide distribution of the descendant subgroups across Western Eurasia, North Africa, and South Asia. Some subclades of haplogroup U have a more specific geographic range.

Haplogroup U6 is dated to between 31,000 and 43,000 years ago by Behar et al. (2012). This is consistent with the discovery of basal U6* in a Romanian specimen of ancient DNA (Peștera Muierilor) dated to 35,000 years ago.[46] Hervella et al. (2016) take this find as evidence for Paleolithic back-migration of Homo sapiens from Eurasia into Africa. The discovery of basal U6* in ancient DNA contributed to setting back the estimated age of U6 to around 46,000 years ago.[47]

Haplogroup U6 is common (with a prevalence of around 10%)[27] in Northwest Africa (with a maximum of 29% in an Algerian Mozabites[48]) and the Canary Islands (18% on average with a peak frequency of 50.1% in La Gomera). It is also found in the Iberian peninsula, where it has the highest diversity (10 out of 19 sublineages are only found in this region and not in Africa),[49] Northeast Africa and occasionally in other locations. U6 is also found at low frequencies in the Chad Basin, including the rare Canarian branch. This suggests that the ancient U6 clade bearers may have inhabited or passed through the Chad Basin on their way westward toward the Canary Islands.[50]

U6 is thought to have entered North Africa from the Near East around 30,000 years ago. It has been found among Iberomaurusian specimens dating from the Epipaleolithic at the Taforalt prehistoric site.[51] In spite of the highest diversity of Iberian U6, Maca-Meyer argues for a Near East origin of this clade based on the highest diversity of subclade U6a in that region,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


The best hope we have is that we can get some 50kya DNA from Africa to see if any of those remains carry ancestral clades of some of the DNA lineages currently labeled as Eurasian.

The question being does indigenous African MTDNA stop with L and maybe M1 or did some of the other major lineages also arise in Africa at an ancient time. Some of the lineages that could fall into that category are U5,U6 and Y-DNA J1. Haplogroup U represents the primary lineage carried into Europe after the Ice Age and the question becomes geographically did it arise in Eurasia or did it arise somewhere in Africa.

---

quote:

---

wikipedia

U6

Haplogroup U6 is common (with a prevalence of around 10%)[27] in Northwest Africa (with a maximum of 29% in an Algerian Mozabites[48]) and the Canary Islands (18% on average with a peak frequency of 50.1% in La Gomera). It is also found in the Iberian peninsula, where it has the highest diversity (10 out of 19 sublineages are only found in this region and not in Africa),[49] Northeast Africa and occasionally in other locations. U6 is also found at low frequencies in the Chad Basin, including the rare Canarian branch. This suggests that the ancient U6 clade bearers may have inhabited or passed through the Chad Basin on their way westward toward the Canary Islands

U6a: subclade is the most widespread, stretching from the Canary Islands and Iberian Peninsula to the Horn of Africa and Near East. The subhaplogroup has its highest diversity in Northeast Africa.

U6a1: similar distribution to U6a parent clade; found particularly among Copts (27.6%) and Beja (10.4%).[55] Estimated age: 15-20,000 BP.
U6b: shows a more patched and western distribution. In the Iberian peninsula, U6b is more frequent in the north, whereas U6a is more common in the south. It has also been found at low frequencies in Morocco, Algeria, Senegal and Nigeria. Estimated age: 8,500-24,500 BP. It has one subclade:
U6b1: found only in the Canary Islands and in the Iberian peninsula. Estimated age: c. 6000 BP.
U6c: only found in Morocco and Canary Islands. Estimated age: 6,000-17,500 BP.
U6d: most closely related to U6b. Localized in the Tamazgha, with a presence in Europe. It arose between 10,000 and 13,000 BP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
You can't lump all ancient populations in North Africa together. There are too many variations in populations based on time and location to support such a lumping. The Sahara pump pushed different populations around in Africa post OOA at various intervals. Similarly, various populations from around the Mediterranean would have come into the picture in small pockets in certain locations at various times but they don't represent all populations outside those localized areas of impact. Then you have the populations in North Africa pre-OOA who may or may not have any relationship to more recent Africans in the same areas let alone the mixed populations that came along much later.

It is this over simplification and lumping of all North Africans in prehistory to a single population group spanning all time periods up to the modern day as the "flawed model" of African bio-history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I can’t beleive WHG as an ancestral component is being directly compared to that of Basal Eurasian... because there’s no “100% WHG.”

Yet we have multiple sets of ancient North African samples all of which should have direct NE african ancestry none of which corresponds to their Neanderthal proportions(negative correlation) and we’re wondering how someone like Lazaridis can say Basal Eurasian isn’t african.

@tukuler
What’s often dismissed is the effect admixture has on diversity;
Which cases increases or lessens it... there is more to my post. The advent that Africans didn’t simply progressively become Europeans and deposited on a Cline towards the near east.

For example... both of your schematics are equivalent in the grand scheme. If you continued to list off african groups until you get to Eurasian ... Afr_z will be closer to Eurasians than they are to Afr_A. I don’t beleive it’s that linear. Though it should go without saying that some Africans will be closer to non Africans than another group of Africans for a multitude of reasons. Including admixture and diversity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Swenet suppose the whole haplogroup U was discovered to be African what would the political relevance of that be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Whether or Not Haplogroup U originated in Africa, it is was not always present and was not dominant in all of North Africa. It is present in some remains but does not represent all lineages present over time in the past. This is just one part of a larger puzzle not all of it.

The significance of Haplogroup U is it represents the expansions of people into Europe after the last ice age. Determining where it originated helps understand how long ago U existed and where it spread and how it spread. But other than that there were other haplogroups already present in Africa and populations there who predate the Ice Age and were present after the ice age with different DNA lineages.

Likewise, the U6 found in ancient Romania matches no known population of modern Eurasians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


I don't agree with this and the latest Taforalt paper doesn't support it either. The Taforalt population was closer to other Africans and therefore does NOT show any split in populations in ancient Africa.

And on top of that some folks here are hoping beyond hope to find some ancient split of internal African DNA somewhere in this and we have yet to find it.

The best hope we have is that we can get some 50kya DNA from Africa to see if any of those remains carry ancestral clades of some of the DNA lineages currently labeled as Eurasian.

The question being does indigenous African MTDNA stop with L and maybe M1 or did some of the other major lineages also arise in Africa at an ancient time. Some of the lineages that could fall into that category are U5,U6 and Y-DNA J1. Haplogroup U represents the primary lineage carried into Europe after the Ice Age and the question becomes geographically did it arise in Eurasia or did it arise somewhere in Africa.

---

^^ There is a hope here that Haplogroup U and J be African




Yet at the same time people want to point to modern Egyptians being highly diluted by Eurasian DNA

I would like to know how that can work at the same time
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Even if U and J formed in Africa, I don't understand how they weren't the result of back migrantion. Aren't the ancestral haplogroups from U and J from OOA somewhere along the line? The only thing that'd be established is that the back migration happened earlier before U and J occurred, right?
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Even if U and J formed in Africa, I don't understand how they weren't the result of back migrantion. Aren't the ancestral haplogroups from U and J from OOA somewhere along the line? The only thing that'd be established is that the back migration happened earlier before U and J occurred, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
U arose somewhere between Africa and Arabia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I agree with the discrepancy you posted. But if you're making the argument that E-M78 didn't come with Basal Eurasian simply because Taforalt have heightened Neanderthal, and if you're saying that components other than NE African can't be responsible for that, you'd have to be willing to stand by a weird prediction. Which is that the NE Africans that moved to the Maghreb had more Neanderthal than even Natufians and PPN.

Let's say that's true, for a moment. In that case you'd only be able to extrapolate that locally (i.e. only to some E-M78 carriers, at most). In other words, that still wouldn't prove that other E-M35 carriers elsewhere in Africa and Eurasia didn't cause the drop in Neanderthal that is attributed to Basal Eurasian. I don't see how you can use this to say BE is not a form of NE African ancestry, unless you're willing to argue that E-M35 carriers in general have/had among the most Neanderthal in the modern and ancient MENA region. This is an even weirder prediction.

[...]

Why can't SSA-related ancestry pick up Neanderthal? There is absolutely no reason why it can't. I'm not saying that this is what happened. I'm saying that if you're going to pinpoint NE African ancestry as the culprit, I want to see how you narrowed it down to that.

---

quote:

---

In order to make that argument, you have to prove that African ancestry is involved in that disproportionate Neanderthal to begin with. That's your argument and you should flesh it out properly. You can't make a leap from disproportionate Neanderthal, to saying NE African failed to lower it. The evidence you've posted is not sufficient to make that claim. For instance, you have not ruled out that U6-linked ancestry is responsible.

So, how do you know Basal Eurasian didn't bring down Taforalt Neanderthal? You don't know that it didn't, and the evidence you posted is not saying that it didn't. All you've done is post evidence of a disproportionate Neanderthal in Taforalt. We don't have a pre-E-M78 Taforalt sample, so you can't prove E-M78 people didn't lower Neanderthal when they arrived in the Maghreb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
If you think they're the same
please forget about my schemata.
Indigenous modified by foreigners
can in no way be
foreigners absorbing some of the local stock.

Reservation Indians with some Euro blood
are not
the same as non-reservation Euros with Indian blood
who used 1/16th to take over tribal rule of indigenees.

Any 'Africans' significantly closer to 'Eurasians'
than they are to any and every indigenous African
people are not indigenous African. They are
foreigners living in Africa absorbing to limited
levels some indigenous stock.

If say 5000 years passes since a peoples' inception
to nearly complete abandon of their place of birth,
and they thrive and expand for say 25000 years someplace
elsewhere thoroughly infusing with who may be there then,
or if no one else is there, they
can be considered indigenous.


Let me remove the alpha suffixes.

Do not take the dots or one dimensional plane referencing literally.
nor is there any significance in the quantity of AFR's,
nor does position suggest root or age.
Imagine the AFR's in a circle if you must.
imagine Eura a circle of various Eura's.
Imagine the _ some kind of fuzzy border
(genetic and whatever) between AFR's and Eura's.


AFR . AFR . AFR . AFR _ afr . Eura (afr looks like a Eura in Africa mating with Africans

AFR . AFR . AFR . AFR . afr _ Eura (afr looks like a African who may a Eura relationship more intense than any other AFR


Maybe I should give up trying to illustrate the
different ways I interpret the statement 'african
closer to eurasian than african' since everybody
other than me knows what it means without confusion.

Whatever that statement means to whoever;
For me, a people in Africa significantly closer by
genetic criteria to non-Africans is simply a non-
African people residing in Africa. Such folk are
not African. No prehistoric one drop can make them
anymore African than the Afrikaaners who went to the
USA to claim legal benefits as African Americans.

---

I'm half way with you, heres the thing....

https://bit.ly/2sjRwbi



Imagine an African version of this guy residing in North Africa. Surely He isn't a Native American residing in china. So the possibility that significant Eurasian can be represented in a resident African is there... but to which extent are they truly Eurasian?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
It's actually quite simple. My position isn't that NE ancestry or m78 came with all the Neanderthal. I don't have to make that leap if I beleive that NE admixture might have came with some neanderthal (most likely less) but also more importantly Some SSA as well. Two attributes directly sorted as being the antithesis to Basal Eurasian.

---

quote:

---

Theirs nothing novel that can be said about SSA signals and neanderthal ancestry, as of now it appears that we have a direct negative correlation between SSA (YRI) and neanderthal. this is seen in every study with the exception of the Mota paper which was called back. a good chunk of taf is most similar to YRI, whether or not these signals couldn't have coexisted in ancient samples without effecting one another statistically is up in the air.

---

quote:

---

Now assuming that NE african admixture solely lowered neanderthal signatures in taf need just as much fleshing out, if not more.

---

quote:

---

What we have yet to see is a consistent geographic pattern hinting to a population specifically spreading from North East Africa to lower neanderthal elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
I wouldn't be surprised honestly if Upper Egypt was mixed with back migrants too. What blackness means to people with that in mind is another matter. I suspect Doug will be team Lioness on the subject before long though.

---

Which Eurasian population?
Do you believe it’s appropriate to call M and U6 Eurasian?

Btw @Tukuler your first schematic is what I believe people are suggesting.

---

I don't think there would've been any one particular Eurasian population. groups such as a proto Natufian or a Soqotri like people that may even predate the development and spread Near Eastern agriculture. Mixing someone like this:







This:




mix some East Africans and you'd probably get a Southern Egyptian. However one thing that'd likely offer distinction is that I would expect back migration to have been more irregular and (generally) earlier than northern Egypt which would have multiple pulses of gradual Near Eastern flow, some very ancient some a lot younger.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
I don't think we'll ever get a true picture of ancient Egypt's biological affinities; the authorities in modern Egypt forbid genetic testing of Mummies in their keep and the West will continue to pass off relatively late dynasty (Northern) Mummies as representative of all of AE in all periods.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, in answer to the question posed above it appears that,
based on this preliminary analysis of the al Khiday sample, ancestors
of post-Pleistocene Nubians were likely present in the region –
although clearly not at Jebel Sahaba or Wadi Halfa. It is not necessary
to posit an immigration of outsiders during the early Holocene. Of
course, it cannot be conclusively stated that the people of al Khiday
were directly related, but assuming the dental affinities are indicators
of genetic variation, then they are a good representative of what the
common ancestor to later Nubians might have been.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Your positions seem very self-defeating. You seem to be making all sorts of concessions just to be able to say BE is not a form of NE African ancestry. But you're undermining your positions elsewhere. For instance, arguing that NE Africans had so much Neanderthal that they couldn't even lower Neanderthal in Eurasia undermines your position that AE were African. It would necessarily make NE Africa a hotbed of Eurasian and Neanderthal ancestry already by 15000 years ago. Other than being self-defeating, this argument has no multidisciplinary support and leads to all sorts of quagmires.

There is no correlation between E-M35 and elevated Neanderthal. I think you know very well this is not a defensible position. No paper has posted data even remotely suggesting that's true. To the contrary: all papers have suggested that Neanderthal in NE Africa is purely a function of non-African hgs and has nothing to do with E-M35. And the Neanderthal admixture was discovered a decade ago. That's 8 years worth of constant tests that include E-M35 carriers. I know you want Basal Eurasian out of NE Africa, but you don't have to do that at the expense of everything you believe in or at the expense of accumulated scientific knowledge. [/qb]

---

You spent 4 paragraphs debating against a position I did not take. Saying that NE african admixture doesn’t have the signifiant effect in Neanderthal admixture BE should have isn’t the same as saying they’re the source of Neanderthal admixture. Saying that YRI like admixture generally correlated with the lower Neanderthal doesn’t mean both components can’t exist in an individual.

I have just as much if not more of a reason to beleive that the proportion of african admixture taf has directly had an effect on Neanderthal admixture... because as we see in like EVERY study involving the two, there is a negative correlation. Such high neantherthal coupled with high SSA is novel. What isn’t novel is Neanderthal estimates being higher in populations we know have NE african admixture than the ancient Iranians etc.

Once again this is not saying all of taf Neanderthal came with NE Africans... That’s a straw man. Which was addressed two posts ago. However what you conviently side step though is the discrepancy between east and west Africans... the fact that East Africans consistently score higher Neanderthal.

Like I’ve been saying for months... African ancestry (period) seems to have an effect of reducing Neanderthal in general. But the discussion revolves around NE Africans being Basal Eurasian; absent of typical African ancestry and has no Neanderthal. There is no consistent pattern of these signals coming specifically from NE african admixture.

We have enough ancient individuals to pin point shared ancestry among all BE populations. Why hasn’t NE African admixture cluster in the ways Basal Eurasian should? We’ve seen plenty of Pseudo NEafrican components... and shared North African components in the near east.. but it never follows the pattern BE should? Why is that.? How can a population go undetected but brings down Neanderthal in iranians(at 30%) lower to that of Natufians, taforalt, Iam, PPNB all populations we know have shared african ancestry?

To once again reiterate this is not saying NE african ancestry increases neanderthal. I’m saying it doesn’t have the consistent effect BE should... which is why everyone and their mothers are assigning Basal Eurasian to the Middle East in light of the taforalt genomes.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 


Let me get out the way completely and let you explain in your own words. Which of the components do you see as carrying the elevated Neanderthal? Because, the way I see it, there aren't a lot of options. You've already argued against it being linked to any of the SSA-related components.

quote:

---

the fact that East Africans consistently score higher Neanderthal.

---

quote:

---

What isn’t novel is Neanderthal estimates being higher in populations we know have NE african admixture than the ancient Iranians etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
They'll go for older remains if they realize the black Egypt theory hasn't been put to rest. I actually do believe that the DNA tribes DNA was possibly correct. What we could be seeing were the genetic differences of the Egyptian population based on distance from the Near East and Sub Saharan Africa. This would also explain Beyoku's data because what he posted was Old Kingdom information. Hassan's Nubian data doesn't seem to be heavily Near Eastern and the southern Egyptians were closest to Nubians. Even in Irish's study HRK and UEG pair with Nubians before Lower Egyptians.

Genetic information or not, if most of ES expresses the opinions you have (that Torres Strait Islanders/Aboriginals are black), genetics will have little meaning for people trying to prove race under the radar. it'll be back to craniometrics, collecting hair samples and watching white internet anthropology boards promise each other that their society couldn't possibly treat anyone with those features as black. But back to the main point: The mixture could've been in either direction. East Africa is where Eurasians left Africa and AE features were generally not outside the realm of possibility for indigenous adaptations. There's to be expected some overlap in features. The southern base population could've been an Ethiopian/Somali type that mixed with (older) Eurasians or it could've been mostly Eurasians that mixed with East Africans. One thing that I'm always wondering is if the majority or the Upper Egyptian elite were mostly Eurasian why didn't they speak Semetic? This is the one hangup I have. Of course if the origin of all Afro Asiatic languages WAS in Eurasia that could potentially explain it. But that is resting on a very old back migration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
It is not about proving race. This is the part where people really don't understand the history of anthropology. Skin color is simply one part of human biological diversity.

---

quote:

---

It [skin color] is not a political or social attribute.

---

quote:

---

The development of race science as the precursor to biological anthropology is what created this association between race and skin color and along with it the concept of superiority based on skin color. Ancient Africans having black skin is not even something that should be seen as political, just as ancient Eurasians having white skin isn't political either.

---

quote:

---

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2018/03/14/science.aar8380.DC1/aar8380_vandeLoosdrecht_SM.pdf

Supplementary Materials for
Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations

Marieke van de Loosdrecht,


Considering the dual ancestry of the Taforalt individuals, we can explain the Altai affinity in Taforalt as a dilution of its Natufian-related ancestry with its significant proportion (~36.5%) of sub-Saharan African ancestry. Interestingly, the Neanderthal ancestry in Taforalt is higher than in early Neolithic Iran (Iran_N, f4 = 0.000628, Z = 1.934). We can therefore deduce that the Taforalt individuals are not genetically closer to the hypothetical Basal Eurasian population than the early Holocene populations from Iran.

We did not include any African group nor any archaic hominin in our outgroup set, specifically to keep the program blind to the difference between various sub-Saharan African 519 ancestries. In doing so we could get a reliable estimate of sub-Saharan African ancestry proportion in Taforalt. Iran_N was included among the outgroups because it shares the ‘basal 521 Eurasian’ ancestry with Natufians and therefore differentiates it from its sub-Saharan African ancestry. Without Iran_N, the model becomes blind to the difference between sub-Saharan African and basal Eurasian ancestries because both of them are basal to Eurasian ancestries to which the rest of outgroups belong.

Given that our Taforalt individuals outdate even the most ancient Holocene African individual, the 4,500 yBP Mota, by over 10,000 years, this result is not surprising; a long- term gene flow between the various sub-Saharan African groups during the Holocene period is very likely to have generated a pattern that is not easily modeled as a rather simple admixture graph.

Finally, we exclude any ancestry more basal than the deepest known modern human ancestry represented by ‘aSouthAfrica’ and present-day Khoe-San speakers in South Africa as an additional source for the Taforalt gene pool.

Of note, TAF011 and TAF012 do not carry five of the expected eight variants that define U6a7a, which means that this lineage falls basal to the currently reported lineages within branch U6a7a.

Given the occurrence of both U6a and M1b haplogroups in the Taforalt individuals, here we can directly demonstrate a pre-Holocene presence of these autochthonous North African lineages in the Maghreb. Interestingly, basal haplogroup U6 has been reported for ~35,000 yBP specimens found at Muierii cave in Romania (22, 23). We are therefore interested to know how the mtDNA genomes in our 15,000 cal. yBP North African individuals relate phylogenetically to the U6 and M mtDNA sequences found in Ice Age Europeans (22, 23, 27) and present-day humans (7).


Two derived allele variants in the SLC24A5 gene associated with predicting light-skin color in individuals with European and South Asian (Indian, Pakistani) ancestry are rs1426654 (derived state A, ancestral state G (94)) and rs16891982 (derived state G, ancestral state C (95)). Individuals with a homozygous derived state for both these SNPs have been found in early Neolithic populations (Anatolia, Europe) (16)). Our results show that these derived alleles are absent in the Taforalt individuals analyzed; all of them have a homozygous ancestral genotype for both SNPs.


In all six males, we observe haplogroup E1b1b, more specifically E1b1b1a1 (M-78) in five of six (Table S16). This haplogroup is most frequent in present-day North and Northeast African populations, such as Oromo, Somali and Moroccan Arabs (18). A previous study reported that Natufians and Neolithic Levant individuals had E1b1b haplogroups, although they tended to belong to E1b1b1b (16).

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Here is some additional material on the wide spanning ages of the various clades of U6


basal haplogroup U6 has been reported for ~35,000 yBP specimens found at Muierii cave in Romania.
Of note, TAF011 and TAF012 do not carry five of the expected eight variants that define U6a7a, which means that this lineage falls basal to the currently reported lineages within branch U6a7a.


Possibly a Eurasian population of males and females from somewhere in Eurasia were pressured by the ice age to migrate into North Africa.
They were invaders or settlers. Assuming that there were indigenous Africans already there in North Africa bearing E-M78 , these Africans, perhaps in a war, killed the males and took the females and then interbred with these females

quote:

---

The history of the North African mitochondrial DNA haplogroup U6 gene flow into the African, Eurasian and American continents

Bernard Secher1, 2013


There are two clusters, U6a3a (9.6 kya) and U6a7a (7.6 kya), with mostly European sequences, that expanded in Neolithic times. Other European groups: U6a3a1, U6a7a1, U6a7a2, and U6c1 spread within the Chalcolithic period. Finally, at least 14 European lineages have coalescence ages in historic times. Some may be associated with the Roman conquest of Britain (U6d1a), the diaspora of Sephardic Jews (U6a7a1b), or the European colonization of the Americas (U6a1a1a2, U6a7a1a, U6a7a2a1, U6b1a). Roughly, 35 European lineages have prehistoric spreads and 50 sequences historic spreads. In all cases they are involved with clear North African counterparts.

There are 15 complete U6 sequences in our tree that are recognized to belong to the Jewish community. Six of them are grouped into a Sephardic cluster U6a7a1b of diverse geographic sources with another five sequences of possible Jewish maternal descent. This wide spread testifies to the extent of the forced exile of this community of Hispanic origin. As a rule, the rest of the sequences are included in haplogroups that match their geographic origins. Thus, 2 Moroccans and 1 Tunisian respectively belong to Maghreb haplogroups U6a1b and U6a7a1, 2 Bulgarians and 1 Turk are included in different branches of the mainly Mediterranean haplogroup U6a3 and 1 Ethiopian merges into the East African U6a2a1b clade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
It is not about proving race. This is the part where people really don't understand the history of anthropology. Skin color is simply one part of human biological diversity.

---

I didn't say a thing about skin color. Many people trying to end the race debate have been looking at cranial data because determining race takes in a multitude of features.

quote:

---

It [skin color] is not a political or social attribute.

]Skin color is a sociopolitical feature.

---

No it is not. Skin color is a fact of biology, just like genes, ear shape, cranial shape and everything else. I don't understand why you feel the need to state this blatant falsehood.

Can you show me where science has said such a thing?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

So we're supposed to just ignore the millions buying skin lightening products throughout Africa, the Caribbean and Asia (at the detriment to their health) each year, because they FEEL the discrimination for having dark skin? We'll just handwave all their stories of discrimination because you can't handle the truth of their suffering because it's over something so stupid? Yes it's stupid, but the discrimination is also real. Even in the west colorism is a problem.

---

Nobody is talking about that, because that is cosmetic surgery which happens all over the planet. This does not change skin color into a non biological trait of humans. Come on man.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

[QUOTE] The development of race science as the precursor to biological anthropology is what created this association between race and skin color and along with it the concept of superiority based on skin color. Ancient Africans having black skin is not even something that should be seen as political, just as ancient Eurasians having white skin isn't political either.

---

If biological features weren't politicized to any degree, the problem of racism would not exist. No one asked you what the world should be like right now. We're talking about what the world is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

Like I’ve been saying for months... African ancestry (period) seems to have an effect of reducing Neanderthal in general. But the discussion revolves around NE Africans being Basal Eurasian; absent of typical African ancestry and has no Neanderthal. There is no consistent pattern of these signals coming specifically from NE african admixture.

We have enough ancient individuals to pin point shared ancestry among all BE populations. Why hasn’t NE African admixture cluster in the ways Basal Eurasian should? We’ve seen plenty of Pseudo NEafrican components... and shared North African components in the near east.. but it never follows the pattern BE should? Why is that.? How can a population go undetected but brings down Neanderthal in iranians(at 30%) lower to that of Natufians, taforalt, Iam, PPNB all populations we know have shared african ancestry?

To once again reiterate this is not saying NE african ancestry increases neanderthal. I’m saying it doesn’t have the consistent effect BE should... which is why everyone and their mothers are assigning Basal Eurasian to the Middle East in light of the taforalt genomes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


Let me get out the way completely and let you explain in your own words. Which of the components do you see as carrying the elevated Neanderthal? Because, the way I see it, there aren't a lot of options. You've already argued against it being linked to any of the SSA-related components.

---

quote:

---

This is my thing with some of the things you say. This is simply not true. Where do you get this information? The samples with the least Neanderthal are Dinka and Mota.

These are East African populations. Many other East Africans have Eurasian admixture, so of course they have more Neanderthal. If their Neanderthal tracks closely with their non-African ancestry, what relevance do you see in bringing this up? If you want to argue that ancient NE Africans can't cause a BE-like drop in Neanderthal, you can't use this data for obvious reasons. It's highly misleading. ALL Africans are just as capable of causing Neanderthal-like drops in relation to their African ancestry. A 50% African Afram will cause (proportionally to their African ancestry) the same drop in Neanderthal as a 100% West African population. The amount of Neanderthal an African population has does not affect their ability to cause drops in Neanderthal in relation to their African ancestry.

---

quote:

---

What isn’t novel is Neanderthal estimates being higher in populations we know have NE african admixture than the ancient Iranians etc.

Examples? [/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
What Pseudo NE african components are you talking about? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
What Pseudo NE african components are you talking about?

---

Shit like this

Lioness what’s up with the copy and paste? You got something to say? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

It [skin color] is not a political or social attribute.

Skin color is a sociopolitical feature.

---

No it is not. Skin color is a fact of biology, just like genes, ear shape, cranial shape and everything else.

---

quote:

---

Nobody is talking about that, because that is cosmetic surgery which happens all over the planet. This does not change skin color into a non biological trait of humans. Come on man.

---

quote:

---

Politicization of biological features does not make those features less biological.

---

quote:

---

You cant blame skin color or any other feature for the existence of racism or other politicized aspects of human sociology. That makes no sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I’m not gonna lie this is a stupid way to look at this but I’ll entertain it.. everything but the purple and burgundy...

---

quote:

---

However recently it has been shown that mota’s Neanderthal estimates exceeded YRI since the call back...

---

quote:

---

Taforalt, Natufians, PPNB, and some Early European farmer groups.

---

quote:

---

Now I’ve been speaking as if I have the burden of proof for saying BE=/= NE african. You haven’t came up with an answer for the discrepancy not only in Neanderthal admixture among these sources but the lack of signals/clustering of BE in Eurasian populations in light of North African genomes. ...why hasn’t the component revealed itself yet?

---

quote:

---

but the lack of signals/clustering of BE in Eurasian populations in light of North African genomes. ...why hasn’t the component revealed itself yet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
What Pseudo NE african components are you talking about?

---

Shit like this

Lioness what’s up with the copy and paste? You got something to say? [/QB]

---

What percent of Luxmanda was Neanderthal?
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Could I get the rest of that graph please?
I need it to complete my redux. Thank you.

quote:

---

For a visual representation... The Sky-Blue component comes to mind... which isn't precisely Berber-North African.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

It [skin color] is not a political or social attribute.

Skin color is a sociopolitical feature.

---

No it is not. Skin color is a fact of biology, just like genes, ear shape, cranial shape and everything else.

---

Sometimes you say the most out of touch stuff for someone whose supposedly black. Do you enjoy ruining threads to derail and argue over the dumbest sh!t? I'm not saying human features are not a fact of biology. But that doesn't mean that humans don't assign ideas and prejudices to those features which have real sociopolitical repercussions. In that sense human features and DNA have become politicized by humans even if though they are natural.

quote:

---

Nobody is talking about that, because that is cosmetic surgery which happens all over the planet. This does not change skin color into a non biological trait of humans. Come on man.

---

It is a procedure done because people are being discriminated against for their features. Calling it "cosmetic" is not changing the REASON behind why millions of people across the planet are doing it. YOU stop "lying." And stop saying that nobody was talking about humans politicizing body parts to create this idea of race. I was talking about it! And I was NOT even talking to you.

quote:

---

Politicization of biological features does not make those features less biological.

---

False dichotomies as usual. No one was denying these features biologically exist because they're politicized.

quote:

---

You cant blame skin color or any other feature for the existence of racism or other politicized aspects of human sociology. That makes no sense.

---

Who said I was saying racism is justified? All I was arguing was that biological features are politicized which is fundamental to understanding the SOCIAL reality of race. Do you still want to argue over stupid sh!t or are you don-- you know what don't answer that. I'm not entertaining anymore of this fvckery from you. Sometimes I have to wonder if you've been planted here because you will singlehandedly nosedive important threads into the ground derailing on things that are ridiculous. You will carry on with this for pages if I let you, which I will not. So bark all you want I'll be ignoring you until you have something meaningful to say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:Genetic information or not, if most of ES expresses the opinions you have (that Torres Strait Islanders/Aboriginals are black), genetics will have little meaning for people trying to prove race under the radar. it'll be back to craniometrics, collecting hair samples and watching white internet anthropology boards promise each other that their society couldn't possibly treat anyone with those features as black. But back to the main point: The mixture could've been in either direction. East Africa is where Eurasians left Africa and AE features were generally not outside the realm of possibility for indigenous adaptations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Why is it only modern negros who limit black to
Africans, who taught them that, and why do they
accept it without question?

Amazing how 1200 years ago Africans classified
various south and southeast Asians as blacks.

Arabian Peninsular 'Zanj' probably had no idea
who was beyond Indonesia to the east and south
but going by 21st century 3rd Millennia values
• Black fella must be stripped from the Abos
• New Guinea? No more. Forget their looks.
• Melanesia must be a big lie unless the
name means the black soil.

Black has been reduced in meaning to negro
because in the USA the people who called
themselves Negroe changed their label to
Black and now deny there are any other
blacks but the Blacks, ie., them and
enslaved West African ethnic groups
they came from.

Sheeit, I mean who can't say African when
they mean an African black? Neither negro
nor black are regional identifiers like
Caucasus caucasian caucasoid
Mongolia mongol mongoloid
buy negroes don't catch what happened with
????? negro negroid

There is a Caucasus place language culture
There is a Mongolia place with language and culture
Where is any negro place language culture.
Likewise where is the national piece of
geography called black that has a language
Blackese spoken by blackesians;?


Wow a people adopting a name of their condition
and rejecting that of their geographic origin.
Is there any other peoples who've ever done so
on a national scale.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Boo hoo Oshun stop trying tơ̵̡͉͚̮̥̜̋ ̵̦̞̫̒̍̊ṭ̶̳̺̯̹͂̇̓̋̎͒͛͛͘ű̷̢̜̇̉̕O 0;̨͕̥̮̳r̶̨̧̲̯̻̻̲̀̆͒͗̏̌̏͘̚͜͝n̸̾̀̉͝&# 769;̬̪͈̪͊̓̈́̅̾ ̵̨̖͕͎͉̮̊̈̈́ę̸̼̲͇̾̊̊̒̀̄̆́͛́̍̋́̾̚ ;̠͉̩̬͕̲̫͕͙̹̰v̸̨̡̛͖̟͚̭̤̙̍̄̀̊̌̀̀͠O 9;̜͕ȇ̴̡̢̗̭̮̳͓̀͆͗͊̍̔͐͐̈́̒̒͝͝͝r̵̾̏̒&# 792;ỳ̶̺̠̝̳̩̝͚͈̍̈̈̎̍͐̚͘͝t̷̡̡̺̗͖̮̓͝͠ ̠̰̞ͅḫ̷͎̭̖̯̰̪͚̬͋̋͗͋̋͒́̂̋̚̕̕͠i̴̐N 8;̢̧͙̣͓̦̳͎͉͔͈̞̓̌̍̔̎̓͐̽͋͘͠ͅn̵̈̃̀͆ 61;̡̨̘̩̘͎̪͒̕g̷̢̲̭̹̣̫̤̼̳̈́́̃̐̇͐͑͝͠ͅ&# 840;̭͈ ̶̻̮̙̝͑̽̌̽̾́́̈́̔͌̏̕i̵͆̍̎̂́̾̍̈́̇̄̔͝ ;̧̨͚͕̥̘͔̂̈́̐͜ṉ̷̅͗̋̏͒̑͒̏̕͝͝ẗ̶́̋̆̈ 49;̢̯̼̰͍͈̝͉̹͖͉͉̭͗͗̽͆̌̊͜͝o̴͆́̋̾͘͝͝&# 829;̣͆ ̸̭̟̟̤̪̠͓̺͓̙͍̠̙̽͋̈́̓̌͘d̵̅̊̾̿̕̚̕͝͠ ;̛̬̜̝̩̲̝̭͌̽́́͝ŗ̵̬̐̄̈́̌͝a̷̻̬̎̌͘̚͠ 40;̟͈ṁ̴̻͈̼̮a̵̧̢̡̬̯͈̮̙̣̘̩͚̝̐.̷͂͑͋̀̌ ̢̝̜̻̟̟͓̲̣͓̂̆̉́͊̾̽͋́͜͝

---

Sorry Doug, can't hear you.

@ Lioness don't even waste your time giving it attention. He'll find a new thread to ruin for several pages with his trolling before long.


 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
So then what part of it was I misrepresenting? I really want to know and pls be clear in your explanation, because it sounds to me like you want to have all the benefits of your theory, but when I sum up what's dubious about it you want to distance yourself from it, saying I'm misrepresenting you. How is it a strawman when I say that your position necessitates that NE African came with all or most of the Neanderthal in the TAF sample? You've just confirmed it's not in the SSA components. If it's not in the NE African component either, then why are we even having this conversation? Because if it's not in the NE African component, then it's in the Eurasian component. If it's in the Eurasian component, then you can't say elevated Neanderthal in TAF means BE isn't NE African.

---

realistically with The non SSA portion of taforalt fitted best if not perfectly by Natufian how can you explain the discrepancy in neanderthal DNA in the Eurasian part of taforalts genome?

Laz's Basal Eurasian
-Has no Neanderthal
-Has no SSA

things I thought it was safe to say
-Taf probably has more NE-African Ancestry than Laz's Natufians
-Taf probably has more NE-African Ancestry than Iran_N

Things that are a reality
-Taf Has more neanderthal than Iran_N
-Tafs Eurasian has proportionately more Neanderthal than Natufians

If NEA =Basal Eurasian all of the above can not be true unless you want to make the claim that somehow taforalt is are only sample where elevated neanderthal signals are accompanying SSA ancestry.... or that whatever Eurasian influence in Taforalt had substantially more neanderthal than non african/BE Near eastern ancestors despite their non African portion of their genomes fitting almost perfectly with Natufian.... Both of these claims have no basis other than the assumption that BE = NE African.


also Notice how the only Eurasian group to show outlying shared drift with the Non-African portion of the Taforalt are caucus populations. Another aspect that shouldn't be possible if pure BE is shared with Taforalts green component and the Basal eurasian successors.

quote:

---

Based on what data?

---

quote:

---

Notice again that you are, in fact, saying that NE African is a big source of Neanderthal in the MENA populations they mixed with. Yet when I start addressing that you say I'm misrepresenting your position. You are shooting yourself in the foot by turning ancient Egypt into a hotbed of Neanderthal already by 15kya. But to respond to your argument, what is your evidence that the Neanderthal-admixed NE Africans donated more African ancestry to circum-Mediterranean groups than to Iranians?

---

smh I said all of those populations have more neanderthal than Iranians.. that is a fact. I didn't say that NEA is responsible for all of their Neanderthal signals. the groups I listed shown solid evidence of African admixture whether its Uniparentals or admixture, it was only until loosdrecth when we see North African signals in Iran_N iirc and even then they're somewhat lower than those from places of closer proximity to N.Africa. Dstats consistently show Iranians to be the most distant (share the least alleles) out of all populations we know for a fact harbor NE African ancestry. More proof of this is seen in table S6 from loosdrecth 2018


My question to you is; are you gonna commit to proving that Iranians have more North East Ancestry than Taforalt, Natufians and IAM?

quote:

---

As stated in my previous post, my position is that all African migration reduces Neanderthal ancestry. Even if the migrating Africans are 90% Eurasian. Barring some unusual scenarios, that 10% African ancestry would reduce Neanderthal in Eurasians by 10%. This is basic math. So, unless you're saying the E-M78 migrants to TAF were 100% Eurasian, they would have lowered TAF Neanderthal affinity. The fact that the Neanderthal affinity is still elevated in the TAF sample doesn't mean that it wasn't lowered. It just means that it's still relatively high despite being lowered.

---

quote:

---

It didn't show itself? What is it supposed to look like when it shows itself? Pls explain in detail. They're all supposed to group in a big cozy cluster? I don't think that is how it works.

---

you opened by making a comparison to WHG and the fact that there's no 100% WHG specimen. Yet still WHG populations are grouped together in pca and they form a distinct cluster in ADMIXTURE consistently. Same thing goes for EEF populations, ANE-east Eurasians, etc. etc. Hotu is 50% BE, yet never finds his way in a NE African corner... why not?
Why does CHG, Hotu and Iranians fail to show respectable levels of north African signals given the fact that they harbor such a high % of BE?


You're gonna have to commit to something. and explain all these inconsistencies. reminder: 50% of hotus DNA is according to you North East African.... Show a me anything that hints at an overlap between North East Africa and Hotu genetically.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Could I get the rest of that graph please?
I need it to complete my redux. Thank you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
What Pseudo NE african components are you talking about?

---

Shit like this

Lioness what’s up with the copy and paste? You got something to say?

---

What percent of Luxmanda was Neanderthal?

---

good question, this hasn't been calculated yet... how long are you willing to wait for the answer?
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
I never in my life associated the fact
of the AEs blackness had a thing to do
with them being stereotype below of the
Sahara Africans or West Africans because
I never learned West Africans
held a patent on blackness.


[Hell, even Little Black Sambo is a Tamil ]


Blame it on
J A Rogers
J G Jackson
Massey Higgins Churchward
standard reading and conversation in my youth.
Today there's nothing out there like Rogers or
Jackson that's up to speed for this millennia.
Except maybe for Walker, if not expensive
and inaccessible.

Walk in off the street Black Books stores?
A thing of the past. Street vendors used to
stock stuff like vanSertima's Journals. But
they gotta eat too and nothing puts bacon
on the table like 'Urban' ahem 'Literature'.

I had Tarharka's Blackmanhood that
examined several Nile and NE Afr
groups like the Galla for AE roots
of the Middle Kingdom founders. Old
yet fundamental for my contributions
to the Uah ka lineage threads.
https://www.google.com/search?q=uah+ka+egyptsearch

Nothing in Hansberry's Africa & Africans
about W Afr Egyptians, nor in Doc Ben's
Black Man of the Nile and his Family, iirc.
Same for William's Destruction of Black
Civilization.

The world is ever changing.

With nothing out there and dismissive of
previous black generations' works I do
understand embracing the, 'mainstream'
defined, hunting grounds from where Africans
were kidnapped and made into negroes/abeed.

It's just that I'll never agree to it.
Stuck in my ways. See no reason to adapt.

It's a wide world. To each his own.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Exactly who
are Fula1 and Fula2?

Fula2 are very Soninke.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
If NEA =Basal Eurasian all of the above can not be true unless you want to make the claim that somehow taforalt is are only sample where elevated neanderthal signals are accompanying SSA ancestry

---

quote:

---

or that whatever Eurasian influence in Taforalt had substantially more neanderthal than non african/BE Near eastern ancestors despite their non African portion of their genomes fitting almost perfectly with Natufian

---

quote:

---

you can scroll up and look at lioness' first table.

---

quote:

---

the groups I listed shown solid evidence of African admixture whether its Uniparentals or admixture, it was only until loosdrecth when we see North African signals in Iran_N iirc and even then they're somewhat lower than those from places of closer proximity to N.Africa. Dstats consistently show Iranians to be the most distant (share the least alleles) out of all populations we know for a fact harbor NE African ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Yet still WHG populations are grouped together in pca and they form a distinct cluster in ADMIXTURE consistently.

---

Circum-Med Farmers are said to be mostly WHG-related. I don’t see farmers clustering with WHG in your PCA. Likewise, Iranian and CHG are said to be mostly EHG. I don’t see them clustering with EHG in your PCA. Since they don’t even cluster closely with the samples they’re most related to, why should they form a cozy BE cluster, just because a minority of their ancestry is Basal Eurasian? As far as ADMIXTURE, BE carriers have lined up before in a BE-like fashion in many papers.


Source


Source

I've posted this type of information before, including Fregel et al's ADMIXTURE analysis. Why act like you haven't seen it? Because it proves BE is not a hypothetical component, and because it proves BE is African?

quote:

---

50% of hotus DNA is according to you North East African.... Show a me anything that hints at an overlap between North East Africa and Hotu genetically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Why is it only modern negros who limit black to
Africans, who taught them that, and why do they
accept it without question?

Amazing how 1200 years ago Africans classified
various south and southeast Asians as blacks.

Arabian Peninsular 'Zanj' probably had no idea
who was beyond Indonesia to the east and south
but going by 21st century 3rd Millennia values
• Black fella must be stripped from the Abos
• New Guinea? No more. Forget their looks.
• Melanesia must be a big lie unless the
name means the black soil.

Black has been reduced in meaning to negro
because in the USA the people who called
themselves Negroe changed their label to
Black and now deny there are any other
blacks but the Blacks, ie., them and
enslaved West African ethnic groups
they came from.

Sheeit, I mean who can't say African when
they mean an African black? Neither negro
nor black are regional identifiers like
Caucasus caucasian caucasoid
Mongolia mongol mongoloid
buy negroes don't catch what happened with
????? negro negroid

There is a Caucasus place language culture
There is a Mongolia place with language and culture
Where is any negro place language culture.
Likewise where is the national piece of
geography called black that has a language
Blackese spoken by blackesians;?


Wow a people adopting a name of their condition
and rejecting that of their geographic origin.
Is there any other peoples who've ever done so
on a national scale.

---

So you're saying this ahistorical definition is at the root of the problem? It is true, that we mostly see this "Black Egypt theory wrapped around the question of whether they're related to Sub Saharan or West Africans. They are typically illustrated to be the only ones treated as black. If that's not true then that means blackness has to extend beyond those groups.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Boo hoo Oshun stop trying tơ̵̡͉͚̮̥̜̋ ̵̦̞̫̒̍̊ṭ̶̳̺̯̹͂̇̓̋̎͒͛͛͘ű̷̢̜̇̉̕O 0;̨͕̥̮̳r̶̨̧̲̯̻̻̲̀̆͒͗̏̌̏͘̚͜͝n̸̾̀̉͝&# 769;̬̪͈̪͊̓̈́̅̾ ̵̨̖͕͎͉̮̊̈̈́ę̸̼̲͇̾̊̊̒̀̄̆́͛́̍̋́̾̚ ;̠͉̩̬͕̲̫͕͙̹̰v̸̨̡̛͖̟͚̭̤̙̍̄̀̊̌̀̀͠O 9;̜͕ȇ̴̡̢̗̭̮̳͓̀͆͗͊̍̔͐͐̈́̒̒͝͝͝r̵̾̏̒&# 792;ỳ̶̺̠̝̳̩̝͚͈̍̈̈̎̍͐̚͘͝t̷̡̡̺̗͖̮̓͝͠ ̠̰̞ͅḫ̷͎̭̖̯̰̪͚̬͋̋͗͋̋͒́̂̋̚̕̕͠i̴̐N 8;̢̧͙̣͓̦̳͎͉͔͈̞̓̌̍̔̎̓͐̽͋͘͠ͅn̵̈̃̀͆ 61;̡̨̘̩̘͎̪͒̕g̷̢̲̭̹̣̫̤̼̳̈́́̃̐̇͐͑͝͠ͅ&# 840;̭͈ ̶̻̮̙̝͑̽̌̽̾́́̈́̔͌̏̕i̵͆̍̎̂́̾̍̈́̇̄̔͝ ;̧̨͚͕̥̘͔̂̈́̐͜ṉ̷̅͗̋̏͒̑͒̏̕͝͝ẗ̶́̋̆̈ 49;̢̯̼̰͍͈̝͉̹͖͉͉̭͗͗̽͆̌̊͜͝o̴͆́̋̾͘͝͝&# 829;̣͆ ̸̭̟̟̤̪̠͓̺͓̙͍̠̙̽͋̈́̓̌͘d̵̅̊̾̿̕̚̕͝͠ ;̛̬̜̝̩̲̝̭͌̽́́͝ŗ̵̬̐̄̈́̌͝a̷̻̬̎̌͘̚͠ 40;̟͈ṁ̴̻͈̼̮a̵̧̢̡̬̯͈̮̙̣̘̩͚̝̐.̷͂͑͋̀̌ ̢̝̜̻̟̟͓̲̣͓̂̆̉́͊̾̽͋́͜͝

---

Sorry Doug, can't hear you.

@ Lioness don't even waste your time giving it attention. He'll find a new thread to ruin for several pages with his trolling before long.

---

Oshun what are you saying? That anybody who uses the term black is "non Scientific"? LOL!

Folks here on ES don't just talk about skin color. We have been discussing every aspect of biology since before you, Swenet, Lioness and others even came along. It is funny to see folks sit here and pretend that they introduced genetics analysis to this forum when we were discussing that long before they even got here.

The point is that even if folks decided to talk about Genetics and not skin color it would not change the issue regarding AE as being portrayed as primarily white by the larger academic or scientific community. And that has been the crux of the whole issue since the beginning of European anthropology. There is no way to duck or dodge that.

In fact this whole issue of cranial affinities reflects the same mentality as the basis for calling AE "Eurasian" comes from the study of crania in the fist place. It didn't come about because of people using the word black on ES.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
What skin tone is "black" and what skin tone is not "black" has no scientific standard. So if you see the term in a scientific article it's a social term leaking in

Comparatively when limb ratios are discussed they are physically measured and numerical length recorded and classified as "tropical" or "cold adapted"
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Folks here on ES don't just talk about skin color.

We have been discussing every aspect of biology since
before you, Swenet, Lioness and others even came along.

It is funny to see folks sit here and pretend that they introduced genetics analysis to this forum when we were discussing that long before they even got here.

---

.
Face it Doug
Nobody gives a fart much less a shit about pre-forum
split ES. The ES we knew and were attracted to is dead.

Times change. Everything evolves.

A new crew managed to get actual administration
of the forum and they don't care for user input. ES
belongs to them and they're making a board that
no longer has black intetests in mind. The top
disrupting troll from our day is now an off the
leash moderator 100% approved by the administrator.
2 non-blacks dictated that blacks shut up and
don't dare voice the facts of Muslim and Jew
anti-black racism and mgmt not only allowed it
but said nothing about it. But then mgmt is not
a team with a plan for ES, that is except for one
of them that runs the forum entrusted to their
care as a personal blog. But hey, don' nobody
cyar 'bout that, in fact, they just love it.

ES is dead, long live ES!


Tell you what though, I love those memes Oshun
puts up when you two get to dusting it up. They
crack me up and lighten my mood, like dopamine!
The one with the preying mantis still makes me lol.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Perhaps the Kemet forum could be the site of a revival of the good old days
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
This thread is soon about to get locked.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
@swenet
It's hard to debate this with you because your whole argument is already of the assumption that NEAfrican is already confirmed BE. For the most part you're basically saying "Basal eurasian being NE African is evidence to why basal Eurasian is is North East African"

Also none of those graph show's a Basal eurasian cluster... are you trying to pull a fast one?
you know for a fact that those north African components would evaporate in the face of the ancient caucus/Iranians, stop playing. They aren't even persistent with ancient North African samples who should carry the most BE... unless you have a strong argument for why they dont/shouldn't
Gold component

Conversley your Druze light blue component, is a no show in African populations we'd expect to see harbor NE African ancestry ie Somali.

direct relationship or not, statistically speaking Taforalts has a strong West African component. The components were discovered using modern populations.. given the fact that they share variants/freq with these modern populations it is quite unlikely that somehow the portion of taforalt that is SSA has completely different properties such as: .. "Accompanies more neanderthal variants."
-So like the authors, I wont assume they do for the sake of Basal Eurasian being NE African.

I also won't just assume Hotu and Iran_N have the more pure North East African admixture than any other sample we've analyzed before. Why is the burden on me to disprove this? please enlighten me, was it always common knowledge that those populations have the most NE african ancestry?? Prior to the spotlight being placed on Iranians & Hotu (partially by I) no one was jacking that Idea; that ancient caucus populations were more African than actual Africans... So how can you dust aside uniparental data, and structural analysis, which consistently show distinction between Mediterraneans/North-Africans and caucus/East-Arabian populations? and blame all of the discrepancy in formal stats on possible WHG ancestry in africans? ...how did I allow you to hand me the burden of proof?? lol

---
""Going by Lazaridis et al, I think Hotu is >60% NE African, not 50%. According to the f3 table you’ve posted before, the least admixed modern East Africans (Dinka and Hadza) achieve the most negative f3 value with Hotu, while admixed East Africans achieve the most negative f3 statistic with Greeks, Sardinians and Saudis. No Natufians, Levantine farmers or European farmers even show up in this f3 table. You can’t explain this with your claim that circum-Med farmers have more NE African than Hotu does. But I certainly can explain this as indicating you’re wrong about a host of claims, including your claim that Hotu lags behind in terms of NE African ancestry.""
-Swenet

Um, yeah I can, and have been trying to to for months... but first off this point is bad, as these east African populations host variable Eurasian admixture, so they'll share drift accordingly... however as a result their Natufian components are bolstered in STRUCTURE and admixture runs as the former populations originally shared ancestry best fitted as Natufians, ppnb, etc..
Did this not click with you yet after all of these years? on the other hand I still haven't seen any significant overlap with Hotus 60% and North East Africa specifically...
And before you try to pull a fast one. Hotu giving the lowest Z score to unadmixed Africans aren't only restricted to East Africans


Lastly, You missed the fact that I believe NE africans carried SSA, which should appear to you as the most parsimonious explanation but because to you, Laz's BE = NEAfrican... all of it has to be in the green (non African component) of taforalt. which now requires an exotic explanation as to why Taforalt has elevated neanderthal Admixture. Yes most of the neanderthal is probably U6 linked or Aterian introgression. But are you telling us that the UP European source admixture in Taforalt and non African in Natufians were genetically Identical with the exception of neanderthal variants, where those in North Africa carried the most neanderthal?? That how'd you'd have to explain the anomaly that is visually displayed in figure s19 - loosdrecht 2018

Side note* a positive Z-score from f4(Chimp, Altai; Yoruba, Mota) heavily implies Mota carries more neanderthal than YRI
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Folks here on ES don't just talk about skin color.

We have been discussing every aspect of biology since
before you, Swenet, Lioness and others even came along.

It is funny to see folks sit here and pretend that they introduced genetics analysis to this forum when we were discussing that long before they even got here.

---

.
Face it Doug
Nobody gives a fart much less a shit about pre-forum
split ES. The ES we knew and were attracted to is dead.

Times change. Everything evolves.

A new crew managed to get actual administration
of the forum and they don't care for user input. ES
belongs to them and they're making a board that
no longer has black intetests in mind. The top
disrupting troll from our day is now an off the
leash moderator 100% approved by the administrator.
2 non-blacks dictated that blacks shut up and
don't dare voice the facts of Muslim and Jew
anti-black racism and mgmt not only allowed it
but said nothing about it. But then mgmt is not
a team with a plan for ES, that is except for one
of them that runs the forum entrusted to their
care as a personal blog. But hey, don' nobody
cyar 'bout that, in fact, they just love it.

ES is dead, long live ES!


Tell you what though, I love those memes Oshun
puts up when you two get to dusting it up. They
crack me up and lighten my mood, like dopamine!
The one with the preying mantis still makes me lol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Also none of those graph show's a Basal eurasian cluster... are you trying to pull a fast one?

---

quote:

---

you know for a fact that those north African components would evaporate in the face of the ancient caucus/Iranians, stop playing.

---

quote:

---

given the fact that they share variants/freq with these modern populations it is quite unlikely that somehow the portion of taforalt that is SSA has completely different properties such as: .. "Accompanies more neanderthal variants."

---

quote:

---

So like the authors, I wont assume they do for the sake of Basal Eurasian being NE African.

---

quote:

---

Hotu giving the lowest Z score to unadmixed Africans aren't only restricted to East Africans

---

quote:

---

Lastly, You missed the fact that I believe NE africans carried SSA, which should appear to you as the most parsimonious explanation but because to you, Laz's BE = NEAfrican... all of it has to be in the green (non African component) of taforalt. which now requires an exotic explanation as to why Taforalt has elevated neanderthal Admixture. Yes most of the neanderthal is probably U6 linked or Aterian introgression. But are you telling us that the UP European source admixture in Taforalt and non African in Natufians were genetically Identical with the exception of neanderthal variants, where those in North Africa carried the most neanderthal?? That how'd you'd have to explain the anomaly that is visually displayed in figure s19 - loosdrecht 2018

---

quote:

---

Side note* a positive Z-score from f4(Chimp, Altai; Yoruba, Mota) heavily implies Mota carries more neanderthal than YRI

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Exactly who
are Fula1 and Fula2?

Fula2 are very Soninke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
you know for a fact that those north African components would evaporate in the face of the ancient caucus/Iranians, stop playing.

---

CHG and EEF are sister components. Pls stop going against the evidence in your biased quest to keep BE out of Africa. In terms of genetic distance, seemingly separate ADMIXTURE clusters like CHG, EEF, Mahrebi, etc. form a loose group with BE as their main common denominator. CHG forming their own component from other BE-admixed components in ADMIXTURE is a half-baked argument. It means nothing. All Basal Eurasian-admixed components have lower distance among each other compared to nearby components. And when tested for f3 'treeness' with Mota, the resulting clade is to the exclusion of most 'unmixed' SSA samples, with Dinka being the least excluded, Hadza being much more excluded, and YRI intermediate. Meaning, the exclusion becomes more pronounced as you move away from NE Africa.


Figure 2 | The relationship between Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG), western hunter-gatherers and early farmers. (a). Alternative phylogenies
relating western hunter-gatherers (WHG), CHG and early farmers (EF, highlighted in orange), with the appropriate outgroup f3-statistics. (b). The best
supported relationship among CHG (Kotias), WHG (Bichon, Loschbour), and EF (Stuttgart), with split times estimates using G-Phocs15
Source
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
I’m confused. Is Elmaestro seriously arguing that BE isn’t African now? What explains this bizarre plot twist?
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Can some of you guys who want to go into more conversation about about non black mods/admins/owners do that in PM or something? I don't want my topic locked over the matter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
you know for a fact that those north African components would evaporate in the face of the ancient caucus/Iranians, stop playing.

---

CHG and EEF are sister components. Pls stop going against the evidence in your biased quest to keep BE out of Africa.

---

What are you proposing Elmaestro gains by arguing BE wasn't originally from Africa ? I'm fairly new to BE so I have no idea where this conversation is going.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Oshun
See what elMaestro posted here. See how the North Africans on that tree are conceptualized as Sub-Saharan population with non-African ancestry. By getting rid of Basal Eurasian, elMaestro thinks all that will be left is various Africans SSA-related components and various backmigrated components. Very obvious why this appeals to people with certain politics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
I’m confused. Is Elmaestro seriously arguing that BE isn’t African now? What explains this bizarre plot twist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Can some of you guys who want to go into more conversation about about non black mods/admins/owners do that in PM or something? I don't want my topic locked over the matter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
you know for a fact that those north African components would evaporate in the face of the ancient caucus/Iranians, stop playing.

---

CHG and EEF are sister components. Pls stop going against the evidence in your biased quest to keep BE out of Africa.

---

What are you proposing Elmaestro gains by arguing BE wasn't originally from Africa ? I'm fairly new to BE so I have no idea where this conversation is going.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
BE is real.
BE is not the only 'population'
based solely on statistics, the
same statistics analyzing sampled
chromosomes.

There are African statistical populations
but since they're not Lazar-ade nobody's
talking about them.

Erectus snd Heidelbergensi (sp) kin
can only be discovered through stats.
The soil ate them away so genetic
implications are their 'remains'.

---

If BE is about 80,000 years old, we'd have to find the remains of humans 80,000 years old to have any leads on a "pure" BE lineage. Has it ever been demonstrated that it is possible to extract DNA that old? Well... even if it's been done, it probably wouldn't be easy to do often.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
You guys still arguing over Basal Eurasian. HA! Ha! HA! ElMaestro has issues. Nevertheless, BE cannot be anything else BUT African. It first appeared in Africa BEFORE Europe…didn’t it? BE/EEF IIRC is really EEF (Not ANE or WHG). If I remember correctly per Lazaridis La Brana dated to 6000bc, was 100% WHG with no EEF/BE. While Luxmanda, at 3000BC was already 60% EEF/BE while Malawi Hora dated at 8000bc already had 20% BE. BE cannot possible be anything but African most likely Southern African!!!
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
A reminder. Back to the BASICS…BE=EEF. BE does not mean non-African. DNATrIbes has it in Africa. Skoglund et al has it in Malawi 3000years before it appears in Europe. YES!!! 3000 YEARS BEFORE EUROPE!!! So WTF are you people arguing about?


 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
We also know that that model above is incorrect and most likely “supervised” because recent DNA data has shown MButi do carry “Eurasian” ancestry. Infact the now famous SLC45A2 derived is carried by Mbuti.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
As far as there being "no skeletal remains of Basal Eurasian". Be wary of hypocrites who talk all day about components that have not yet been linked to ancient bones, but who want to put up a fake "formal" pretense and lecture people about Basal Eurasian needing skeletal evidence. Readers, listen to known trolls at your own risk.

They go around the forum talking about "Basal Eurasian need bones to prove it" but fail to follow their own advice when they make threads about such and such population being "86% Arabian" without having any bones to link ancestry to, let alone to make one type of Arabian the epitome of "Arabian".

None of the green components below have bones to go along with their ancestry components. Anti-African trolls have no problem when you talk about these green components. But as soon as you talk about Basal Eurasian being African they want to hold the conversation hostage by pretending to be interested in skeletal remains. They're not interested in skeletal remains. They're just here to voice their underlying butthurt, using scientific parsimony as a pretext.



They're not interested in skeletal remains or they would reject all components without accompanying skeletal remains. This would mean you can't talk about genetics because bones of ancestral components are never found since they represent snapshots frozen in time. With the limited fossils we have it's highly unlikely to find any of the green ancestral components. At best we can find samples that partially derive from them. That goes for all these green components.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Basically agree except for
• ANE (Mal'ta AG2(?)
• WHG (Loschbour LaBrana
[• SHG (Motala ]
• EEF (Stuttgart Iceman Swedish farmer girl


Just for the record .
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^I think all of those samples (the red ovals) are mixed with ancestry other than the green ancestral components that epitomize their ancestry. For instance, the real EEF is Anatolian farmer (EEF is Anatolian Farmer + WHG ancestry foreign to it). And even Anatolian farmer has some extra foreign WHG, presumably inherited in Anatolia, that removes it somewhat from the admixture event that chart depicts (West Eurasian [Y-DNA G(?)] + Basal Eurasian [E-V13(?)]).

quote:

---

The Anatolian Neolithic
In the Levant and Iran we have Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic samples and can thus compare the first
Neolithic populations with the hunter-gatherers that preceded them. There are currently no samples of
Epipalaeolithic Anatolians, but we observe that the Neolithic Anatolians are genetically shifted
towards Europe in the PCA (Fig. 1b) and have ancestry from an ancestral population related to
European hunter-gatherers according to ADMIXTURE analysis (Extended Data Fig. 2a). This should
not be interpreted as evidence of ancestry from actual hunter-gatherers from Europe; while this is not
implausible for our sample from Northwestern Anatolia 17 , we have previously seen that populations of
the ancient Near East are also differentially related to European hunter-gatherers. This suggests that
populations related to European hunter-gatherers existed in the Near East and may be included in the
Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic ancestors of the Neolithic Anatolians without any need for a direct
migration from Europe.

---

quote:

---

Archaeologists have made a remarkable find in a 12,000-year-old stone temple in southeastern Turkey. Among tens of thousands of animal bones and a statue that may depict a kneeling figure holding a human head, researchers have uncovered the remains of human skulls that were stripped of their flesh and carved with deep, straight grooves running front to back.

---

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/carved-human-skulls-found-ancient-stone-temple

Note the skull modifications and how they recall Arthur Keith's descriptions of cuts on some of the skulls his Natufian sample.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Ok... I'll try to take one more crack at this... Since everyone is confused.

Laz's Basal Eurasian has two defining properties...
1. No SSA
2. No Neanderthal


taforalt is ~37% SSA. this portion of Taf is roughly SSA


This portion is not SSA, and closely resembles Natufian.

^^Logic and previous studies involving the patterns between SSA and neanderthal admixture says that this portion should harbor two things:
1.Basal Eurasian **
2. Majority of the Neanderthal% **

---

Two Things to also keep in mind:
-1. Taforalt and other neighboring populations should have a respectable amount of NE African ancestry.
-2. Basal Eurasian at ~44% of Iran_N was capable of bringing their neanderthal down to proportions lower than Taf who is already almost 40% SSA as (seen above).


So as far as logic goes This (below) portion of taf is coming up short on BE



_
Swenet chooses to conflate his Idea of NE ancestry:
-which has BE = NE African ancestry
With the issue I'm addressing:
-disproportionate levels of neanderthal in a BE population.

To create the argument for me that:
-North East African ancestry increases Neanderthal in populations we believe have decent levels of north East African ancestry.
(no where did I state this but moving on)

All I'm doing is highlighting that if** NE-African is Basal Eurasian it would be horribly represented in a specimen we know should have direct ancestry from North East Africa.
Hence:

quote:

---

Considering the dual ancestry of the Taforalt individuals, we can explain the Altai affinity in 472 Taforalt as a dilution of its Natufian-related ancestry with its significant proportion (~36.5%) ofsub-Saharan African ancestry. Interestingly, the Neanderthal ancestry in Taforalt is higher than in early Neolithic Iran (Iran_N, f4 = 0.000628, Z = 1.934). We can therefore deduce that the Taforalt individuals are not genetically closer to the hypothetical Basal Eurasian population than the early Holocene populations from Iran""

-Loosdrecht 2018

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Basal Eurasian - mixture of mtDNA M1 + Y-DNA E-M215 + L3k and other L3s + various MSA (North African MSA in particular) (loosely)

---

quote:

---

Laz's Basal Eurasian has two defining properties...
1. No SSA
2. No Neanderthal

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Could I get the rest of that graph please?
I need it to complete my redux. Thank you.

---

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzi0D1lrmvbEZjJuQmNCX3ItTWM/view?usp=sharing

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
What Pseudo NE african components are you talking about?

---

Shit like this

Lioness what’s up with the copy and paste? You got something to say?

---

What percent of Luxmanda was Neanderthal?

---

good question, this hasn't been calculated yet... how long are you willing to wait for the answer?

---

quote:

---

Oeiginally posted by Tukuler:
EDIT
Like the Tecuhtli & Xotalanca in Red Nails.
Thx 4/t ancient Anatoli link below
probably the world's first civ
@ Çatal Hüyük also in Turkey.
Believe it or not I first found out
about them in an art book on NearEast
and, yup, EEF cluster includes samples
nowhere east of 15 degrees East. Are
any available?

---

As you know, at some point going east the samples transition from a northeastern Med type affinity, to an Iranian farmer type affinity. Mesopotamia is one big unsampled area. Maybe this is where the two met or interacted with another farmer population that buffered both.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZobIp0WAAEfT12.jpg

IMG resized
link for OG image above //MOD

[ 01. June 2018, 06:31 AM: Message edited by: Elmaestro ]
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Elmaestro
It's not about a "hot seat". It's about posting evidence for your claims. You've not posted evidence for one single claim you made and most of the time you're simply not making any sense. Here is one case in point, where you're just stating non-sense as fact:

quote:

---

Laz's Basal Eurasian has two defining properties...
1. No SSA
2. No Neanderthal

---

1) No analysis has ever shown that it's impossible for Basal Eurasian carriers to spread with some SSA or SSA-related ancestry. You made that up. Shame on you for doing this over and over again, just so you can attack an African origin of this component.

2) Populations carrying Basal Eurasian are said to have no Neanderthal in the sense that they didn't inherit it during the introgression event 55ky ago. But this doesn't mean that the BE populations who lowered Neanderthal in Eurasia had no Neanderthal. Up to a certain percentage, BE populations could have picked up Neanderthal without it interfering with their ability to lower Neanderthal in Eurasia. This is just like African Americans who have Neanderthal, but they still can cause drops in Neanderthal in their interracial offspring. If an Afram male is 50% African, he will cause a 50% drop in Neanderthal in his interracial offspring (compared to his in-laws). It's a complete nonsensical fallacy that inheriting Neanderthal necessarily takes away Africans' ability to cause BE-like drops in Neanderthal. Yet this is exactly what you're saying. You're saying NE Africa is no longer a credible source of Basal Eurasian because NE Africans didn't lower the elevated Neanderthal in TAF. Aside from the fact that you have never proven that NE African migrants failed to lower TAF's Neanderthal, you have also never proven that inheriting Neanderthal makes NE Africans incapable of lowering Neanderthal in Eurasia.

Your posts are filled with these kinds of half-baked arguments that only seem to impress YOU. You think you've posted evidence, but you never did. This causes the conversation to constantly go in loops because you act like you're posting evidence, but you're not. When I ask for evidence, you keep posting the same fallacies instead of actual evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
They'll go for older remains if they realize the black Egypt theory hasn't been put to rest. I actually do believe that the DNA tribes DNA was possibly correct. What we could be seeing were the genetic differences of the Egyptian population based on distance from the Near East and Sub Saharan Africa. This would also explain Beyoku's data because what he posted was Old Kingdom information. Hassan's Nubian data doesn't seem to be heavily Near Eastern and the southern Egyptians were closest to Nubians. Even in Irish's study HRK and UEG pair with Nubians before Lower Egyptians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
For instance I posted f3 problems and somehow you arrived at a conclusion that distance from NE-Africa increases the Z score as if Hadza are the most distant from NE Africa genetically and geographically.

---

Lol. Nah. I'm definitely stopping this conversation. You are seriously trying to argue Hadza are not the most genetically and geographically distant Africans in your f3 list?

quote:

---

We estimated
divergence times of 98,000 to 96,000 years for Hadza
ancestry from Eastern Pygmy and Khoisan ancestries, respectively,
followed by divergence times of 89,000 and
88,000 years for Western Pygmy and Sandawe ancestries,
respectively, and then followed by divergence times of
81,000 to 76,000 years for Arabian, Berber, eastern and
southern Bantu-speaking, Nilo-Saharan, and Western NigerCongo
ancestries (table 3). These divergence times are all
before Out-of-Africa, and therefore support early divergence
of Hadza ancestry. In contrast, we estimated divergence times
for Sandawe ancestry of 55,000–34,000 years (table 3).
These divergence times are after Out-of-Africa but before
the ancestral split of present-day speakers of Niger-Congo
and Nilo-Saharan languages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
They'll go for older remains if they realize the black Egypt theory hasn't been put to rest. I actually do believe that the DNA tribes DNA was possibly correct. What we could be seeing were the genetic differences of the Egyptian population based on distance from the Near East and Sub Saharan Africa. This would also explain Beyoku's data because what he posted was Old Kingdom information. Hassan's Nubian data doesn't seem to be heavily Near Eastern and the southern Egyptians were closest to Nubians. Even in Irish's study HRK and UEG pair with Nubians before Lower Egyptians.

---

This is admittedly off topic. But consider that Egyptian royalty tended to be inbred, apparently since they wanted to preserve the "divinity" of their bloodline. Maybe the ostensible resemblance between the royal mummies' MLI scores and those African populations with the least OOA admixture reflects that practice? If Egyptian royals were invested in maintaining the purity of their lineage, they might have avoided interbreeding with foreign immigrants when it came to producing heirs. Therefore, the genetics of the Pharaohs and their Great Wives might have been less "mixed" than those of their subjects.

I remember Swenet observing once that there was some overlap in alleles between the Amarna mummies and those of Rameses III and his son, despite them coming from different families from different regions of Egypt. So possibly elite Egyptians were more "pure" Northeast African than the rest of the population, though I am not sure of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
For instance I posted f3 problems and somehow you arrived at a conclusion that distance from NE-Africa increases the Z score as if Hadza are the most distant from NE Africa genetically and geographically.

---

Lol. Nah. I'm definitely stopping this conversation. You are seriously trying to argue Hadza are not the most genetically and geographically distant Africans in your f3 list?

quote:

---

We estimated
divergence times of 98,000 to 96,000 years for Hadza
ancestry from Eastern Pygmy and Khoisan ancestries, respectively,
followed by divergence times of 89,000 and
88,000 years for Western Pygmy and Sandawe ancestries,
respectively, and then followed by divergence times of
81,000 to 76,000 years for Arabian, Berber, eastern and
southern Bantu-speaking, Nilo-Saharan, and Western NigerCongo
ancestries (table 3). These divergence times are all
before Out-of-Africa, and therefore support early divergence
of Hadza ancestry. In contrast, we estimated divergence times
for Sandawe ancestry of 55,000–34,000 years (table 3).
These divergence times are after Out-of-Africa but before
the ancestral split of present-day speakers of Niger-Congo
and Nilo-Saharan languages.

---

https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/10/3/875/4935243

You're taking this "Hadza is pre-OOA" lie too far. Your political bias is clouding your judgment. Pls stop lying to people who don't know better. SMH.

---

On one end I’m glad and relieved you want to end the discussion.
On the other I’m disapointed you took the bait lmaoo.

Previously Sweeney said : the Hadza effect is due to extensive North East African Admixture
Now swenet says:
Hadza should be the most distant set of Africans from North East Africans
Previously swenet says:
NC split happened over 90,000-120,000 years ago and that’s a “low estimate”
Now swenet quotes:
NC splitting between 80 and 71k

You just did more for my hadza theory in the last three pages than I even attempted to :lol:
ps. Western Nigeria is closer and more accessible from the Nile valley than north Tanzania?? Welp I learn something everyday

But ima releive you from explaining your way out of this because you weren’t using the f3 problems correctly anyways. Instead you can tell everyone which non-mixed african population truly is the closest to Iran_N and explain why and how that is? Lol

Only thing I’d advise you talk about is why you beleive Iranians are the most pure North East African population we’ve seen to date. That’s the question you should stop running from.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Previously Sweeney said : the Hadza effect is due to extensive North East African Admixture
Now swenet says:
Hadza should be the most distant set of Africans from North East Africans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
More on Hadza being primarily a mix of Khoisan-like and East African ancestry:

quote:

---

TreeMix infers that the Hadza are admixed between a Khoisan population (equally related to both the northwestern and southeastern Kalahari groups) and a population most closely related to the Dinka, with about 23±2% Khoisan-related ancestry] (Supplementary Fig. S20).

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2140

As this paper indicates, Hadza cluster like a northeast/East African population when their Khoisan ancestry is taken into account/separated in treemix:



When you factor in their Khoisan-like ancestry, their position on the Human tree is different and closer to Khoisan:

https://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/journal/v3/n10/images/m685/ncomms2140-f3.jpg

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Only thing I’d advise you talk about is why you beleive Iranians are the most pure North East African population we’ve seen to date. That’s the question you should stop running from.

---

quote:

---

On the other I’m disapointed you took the bait lmaoo.

---

 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Here are Laz2014 TreeMix 0:5



3 looks untenable but check the
node where Mbuti splits off down
to where everything else splits.

The 1st migration arrow is to Stuttgart.
But where is the nock? Anyone?
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
So I take it that you comitting to the idea that the 23% Khoisan-like component is the reason why hadza are farther from north East Africans than yorubans even though when that is taken out they(the hadza) assumes a position closest to where you beleive north East Africans are? Let’s get this on record.

& I don’t care about your judge of character.. I don’t care about your constant warping and distortion of my words anymore. I don’t even care about your insults... I just wanna hear about these Iranians being more ancient north East African than all population/samples seen thus far in and out of Africa... But also somehow closest to yorubans (fst) out of all unadmixed Africans.

That’s all I’ll take into consideration from here on out...

@tukuler... did you try to post an image?
Fula 1 and two are both supposedly Fulani, they’re only separated because admixture picked up substructure within the ethnic group. The division is aesthetic.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
I tried to find out just exactly who
your Fula2 are but I missed the reply.
EDIT
Fula are spread from Senegal to Saudi.
Your Fula2 are genetically Soninke.I
just wanna know the precise ethny or
locale of the Fula2 samples.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Here are Laz2014 TreeMix 0:5



3 looks untenable but check the
node where Mbuti splits off down
to where everything else splits.

The 1st migration arrow is to Stuttgart.
But where is the nock? Anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
I tried to find out just exactly who
your Fula2 are but I missed the reply.
EDIT
Fula are spread from Senegal to Saudi.
Your Fula2 are genetically Soninke.I
just wanna know the precise ethny or
locale of the Fula2 samples.

---

They are all from Gambia in terms of location, Interms of ethny I can only provide what GGVP says they are, which is fulani.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Thx EM
Went there. Used the search. Couldn't find Serehule?

Thx Swenet
I completely overlooked 16.1-2. Complicated now
that I seen them. Bonzo and Cheeta have long
been our best buds. I'm OK with them in analysis.

I think Laz's TreeMix wasn't examined before?
Other than the, to me, improbability of the
3 migrations tree I really have no ideas.

OK I think the nock is a E Med farmer.
and I think the long slide between Mbuti
and all other humans represents everything from
Africans
Africans basal to Eurasians / Eurasians basal to Africans
1st Mid Easterners / 1st successful Outside of Africa folk
[not relying on the Remaud Laz Kelso Reich text]


I dunno.


So ask for ideas. Can't think of everything myself.


EDIT
According to Laz 16.1-2 are "affected by
ascertainment bias due to how the SNPs
were chosen for the array."

16.3-4 whole genome sequencing overcomes that
limitation and has greater statistical power.
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
In Figure S16.1 and 16.2 the source of the BE arrows in all cases seems to be somewhere close to where ancestral Mbuti originates. In Figure S16.3 and 16.4 the source of the BE arrows is literally basal to Eurasians. What is the answer you're looking for? I can say it's basal to Eurasians, but that would be me being Captain Obvious. Seems like you're after something deeper.

I find it interesting how the inclusion of chimp (if that's what did it) seems to change where treemix sees BE originating. It's like the chimp sample introduces important phylogenetic information that clarifies relationships.

@Tyrannohotep. Might be a good idea to go over these treemix runs again for your project.

See the supps

---

I've looked at the TreeMix diagrams and have indeed noted the trend you described. The effect that including chimpanzee data had on the origin point of the BE->Stuttgart arrow is indeed quite curious. This result must be more accurate with regards to BE's actual affinity to OOA versus Mbuti, but it's funny that BE's African origin seems much more apparent when you exclude the chimp genome.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Tukuler
Everything else seems to be mostly unaffected in the human origins dataset, so I thought rooting the tree with chimp did it. This is one of those times where having capable in-house TREEMIX hobbyists to redo the analysis would be helpful.

@Tyrannohotep
Notice also the TREEMIX residuals. There is always some extra Mbuti affinity to the farmers that is not shown in the TREEMIX trees. WHG also has extra affinities to Africans as I already suggested earlier in this thread (see TREEMIX residuals for that, too).
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
As I suspected, their only source is Lazaridis
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
For some reason I thought unsupervised
meant no user chosen root bit I guess
not. So Mbuti is the HOD root, Chimp
the WGSD root.

And here I been thinking that acute
angle was the root; Homo ancestor in
HOD, Hominini ancestor in WGSD.


I think with both a spirit of tolerance
and a strict no unproven nonsense and an
enforced no sympathy non-trolling policy
when it comes to science related threads
this particular ES forum might attract
new knowledgeable layman with tools.

Residuals are as important as the trees
and arrows because they "identify aspects
of ancestry not captured by the tree".
But knowing what the colors show is not
intuitive. The black and blue do mean a
definite admixture, right? White is no
admixture at all and red is ??? Nixing
Cheeta that is.


Residuals on HOD show sharing between Mbuti
with Iceman Stuttgart, Onge, Loschbour LaBrana.

WGSD with Bonzo and swapping Dai for Onge:
Dai, Loschbour LaBrana, Karitiana, Stuttgart.


Shall we overinterpret?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Tukuler
Everything else seems to be mostly unaffected in the human origins dataset, so I thought

rooting the tree with chimp did it.

This is one of those times where having capable in-house TREEMIX hobbyists to redo the analysis would be helpful.

@Tyrannohotep
Notice also the TREEMIX residuals There is always some extra Mbuti affinity to the farmers that is not shown in the TREEMIX trees. WHG also has extra affinities to Africans as I already suggested earlier in this thread (see TREEMIX residuals for that, too).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Thx EM
Went there. Used the search. Couldn't find Serehule?

---

Doesn't really matter. Came to see that Fula2
also strongly resemble Serere and Wolof, whom
at first I didn't hastily see in your graph.

A few aDNA pops wouldn't fit neatly in the
main redux colulmn. I'm satisfied with this
for now.

One way to crack this nut:
1 Pick a color.
2 Note it's majority or plurality 'population'.
3 Follow the color through the populations.
4 prepare for surprises




I don't know why postimg.cc blurred the image
making it useless in zoom, Photos, or Paint.
Dammit! Maybe next build.

Any possibility of K=20 in small hi def chunks
I can work with and reassemble in redux order? I
mean me and you can fox with what's there but
it's too much work for anybody else in breaking
down the overview for pop names and colors
narrower than 5%.

Also any suggested 'materials & methods for a caption text?
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
The picture was probably too big. You'll have to probably post smaller parts.

quote:

---

They tried to isolate few SNPs found is Yorubans to make their point. Then used YRI to represent ALL SSA.

---

YRI weren't the only ones used. You've been asked before: What SSA population did they neglect to use that they should have?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
?? You do realize this is above your pay grade? It is not about what populations they used but what SNPs they chose to use.

This discussion don't come with crayola


 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
We are back to the Hadza/Sandawe Tanzania Malawi origin of the Ancient Egyptian.

But based upon the SNP chosen(supervised), the Bedouins are the best Representation of the Abusirs(Africans in the near East). So when they say "Near East" they are talking geography not people. Understand the gamesmanship.

They are not talking Syrians and Palestinians etc.

We know the Bedouins are remnants of an African population in the Levant
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
For some reason I thought unsupervised
meant no user chosen root bit I guess
not. So Mbuti is the HOD root, Chimp
the WGSD root.

And here I been thinking that acute
angle was the root; Homo ancestor in
HOD, Hominini ancestor in WGSD.


I think with both a spirit of tolerance
and a strict no unproven nonsense and an
enforced no sympathy non-trolling policy
when it comes to science related threads
this particular ES forum might attract
new knowledgeable layman with tools.

Residuals are as important as the trees
and arrows because they "identify aspects
of ancestry not captured by the tree".
But knowing what the colors show is not
intuitive. The black and blue do mean a
definite admixture, right? White is no
admixture at all and red is ??? Nixing
Cheeta that is.


Residuals on HOD show sharing between Mbuti
with Iceman Stuttgart, Onge, Loschbour LaBrana.

WGSD with Bonzo and swapping Dai for Onge:
Dai, Loschbour LaBrana, Karitiana, Stuttgart.


Shall we overinterpret?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Tukuler
Everything else seems to be mostly unaffected in the human origins dataset, so I thought

rooting the tree with chimp did it.

This is one of those times where having capable in-house TREEMIX hobbyists to redo the analysis would be helpful.

@Tyrannohotep
Notice also the TREEMIX residuals There is always some extra Mbuti affinity to the farmers that is not shown in the TREEMIX trees. WHG also has extra affinities to Africans as I already suggested earlier in this thread (see TREEMIX residuals for that, too).

---

---

Or maybe some of the existing members can try their hand at it. Some members may wonder how they can contribute to bio-anthro conversations but don't know how. Some are just not well-read enough to feel comfortable making more contributions in genetics conversations. Running tests is good way to compensate. It's fairly routine. Once you understand it, you can keep doing it. I would do it myself, but I'm already more committed to bio-anthro than I want to. Plus, I've been able to get by all this time without learning the tools so I'm not interested enough to make the investment.

I hope new generation(s) of ES members will mature to at least some bio-anthro specializations and niches. Attracting people who already know how to do it is great but if you attract people from the blogs, they won't necessarily be sympathetic to African OOA migrations and things we already take for granted.

Good observations on the TREEMIX residuals. In a lot of cases TREEMIX is more reliable and better than f3 and f4. Excess derived allele sharing in f3 or f4 is not very informative. TREEMIX tells you where it comes from and it has ways of letting you know when all the samples have African admixture, as opposed to just the sample under consideration. For instance, excess allele sharing of Africans with population A does not mean population B is not also admixed with Africans. Population B may even have more African ancestry than population A, even though f4 or f3 may point to population A being closer to Africans. The Mbuti affinities with WHG in TREEMIX shows how TREEMIX can do more than just mechanically poop out the answer that farmers are closer to Africans than to WHG. TREEMIX shows scenarios are thinkable in which WHG may be closer to some Africans than farmers are.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
And just think if someone with the
resource to download the tools and
access databases inserted Mende and
or Mbo, even Biaka is a better choice
if a Shorty must be used.

Reduced to Mbuti and weighted by infusion
sorry, no graphic designer skills or tools


Residuals on HOD show sharing between Mbuti
with Iceman Stuttgart, Onge, Loschbour LaBrana.

WGSD with Bonzo and swapping Dai for Onge:
Dai, Loschbour LaBrana, Karitiana, Stuttgart.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Everything else seems to be mostly unaffected in the human origins dataset, so I thought

rooting the tree with chimp did it.

This is one of those times where having capable in-house TREEMIX hobbyists to redo the analysis would be helpful.

Or maybe some of the

existing members can try their hand at it. Some members may wonder how
they can contribute to bio-anthro conversations but don't know how. Some
are just not well-read enough to feel comfortable making more contributions
in genetics conversations.

Running tests is good way to compensate. It's fairly routine. Once you understand it, you can keep doing it. I would do it myself, but I'm already more committed to bio-anthro than I want to. Plus, I've been able to get by all this time without learning the tools so

I'm not interested enough to make the investment.

I hope new generation(s) of ES members will mature to at least some bio-anthro specializations and niches. Attracting people who already know how to do it is great but if you attract people from the blogs, they won't necessarily be sympathetic to African OOA migrations and

things we already take for granted. [not sure anymore]

Good observations on the TREEMIX residuals. In a lot of cases TREEMIX is more reliable and better than f3 and f4. Excess derived allele sharing in f3 or f4 is not very informative. TREEMIX tells you where it comes from and it has ways of letting you know when all the samples have African admixture, as opposed to just the sample under consideration. For instance,

excess allele sharing of Africans with population A does not mean population B
is not also admixed with Africans. Population B may even have more African ancestry
than population A, even though f4 or f3 may point to population A being closer to
Africans.

The Mbuti affinities with WHG in TREEMIX shows how TREEMIX can do more than just
mechanically poop out the answer that farmers are closer to Africans than to WHG.

TREEMIX shows scenarios are thinkable in which
WHG may be closer to some Africans than farmers are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
?? You do realize this is above your pay grade? It is not about what populations they used but what SNPs they chose to use.

This discussion don't come with crayola

---

LMAO you are talking about "crayola" while showboating on that sh!tty MSPaint job? Thank you for the laugh, I needed that today.

In the OP I make clear my inexperience and I don't think those of us who're less experienced should feel bad about posting these threads or expressing a need for you to expand on a point in the hope it'll make sense to us at some point. The picture you post is still somewhat confusing. Ethiopian Jews have the brown component, yes. But the point of the study was that when looking at all the components together they resemble Arabs. Look, everybody's got things they're still learning to do. If you can't learn to photoshop when little kids not a fifth your age are doing it all over social media, please don't act like you're in any position to look down on other people at ES over perceptions of experience.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Oshun, xyyman's crayola inspired red lines are better than what he used to do, which was to use crisp ovals and graphic lines, sometimes people can get confused by these things and not know if they are part of the original chart or not

He knows how to make neat graphics
> but it is better not to have those skills used on these charts so other people viewing these things know
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Talk about off-topic and provocation?

It's good to be the queen!

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Oshun, xyyman's crayola inspired red lines are better than what he used to do, which was to use crisp ovals and graphic lines, sometimes people can get confused by these things and not know if they are part of the original chart or not

He knows how to make neat graphics
> but it is better not to have those skills used on these charts so other people viewing these things know

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
SUPERVISED simply means that the researchers chose(not the computer) the specific SNPs to do the comparison between populations. In other words it is NOT random. They may be as little as 100 SNPs or as much as several million.

That is why in some studies you will see MButi carrying "Eurasian" ancestry while in other studies they do NOT. It depends on what SNPs are chosen for the analysis. ie Supervised or unsupervised.

That is why you need to read the methodology section to understand WHAT they are doing. You cannot just read the results and infer.


eg in the Abusir papers if I understand the methodology section correctly they used a few SNPs on one chromosome, #19, which is highly unusual. Novice reader did not get that! That is why the Abusir paper is "fake". They tried to isolate few SNPs found is Yorubans to make their point. Then used YRI to represent ALL SSA.

Undersand the game ...and methodology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[Q] @Tukuler You can use the pdf for a higher resolution, however the image is huge. If you want me to replot the graph you'll have to wait as that gets added to the to do list.. I still haven't gotten around to processing the Taforalt genomes... as you can see, I've been posting raw data as of late, due to time constraints.

In regards to materials, I scraped together populations from various projects, Laz, AGVP, skoglund... For methods, I removed relatives from each dataset, thinned/prunned the dataset to avoid LD bias, and ran this dataset through ADMIXTURE. This dataset is meant to highlight African variation specifically in the presence of unique ancient genomes. So for the most part looking at this will let us know with a higher level of confidence which African populations truly have Eurasian Admixture and to what extent. The draw back is Eurasian diversity as E.Eurasians-HGs and West Eurasians remain joined together due to how relatively homogenous OOAs are.***This is unsupervised btw.***

Best statistical run is at K7, there's an unusual dip in CV for K10 when pemba and Mota get their own components, which makes sense. K9 & K13 is where the elusive North east african component arrives. [/Q]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Oshun, xyyman's crayola inspired red lines are better than what he used to do, which was to use crisp ovals and graphic lines, sometimes people can get confused by these things and not know if they are part of the original chart or not

---

Something like this:



Is not hard to understand. Which basically means even if he does know how to technically use photoshop to some degree, he still doesn't understand the principles of graphic design very well to use it. Shit the markups on the Irish study in the OP looked better. I grasp other people here may also use MSPaint but they don't make every other post about how experienced they are and how everyone wants to be them while they spend endldess threads talking to themselves. He is in no position to complain about experience. Everyone has things they need to learn. And if he doesn't like this thread he can go back to humming and mumbling to himself again in his own thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Now back at Beyoku. No disrespect but sometimes you come across dumber than bricks…like your buddy Oshun.

---

quote:

---

Why is it always a pissing contest with you. pleaseignorethatInecromancethreadstobeatmychest #pissgameonLOCK!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:


Are Europeans 80% Tanzanian Hadza/Sandawe? This can be a bitch!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

@Oshun
I believe Lioness' point is that it's hard to distinguish whether or not the mark up is authentic when done so "professionally." To her point, the example you give is actually marked up in the source iirc. So in order to not look like he's posting "doctored" charts etc. he's better off working sloppily.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:


?? are you BSing me ElMaestro? razzle dazzle? WTF is weighed LD tests?

---

It's not necessary to be that defensive. Relax it's not that serious, everyone has stuff they don't know.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
You can use the pdf for a higher resolution, however the image is huge.

---

quote:

---

If you want me to replot the graph

---

quote:

---

In regards to materials,
I scraped together populations from various projects, Laz, AGVP, skoglund...

For methods, I
• removed relatives from each dataset,
• thinned/prunned the dataset to avoid LD bias, and
• ran this dataset through ADMIXTURE.

This dataset is meant to highlight
African Variation specifically
in the presence of unique ancient genomes

So for the most part looking at this will let us know with a higher level of confidence which African populations truly have Eurasian Admixture and to what extent.

---

quote:

---

This is unsupervised btw.
Best statistical run is at K7,

---

quote:

---

there's an unusual dip in CV for K10 when pemba and Mota get their own components, which makes sense. K9 & K13 is where the elusive North east african component arrives.

---

Pemba700 I presume?

Incredible multi component Malawi 6000BP with
3500 year apparent continuity. Where's it in
other studies since first published? Seems a
prime, must use population just like you see.
Is it because of it's pluralities?

Maximized those pluralities are
• S Afr 2000BP
• Ju/'Hoansi
• Nuba
• its own
• Mota
• Herero
at the K=13 level. Six way substructure in
~4000 BCE Fingara Malawi. Southeast Africa
foundational homeland of southern to NE Afr
peoples? Random Gathering of the Tribes from
Parts Unknown? Some combination of the two?
Something else? ???


When I redux your PDF I'm a open a thread
for comment on your work. Don't our own
members deserve what we give the pros?

Meanwhile I'd still like to read what all y'all out there thinking.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Several years ago the Lioness was gaffing at my comment on Henn proclamation that the LWK (Kenyans)were ancestral to Maghrebians/Europeans . Now we have narrowed it down further. Not the LWK but Tanzanians Hadza and Sandawe are really the Ancestral group to “Eurasians”. Who would have thought? Sandawe and Hadza carry more European ancestry than African-Americans





 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Hedging? Mr passive agressive?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[Q] Well, you don't understand **correctly**,
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:


Are Europeans 80% Tanzanian Hadza/Sandawe? This can be a bitch!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Several years ago the Lioness was gaffing at my comment on Henn proclamation that the LWK (Kenyans)were ancestral to Maghrebians/Europeans . Now we have narrowed it down further. Not the LWK but Tanzanians Hadza and Sandawe are really the Ancestral group to “Eurasians”. Who would have thought? Sandawe and Hadza carry more European ancestry than African-Americans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:


Are Europeans 80% Tanzanian Hadza/Sandawe? This can be a bitch!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Several years ago the Lioness was gaffing at my comment on Henn proclamation that the LWK (Kenyans)were ancestral to Maghrebians/Europeans . Now we have narrowed it down further. Not the LWK but Tanzanians Hadza and Sandawe are really the Ancestral group to “Eurasians”. Who would have thought? Sandawe and Hadza carry more European ancestry than African-Americans

---

Some have suggested Tanzanians are ancestral to the Nubians and ancient Egyptians. So does this mean Southern Europeans are closer to AE than West Africans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

before BE hit Southern Europe from Tanzania via the Nile and Green Sahara it had to have existed in the Sahara maybe for thousands of years before entering S. Europe/Near East , ala Taforalt/Natufians. As the aDNA has shown. So that is why Europeans have absolute no close genetic affinity to AEians compared to West Africans and Great Lakes and Southern Africans.

---

Why would something existing in the Sahara for thousands of years not have any commonality with the Ancient Egyptians?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
@Lioness..

“All humans are related” and have commonality. Native Americans “genes” were found in the Amarnas……….DNAConsultants.

The utility of short tandem repeat loci beyond human identification: Implications for development of new DNA typing systems(1999)

Notice THO1 repeats are very similar in Africans(AFRAMS) and Native American. That does not mean the Amarnas are Native American




Quote by DNAConsultants
“Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans”.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
That is why we need the STR of the Abusirs. The Gov't don't use SNPs frequency or even ADMIXTURE. If they want to know if the criminal is an European they use pop STR. No other way around that!!


So Elmaestro and others. You get my point? You cannot “prune” out LD related genes. That is like removing STR which are essentially LD. They are transmitted as blocks of genes. That is why Berbers are Negros as I have said many times. Forget the visuals their genes tell the story. When someone has figured out how to pull the STR from the BAM files from the Abusir it will come back 100% AFRICAN just as the Amarnas.

In fact I will go out on a limb to proclaim the STR profile of La Brana and the STR profile of Toforalt North Africans will be very similar….why. It takes may be thousands of years for the STR profile of a population to be established. That is why DNATribes has the Amarnas being more Great Lakes Africans than West African. Like Europeans, West Africans had left the Nile Valley….albeit more recent than Europeans.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
To those who don’t get it…..the Neolithics/EEF/Natufians originated somewhere close to Malawi/Tanzania in SSA about 10-15000 years ago. From there they traveled the super highway(down River of the Nile) and fanned out throughout the Sahara. They encountered more ancient humans. Iwo Eleru, La Brana related peoples etc. From the Sahara they entered southern Europe like Sardinia/EEF, Italy and Iberia….and the Levant and Near East. They also entered West Africa and maybe spread south into Southern Africa.

They split into Western Farmers(west Europe) and Eastern Farmers(Levant and Asia)….ie Natufians(East of the Nile) and EEF(west). That is why West Europeans are NOT related to Natufians irregardless to the bloggers. The researchers said so. Read the study! But BOTH Natufian and EEF genes are found in Tanzania. Not only the genes tell the story both the skulls. Sergi, Coon etc. Also read the thread by Sage. Black skin White Skull. This was common knowledge back in the 1800’s
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
How in the world are the Abusir going to be 100% African?! What, do you think they were as pure as the Dinka?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
^ Another dumb ass who don't have a clue. What you need to do is point out where they are NOT 100% pure African. Show me the data. No parroting now!!!


anyways...

Here is what the FBI has to say. ….


Quote:
“5 SNP versus STR
As mentioned in Section I, technological advances made in the context of the Human Genome Project mainly dictated
the shift of DNA technologies that are being implemented in DNA forensics. The recent findings of the
abundance of SNPs and the ease of automation and miniaturization of detection techniques (see [8, 36]) are
already prompting introduction of microchip-based SNP assays for DNA forensic analyses

and asked how many such loci would yield the combined power of the random match probability offered by the 13
STR loci. Instead of using the exact values of the estimated random match probabilities for each of the seven
world populations, we determined the number of SNP loci needed to reach random match probabilities of the range
from 1 in a billion to 1 in 1000 trillion (the range of values observed in Table 3 for the 13 STR loci).

Hence, more careful validation studies of SNP loci would be needed before implementing
them for forensic and paternity analysis. In addition, the efficiency of SNP loci for interpreting DNA
mixture evidence is far **more reduced,** necessitating a far greater number of them to equal he potential of the present
set of 13 STR loci.A detailed account of this will be discussed elsewhere.”
______________________________

Relax, you barely understand what you're talking about yourself.
Removed (1) and will continue to delete flamebait posts //MOD

[ 05. June 2018, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Elmaestro ]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
You're clearly the most brilliant man in here, and everyone pales in comparison. Demonstrate (via data) how Northeast Africans are now 100% African despite some populations being 40% Eurasian.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
You're clearly the most brilliant man in here, and everyone pales in comparison. Demonstrate (via data) how Northeast Africans are now 100% African despite some populations being 40% Eurasian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
All genes have an African origin. Even the labeled "Eurasian"

---

quote:

---

The emergence of the use of the becs of Tamar Hat is synchronous with the end of the Upper Paleolithic, prior to the expansion of bec use in the Upper Magdalenian of Europe, where technical and stylistic convergences were observed. This raises the question of the emergence of these lithic implements in North Africa and the possible spread of similar industries elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Tukuler
Good job adding info to Lazaridis' TREEMIX analysis.

For those who may be wondering if WHG affinity with Africans is just because WHG absorbed farmer ancestry, this is not true. Or at least, it's not completely true. WHG have African ancestry that's much older than the arrival of farmers 7ky ago. We need to go back to postglacial times to explain some of the African ancestry in WHG.

quote:

---

The emergence of the use of the becs of Tamar Hat is synchronous with the end of the Upper Paleolithic, prior to the expansion of bec use in the Upper Magdalenian of Europe, where technical and stylistic convergences were observed. This raises the question of the emergence of these lithic implements in North Africa and the possible spread of similar industries elsewhere.

---

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10437-017-9274-y

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Your point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Your point? [/qb]

---

are you saying an African affinity is found in those groups?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Your point?

---

are you saying an African affinity is found in those groups? ]

---

Of course I'm saying that. My positions are very clear. Your positions are always unstated and implicit. Yeah you've posted WHG hgs, but what is your position?

Are you saying there is no African ancestry in WHG? State your position clearly, in a way that can be falsified. That means no hiding behind hgs, or quotes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
WHG includes La Braña.

U5b2c1 mother
C-V20 father

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
WHG haplogroups are represented by the Loschbour remains
Y-DNA haplogroup I2a1b and
mtDNA haplogroup U5b1a.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Of course I'm saying that. My positions are very clear. Your positions are always unstated and implicit. Yeah you've posted WHG hgs, but what is your position?

Are you saying there is no African ancestry in WHG? State your position clearly, in a way that can be falsified. That means no hiding behind hgs, or quotes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
As expected. Only in it to troll and antagonize people while refusing to make clear what her point is.

---

quote:

---

The ~14,000 year old Upper Paleolithic
hunter-gatherer from Switzerland 12 can also be modeled as WHG+Mota, but has no significant
evidence of Basal Eurasian ancestry (α=-0.9±5.1%), consistent with its close relationship to WHG 12
(Fig. 1b).

---

quote:

---

My point is that I don't have an alternative position about those haplogroups. Current research classifies them as of Eurasian origin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB] Well, if you have no underlying bias/alternative position, I can just post the "current research" below, and it will be settled:

quote:

---

The ~14,000 year old Upper Paleolithic
hunter-gatherer from Switzerland 12 can also be modeled as WHG+Mota, but has no significant
evidence of Basal Eurasian ancestry (α=-0.9±5.1%), consistent with its close relationship to WHG 12
(Fig. 1b).

---

Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19310

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Interetsing, if they are saying Villabruna could be modeled as WHG + Mota that suggests WHG is non-African but Villabruna has plus Mota Ethiopian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Interetsing, if they are saying Villabruna could be modeled as WHG + Mota that suggests WHG is non-African but Villabruna has plus Mota Ethiopian.

---

So you finally slipped up and revealed the underlying bias that is causing you to cape for WHG purity. Your position is that all samples of the WHG ancestry type are non-African, and Villabruna is an exception.

What is your evidence for this claim?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I asked you about WHG not WHG + Mota.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

WHG have African ancestry

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
There is no WHG sample.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

WHG have African ancestry

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
There is no WHG sample.

---

---

 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
WHG includes La Braña.

U5b2c1 mother
C-V20 father

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I asked you about WHG not WHG + Mota.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Pitting me against Tukuler isn't going to work.

You said you didn't ask me about WHG+Mota samples, but only about WHG-only samples. What is an example of a WHG-only sample? As I already said above, WHG-only samples don't exist. But you seem to know of them, so let's see some examples.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I asked you about WHG not WHG + Mota.

---

---

You're the one that said "WHG have African ancestry"

So I'm asking you why and also how it relates to the haplogroups

I quoted Tukular because he had listed the La Brana DNA and you also talked about it
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Whole genome vs one ing SNP?

I posted La Brana to correct the
deliberate lie WHG is Loschbour.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
WHG includes La Braña.

U5b2c1 mother
C-V20 father

---

do one or both of these haplogroups have a deep African origin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I quoted Tukular because

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
WHG includes La Braña.

U5b2c1 mother
C-V20 father

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Pitting me against Tukuler isn't going to work.

You said you didn't ask me about WHG+Mota samples, but only about WHG-only samples. What is an example of a WHG-only sample? As I already said above, WHG-only samples don't exist. But you seem to know of them, so let's see some examples.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I asked you about WHG not WHG + Mota.

---

---

You're the one that said "WHG have African ancestry"

So I'm asking you why and also how it relates to the haplogroups

I quoted Tukular because he had listed the La Brana DNA and you also talked about it

---

I'm not interested in debating someone who constantly runs and hides at every turn:



You're here to antagonize, evade questions and troll people while hiding behind quotes and information you barely understand.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
You constantly quote Lazraidis, use the lingo he uses "EEF" "BE" an "WHG" , use his data and you didn;t use these terms prior to his articles.

But you have your own definitions for everything and you make statements like "WHG have African ancestry" but refuse to explain why and how.

However you are too defensive and competitive to interact with, I'd rather talk to xyyman or Clyde if I had the choice because even if we don't agree they answer questions and freely explain
their positions

conversation with you, over, also disinterested
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
But you have your own definitions for everything and you make statements like "WHG have African ancestry" but refuse to explain why and how.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Lazaridis' so called "non-African" is an African component. All of it is African, including Basal Eurasian and other offshoots of this ancestry that have yet to surface in African aDNA. The only thing Eurasian about Lazaridis' "non-African" is whatever left Africa in the form of eastern non-African, WHG, etc. But the latter are a relatively late (younger than 55ky old) subset of a component that existed in Africa in some form 120ky ago. That is my take.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Whole genome vs one ing SNP?

I posted La Brana to correct the
deliberate lie WHG is Loschbour.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
WHG haplogroups ARE represented by the Loschbour remains
Y-DNA haplogroup I2a1b and
mtDNA haplogroup U5b1a.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
WHG INCLUDES La Braña.

U5b2c1 mother
C-V20 father

---

do one or both of these haplogroups have a deep African origin?

---

---

Don't need no 'deep African origin'
mtDNA or MSY. More than 500,000 SNPs
show the African in both Loschbour
and La Braña, Laz's two WHG reps.

Until falsified (not fake news-ified)
Thass awl volks!



WHG is La Braña & Loschbour, blue in the lozenges.
Above the lozenges are the residuals for Mbuti.
Black and dark blue squares indicate sharing
with Mbuti, green squares to lesser extents.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
WHG includes La Braña.

U5b2c1 mother
C-V20 father

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:


I posted La Brana to correct the
deliberate lie WHG is Loschbour.

---

• Uniparental/mtDNA:
  
  

  quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Swenet:
  
  
  Source
  
  http://www.bris.ac.uk/archanth/staff/zilhao/dna2005.pdf
  
  Notice that the L candidates are misattributed as N*, when they should be categorized as L3(xR).

  ---

• Uniparental/Y DNA:
  

  quote:

  ---

  "The prescence in Portugal of both the A
  and E1 haplogroups may be independent from the
  slave trade (otherwise E3a would be well
  represented since it comprises the majority of
  West African lineages). These findings either
  suggest a pre-neolithic migration from North
  Africa or a more recent origin from a founder
  population of small size that did not carry
  haplogroup E3a, which is a major component in
  North African populations today. TMRCA for
  Portuguese E1 lineages estimated as 22.9 +/- 7.2
  ky favors the first scenario"

  ---

  --Goncalves et al. 2005[/QUOTE]
  
  Topic: E-M33
  http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008665

• ADMIXTURE
  

  quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
  And from the supps, admixture proportions for the ancient individuals analyzed.
  
  I'm a bit surprised to see that Cheddar Man (third man down from the top) already has a little snippet of Anatolian Neolithic-like ancestry. Either there was already some admixture from the Anatolian Neolithic trickling north into Cheddar's territory, or it's actually something else and the algorithm misidentified it (there are only two options presented, Anatolian Neolithic and WHG).

  ---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
El Pirulejo, Córdoba (Spain)

2PI (Sample name: 2PI): Haplogroup H: 12500-13500 A.P.


Nerja, Málaga (Spain)

NE-NM82.2 (Sample Name: 2NE): Haplogroup J*: 17000-20000

NE-NAP (Sample Name: 4NE): Haplogroup L1b: 2,260 BC

NE-1829 (Sample Name: 5NE): Haplogroup L1b: 5.875±80 A.P.


Tres Montes, Navarra (Spain)

TM-3 (sample name: 1TM2): Haplogroup L2: 4130 A.P

TM-6 (Sample name: 1TM4): Haplogroup L2: 4130 A.P

TM-6 (Sample name: 2TM4): Haplogroup H/K: 4130 A.P

TM-8 (Sample name: 1TM5) Haplogroup J* : 4130 A.P

TM-11 (Sample name: 1TM6) Haplogroup L2: 4130 A.P

TM-18 (Sample name: 1TM11) Haplogroup L2: 4130 A.P


Toledo, Portugal

K-13 (Sample Name: TO1): Haplogroup L3a: 9200-7800 A.P.


Abauntz, Navarra (Spain)

ABb1.1 (Sample Name: AB5): Haplogroup H: 4240 A.P

AB17C (Sample Name: AB14): Haplogroup L2: 4240 A.P

AB23C (Sample Name: AB9): Haplogroup J*: 4240 A.P

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Who's pretending they don't get that 500,000 SNPs
relate Mbuti-like to La Braña WHG? How many sex
chromosome SNPs involved? And that's supposed
to trump HOD & WGSD results? Fake news.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Whole genome vs one ing SNP?

I posted La Brana to correct the
deliberate lie WHG is Loschbour.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
WHG haplogroups ARE represented by the Loschbour remains
Y-DNA haplogroup I2a1b and
mtDNA haplogroup U5b1a.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
WHG INCLUDES La Braña.

U5b2c1 mother
C-V20 father

---

do one or both of these haplogroups have a deep African origin?

---

---

Don't need no 'deep African origin'
mtDNA or MSY. More than 500,000 SNPs
show the African in both Loschbour
and La Braña, Laz's two WHG reps.

Until falsified (not fake news-ified)
Thass awl volks!



WHG is La Braña & Loschbour, blue in the lozenges.
Above the lozenges are the residuals for Mbuti.
Black and dark blue squares indicate sharing
with Mbuti, green squares to lesser extents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
No shot across your bow to/from
Swenet. Proper flags a flying a ready.
La Braña 1 has no indigene African
uniparental DNA. But you showed us
his contemporaries mommies did, and
@ 20% to boot. 15 kegs of Pusser's
"gunpowder proof" loaded board your
cargo hold.

---

quote:

---

UPDATE: Due to the small number of SNPs, I pooled the two Mesolithic individuals into a single composite one; the K7b admixture proportions are: 9.3% African and 90.7% Atlantic_Baltic, which appears consistent with the position of the individuals in the European PCA plot. The sub-1,000 SNPs in common with the K7b do not give me a lot of confidence in the minority element, but, in any case, the high Atlantic_Baltic figure is what I would expect and appears consistent with the similarly high Atlantic_Baltic figure of the Swedish Neolithic hunter-gatherers.


UPDATE II: Using the K12b, the results are: 45% Atlantic_Med, 41.6% North_European, 10.3% East_African, 1% Sub_Saharan.


UPDATE III: In terms of the euro7 calculator, the results are: 89.6% Northwestern, 1.6% Southeastern, and 8.7% Far_Asian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
I think you all are overestimating the intelligence of Lioness. It’s obvious she doesn’t understand the sometimes dissociative properties of Uniparental and autosomal DNA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
back on topic


Evaluating Nubian Population Structure from Cranial Nonmetric Traits: Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, and Population History of the Nubian Nile Valle-Godde2018
Abstract
Paleolithic archaeological and skeletal remains from the Nile Valley have yielded a complex picture of life along the river. Sociocultural and sociopolitical events during this timeframe shaped population structure, while gene flow and genetic drift further developed it. In this paper, we take a population genetics approach to modeling Nubian biological relationships in an effort to describe how an accumulation of events formed Nubian population structure. A variety of Nubian samples were utilized, spanning the Mesolithic-Christian time periods, and geographically, from just above the first through the third cataracts. Population genetics statistics were employed to estimate and depict biological affinities (Mahalanobis D2 with a tetrachoric matrix, principal coordinates analysis, Fst, and Relethford Blangero residuals) and supplemented by spatial-temporal modeling (Mantel tests and PROTESTs). Variation is high amongst these groups, indicating an intricate pattern of relationships in their population history where similar levels of gene flow probably stemmed from extensive cultural contact with Egypt and other populations in a variety of contexts. Genetic drift is also apparent in some of these sites, which is consistent with social and political histories of these groups. Traditional modeling of spatial-temporal patterning was not successful, which may be attributed to the non-linear, loose clustering of Nubian groups by site. Collectively, the archaeological, biological, and environmental evidence support the ideas of multiple populations living in Lower Nubia during the Paleolithic, and/or a new population entering the area and shaping Nubian population structure.

---