posted
Another infantile question ..or it provs you ignorance. Your question makes no sense. You are definitely driving up traffic with your silly questions.
Hint: Look at the UV Map......
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Remember STR proves Berbers are indigenous Africans.
Selective SNPs is the lastest tool used to carve out North Africa from Africa.
so were the first white people Atlas Berbers? [/QB]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Why are twisting my words. I am not annoyed just amused.
I said LIGHT skin is indigenous to parts of Africa.
I didn't twist your word I asked in question form "were the first white people Atlas Berbers? " I think it's an interesting concept. I don't care what the politics are
Also why is light skin indigenous to those parts and how does it relate to the Egyptians?
posted
Tsk! Tsk! Getting late and getting bored. YAAAAAWNNNN
"unless you are scared"
Last point...Ancient Egyptians are NOT Scandanavians. Why? do the research.
NFL replay time. Colts are over-rated. One and done.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember the STRs used are standards. It includes the 13 used by CODIS and other groups. Why is it used? Simple, it gives the authorities an idea of the " race" of the victim or perp. Notice the "output" is - black, afram, caucasian, etc.
On the other hand SNPs are used mostly in relation studies eg paternity suites.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: 1) Nigerian and Kenyan populations are not the same than black African in North Africa. They have different SNP DNA values. They are more likely to have interacted other people in North Africa since they are geographically closer and are more likely to share DNA with them (among other thing).
2)Even if SNPs are *single* nucleotide polymorphism they still have different alleles values that's why we're making the study. The values correspond to the different nucleotides it could have (A, T, C or G). Obviously, there must be at least 2 different alleles values in a population to be considered an SNP.
At a single site on the DNA strand people (a population) can have many different allele values depending on their ancestry (or mutation). In fact each person can even have 2 values at the same site (one in each chromosome passed from the mother and the father).
This is from Wiki: For example, two sequenced DNA fragments from different individuals, AAGCCTA to AAGCTTA, contain a difference in a single nucleotide. In this case we say that there are two alleles.
That's pretty basic, it's funny you don't understand that. You're the one making a fool out of yourself you will pardon me to say.
3) If you don't consider Ks "postulated ancestral populations" then I want to know what do you consider the Ks are? [/qb]
1) Either you're too dumb to realize that Bulala, Hausa and Fulani histories are historically culturally and genetically intertwined with Saharan populations, or you're just trying to save face. Neither of these populations originate at the latitude of Nigeria, and are, in fact, the very populations you falsely claim are undersampled in Henn et al 2012. The supposed drawbacks you attribute to Henn et all 2012 are figments of your own imagination.
2) Nucleotides aren't values and have nothing to do with values. You're just a troll on repeat, who just now realizes that SNPs aren't STRs, after I corrected you. Nucleotides aren't groups of nucleotides, but rather, the constituents of STRs, and, as such, they, nor SNPs, can be assigned amounts/values. The longer you keep on dragging this retarded argument on, the more you're exposing your ignorance for everyone to see.
3) Ks are merely brackets to which distinct pieces of ancestry can be assigned membership, on the basis of affinity. The more brackets scientists introduce to their analysis, the more room there will be for discrimination (hence, why more colors appear). This has nothing to do with populations, whatsoever. However, ancestral populations can be inferred from Ks, but Ks are not ancestral populations in and of themselves. That's just retarded.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
After re-reading this paper I have to admit this is much to do about nothing. It is all extreme speculation. Almost laughable. In fact the title is mis-leading and written out of context of what is documented in the paper. I guess it was titled like most things these days with the intent to create controversy and draw attention. The conclusion section says it all. The authors don’t really believe this back-migration nonsense. See highlighted sections.
Note their non-African reference population- Basque and Qatari.
I needed to read this several times to get it. Some of you may understand. But let me break it down.
Please read and understand before replying. Sage, Swenet..maybe Lioness..others give me some feedback.
Key things that jump out at you.
1. Tunisian Berbers are 100% pure indigenous. Minor “recent” near east input in other groups. 2. They used an “outlier” reference populations. Basque that are known to have Berber admixture. And Qatari which is on the other side of the Arabian peninsular. 3. The admit the result is inconclusive. They recommend that ….STR!!!…studies be performed to confirm their speculation. STRs were posted by me already. 4. They are suggesting that the Qatari came from a similar but DIFFERENT source population. 5. They are suggesting that the Berber ancestral population left Africa spent ~1Kyrs in Arabia returned to Africa for another 38-40,000yrs!!! That is like someone spending first 25yrs of their life in one city, left and spent 1 yr in the neighboring city, then returned to their home town and spent another 40yrs. Does that make them non-African? 6. They confirmed there were NO migration from the Middle-East since then ie that initial OOA, short stay and back. 7. They confirmed a decreasing West to East gradient of genetic material. Nothing new here. 8. They confirmed the initial ancestral source MAY be along the Nile. No Shyte!! Can anyone say E1b1b or Sergi. 9. They admit other Africans were in the North Africa since 65,000ya. As posted by Troll Patrol, Hublin et al. Yet they BS!! LOL!
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations Brenna M. Henn1
Prior genetic studies, largely from uniparentally inherited markers(ie Haplogroups), have not resolved the location origin of North African populations or the timing of human dispersal(s) into North Africa. Analyses based on the frequencies of a small number of autosomal genetic polymorphisms(ie SNPs) and uniparental markers(ie Haplogroups) have shown that the genetic landscape follow an east-west pattern with little to no difference between Berber- and Arab-speaking populations [6,7].
Initial autosomal SNP analysis of the Algerian Mozabites indicated they carry ancestry from Europe, the Near East and sub-Saharan Africa; neighbor-joining phylogenetic analysis suggested that Mozabites branch off with Out-of-African populations, but are an outgroup to all Near Eastern populations in the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP-CEPH) [17]. In short, the origins of North African populations and the number of subsequent migrations from neighboring regions have been poorly resolved.
there is a cline of putative autochthonous North African ancestry decreasing in frequency from Western Sahara eastward to Egypt. We refer to this North African ancestral component as the ‘‘Maghrebi’’ throughout the remainder of the paper, reflecting the primary geographic distribution of this ancestry in the Maghreb: West Sahara, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. The west-to-east decline in Maghrebi assignment is only interrupted by the Tunisian Berbers, who are assigned nearly 100% Maghrebi ancestry. The Tunisian Berbers further separate as a distinct population cluster at k=8. An opposite cline of ancestry appears to originate in the Near East (i.e. Qatari Arabs) and decreases into Egypt and westward across North Africa (k= 6, 8). Islam!!
Discussion Out of Africa and Back Again?
By sampling multiple populations along an approximate transect across North Africa, we were able to identify gradients in ancestry along an east-west axis
We can reject a simple model of long-term continuous gene flow between the Near East and North Africa, as evidenced by clear geographic structure
After accounting for putative recent admixture (Figure 1), the indigenous Maghrebi component (k-based) is estimated to have diverged from Near Eastern/Europeans between 18–38 Kya (Figure 3), under a range of Ne and k values. We hence suggest that the ancestral Maghrebi population separated from Near Eastern/Europeans prior to the Holocene, and that the Maghrebi populations do not represent a large-scale demic diffusion of agropastoralists from the Near East. No shyte!! With model parameters for divergence approximately estimated, we then ask whether North African ancestral populations were part of the initial OOA exit and then returned to Africa [8], or if an in situ model of population persistence for the past 50 Kya is more likely (with variable episodes of migration from the Near East)? We can address this question only indirectly with contemporary samples; however, several auxiliary observations point toward the former hypothesis.
In contrast, we find it more parsimonious to describe model where: a) an OOA migration occurs [concurrent with a bottleneck]; b) OOA populations and North Africans diverge between 12–40 Kya when a migration back-to-Africa occurs. *****These models should be further tested with genomic sequence data, STRs!! which have better power to detect magnitude and timing of bottlenecks, and to estimate the true joint allele frequency spectrum. ****The less than 25% European ancestry in populations like Algerians and northern Moroccans could trace back to maritime migrations throughout the Mediterranean [34]. Alternatively, the Qatari could represent a poor proxy for an Arabic source population, causing additional diversity to be assigned European (e.g. European ancestry tracts were not reliably assigned as European with PCADMIX).
In summary, although paleoanthropological evidence has established the ancient presence of anatomically modern humans in northern Africa prior to 60,000 ya [35], the simplest interpretation!!!!!! of our results is that the majority of ancestry in modern North Africans derives from populations outside of Africa, through at least two episodes of increased gene flow during the past 40,000 years (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3).
Materials and Methods Samples and Data Generation
A total of 152 individuals representing seven different North African locations and the Basque Country were included in the present study. Informed consent was obtained from all of them. Samples were genotyped on the Affymetrix 6.0 chip, and after quality control filtering for missing loci and close relatives, 125 individuals remained: 18 from North Morocco, 16 from South Morocco, 18 from Western Sahara, 19 from Algeria, 18 from Tunisia, 17 from Libya and 19 from Egypt. Further information on the samples may be found in Table S1. Moreover, 20 individuals from the Spanish Basque country were included in the analysis. Data are publicly available at: bhusers.upf.edu/dcomas/. In order to study the population structure and the genetic influence of migrants in the region a database was built including African and European populations from HapMap3 [43], western Africa [20], and 20 Qatari from the Arabian Peninsula [44] as Near Eastern representatives.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is where the rubber meet the road. Sounds like they are grasping at straws.
Quote from their conclusion.: In contrast, we find it more parsimonious to describe model where:
a) an OOA migration occurs [concurrent with a bottleneck];
b) OOA populations and North Africans diverge between 12–40 Kya when a migration back-to-Africa occurs.
For A) in other words. – group of Africans crossed the red-sea into Arabia. Spent about 1 year, came across hard times and decides to go back INTO Africa and lived there for 40,000yrs.
B) in other words – group of Africans crossed the red-sea into Arabia. After one year they split into two groups. One group returns immediately to Africa and spend 40,000yrs; the other continued on to populate the world.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You see thats the whole idea, people running aroung using Henn et al. as proof of "eurasians" when we already know what these Back Migration populations looked like, We know what the Ancestral Eurasians looked like. These people were still Africans and carried African Genes(E). This whole neadertal crap is a grasp at straws.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Why are twisting my words. I am not annoyed just amused.
I said LIGHT skin is indigenous to parts of Africa.
I didn't twist your word I asked in question form "were the first white people Atlas Berbers? " I think it's an interesting concept. I don't care what the politics are
Also why is light skin indigenous to those parts and how does it relate to the Egyptians?
I leave it to you to answer these questions.
-unless you're scared
Great way to start off the New Year lioness. How 'bout a better question for the authors of the article.
What happened to the majority of slaves brought into Morocco which as is well known were FROM BRITAIN before the 17th century and the 100,000s of Andalusians that settled in the riff and other parts of north Africa.
Who were these "Moors" mentioned below in the mountains north of the Atlas, and where did they come from. Hint - this has already been answered for you elsewhere.
“ They [i.e. the Syrian Arabs] decided on their own initiative to hasten to the sea, crossing the territory of the Moors to attack Tangiers with the Swords. But the army of the Moors, realizing this immediately burst forth FROM THE MOUNTAINS to the battle naked girded only with loin-cloths covering their shameful parts. When they joined with each other in battle at the Nava river, the Egyptian horses immediately recoiled in flight, as the Moors on their beautiful horses revealed their repulsive colour and gnashed their white teeth. Despairing, they launched another attack, the Arab cavalry again instantly recoiled due to the colour of the Moors’skin.”
“…the Latin Chronicle of 754 is the earliest record of the Arab defeat by the Syrian commander Kulthum b. Iyad al Qushayri. “ p. 71 Ibn Garcia’s Shu’ubiyya Letter: Ethnic and Theological Tensions in Medieval by Goran Larsson 2003 published by Brill.
Why do these genetic studies never mention the Scythic (Alanic) settlement of North Africa as well. Yes, of course there was a back migration of Europeans to Africa. No need to confuse that with the early Berbers though.
“The population of Vandal North Africa was made up of Vandals, Romans and Moors..... Nevertheless the description of Vandals in the wider of two senses still included some Alans and others conscious of their own non-Vandal origins. The king's title remained 'King of the Vandals and Alans'." From the Book Regna and Gentes The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval History, by H. Goetz,: p. 68 (2003)
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: After re-reading this paper I have to admit this is much to do about nothing. It is all extreme speculation. Almost laughable. In fact the title is mis-leading and written out of context of what is documented in the paper. I guess it was titled like most things these days with the intent to create controversy and draw attention. The conclusion section says it all. The authors don’t really believe this back-migration nonsense. See highlighted sections.
Note their non-African reference population- Basque and Qatari.
I needed to read this several times to get it. Some of you may understand. But let me break it down.
Please read and understand before replying. Sage, Swenet..maybe Lioness..others give me some feedback.
Key things that jump out at you.
1. Tunisian Berbers are 100% pure indigenous. Minor “recent” near east input in other groups. 2. They used an “outlier” reference populations. Basque that are known to have Berber admixture. And Qatari which is on the other side of the Arabian peninsular. 3. The admit the result is inconclusive. They recommend that ….STR!!!…studies be performed to confirm their speculation. STRs were posted by me already. 4. They are suggesting that the Qatari came from a similar but DIFFERENT source population. 5. They are suggesting that the Berber ancestral population left Africa spent ~1Kyrs in Arabia returned to Africa for another 38-40,000yrs!!! That is like someone spending first 25yrs of their life in one city, left and spent 1 yr in the neighboring city, then returned to their home town and spent another 40yrs. Does that make them non-African? 6. They confirmed there were NO migration from the Middle-East since then ie that initial OOA, short stay and back. 7. They confirmed a decreasing West to East gradient of genetic material. Nothing new here. 8. They confirmed the initial ancestral source MAY be along the Nile. No Shyte!! Can anyone say E1b1b or Sergi. 9. They admit other Africans were in the North Africa since 65,000ya. As posted by Troll Patrol, Hublin et al. Yet they BS!! LOL!
[i] Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations Brenna M. Henn1
Laughable is an understatement. More like pitiful. Most Tunisians are pure what? Do they know what most Tunisian Berbers look like? Like night and day.
Here's one part everyone can agree with "the simplest interpretation of our results is that the majority of ancestry in modern North Africans derives from populations outside of Africa"
I don't know about the rest of that sentence though.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Why are twisting my words. I am not annoyed just amused.
I said LIGHT skin is indigenous to parts of Africa.
I didn't twist your word I asked in question form "were the first white people Atlas Berbers? " I think it's an interesting concept. I don't care what the politics are
Also why is light skin indigenous to those parts and how does it relate to the Egyptians?
I leave it to you to answer these questions.
-unless you're scared
Great way to start off the New Year lioness. How 'bout a better question for the authors of the article.
What happened to the majority of slaves brought into Morocco which as is well known were FROM BRITAIN before the 17th century and the 100,000s of Andalusians that settled in the riff and other parts of north Africa.
Who were these "Moors" mentioned below in the mountains north of the Atlas, and where did they come from. Hint - this has already been answered for you elsewhere.
“ They [i.e. the Syrian Arabs] decided on their own initiative to hasten to the sea, crossing the territory of the Moors to attack Tangiers with the Swords. But the army of the Moors, realizing this immediately burst forth FROM THE MOUNTAINS to the battle naked girded only with loin-cloths covering their shameful parts. When they joined with each other in battle at the Nava river, the Egyptian horses immediately recoiled in flight, as the Moors on their beautiful horses revealed their repulsive colour and gnashed their white teeth. Despairing, they launched another attack, the Arab cavalry again instantly recoiled due to the colour of the Moors’skin.”
“…the Latin Chronicle of 754 is the earliest record of the Arab defeat by the Syrian commander Kulthum b. Iyad al Qushayri. “ p. 71 Ibn Garcia’s Shu’ubiyya Letter: Ethnic and Theological Tensions in Medieval by Goran Larsson 2003 published by Brill.
Why do these genetic studies never mention the Scythic (Alanic) settlement of North Africa as well. Yes, of course there was a back migration of Europeans to Africa. No need to confuse that with the early Berbers though.
“The population of Vandal North Africa was made up of Vandals, Romans and Moors..... Nevertheless the description of Vandals in the wider of two senses still included some Alans and others conscious of their own non-Vandal origins. The king's title remained 'King of the Vandals and Alans'." From the Book Regna and Gentes The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval History, by H. Goetz,: p. 68 (2003)
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Sensitive detection of chromosomal segments of distinct ancestry in admixed populations.
Although care should be taken in interpreting these values, they indicate that the ancestral segments of Mozabite are significantly diverged from extant Bantu-African and European related populations. ... the Mozabite are not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry.
^Essentially the same as Henn et al 2012's solid reasoning for why the predominant Maghrebi component detected in Berber populations doesn't predate the Holocene (they have alleles that are unique to them and bespeak divergence times from Eurasians that are >10kya):
A scenario where North African Maghrebi ancestry is the result of in situ population absorbing Near Eastern migrants would likely need the following premises to explain the results here and elsewhere: a) an Out-of-Africa migration [concurrent with bottleneck] occurs 50–60 Kya, geographically dividing North African and Near Eastern populations; b) North Africans experience a separate bottleneck; c) gene flow maintains similarity between the two geographically distinct populations; d) the gene flow then ceases or slows roughly between 12–40 Kya in order to allow sufficiently distinct allele frequency distributions to form. --Henn et al 2012
^Berber populations have Eurasian ancestry that is clearly unaccounted for by the confused ''historic female slave trade'' fairytale pushers, who are motivated only by their hidden agenda to not have to admit that the Eurasian genetic component in Berbers--which is embodied by what's left over when historic Arab and historic European and slightly older West African ancestry is subtracted--can be traced back to Ibero-maurusians.
The afronut bogus ''female Eurasian slaves'' excuse, when applied to what's CLEARLY prehistoric, non-recent ancestry in Berbers, needs to be called out for the crackpot emotion-driven quackery that it is. As pointed out by Price et al 2009, Henn et al 2012, Achilli et al 2005, Kefi et al 2005, Frigi et al 2011, and many others, Berbers are NOT a blend of a Sub-Saharan component and a recent (common era), Eurasian component.
posted
^^^ i three birds killed with one stone (even though each bird sang a different tune)
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMAO, Please. Copy-N-Pasting Swenet wont do you **** against me. First off I agree with Swenet that Coastal North Africans harbored Lukoderm Populations years before the Slave trade, and to attribute Leukoderm populations simply to slavery is absurd. That said this mixture with Eurasians was not some replacement by Back Migrations as many Eurocentrics like to claim. It was a long Drawn out admiture between indiigenous Africans and Eurasians. The native people of North Africa were black. The Egyptians were black. Get over it.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: 1) Nigerian and Kenyan populations are not the same than black African in North Africa. They have different SNP DNA values. They are more likely to have interacted other people in North Africa since they are geographically closer and are more likely to share DNA with them (among other thing).
2)Even if SNPs are *single* nucleotide polymorphism they still have different alleles values that's why we're making the study. The values correspond to the different nucleotides it could have (A, T, C or G). Obviously, there must be at least 2 different alleles values in a population to be considered an SNP.
At a single site on the DNA strand people (a population) can have many different allele values depending on their ancestry (or mutation). In fact each person can even have 2 values at the same site (one in each chromosome passed from the mother and the father).
This is from Wiki: For example, two sequenced DNA fragments from different individuals, AAGCCTA to AAGCTTA, contain a difference in a single nucleotide. In this case we say that there are two alleles.
That's pretty basic, it's funny you don't understand that. You're the one making a fool out of yourself you will pardon me to say.
3) If you don't consider Ks "postulated ancestral populations" then I want to know what do you consider the Ks are?
1) Either you're too dumb to realize that Bulala, Hausa and Fulani histories are historically culturally and genetically intertwined with Saharan populations, or you're just trying to save face. Neither of these populations originate at the latitude of Nigeria, and are, in fact, the very populations you falsely claim are undersampled in Henn et al 2012. The supposed drawbacks you attribute to Henn et all 2012 are figments of your own imagination.
2) Nucleotides aren't values and have nothing to do with values. You're just a troll on repeat, who just now realizes that SNPs aren't STRs, after I corrected you. Nucleotides aren't groups of nucleotides, but rather, the constituents of STRs, and, as such, they, nor SNPs, can be assigned amounts/values. The longer you keep on dragging this retarded argument on, the more you're exposing your ignorance for everyone to see.
3) Ks are merely brackets to which distinct pieces of ancestry can be assigned membership, on the basis of affinity. The more brackets scientists introduce to their analysis, the more room there will be for discrimination (hence, why more colors appear). This has nothing to do with populations, whatsoever. However, ancestral populations can be inferred from Ks, but Ks are not ancestral populations in and of themselves. That's just retarded. [/QB]
That's the most stupid post I ever read. It's like you're not even answering my points just inventing your own points to counter mixing it with being a pompous ass. Bottom line is that population in Nigeria and Kenya are not the same as the indigenous black Africans in North Africa. Each SNP can have multiple alleles (2 minimum) hence the word polymorphism. So it can be plural as in the Wiki definition (and everywhere else). And each Ks are indeed postulated ancestral population.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
1. Tunisian Berbers are 100% pure indigenous. Minor “recent” near east input in other groups. 2. They used an “outlier” reference populations. Basque that are known to have Berber admixture. And Qatari which is on the other side of the Arabian peninsular.
According to the study the Berbers sampled are not pure indigenous. They are the products of a back-to-Africa migration movement like any other non-black people in North Africa, albeit very long ago.
quote: 3. The admit the result is inconclusive. They recommend that ….STR!!!…studies be performed to confirm their speculation. STRs were posted by me already.
Their study and interpretations are very speculative indeed.
quote: 4. They are suggesting that the Qatari came from a similar but DIFFERENT source population.
It's strange that they've chosen a population so far removed from other coastal North Africans to represent west asia/middle east. It's obvious their population have diverged a long time ago after the ooa migration movement (possibly living outside Africa, in Arabia, Levant,etc, as geographically distant populations from Qatar with limited interactions with them for a while).
quote: 5. They are suggesting that the Berber ancestral population left Africa spent ~1Kyrs in Arabia returned to Africa for another 38-40,000yrs!!! That is like someone spending first 25yrs of their life in one city, left and spent 1 yr in the neighboring city, then returned to their home town and spent another 40yrs. Does that make them non-African?
Their DNA could have diverged in Arabia and still stay there for a while, migrating just a bit further west and north of Qatar into Saudi Arabia, for example.
quote: 6. They confirmed there were NO migration from the Middle-East since then ie that initial OOA, short stay and back.
That's the contrary to what they say. As the title say they indeed support a Back-to-Africa migration from the middle east of coastal North African population taken in their samples. They propose multiple distinct phases instead of steady migration from the middle east.
quote: 8. They confirmed the initial ancestral source MAY be along the Nile. No Shyte!! Can anyone say E1b1b or Sergi.
Along the Nile? I'm curious to know where do you see that in their study.
quote: 9. They admit other Africans were in the North Africa since 65,000ya. As posted by Troll Patrol, Hublin et al. Yet they BS!! LOL!
Yes, there's a continuous occupation of black Africans in North Africa since the beginning of time. People must remember that the Sahara was green before. So there was no natural obstacles between Africa and North Africa. It's strange those populations where ignored in the study.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Here's one part everyone can agree with "the simplest interpretation of our results is that the majority of ancestry in modern North Africans derives from populations outside of Africa"
That's about it, I agree. The rest is speculative interpretation of results (still interesting).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ A Ra. I bolded the sections... for ease of reading and understanding.
eg Quote: In contrast, we find it more parsimonious to describe model where: a) an OOA migration occurs [concurrent with a bottleneck]; b) OOA populations and North Africans diverge between 12–40 Kya when a migration back-to-Africa occurs. *****These models should be further tested with genomic sequence data, (STRs!!) which have better power to detect magnitude and timing of bottlenecks
Translation: These people left Africa, stress occured, and they immediately returned to North Africa. Where they spent over 30kY. Keep in mind they are also saying there were other Africans living in N Africa 65kya prior.
Keep in mind Basque are confirmed to be admixed with Berbers. There is a reason why they did not use Scandanavians. As with most research the two bookends are Basque and Qatari.
They are also saying that the only way to be definite is through STR studies. Which is available and I posted in the other thread.
If you read carefully they are suggesting no true admixture since the initial migration. The Islamic migration reached mainly Egypt. And there is minor admixture along the coast ie maritime Medtrn activty.
Quote, do you understand this " We can reject a simple model of long-term continuous gene flow between the Near East and North Africa"
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of these Euro-nut are not worth your time arguing with: reminds me of 2 yr olds.
6 white car and one blue one in a row. And you ask the 2yo which is different. He replies “the blue one”. Which is understandable at that age.
By the time that child reaches high school you ask him the same question he will answer 3 Ford Mustangs, One is a Toyota Camry, and 3 Dodge Ram. He has outgrown color. He is now into size, shapes, make model etc. You know…. limb proportion, craniometry, linguistics etc.
Now the kid is a man. Well into college. He now knows not all Mustangs are Mustangs, some are Cobra others GTO, some has a V6 others V8. He pops the hood. ie genetics and statistics.
Now, is it worth your time arguing the difference between a Magnum V8 vs a Hemi to a 2yo. He! He! He! No, he is not sophisticated enough!!
@ Brick and @ Henu thanks but maintain your PM box.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the study the Berbers sampled are not pure indigenous. They are the products of a back-to-Africa migration movement like any other non-black people in North Africa, albeit very long ago.
^^It is an open question whether a "back to Africa" migration long ago would be non-black. Diop always called attention to the phenotype. He was on to something there..
Posts: 5919 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've said it before, and will say it again, possibly to the dismay of those who are literacy-challenged...
Many of the so-called Eurasian markers that contemporary coastal Maghrebi populations carry do look to have come from female slaves!
That is not to say that such could have been the only source, but a significant one nonetheless.
This mirrors observations I've made known elsewhere:
Then comes into equation, that observation just mentioned in the Cherni et al. piece above, about the African-European asymmetrical lineage among Maghrebi populations. Much of that asymmetrical ancestry very likely comes from institution of historic slavery enterprise involving mostly European females in the Maghreb. Of course, a lot of devout Eurocentrists balk at such a prospect, but it is a fairly reasonable explanation for the aforementioned asymmetric parental pattern, and importantly, it is backed by history.
The skeptic-wisdom is, after all, that European male contribution seems all but negligible in the Maghrebi gene pool, and yet, that the slave enterprise in the Maghreb would have included European males. For one, slave-male genetic exchange with any preexisting local maternal gene pool would have been strongly discouraged by slave-holders, as was the case with many locations that have put in place institutions of slavery, while the Maghrebi male population would have had a freer hand in exchanging genes with enslaved European females. Additionally, Maghrebi enthusiasm for European male slave market would have been relatively modest compared to that for the European female slave counterpart, since the Maghrebi would have then had firsthand access to preexisting slave trade with "western African" polities just geographically beneath them, where a labor pool of more physically-robust males could have been extracted than that from European counterparts.
In an ironic twist, devout Eurocentrists like to portray any so-called "sub-Saharan" African contribution in Maghrebi gene pool as "slave"-mediated, when in fact, it appears to have been the other way around: the asymmetric African male-to-European female ancestry speaks more to a European contribution that was mediated by and large through slavery than the case is for the "sub-Saharan" contribution in coastal Maghrebi gene pool, which Frigi et al. (2010) for example, determined to have been around since prehistoric times.
Now it's time for those crippled by idealism, who merely dismiss anything that does not agree with their personal belief systems, or simply put--anything they can't understand, as some supposed fantasy, to take off their emotional blinders, and consider that these observations rely on several identified factors:
Contemporary Maghreb populations essentially lack the common European-specific NRY markers, in contrast to the often made reference to lopsided southwest European mtDNA input. This is the sort of pattern one would expect of...
1) a situation wherein slavery favoring females results in a net higher gain of female gene flow than male counterparts of the source-population from which slaves were attained. Add to this, accumulative impact of the culture of polygamy permissible in many Muslim societies.
Or alternatively...
2) a situation wherein the male segments of the source population of the emigrant community were effectively exterminated, leaving the female counterparts to become available to the exterminators, who would obviously have to be male in sex orientation.
Or yet...
3)assume some extraordinary scenario wherein emigrants were overwhelmingly females, while the reverse was true for a preexisting group on the destination side of the emigration.
Whatever the scenario may be, the question is, where's the evidence?
Of note: Historic accounts of slavery have already been accounted for, and so, there is little to doubt about its prospect. The other scenarios above, however, will require substantive materialization.
No archaeological proof of mass emigration of Franco-Cantabrian refugees into coastal northwest Africa in the Upper Paleolithic.
No osteological proof of contemporary EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi-types outside of the African continent, particularly the Iberian peninsula, that has been brought to immediate attention.
No unequivocal DNA proof of primary "Eurasian" origin of EpiPaleolithic Maghreb series.
Lineages which are partially suggestive of the preexisting genetic landscape, like say U6 and M1, generally occur in relatively small incidences in contemporary Holocene-derived populations of the Maghreb, from both maternal and paternal standpoints.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ your comments seem to have no direct relation to the Henn article
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations Brenna M. Henn
After accounting for putative recent admixture [Figure 1], the indigenous Maghrebi component [k-based] is estimated to have diverged from Near Eastern/Europeans between 18–38 Kya [Figure 3], under a range of Ne and k values. We hence suggest that the ancestral Maghrebi population separated from Near Eastern/Europeans prior to the Holocene, and that the Maghrebi populations do not represent a large-scale demic diffusion of agropastoralists from the Near East.
In summary, although paleoanthropological evidence has established the ancient presence of anatomically modern humans in northern Africa prior to 60,000 ya [35], the simplest interpretation of our results is that the majority of ancestry in modern North Africans derives from populations outside of Africa, through at least two episodes of increased gene flow during the past 40,000 years [Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3].
This decrease in assigned sub-Saharan ancestry in North African samples, from a k = 2 model, is consistent with an interpretation that Maghrebi or Near Eastern diversity that is not present in the panel populations is more likely to be assigned to the more diverse, Sub-Saharan African ancestry. Using a two-population admixture model, Price et al. [18] estimated the time of migration from sub-Saharan Africa into the Mozabites to have begun about 100 generations ago [or more]. Our results suggest that sub-Saharan African and Maghreb admixture is considerably more recent, 24–41 generations ago [and even the upper 95% CI estimate under either model is 55ga, Table 1].
Conclusion
Our genome-wide dense genotyping data from seven North African populations allow us to address outstanding questions regarding the origin and migration history of North Africa. We propose that present-day ancestry in North Africa is the result of at least three distinct episodes: ancient “back-to-Africa” gene flow prior to the Holocene, more recent gene flow from the Near East resulting in a longitudinal gradient, and limited but very recent migrations from sub-Saharan Africa. Population structure in North Africa is particularly complex, and future disease or phenotypic studies should carefully account for local demographic history. However, the rich history of gene flow can also help empower genome-wide association mapping via admixture mapping techniques [42]. For example, the variable but relatively long haplotypes of sub-Saharan ancestry are amenable to admixture mapping approaches developed for African-American samples. In conclusion, North African populations retain a unique signature of early “Maghrebi” ancestry, but North African populations are not a homogenous group and most display varying combinations of five distinct ancestries.
_________________________________
Sensitive Detection of Chromosomal Segments of Distinct Ancestry in Admixed Populations. Bosch et al
We apply HAPMIX to 935 African American individuals genotyped at ~650,000 markers. By studying a large set of individuals from an admixed population of high relevance to disease mapping, we validate the effectiveness of this method in a practical setting and specifically show that the ancestry estimates are not systematically biased within the limits of our resolution. To illustrate how the method can provide insights into the history of an anciently admixed population, we also apply HAPMIX to a data set of 29 individuals from the Mozabite population of northern Africa that were genotyped at ~650,000 markers as part of the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP) [15].
We show that the Mozabite have inherited roughly 78% ancestry from a European-related population and 22% ancestry from a population related to sub-Saharan Africans. Our analysis also shows that the Mozabite admixture has occurred over a period that began at least 100 generations ago (~2,800 years ago), and that has continued into the present day. We are able to infer small, ancient, ancestry segments in the Mozabite, and we demonstrate that the segments show considerable drift relative to all the other HGDP populations, consistent with the historical isolation of the Mozabite population.
posted
Likewise, your post has no direct relation to mine. Guess that makes us even.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: That's the most stupid post I ever read.
You know what they say:
don't caste pearls to swines; they'll just end up trampling them.
Just in case your lacking reading comprehension extends beyond scientific literature, and troubles you when reading proverbs as well, the thing I just compared you with isn't the pearl.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: It's like you're not even answering my points just inventing your own points to counter mixing it with being a pompous ass.
None of your points have been answered because they're rightly recognized as desperate face saving attempts. You're been shifting your points ever since I started addressing them. You went from calling Ks ''populations'', to calling them ''postulated ancestral populations'' (which, in the sense that literate people use that phrase, isn't contested by anyone). You went from calling SNPs ''values'', to claiming they have at least two alleles (which, outside of the fact that that wasn't what you originally meant, a no-brainer, otherwise they wouldn't be polymorphic). You went from claiming that Saharan or near Sahara populations were under sampled, to repeating like a broken record that Nigerians and Kenyans aren't the same as Saharan populations (which isn't contested by anyone).
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Bottom line is that population in Nigeria and Kenya are not the same as the indigenous black Africans in North Africa.
No, the bottom line is that there were only two populations with long histories in Equatorial Africa in Henn et al 2012. The rest of the populations that were sampled there originated at higher latitudes and only migrated to lower latitudes recently. You're too much of a jackass to admit that your criticisms of Henn et al 2012 are due to your ignorance of how things work in population genetics, mixed with a hard time understanding what it is that you're reading and little to no knowledge about African populations (no one in his right mind would think of Nilo-Saharan and Chadic speaking populations [Hausa, Bulala and Maasai] as having their genesis in the Nigerian & Kenyan area, nor would anyone with sense think of them as devoid of history in/near the Sahara).
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I've said it before, and will say it again, possibly to the dismay of those who are literacy-challenged...
Many of the so-called Eurasian markers that contemporary coastal Maghrebi populations carry do look to have come from female slaves!
That is not to say that such could have been the only source, but a significant one nonetheless.
This mirrors observations I've made known elsewhere:
Then comes into equation, that observation just mentioned in the Cherni et al. piece above, about the African-European asymmetrical lineage among Maghrebi populations. Much of that asymmetrical ancestry very likely comes from institution of historic slavery enterprise involving mostly European females in the Maghreb. Of course, a lot of devout Eurocentrists balk at such a prospect, but it is a fairly reasonable explanation for the aforementioned asymmetric parental pattern, and importantly, it is backed by history.
The skeptic-wisdom is, after all, that European male contribution seems all but negligible in the Maghrebi gene pool, and yet, that the slave enterprise in the Maghreb would have included European males. For one, slave-male genetic exchange with any preexisting local maternal gene pool would have been strongly discouraged by slave-holders, as was the case with many locations that have put in place institutions of slavery, while the Maghrebi male population would have had a freer hand in exchanging genes with enslaved European females. Additionally, Maghrebi enthusiasm for European male slave market would have been relatively modest compared to that for the European female slave counterpart, since the Maghrebi would have then had firsthand access to preexisting slave trade with "western African" polities just geographically beneath them, where a labor pool of more physically-robust males could have been extracted than that from European counterparts.
In an ironic twist, devout Eurocentrists like to portray any so-called "sub-Saharan" African contribution in Maghrebi gene pool as "slave"-mediated, when in fact, it appears to have been the other way around: the asymmetric African male-to-European female ancestry speaks more to a European contribution that was mediated by and large through slavery than the case is for the "sub-Saharan" contribution in coastal Maghrebi gene pool, which Frigi et al. (2010) for example, determined to have been around since prehistoric times.
Now it's time for those crippled by idealism, who merely dismiss anything that does not agree with their personal belief systems, or simply put--anything they can't understand, as some supposed fantasy, to take off their emotional blinders, and consider that these observations rely on several identified factors:
Contemporary Maghreb populations essentially lack the common European-specific NRY markers, in contrast to the often made reference to lopsided southwest European mtDNA input. This is the sort of pattern one would expect of...
1) a situation wherein slavery favoring females results in a net higher gain of female gene flow than male counterparts of the source-population from which slaves were attained. Add to this, accumulative impact of the culture of polygamy permissible in many Muslim societies.
Or alternatively...
2) a situation wherein the male segments of the source population of the emigrant community were effectively exterminated, leaving the female counterparts to become available to the exterminators, who would obviously have to be male in sex orientation.
Or yet...
3)assume some extraordinary scenario wherein emigrants were overwhelmingly females, while the reverse was true for a preexisting group on the destination side of the emigration.
Whatever the scenario may be, the question is, where's the evidence?
Of note: Historic accounts of slavery have already been accounted for, and so, there is little to doubt about its prospect. The other scenarios above, however, will require substantive materialization.
No archaeological proof of mass emigration of Franco-Cantabrian refugees into coastal northwest Africa in the Upper Paleolithic.
No osteological proof of contemporary EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi-types outside of the African continent, particularly the Iberian peninsula, that has been brought to immediate attention.
No unequivocal DNA proof of primary "Eurasian" origin of EpiPaleolithic Maghreb series.
Lineages which are partially suggestive of the preexisting genetic landscape, like say U6 and M1, generally occur in relatively small incidences in contemporary Holocene-derived populations of the Maghreb, from both maternal and paternal standpoints.
^^ Excellent summary. I had just a vague idea of the disproportionate European female contribution but your write-up brings it all into much sharper focus. We need more of these clear expositions laid down. Too often during Black History Month and outside that, I run into cats who have not moved beyond Diop 1974 or George James 1957- valuable for certain things but the field has moved on substantially with new research as shown above. We need this clear break down of the data.
It seems that there is some parallel with African male presence in the Arab world which is lower than that of African females, due to things like castration operations on African males, or other restrictions on opportunities for said males to reproduce, and greater attrition under hard working conditions such as military slavery, or harsh labor projects (eg.the Zanj draining salt marshes in Iraq) (Lewis 1994, Race and Slavery in the Middle East et al).
Low rates of Euro male presence should thus be nothing surprising in North African context. Other factors impact the complex North African landscape but I am glad you point out the supreme irony above, and the devastating implications for assorted Euro cultists.
Posts: 5919 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's some other interesting maps of rock art and thus people distribution in the Sahara and Northern Africa. It's the first time I see such rock art distribution map for Africa. Usually, it is often limited by one specific site (like the Tassili rock art map) or is simply not extensive enough (a lot of sites are still not discovered and/or listed).
They can all be seen in the full study link here :
Another great rock art distribution map. Here rock art drawing of the African Elephant (Loxodonta africana) in the Sahara and Northern Africa matches Giraffe distribution recently in the south.
Great rock art distribution map. Here rock art drawings of the Giraffe in the Sahara and Northern Africa matches recent distribution in the south.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having earlier pointed out the impossibility of Henn's late dates for sub-Sahara African entries into supra-Saharan Africa as there are text and art documents preceding 1250 CE Egypt and texts before 800 CE south Morocco where they appear, I now look at Henn's Tunisian population structure skyline where any possible SSA component disappears from K=4 on and this is based on 279,528 SNPs.
quote:At k = 6 through 8, all North African populations except for Tunisians have sub-Saharan ancestry, present in most individuals, though this ancestry varies between 1%–55%.
quote: Our sample of Tunisian Berbers retains the highest amount of Maghrebi ancestry, without substantial evidence of admixture with sub-Saharan, European or Near Eastern populations.
But see what Tunisian mtDNA sequence analysis says about 304 Tunisians; cosmopolitans, small Amazigh communitie, Arab culture central Tunisia, and Andalusian descendents sampled.
quote:
Must have been hard to find 18 Tunisians with absolutely no sub-Saharan Africa progenitors.
And as for what both uniparentals can confirm
Thats 34% L derived and 16% A B E(xE1b1b1a,b) and 9% E-M2 (E1b1b1a) without considering how much of P is R-V88.
How did Henn's ~280 K SNP genome comparison missout on all Tunisian SSA components when deep ancestry uniparentals reveal significant SSA contributions as in Cherni 2009 and Ennafaa 2011, neither of whom are among Henn's references?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5919 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Having earlier pointed out the impossibility of Henn's late dates for sub-Sahara African entries into supra-Saharan Africa as there are text and art documents preceding 1250 CE Egypt and texts before 800 CE south Morocco where they appear,
are you refering to Kushites?
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@lioness - Why are you saying there were only Kushites?
@ All I forgot to point out the 4 possible mtDNA hgs H L V and U6 of Kefi's Maurusian Taforalt study. Only H and L2a are across all 8 Cherni Tunisia populations while V and U6 are in all except Arab culture Zriba and cosmopolitan Tunis respectively.
While Kefi credits no sub-Saharan mtDNA her single haplotype "sequences" 16239 and 16126C are indicative of L2 as they are of H and JT respectively. If any of them are deemed continuous from their first appearance and throughout the Holocene L2 is right there with them in the mix making the Maghreb a distinct genetic geography as are sub-Sahara, SW Asia, and South Europe likewise each distinct genetic history regions.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Contemporary Maghreb populations essentially lack the common European-specific NRY markers, in contrast to the often made reference to lopsided southwest European mtDNA input. This is the sort of pattern one would expect of...
1) ...
2) a situation wherein the male segments of the source population of the emigrant community were effectively exterminated, leaving the female counterparts to become available to the exterminators, who would obviously have to be male in sex orientation.
Or yet...
3)...
I never mentioned the "extermination" factor which may have been shunting off males with no previous North African maternity.
Knowing the Kikuyu and Maasai conducted death raids against each other saving alive and taking only younger females and the lack of nrY hgs expected by South Europe whole family settlers (unless hidden in E-M78 or whatever) and rock art of chalk white men with European armaments but never with women or in family scenes makes one wonder.
Nicky: Gottdamn Libyans welcomed us in, adapted our weapons, stole our wimmens and kicked us out. Guido: Aw shut your ass up and keep a steppin'! Effin' desert's got plenty hot air without addin' yours. Nicky: Hey! Where's Stavros? STAVROS...STAVROS...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Having earlier pointed out the impossibility of Henn's late dates for sub-Sahara African entries into supra-Saharan Africa as there are text and art documents preceding 1250 CE Egypt and texts before 800 CE south Morocco where they appear,
which ethnic groups or cultures are you referring to?
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Likely just a sample difference. Certain Tunisian samples have been known to be affected by genetic drift. For instance, some Tunesian Berber samples have turned out 100% E-M81 (e.g., the Chenini–Douiret and Jradou Berber populations sampled in Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. [2011]). Aside from the Tunesian sample, the Siwa and the Mozabite samples in Henn et al 2012 might not be that representative either, judging by previous autosomal studies (Price et al 2009, Tishkoff et al 2009, Dugoujon et al 2009). Especially Henn et al's Siwa sample should be looked at with a grain of salt when it comes to representativeness.
Their (Siwan) proven distinctiveness from Maghrebi Berbers seems mirrored to some extent in Henn et al 2012, but their prominent East African affiliation, as seen in the majority of Siwan samples that have been studied thusfar (Dugoujon et al 2009, scozzari et al 1999, Coudray et al. 2008) is not reflected in Henn et al 2012's Siwan sample.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know explorer brings up a good point, that is say me, Al and Swenet are correct in that the Genetic heritage of the Coastal N. African population is due to a long drawn out process rather than recent slave markets, the question becomes..why are European/Eurasian male DNA not reflected? Good question.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
Contemporary Maghreb populations essentially lack the common European-specific NRY markers, in contrast to the often made reference to lopsided southwest European mtDNA input. This is the sort of pattern one would expect of...
1) ...
2) a situation wherein the male segments of the source population of the emigrant community were effectively exterminated, leaving the female counterparts to become available to the exterminators, who would obviously have to be male in sex orientation.
Or yet...
3)...
I never mentioned the "extermination" factor which may have been shunting off males with no previous North African maternity.
Knowing the Kikuyu and Maasai conducted death raids against each other saving alive and taking only younger females and the lack of nrY hgs expected by South Europe whole family settlers (unless hidden in E-M78 or whatever) and rock art of chalk white men with European armaments but never with women or in family scenes makes one wonder.
Nicky: Gottdamn Libyans welcomed us in, adapted our weapons, stole our wimmens and kicked us out. Guido: Aw shut your ass up and keep a steppin'! Effin' desert's got plenty hot air without addin' yours. Nicky: Hey! Where's Stavros? STAVROS...STAVROS...
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Don't see what's good about speculating **in the face of hard data that makes such speculation obsolete**. Its like endlessly wondering whether your food is tasty, when you can just as easy take a bite.
If you ask me, you'd have to be borderline retarded to be talking endlessly about what YOU think is inconsistent with early prehistoric contact between the two populations, when all you have to do is look at the coalescence ages of the shared genetic material to see when both ancestries diverged. That's where Henn et al, Rosa et al, Frigi et al, Maca=meyer et al, Achilli et al, Price et al come in (and make no mistake, the list is far longer). They all uniformly agree that Berbers carry European ancestry that is separate from/older than recent European geneflow.
The other camp, who stubbornly maintain their emotion driven beef with objective reality, is forsaken, save for Explorer, and his fellow disgruntled Afronuts of course.
BTW, Cushitic speaking Horners have most of their ties with Central and West Africans through their maternal lineages, while their y chromosomes are largely an amalgam of y chromosomes from the wider region. In this sense, the paucity of West/Central African specific y chromosomes in Cushitic speakers is comparable to the paucity of Iberian y chromosomes in North Africans. I fail to see how this argues against prehistoric mingling in either Cushitic speakers or Berber speakers. In fact, it doesn't, as evinced by hard data.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the dating on this ....and location ie point of entry? Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genetic heritage of the Coastal N. African population is due to a long drawn out process rather than recent slave markets, the question becomes..why are European/Eurasian male DNA not reflected?
Keita notes the missing Euro males in his Manchester video as well I think but does not elaborate. Recent gene flow is one factor, and ancient gene flow before the historic era another. Ancient "Eurasian" gene flow into coastal North Africa would not be surprising if the process of backflow is allowed for, though Keita specifically cautions against use of the "Eurasian" label.
""The historical linguistic data reported earlier would apply in the case of maternal lineages as well.. it is not likely that the "northern" genetic profile is simply due to "Eurasians" having colonized supra-Saharan regions from external African sources. It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplotypes called "Eurasian" are predominantly, although not solely, of indigenous African origin. As a term "Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it suggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can be postulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before the emigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saharan/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and careful analysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities is needed. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be modeled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an asymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wide region, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion." --Keita, A, Boyce, A. (2005) Genetics, Egypt, and History... History in Africa, 32, 221-246
Arnaiz-Villena 2000 suggests male dominance and a polygamic format- males with several females- and extends this to suggest dominant indigenous North African males perhaps crossing over into Iberia. He bases this argument on HLA polymorphisms. If true, one possible extended scenario would have the dominant North African males crossing over into Iberia, and removing Euro females from thence to relocate back into North Africa. This could account for the the imbalance of Euro females- they were relocated by North African males under different formats- marriage, slavery, etc etc. Prehistoric Iberia: Genetics, Anthropology and Linguistics: Proceedings of ... 2000. Antonio Arnaiz Villena et al, and Arnaiz-Villena 1997.
Thus multiple scenarios are possible- the ancient pre-historic movements of Euro females into Africa, and also, the historic slave trade in Euro females that was to occur millennia later. Another scenario is for ancient "backflow" to also involve the polygamic format- dominant males with some African DNA relocating or arriving with Euro DNA females. Whatever the actual mix, ancient female "Eurasian" DNA on the coast can be accommodated under a variety of scenarios, and would not be a matter of surprise at all, nor is anyone denying the presence of such ancient DNA.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5919 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Having earlier pointed out the impossibility of Henn's late dates for sub-Sahara African entries into supra-Saharan Africa as there are text and art documents preceding 1250 CE Egypt and texts before 800 CE south Morocco where they appear,
which ethnic groups or cultures are you referring to?
E-M81 is carried by taMazight speakers. E-M2 is in the target region and prominent in Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo speakers.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Genetic heritage of the Coastal N. African population is due to a long drawn out process rather than recent slave markets, the question becomes..why are European/Eurasian male DNA not reflected?
European/Eurasian male DNA is reflected in the topic article Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations Henn
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jari's point is the lower prevalence of the male DNA not its actual existence.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5919 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
?? Your point? My views haven' t changed. If you can't follow the conversation, keep out.
I am commenting to" chalk white men with European armaments."
Translation: first wave of European invasion.
Hence my comment about location and timing.
As. I said - you are out of your league.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember the first modern European to be civilized, somewhat, were the Myceneans, after the sacking and revolt in Crete.
Geography correlates. Description checks out, but date don't align.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a sidenote, xyyman, can you repost the specifics of that paper you referenced a while back that made mention of two prehistoric migration episodes, one North African and the other one Sub-Saharan African into South Asia?
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Remember the first modern European to be civilized, somewhat, were the Myceneans, after the sacking and revolt in Crete.
Geography correlates. Description checks out, but date don't align.
What about Cucuteni-Trypillian culture? (c. 4800 to 3000 B.C.)
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic